Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment It depends (Score 1) 132

At 2 feet:
  4K: Visible, sharper than 1080p, especially on 55+
  8K: You start seeing benefits on huge screens (75+), because at that distance your eyes can resolve more detail

So the claim “4K or 8K offer no benefit” is true only for:
Big TV far away = wasted resolution

But false for:
Big TV close up = worth it (your eyes can use the pixels)

This is why gamers who sit close love high-res monitors, while people watching the same 4K TV from across the room swear it’s no different.

Comment I don't get it (Score 1) 52

Previously the real estate sharks RENTED that furniture, paid an interior designer to make the location look as good as possible, hired professional camera and editing people, using small furniture and wide lenses to make it look bigger etc.

These people have now been replaced by AI, like thousands of other jobs.

THAT'S ALL!

Comment Re:If you want the answer, don't ask people (Score 1) 162

That is autocratic BS. We live in western nations, and ideologically we value freedom. Fundamentally we want everyone to have as much freedom as possible, including what career to have, or whether or not to start a family. There are physical limitations that affect this freedom... there will always be more tall basketball players than short ones. But it's important that we not be any more proscriptive than absolutely necessary. Thankfully, if women actually had as many children as they report wanting, then we'd be right around the replacement rate, on average. So all we need to do is figure out why women aren't having the kids they want, and that's not actually money, it's that they're pressured to wait, and the window of opportunity closes a lot faster than they think.

Comment Re:If you want the answer, don't ask people (Score 2) 162

That's the most ridiculous argument I've seen in a while. My wife has repeatedly said that the 18 or more years of raising a kid is far more effort than pregnancy and childbirth. Not that it's nothing, but she also pointed out that she willingly chose to have two more kids after having the first, even after I questioned her sanity, because she really found motherhood rewarding. My wife and I are both professionals with successful "important" careers, and yet we both admit that parenting is a far more rewarding activity than either of our jobs.

Comment Re:If you want the answer, don't ask people (Score 2) 162

I don't want people to have children if they don't want them either. But there's lots of evidence showing that women report that they want more children than they are actually having. In fact, in the UK at least, if women had as many children as they reportedly say they wanted, then the UK would be at the 2.1 replacement rate. Part of the problem is that they're encouraged to wait to have kids, but infertility increases with age, so many are getting to age 30 and either can't find a suitable mate, or simply can't have kids.

I'm gen x, so I was part of the first generation that was told to wait to have kids. But now that I've been though it (we waited until we were in our 30's) I can say that it's a dumb idea. If you're going to take, say, 5 years out of your career due to having young kids at home, then financially it really doesn't matter if you do that from 25 to 30 or from 30 to 35 years old. But health-wise it matters a lot. Statistically you're much better off health-wise to have kids in your late 20's than in your early 30's, and that goes for both men and women. I'm not saying you *can't* make it work, but both my wife and I agree that we waited longer than we should have. And no, neither of us regret having kids. It's one of the best choices we made.

The idea that you're sacrificing your career if you have kids early... doesn't hold any water. Heck, my wife's mom started a family when she was a teenager (not recommended) and after her kids were grown she went to university, and then got a master's degree, had a rewarding career with a great pension, and retired to a million dollar home near us. She'll also know her grandkids for a lot longer than we'll know ours, if we ever get to meet them.

Comment Re:If you want the answer, don't ask people (Score 5, Insightful) 162

You're exactly right. If you ask anyone why people aren't having kids, they will say money, because they want the system to give them money. But there are several facts that clearly disprove this: 1) poor people have more babies than wealthy people (Elon excluded), 2) people in the past managed to raise kids on far less income than the average income now, and 3) there are many countries, like Finland, who instituted generous parental supports, and it barely moved the needle.

If I could compare and contrast our society today with the society I grew up with in the 80's and 90's, I would say a huge difference is that society has de-valued parenthood, and motherhood in particular. Stay-at-home moms in the 80's weren't looked down on. If you *dared* to suggest that a SAHM was "sitting around all day" you'd get an earful from both women and men. Being a mother was recognized as a pretty high status role in society.

These days women themselves look down on mothers and motherhood. It's a weird change.

We also had more examples of positive parental role models on TV. I get that Bill Cosby in real life was shown to be a piece of shit, but the Cosby Show itself portrayed some pretty great role models of good parenting. Parents in the 80's aspired to be that good. Nothing on TV these days comes close.

You get what you celebrate, and it's been a long, long time since we really celebrated the importance of motherhood in our society.

Comment Re:Personally, I'm anti-D&D but pro-TTRPG and (Score 3, Funny) 35

Should be a piece of cake for AI, just asked:

Let’s build a campaign tailor-made for a retirement home. Light on rules, high on laughter, heroic in spirit.

Setting: The Kingdom of Evergreen Bay. A coastal town where heroes are those who have lived long enough to know better. The Queen has just announced a Grand Jubilee. Unfortunately her magical Crown of Memory has vanished. Without it, she forgets everything every morning. Chaos rises: bakery dragons stealing pastries, mischievous garden gnomes reshuffling street names, a talking cat claiming to be the rightful ruler.

Player characters: Retired legends. A knight with a squeaky prosthetic knee. A wizard whose spells occasionally summon knitting supplies. A rogue who insists every locked door once knew him. Each has a gentle superpower based on life experience: calming frightened creatures, recalling ancient gossip, mending broken hearts or broken chairs.

Main quest: Find the Crown before the Jubilee. Clues lie in familiar, comfy places: the Lighthouse Library (guarded by stubborn seagulls), the Tea-House of Time (where seconds stretch), the Bingo Caves (numbers echo and help solve puzzles). Instead of brutal combat, most problems are solved with clever words, teamwork, or bribing a troll with homemade cookies.

Theme: Growing older = growing powerful. The world needs what elders know.

We can expand with maps, NPC portraits, printed recap sheets each session, even songs if the group wants. The next step is choosing the first scene: the jubilee announcement and the discovery the crown is missing.

Comment Using AI at work (Score 1) 45

My employers recently signed up for a ChatGPT account and I've been seeing how it can help me.

I remain responsible for the big picture, for actually making apps that work on iOS and Android. I've found ChatGPT helpful for refining details. It saves sifting through years worth of Stack Overflow postings. It's a handy tool, but it won't replace me any time soon.

If you say "Chat GPT" in French it sounds like "chat j'ai pété" ("cat I farted"). I guess I need to get out more...

...laura

Slashdot Top Deals

I must have slipped a disk -- my pack hurts!

Working...