I understand the myopic that makes this happen. Amazon gets a marquee event, and supposedly boosts its stature and hopefully drives viewership. Everything a corporate vice president wants. The Emmy organization gets the most money, that they use for⦠whatever. Win-win right?

Well, no. Viewership will drop because now people have to get an Amazon prime subscription as opposed to simply having basic cable, or (gasp!) an antenna. They wonâ(TM)t even know when it happens because they wonâ(TM)t see the ads for it on a competing network. And so what used to be yearly appointment viewing cultural touchstone dies.

See also: Apple and the Charlie Brown specials.

I bet you leave all your front door unlocked and open at home since someone could just break a window and therefore your house will never be safe.

Yes and so should you. Why should you be forced to pay extra to someone multiple times through every piece of software you use, because they did some math?

No it begs no such question. But to answer your independent question that wasn't begged, no there's no patent encumberment in JPEGXL, it's defined as an IEC standard, and has a reference implementation free for use under the Apache 2.0 license.

Unused, and no use case for it, no pathway predicting it would become popular, and no reason to develop it further.
That changed when the PDF/A decided to adopt JPEGXL officially. Now PDF readers need to implement JPEGXL and both Chrome and Firefox include PDF readers in the browser. Their hand was forced.

Nothing has turned into a religion. Programming rust is safer than not programming in rust due to the nature of the language and how it needs to be used to create the same class of bugs. That's not religion, that's a simple verifiable fact. No one said it's "safe", they said "safer". There's a previous implementation in a language without memory safety to compare it to.

No one said that. No one said it's "safe". They said it's "safer". Memory-safety makes the whole codebase safer than not having memory safety.

Now go look up what a "comparative adjective" is so you don't say something stupid again in the future.

So you're saying if the question isn't defined before hand the result ceases existing? Not even Schrödinger could justify a comment that stupid.

That argument only works if there either isn't a statistically measurable and consistent bias, or if you assume that bias is because men just have better ideas.

I'd like to see some comparisons between power consumption for JXL and JPEG. Constant image quality, file sizes will vary, total energy consumed by the download and decoding process.

We have known about this for decades. It's called internalized sexism. Back when women where trying to get the vote, some women opposed them. They made the same arguments against it that men did.

It's understood to be largely a product of systemic sexism in our culture. It's been getting better, but it's still there. An example is how ideals of feminity were portrayed in the 1950s. The housewife, the home maker, the mother. Obedient to her husband. That's why there was so much focus on representation, so that girls didn't grow up only seeing that as the natural and proper order of things.

In the 90s there was Girl Power, and for the last 25 years we have had many, many badass action women in movies. They aren't really what we need now though. Just more competent women doing "normal" jobs, or as normal as it gets in TV shows and movies.

We have a long history of exploiting decoders. Image based malware exists, has for decades. Hell back in 2004 the Windows GDI+ library had a arbitrary code execution attack trigged by simply opening a Office document with a specific embedded JPEG image, or using Office to attempt to insert a specific JPEG image into the document. I don't think IE was affected so it wasn't a remote execution from what I recall. That's just one example. Exploiting of decoders is a thing.

The attacks often exploit standard software bugs, e.g. memory unsafe code, buffer overflows etc. In this case they are talking "safer" because they are using the Rust based library which prevents a subset of the potential bugs creating security issues.

Don't confuse your ignorance with marketing trash.

That's cool, I'm currently at an airport on a mobile connection. How long of an ethernet cable does my NAS need to reach the next continent?

Not all use of AI is slop. AI is a tool. There's no reason it can't be sensibly incorporated into a workflow. While no doubt creating a game from a prompt is just slop, the reality is there is a practical place for including tools such as this in a workflow, such as using it to create starting point.

I recently came across this at work during a 1 week workshop we had. All the presenters (including myself) used AI extensively to create our presentations (because powerpoint fucking sucks), but only some of them looked like slop. The ones which looked like slop were the ones where AI did the finishing: i.e. people made presentations and asked AI to make it pretty. The rest of us used AI to structure the presentation and then manually tweaked it afterwards and they looked unique and individual.

There is a place for this. Use an AI prompt to come up with a base game, and then put AI (Actually Intelligent) people in place to turn that base structure into something creative.

That's not how LLMs work. While they are trained on existing data, they are also capable of reasoning. They can produce novel solutions to problems.

Just because they don't work the same way as a the human brain doesn't mean that they are not capable of this sort of thing.