Comment "drives discovery" (Score 1) 21
This new feed experience is a first step in helping drive discovery that leads to something novel and relevant
True.
This new feed experience is a first step in helping drive discovery that leads to something novel and relevant
True.
Sitting 9 feet away from my 50” 2009 Samsung plasma, one sees plenty of fine detail, a broad color range, plenty of brightness (there’s been no noticeable “dimming”), zero “video lag” artifacts, high contrast, and black blacks - even from a sharp angle.
Your 1080p TV that has lost half of its brightness (whether you have noticed it or not, it's there), has an objectively mediocre contrast ratio (before the dimming set in) and decent-black-at-least-when-compared-with-LCDs-which-are-terrible may have plenty of "fine detail" by your eyes, but being your observation is in start contrast with objective reality, I have to conclude that you just have low standards- and that's fine.
Power consumption was never the problem with Plasma TVs. In fact- there was no "problem", better shit just became available. LCDs started sucking less and less, and OLEDs made Plasma look like a better LCD. The middle ground just wasn't needed by the market.
People don't give a fuck about power consumption. We've got half-a-kilowatt gaming machines plugged into these fucking things.
Well, macOS is UNIX.
No, it's not.
It is compliant with UNIX, though... But even then, only kinda.
Certified
It's SUS-certified. Windows can be SUS-certified. So can linux. It merely means a set of APIs are available.
Also, macOS is only SUS-certified if running with a case-sensitive filesystem, and no mobile XNU derivative is SUS-compliant at all (Apple frameworks do not use POSIX interfaces)
You have no idea what you're talking about.
So far you cannot copyright any AI output.
Your post is broadly correct and on point- but the quoted sentence is a bit of an overstatement.
The only case where copyright has been held to not apply to AI generated output was where the plaintiff asserted it operated autonomously.
He later tried to change his argument to, "well I wrote the prompt", but the court said he waived his ability to assert that in his original filing.
Essentially- a court has not ruled on "prompt-driven generation", but the ruling strongly implies that such copyright would be granted to the prompt author.
That's limited to the 9th circuit currently. It will definitely be interesting to see where it goes.
Do you think those opposing genAI haven't used it?
Some of them- very much so.
You can tell because they confidently say things that are laughably wrong. I can think of a few posters on this site that fit that criteria.
Of course, not everyone is like that.
The moon is made of green cheese. -- John Heywood