There is some funky stuff in there in addition to the volta for processing lots of camera data for neural nets. But yea the GPU is the biggest piece of it.
That's like saying that a slot machine that takes quarters but will always spit out at least a one penny prize isn't gambling...
If you've ever used those claw machines that's pretty much how they go. Some states regulate them differently and require some prize to be given after a certain number of failed attempts. Others slide by with some sort of "entertainment purposes only" nonsense to pretend it's not gambling.
I think the loot boxes automatically get a pass because whether you get an amazing item or the usual garbage, it has no monetary value. It's for in-game purposes. And your items are lost once the game ends, or they nuke your account for violating terms of service.
To access my bank account? My email? Social media?
Obviously not, given that I access them today without it. Wasm is a micro-optimization that becomes irrelevant with faster CPUs, more RAM, and better optimization of JavaScript. The gains are really linear in an area that has produced exponential improvement in the past.
I guess if you don't want everyone seeing your source code to the client side half of your website you might be interested in Wasm. I'm less than impressed by security-through-obscurity and copyright paranoia.
compulsive behavior that is legitimately harmful should be categorized by the severity and not by the topic of compulsion. Certainly a game addict would receive different treatment to a gambling addict. That does not mean that the media's pop psychology ought to construct an exhaustive list to scare people. And the difference in disorders does matter so that each individual should get individual treatment because the causes of the compulsion varies between individuals and what is effect in treatment also varies.
With lotto and scratchers, most of the tickets are worthless. They don't enhance your life, they don't have any monetary value. With a loot crate typically every crate wins something, even if it is minuscule. Maybe you get a different kind of tattoo for your character, or maybe a stupid looking pet. But if you've ever had a handful of worthless scratchers in your hand you'd know what rock bottom really is, and it's not loot crates.
It pains me the number of times I see cut & paste code from Stackoverflow in professional projects. They often stand out as being the totally wrong solution. Even so, I often worry what sort of legal issues crop up because while the code on Stackoverflow is supposed to be CC-SA, I never seen the license or attribution included in a professional product for the little snippets people steal.
Correct, if you don't pay for commercial support then you don't get commercial support. Your company will have to learn to live off the open source community.
Take a peak at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/..... except for the top 5, there are dozens that fall in the $200m's. And these are considered very expensive films.
The other $139m number I cited came from "[A] list [of] the top 20 highest movie budgets of all time according to the best information gleaned from studios, and the top 20 movies with the lowest budgets that earned at least $1 Million at the US box office."
And finally from https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki... peanuts : 2. (informal, figuratively) A very small or insufficient amount (especially of a salary). Synonyms: pittance, trifle
I'm not sure what sort of Trump-era math you use when $140m is very small versus say $380m for the most expensive film of all time (that number is likely $410m minus rebates). I can totally understand your position if films were $1B and we were only talking $100m. 10% is easier to argue as small than 50%. But on top of all this, typical films in Hollywood are not huge $380m films.
Basically you're being an ass about this. You don't have to concede, you could stop replying, but squawking bullshit does nobody any good.
Because it's not racist to make a simian comparison to a white person. Pointing out that a picture of G.W. Bush makes him look like a chimp, and that Trump looks like an orangutan is doesn't have the same historic baggage as comparison a black person to an "ape" or "gorilla".
I guess one solution is for you to open a book once in a while. If you want to avoid being turned into "toast" (whatever that means) and socially ostracized by polite society. If you're blind to the last few centuries of American history, then tread lightly.
$140m marketing for a $144m film is peanuts? It's 50%. That is typical and cited as a "rule of thumb", but it's not peanuts. The marking is a significant portion of the budget (even as you stated, it can be more than the film itself).
It doesn't take much looking to find articles that Hollywood struggles with these ballooning marketing budgets. Just because the industry does something doesn't mean it is the most profitable or best balance of risk versus investment. There is serious risk when film budgets are huge, and it's not clear that more marketing can guarantee a recoup of that capital.
Well sure I guess time travel can be an overused (bad) trope. But I meant that the plot for Enterprise is the lesson that when you travel through time bad things happen. My "tl;dr" is sort of crap if it I can't summarize unambiguously. oh well.
Was Harold Ramis and Dan Aykroyd considered attractive in the 1984 film? at least I don't think their characters were considered to have any sex appeal.
There is a thin line to walk when you make a film that caters men's desire for sex appeal. You have to do it in a way that doesn't alienate the 52% of female moviegoers. The naive approach is to make a film that appeals to 100% of people equally, but then the film might be bland and uninteresting. A polarizing film or at least one that caters to a particular niche is an old formula. And I feel like Ghostbusters 2016 couldn't decide if it was a film for women, or a film for everyone, or a film for Ghostbuster fans. That vagueness in finding an audience is probably where it went wrong. And if I had the rights to produce a Ghostbuster film I would have gone after people in their mid 30's to 40's who watched the Saturday morning cartoon series as a kid, of course that isn't at all what Dan Aykroyd wanted to see. (P.S. probably good reason I'm not in charge of multi-million dollar film studio budgets)
Ultimately I think Ghostbusters 2016 was an experiment in marketing that was not successful in its goals and not an preview into a new world order of liberal-socialist PC police.
To be honest ABC's quick response was a shock to me. And I do doubt in that instance that ABC's decision was driven by profit. Perhaps there is some risk to brand name that Disney at least perceived, but that's hard to put into numbers to weigh in the cold logic of profit.
It's certainly ABC's right to refuse to work with someone based on their behavior and politics. Political Affiliation Discrimination isn't normally a protected class, but it is illegal in California. Perhaps she could win if it is an extreme case and in the right court. (the show was filmed in the CBS Studio Center in Los Angeles, so pretty easy to use California as jurisdiction)
As to the original point. Most films are an investment that are expected to pay back. Individuals on the film may have additional motives besides profit. Usually producers aren't willing to sacrifice too much of their money or reputation on pushing a political agenda, especially if that turns it into a flop. I would take the Ghostbusters reboot as an example. An all female cast, is that a leftist agenda, or a gimmick to fuel a marketing campaign? Given how much marketing went into the film I really do suspect this was a carefully considered move, even if it didn't pan out. The Ghostbusters film missed breaking even, although some people still made a lot of money on it. Maybe it would have turned a profit if they wouldn't have spent $140 million on marketing, which was nearly as much as the film's regular budget.
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." -- Hanlon's razor
Definitely it's about money. The whole leftist conspiracy you allude to has more to do with media coverage and social media than it does with the political beliefs of rich executives at production companies. Ultimately all of them, left and right, worship the same god, the Almighty Dollar.
With dial-up internet that sort of broadcast of your connection state to your contacts was pretty valuable for those of us not saddled with undue paranoia.
A modern casino is a big arcade with video games dumbed down for non-gamers. Having played freemium mobile games before I ever went into a casino, I was a bit shocked on my first trip to a casino that the video slots operated with the same sort of inane game play and flashy graphics.
And I'm not going to blame all gambling addiction on gaming. For example there are plenty of people who lose everything on sports betting. Which is at least old school and not electronic stimulus engineered to trigger your pleasure centers.
Slashdot Mirror
There is some funky stuff in there in addition to the volta for processing lots of camera data for neural nets. But yea the GPU is the biggest piece of it.
That's like saying that a slot machine that takes quarters but will always spit out at least a one penny prize isn't gambling...
If you've ever used those claw machines that's pretty much how they go. Some states regulate them differently and require some prize to be given after a certain number of failed attempts. Others slide by with some sort of "entertainment purposes only" nonsense to pretend it's not gambling.
I think the loot boxes automatically get a pass because whether you get an amazing item or the usual garbage, it has no monetary value. It's for in-game purposes. And your items are lost once the game ends, or they nuke your account for violating terms of service.
To access my bank account? My email? Social media?
Obviously not, given that I access them today without it. Wasm is a micro-optimization that becomes irrelevant with faster CPUs, more RAM, and better optimization of JavaScript. The gains are really linear in an area that has produced exponential improvement in the past.
I guess if you don't want everyone seeing your source code to the client side half of your website you might be interested in Wasm. I'm less than impressed by security-through-obscurity and copyright paranoia.
compulsive behavior that is legitimately harmful should be categorized by the severity and not by the topic of compulsion. Certainly a game addict would receive different treatment to a gambling addict. That does not mean that the media's pop psychology ought to construct an exhaustive list to scare people. And the difference in disorders does matter so that each individual should get individual treatment because the causes of the compulsion varies between individuals and what is effect in treatment also varies.
That would be NVIDIA's latest ARM SoC at 350 mm2.
If you bought your faulty CO detected from a US company, you can take them to court. If it's bad enough a class action suit would be raised.
If you bought it from China, then you can throw it in the garbage and chalk it up to caveat emptor.
With lotto and scratchers, most of the tickets are worthless. They don't enhance your life, they don't have any monetary value. With a loot crate typically every crate wins something, even if it is minuscule. Maybe you get a different kind of tattoo for your character, or maybe a stupid looking pet. But if you've ever had a handful of worthless scratchers in your hand you'd know what rock bottom really is, and it's not loot crates.
It pains me the number of times I see cut & paste code from Stackoverflow in professional projects. They often stand out as being the totally wrong solution. Even so, I often worry what sort of legal issues crop up because while the code on Stackoverflow is supposed to be CC-SA, I never seen the license or attribution included in a professional product for the little snippets people steal.
Correct, if you don't pay for commercial support then you don't get commercial support. Your company will have to learn to live off the open source community.
Take a peak at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... .. except for the top 5, there are dozens that fall in the $200m's. And these are considered very expensive films.
The other $139m number I cited came from "[A] list [of] the top 20 highest movie budgets of all time according to the best information gleaned from studios, and the top 20 movies with the lowest budgets that earned at least $1 Million at the US box office."
And finally from https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki...
peanuts :
2. (informal, figuratively) A very small or insufficient amount (especially of a salary). Synonyms: pittance, trifle
I'm not sure what sort of Trump-era math you use when $140m is very small versus say $380m for the most expensive film of all time (that number is likely $410m minus rebates). I can totally understand your position if films were $1B and we were only talking $100m. 10% is easier to argue as small than 50%. But on top of all this, typical films in Hollywood are not huge $380m films.
Basically you're being an ass about this. You don't have to concede, you could stop replying, but squawking bullshit does nobody any good.
As a flat number, $140,000,000 in marketing for a major film is peanuts
"Average Movie Budget of these 33 movies: $139,084,697" -- http://hollywood-movies.yoexpe...
Being average is not the correct meaning of peanuts. You need to work harder on your vocabulary.
Because it's not racist to make a simian comparison to a white person. Pointing out that a picture of G.W. Bush makes him look like a chimp, and that Trump looks like an orangutan is doesn't have the same historic baggage as comparison a black person to an "ape" or "gorilla".
I guess one solution is for you to open a book once in a while. If you want to avoid being turned into "toast" (whatever that means) and socially ostracized by polite society. If you're blind to the last few centuries of American history, then tread lightly.
$140m marketing for a $144m film is peanuts? It's 50%. That is typical and cited as a "rule of thumb", but it's not peanuts. The marking is a significant portion of the budget (even as you stated, it can be more than the film itself).
It doesn't take much looking to find articles that Hollywood struggles with these ballooning marketing budgets. Just because the industry does something doesn't mean it is the most profitable or best balance of risk versus investment. There is serious risk when film budgets are huge, and it's not clear that more marketing can guarantee a recoup of that capital.
Well sure I guess time travel can be an overused (bad) trope. But I meant that the plot for Enterprise is the lesson that when you travel through time bad things happen. My "tl;dr" is sort of crap if it I can't summarize unambiguously. oh well.
I wish I wasn't slightly inebriated when I wrote that. Maybe I wouldn't have left out so many words.
Slashdot, you are better than this.
No, we're not. This site is about weird racist memes, goatse and penis bird. There may nothing beneath us.
Enterprise tl;dr - time travel == bad
Was Harold Ramis and Dan Aykroyd considered attractive in the 1984 film? at least I don't think their characters were considered to have any sex appeal.
There is a thin line to walk when you make a film that caters men's desire for sex appeal. You have to do it in a way that doesn't alienate the 52% of female moviegoers. The naive approach is to make a film that appeals to 100% of people equally, but then the film might be bland and uninteresting. A polarizing film or at least one that caters to a particular niche is an old formula. And I feel like Ghostbusters 2016 couldn't decide if it was a film for women, or a film for everyone, or a film for Ghostbuster fans. That vagueness in finding an audience is probably where it went wrong. And if I had the rights to produce a Ghostbuster film I would have gone after people in their mid 30's to 40's who watched the Saturday morning cartoon series as a kid, of course that isn't at all what Dan Aykroyd wanted to see. (P.S. probably good reason I'm not in charge of multi-million dollar film studio budgets)
Ultimately I think Ghostbusters 2016 was an experiment in marketing that was not successful in its goals and not an preview into a new world order of liberal-socialist PC police.
To be honest ABC's quick response was a shock to me. And I do doubt in that instance that ABC's decision was driven by profit. Perhaps there is some risk to brand name that Disney at least perceived, but that's hard to put into numbers to weigh in the cold logic of profit.
It's certainly ABC's right to refuse to work with someone based on their behavior and politics. Political Affiliation Discrimination isn't normally a protected class, but it is illegal in California. Perhaps she could win if it is an extreme case and in the right court. (the show was filmed in the CBS Studio Center in Los Angeles, so pretty easy to use California as jurisdiction)
As to the original point. Most films are an investment that are expected to pay back. Individuals on the film may have additional motives besides profit. Usually producers aren't willing to sacrifice too much of their money or reputation on pushing a political agenda, especially if that turns it into a flop. I would take the Ghostbusters reboot as an example. An all female cast, is that a leftist agenda, or a gimmick to fuel a marketing campaign? Given how much marketing went into the film I really do suspect this was a carefully considered move, even if it didn't pan out. The Ghostbusters film missed breaking even, although some people still made a lot of money on it. Maybe it would have turned a profit if they wouldn't have spent $140 million on marketing, which was nearly as much as the film's regular budget.
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." -- Hanlon's razor
Definitely it's about money. The whole leftist conspiracy you allude to has more to do with media coverage and social media than it does with the political beliefs of rich executives at production companies. Ultimately all of them, left and right, worship the same god, the Almighty Dollar.
Looks like Paramount stole their business plans from Mel Brooks.
With dial-up internet that sort of broadcast of your connection state to your contacts was pretty valuable for those of us not saddled with undue paranoia.
Nope, only the NSA gets that information today.
Although I seem to recall I could send messages in the early days of the Internet. ICQ, Zephyr, Jabber, OSCAR, YMSG, ...
A modern casino is a big arcade with video games dumbed down for non-gamers. Having played freemium mobile games before I ever went into a casino, I was a bit shocked on my first trip to a casino that the video slots operated with the same sort of inane game play and flashy graphics.
And I'm not going to blame all gambling addiction on gaming. For example there are plenty of people who lose everything on sports betting. Which is at least old school and not electronic stimulus engineered to trigger your pleasure centers.