Well since it's a mirrorless camera the sensor doesn't have to be damaged by taking a picture, it's constantly exposing. So if the camera is say on a tripod pointing towards an intersection and you're busy fiddling with some camera settings it could easily be that this car stops at the intersection, damages your sensor - I assume it takes more than one burst, that it's the laser pound the same spot - and drives on before you take a photo. Heck, if you're wrapping up your shoot you might not even notice until you get home or the next time you use the camera. This time the culprit was obviously, but it might not be so every time.
I think perhaps we should work more on 'universal access' to clean water, enough food to eat, and safe countries to live in for everyone, before we worry about 'universal internet access'.
I agree that for the poorest that is the most urgent need. But between that billion and the ones who actually are connected we have a few billion who aren't in any immediate need, but they're dirt poor and have very few valuable skills. And you may of course say education and that's right, there's still 100 million age 15-24 who are illiterate but Internet is a pretty strong tool for self-learning once you get past the basics. And I don't mean first world brats who'll watch cat videos, but third world kids who realize this is their opportunity to be more than slum dwellers and subsistence farmers. A lot of parents genuinely don't care if they live shittier lives to give their kids a better future and a lot of the time that's the kick starter for change, if they can get well paying work they can start spending it in the local economy.
You used to see this with black neighborhoods unable to get mortgages because of their zip code. When you put numbers into a database without regard to what comes out you can end up with crap like this.
Yeah, because problems like driving while black never existed before we had AI robocops. Oh, wait... Truth is, sharing some kind of common characteristic with an ill-perceived group is always going to be problematic because they don't know you personally. And there'll never be time to know everyone personally, like if I walk home drunk late at night and happen to walk the same way as a woman she's a lot more scared I'll jump and rape her than that she'd jump and rape me. Simply because I have a penis and she's got a vagina - sorry LBGTq'ers you're statistically insignificant. And the better the statistics, the worse you're guilty by association - or not even that, because association means you had a choice. Like 51% vs 49%, big whoop... 95% to 5%, well it sucks to be the 5%. Unless you're the 5% nobody suspects because you don't fit the profile/stereotype at all.
Yes, this could become a self-enforcing shit show where people who happen to have a poor background or made one mistake get snubbed at every occasion into a downward spiral to oblivion, but who's going to rationally choose to break you out? I mean we have many success stories of people who get out of their substance problems or criminal life or shitty anti-social/violent behavior and whatnot... and then there's all the people who don't, somebody went out on a limb for them and they managed to screw them over. Like that friend you let sleep on the couch turned squatter or recommended for a job and got fired with flying colors, no good deed goes unpunished. Computers play the odds and so to most managers too, the difference is with humans you had some chance to connect and prove you're different.
If I'd told my first boss that three decades later, we could store a terabyte on something the size of my pinky nail, he'd have laughed at me and accused me of making up the word "Terabyte."
I was with my dad at IBM in the 80s and they had like all the brochures so I remember reading about their biggest enterprise storage solution that could go up to 6 TB if you had a kazillion dollars and a football field for the racks. This was a time with 5 1/4" floppies and like 10 MB HDDs, so a gigabyte was comprehensible but a terabyte... it was like infinity plus one. Today I got a single HDD bigger than that, it's actually rather insane. Though I'd probably be more freaked about the Internet, I mean back then we had nothing but sneakernet with floppies and today I have fiber. Or rather at home I had my C64 with cassette tapes, I only got a floppy drive much later.
Well, a high-res file (40-50 MP) is typically around 50MB compressed RAW. So ~20000 photos. If you say maybe 3 seconds between each in a slide show that's ~60000 seconds so ~17 hours. Though honestly if you're doing photos you can just offload those any time you take a little break. I expect this will be used for extremely long continuous video shoots, like if you're doing 400 Mbps all-I like some cameras offer now you'll get ~6 hours. But let's be honest, you're either going to flee or strangle them in the end so just bail immediately.
There's plenty happening in the tech world that is still fascinating, if it doesn't seem so you're less impressionable than 20 years ago or just not paying attention. Take a little dive into the story archives and you'll see it was a lot of random junk back then too. The difference is that we were young and/. was cool in a nerdy way, I mean "No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame." was not only hilariously wrong in retrospect but also pretty juvenile and so were we. In objective terms there was probably better sites dedicated to each topic, but the discussions carried the site.
It became it's own little subculture, that obviously the next generation didn't feel part of... we just aged and cool nerdy became neckbeard nerdy, while the random story mix felt more like buckshot from a sawed off shotgun. I mean/. fit better the paradigm of "I'm a nerdy teen basement dweller, amuse/intrigue me with random nerdy bits" than "Okay, I got job/family/commitments but an hour to spare - do I really want to use it on random nerdiness?" You're probably more likely to find a site or subreddit that's more focused and spend your time there rather than here. I'm not quite sure what drugs they use on this site, but I keep coming back though I'm pretty sure I'd never get hooked today.
Fixed that for you. Most games now come with four-ish graphics settings:
Ultra: To punish your GPU High: Ultra minus the FPS-killers Medium: Best you get looking decent Low: Just make it run somehow
The biggest performance killer was texture memory, like if you ran out performance grind to a halt and 4K typically takes 3-4 GB but with cards having 6GB+ RAM you can usually do okay just dropping the settings. I generally try at least medium before I drop to 1440p, of course my 1080 Ti is a bit out of your $500 budget but don't think the review FPS are all that matters. Most reviewers simply don't have the time and interest to benchmark at lower settings, so you look at the graphs and think you "must" have the RTX 2080 Ti OC edition when you really don't. Of course, I'd take it if you were handing them out....
The standard hack has always been to put an arbitrary ambient light in the scene, most viewers won't notice the difference.
I think it's absolutely noticeable... but so are a lot of other obvious clues that you're running around in a game world, you wouldn't exactly confuse it with a live video stream. Heck they're still struggling with that in all-CGI movies though I must admit they're getting pretty good at it.
Personally if 2080 can't deliver high frame rate ray tracing at 4k what does it matter? Modern shader hacks for dynamic lighting are quite realistic.. so is it really worth cranking resolution down so much.. just for slightly more realistic lighting? Would that really produce a better overall quality image?
Well... it's 50% shader hacks and 50% avoiding the situations where the flaws are obvious. There's a reason most games avoid shiny reflective surfaces, mirrors, translucent materials and that you don't get proper shadows from dynamic elements like leaves blowing in the wind or the right reflections from a muzzle fire or explosion. But that also means that until it's a commodity you'll continue to avoid the situations where ray tracing makes the most sense. And with the current performance drop I'd probably just leave it disabled anyway. I guess it's great if you're doing rendering for a movie or something though.
From the holistic view, it changes who holds the most risk. Instead of school getting paid no matter what, they most likely only get paid and get paid the most if they create decent employees.
Unless it's about getting people on the hook, pull it off as cheap as you can and see how many still manage to land $50k+ jobs based on their own merits. It's not necessarily so that a better tutor means more profit.
Pastureland is the greatest use of land on Planet Earth. At some point, people will have to stop eating meat, whether you like it or not.
Only if we try to squeeze in 20 or 50 billion people on this planet despite all the other resource shortages we'd run into. Between 1950 and 1987 the world population doubled from 2.5 to 5 billion, if we had kept going like that we'd be at 10 billion in 5 years and 20 billion in 2060. At that rate we could kill all the livestock and the human biomass would eclipse it in 60 years. For all the people worried about global warming you can look at this curve and you'll see total emissions explode from 1950 and going forwards. We got room for cars and cattle and whatnot, but not for endless billions of people. An incel in a gas guzzler with a love for BBQ is doing far more for the environment than an vegetarian eco-hippie with five kids, because he'll die out while the hippie's kids will each have five kids who'll each have five kids and in less than a century you'll spend more land on lettuce than you ever did on beef.
I want it to make very large consumer sets viable. 200 inch sets can't be shipped without damage.
I think the hope for the future there is MicroLED. They just showed a huge 219 inch set and because it's made up by tiles the price may not go crazy with size. Like now an 80" TV is way more expensive than 4x 40" TVs, but with tiles it should be proportional to screen size. They also showed a smaller 75" version that's closer to market. Of course they still haven't revealed any pricing info and it's probably going to be very pricey to begin with, but the scaling possibilities are extremely interesting. If it's as seamless as it looks I could imagine there being a good number of affluent buyers who could just pick up 9 of those 75" screens and put them in a 225" configuration. They do say the stitching is now much less visible than last year's demo and invisible from a normal viewing distance. It all sounds good except it's not an actual product yet...
More important than the volume is the cost. The cost of storing it, the cost of finding the mail you want. Storage is cheap. Finding stuff depends on the quality of your search system, or how much time you invest in organizing.
I try to look at it from an efficiency standpoint, if I can spend one hour now organizing to save ten hours searching later then I organize. If it's ten hours to save one hour I don't. My conclusion is that as long as you don't have an obvious need for it in the future and you got a timeline it's best to just leave it be and see if you ever need to spend any time on it at all. If you do need to spend the time though, throw away everything you for sure don't need. If it's a couple years old that's probably a lot of it, sometimes I do this with a pile of old papers and in the end I might have two or three keepers. It's not really worth organizing as much as it's just taking out the trash. Other than that just put it in an "old" folder in the corner of your multi-TB drive. Unlike physical clutter it doesn't take up any living space, it doesn't collect dust, rot or grow mold, it's not a fire hazard... it's just a near invisible, near free, near infinite storage space.
I mean it's different if you're like trying to archive the internet and intentionally make huge libraries and stuff, like you want to be your own mini-Netflix or mini-Spotify. But for the average person I think those who don't keep such a pile of their documents are the strange ones, like they got some neat freak thing about having a big number somewhere like it somehow matters. I do care about the number of incoming mails, because I do have to spend time reading them or at the very least decide not to read them. But whether there's a hundred or a million mails in the archive doesn't bother me one bit. I think that's some strange hold-over from the physical world, like a whole diary is a lot of text but it's still extremely little data. The whole library of Congress is about ~15TB of data, I could mirror it. And there'd still be more clutter on my bookshelf.
Back in the early 2000's AMD had a clear and convincing lead in both absolute performance and price-performance for 2.5-3 years. Intel successfully kept them out of mass-market OEM products and cash-starved AMD was not able to keep up with Intel's research budget -- eventually paying a $1.25B settlement to AMD but this was not sufficient to make AMD whole.
September 23rd, 2003: AMD launches Athlon 64, kicking ass July 24th 2006: AMD buys ATI for $5.4 billion July 27th 2006: Intel launches the Core 2 Duo
They had more than $5 billion to invest in R&D/fab technology. They spent it on graphics instead and on top of that Intel took the opportunity to throw nVidia out of the IGP market, giving them full control over chipsets and the chance to undermine the graphics market by integrating their graphics on the CPU. Almost nobody took advantage of the APU synergy because it was too niche and because their credit lines were stretched so far already they couldn't mount any effective response. Yes Intel played dirty but AMD made the biggest screw-ups themselves. I'm just glad they somehow managed to stall the death spiral long enough for Zen to show up, I was sure they'd end in bankruptcy.
...because the AI we have now are parlor tricks and there is no strong AI yet.
How do you feel about the bartender in Passengers? I mean he's obviously not strong AI, but he's faking it though a fairly rich set of bartender mannerisms, he can pull in external information like when the ship is due to arrive, he'll remember and play on information you tell him but ultimately if you push him you'll just run into a wall like "Jim, these are not robot questions" or "Hmm. It's not possible for you to be here." I'm not saying what we have today is anything like Arthur, but I'm not sure strong AI is a necessity. Just don't tell him you and your date have no secrets from each other when you do....
Nobody's expecting Grindr to pre-verify content. But once it's established once that someone is trying to fraudulently send people to have sex with [name] who lives at [address] and works at [workplace] they have choices. Think of it like YouTube and their video content filter, formally they only have to take down the URL if anybody asks. They don't have to keep a MD5 sum of the content. They don't have to create video and audio "fingerprints" looking for similar content. They don't have to offer tools for content creators to preemptively register their works. Some people think they have a moral obligation to do more than required by law and some people think it should have been a legal obligation too.
From the sounds of it this has become something of a whack-a-mole and Grindr is enabling and facilitating it by letting the harasser constantly create new profiles that all point to the same person. Arguably there's a lot they could have done with profile "fingerprinting", extended verification, fraud warnings and whatnot. Like any time anyone mentions that address or that restaurant's name it'd trigger some sort of process or information to the would-be date that he might be getting set up. Of course such a system would take work and become something of a cat-and-mouse game and possibly make Grindr harder to use by requiring users provide specific information in specific fields etc. so the easy answer is no, we don't need to.
They might feel that the moment they touch that problem any failure to solve it is also their problem, because probably there's many ways you can get people to show up at the same place looking for the same guy and they probably can't keep up with a malicious actor circumventing the blocks. At the same time the harassed might feel very strongly that they just don't give a shit and isn't losing any business over it so they simply don't want to do anything. Personally I think the cops are the right address though, slander, identity theft, harassment... surely there must be some legal way to go after this guy more than simply disabling profiles?
Additionally, nVidia didn't overproduce the 1080 Ti
This is pretty much the whole story, it wasn't a card popular with miners so it saw no inflated demand so nVidia doesn't have any unsold inventory. Looking at the online retailers here in Norway nobody has any in stock and the last stragglers seem to have sold out in end of November. If you want to buy new it's now 2000 series prices so if you can find a 1080 Ti that's what it'll be priced against. If you ignore all the new ray-tracing stuff it's a >10 TFLOPS card matching the RTX 2080, so no reason to sell it cheap. I was able to get one at MSRP at launch, seems it was one of the best computer "investments" I could have made. Too bad I didn't splurge on that 64GB of RAM too...
If a part is defectively weak by design, the rate of early breakage during assembly will be much higher with human assembly than with automated assembly, because humans are less careful.
What part of a car do you think is meaningfully tested through assembly? I'd say next to nothing. Sure it would be nice if it was factory tested afterwards, but I doubt anything is so flimsy that it breaks when you're putting it together. Even cheap plastic crap from China typically lasts a little while before it breaks...
Not really, at least not from the person's own perspective. Sometimes they don't inherently want to die, but feel their situation is so terrible they can't get the necessary attention any other way. This is presumably often the case with people with a history of lesser self-harm, they take it one step too far and actually die. It's like an adrenaline junkie trying increasingly extreme stunts, technically not seeking death but taking it to the edge. Other times there's nothing to be done, like in Terry Pratchett: Choosing to die they talk to Andrew Colgan who did try to take his own life before getting euthanasia, because he has a crippling disease that's getting worse. Some people are like that mentally too, they did get all meaningful help but are just broken inside and want it to end.
Remember suicides are a mixed bunch. You have all the people who commit a rash suicide over heartbreak or something like that, that really just need to take their life in a different direction. You have the people who feel like everything is pitch black, even if they have fame, money, love and no objective reason. You have the people who've suffered through terrible traumas like physical and sexual abuse, war and terror. I know some people think everything can be fixed but talking to a psychologist isn't exactly a guaranteed cure you won't wake every night screaming from your nightmares. In fact, some seem to fear failing more than succeeding and make like really, really sure. Of course you don't hear much about those because they're all dead, the stories all come from those who "failed".
Everybody else was automating too, if they stood still or went backwards towards more manual processes they'd be long since dead. Besides, automation is a bottom-up process, you automate the simplest, most routine operations freeing up people to do more complex tasks. If they couldn't grok it 50 years ago, they should see what assembly line work was like 100 years ago. There was competition and they lost, simple as that. A lot of people reason like things were great, we made changes, then things were shit, so the changes were shit. That happens too, but sometimes the world is changing around you and you can either try to roll with it or bury your head in the sand and hope for a miracle.
Despite all the "you get what you pay for" trash talking the truth is that automation is often really good at pushing out thousands of almost identical objects. Sure those objects can be built flimsy and cut safety margins to sell even cheaper, but that's a problem with the market and not the tool. Maybe I'm just exceptionally lucky but I find it's really rare that I find something that's a manufacturing defect. It's usually either a design flaw meaning they all got it or it's transport damage somewhere between the factory and me. Of course nothing is ever without exception, but unless it's like really unique handmade piece of art you don't get special attention with manual labor either it's just dull routine work.
Can Google design a CAPTCHA that's too difficult for their text-to-speech to read?
Google isn't reading its own CAPTCHA, they generate it and offer a speech version for accessibility to the visually impaired. It's not very difficult to create some horribly mangled text though, the problem is creating one that untrained, average humans can solve but computers don't. CloudFlare at some point went overboard on this, resulting in CAPTCHAs that were near impossible for a human to reliably read. And bots don't care if they have a mediocre success rate, for humans it's extremely frustrating to try multiple attempts to succeed. Sometimes even the definitions become a problem, like Google sometimes ask me to flag sections with traffic lights. Do they mean lights as in where I can actually see a lit red/yellow/green light, the front face, the back face and the pole or that light a block down that's 2 pixels wide? I'm just guessing until they're happy.
What, is utorrent going to arbitrarily slow down ALL traffic if you don't buy a token? (...) So this is some convoluted way of bribing seeders to bump their bandwidth to you. Why would you do that when you could just use any other torrent client on the planet and say fuck utorrent users altogether?
Because those "other torrent client" seeders haven't got any reason to stick around so the torrent is quickly abandoned or left incomplete if it's not very popular. I assume the theory here is to create users seeding lots of torrents at very, very low speeds fishing for crypto currency. The positive side is that it could keep a lot more "long tail" torrents alive, the negative side is that uTorrent users could end up hoarding bandwidth for coin rather than seed for free.
ugh.. oh man but I prefer the uTorrent UI so much. I've tried so many alternative BT applications and they all suck at having a tight UI except for utorrent even with the bloody ads that for whatever reason pimp my utorrent isn't removing anymore.
I see the qBittorrent UI about two seconds every time I add a torrent file and five seconds when I launch a finished file. Why do you spend enough time with it to care?
I don't think for a moment that people will just be buying "bandwidth" with this.
This is already the business model of most premium file sharing hosts. You get very slow/limited download for free, allegedly you pay for bandwidth. Those who provide premium links that drive a lot of traffic get kickbacks. Guess what most popular links are? This looks like the same principle just with less desirable protocols and less plausible deniability.
I will never be able to wrap my head around watching someone else play video games. I get how there should be a similarity between that and watching pros play physical sports, but I just can't get over that gap.
Or maybe it's just the type of sports... I mean I doubt there's a big overlap between the people who watch snooker/golf/tennis and those who watch football/basketball/racing. I'm absolutely a gamer, but I very rarely watch any eSports.
Slashdot Mirror
Well since it's a mirrorless camera the sensor doesn't have to be damaged by taking a picture, it's constantly exposing. So if the camera is say on a tripod pointing towards an intersection and you're busy fiddling with some camera settings it could easily be that this car stops at the intersection, damages your sensor - I assume it takes more than one burst, that it's the laser pound the same spot - and drives on before you take a photo. Heck, if you're wrapping up your shoot you might not even notice until you get home or the next time you use the camera. This time the culprit was obviously, but it might not be so every time.
I think perhaps we should work more on 'universal access' to clean water, enough food to eat, and safe countries to live in for everyone, before we worry about 'universal internet access'.
I agree that for the poorest that is the most urgent need. But between that billion and the ones who actually are connected we have a few billion who aren't in any immediate need, but they're dirt poor and have very few valuable skills. And you may of course say education and that's right, there's still 100 million age 15-24 who are illiterate but Internet is a pretty strong tool for self-learning once you get past the basics. And I don't mean first world brats who'll watch cat videos, but third world kids who realize this is their opportunity to be more than slum dwellers and subsistence farmers. A lot of parents genuinely don't care if they live shittier lives to give their kids a better future and a lot of the time that's the kick starter for change, if they can get well paying work they can start spending it in the local economy.
You used to see this with black neighborhoods unable to get mortgages because of their zip code. When you put numbers into a database without regard to what comes out you can end up with crap like this.
Yeah, because problems like driving while black never existed before we had AI robocops. Oh, wait... Truth is, sharing some kind of common characteristic with an ill-perceived group is always going to be problematic because they don't know you personally. And there'll never be time to know everyone personally, like if I walk home drunk late at night and happen to walk the same way as a woman she's a lot more scared I'll jump and rape her than that she'd jump and rape me. Simply because I have a penis and she's got a vagina - sorry LBGTq'ers you're statistically insignificant. And the better the statistics, the worse you're guilty by association - or not even that, because association means you had a choice. Like 51% vs 49%, big whoop... 95% to 5%, well it sucks to be the 5%. Unless you're the 5% nobody suspects because you don't fit the profile/stereotype at all.
Yes, this could become a self-enforcing shit show where people who happen to have a poor background or made one mistake get snubbed at every occasion into a downward spiral to oblivion, but who's going to rationally choose to break you out? I mean we have many success stories of people who get out of their substance problems or criminal life or shitty anti-social/violent behavior and whatnot... and then there's all the people who don't, somebody went out on a limb for them and they managed to screw them over. Like that friend you let sleep on the couch turned squatter or recommended for a job and got fired with flying colors, no good deed goes unpunished. Computers play the odds and so to most managers too, the difference is with humans you had some chance to connect and prove you're different.
If I'd told my first boss that three decades later, we could store a terabyte on something the size of my pinky nail, he'd have laughed at me and accused me of making up the word "Terabyte."
I was with my dad at IBM in the 80s and they had like all the brochures so I remember reading about their biggest enterprise storage solution that could go up to 6 TB if you had a kazillion dollars and a football field for the racks. This was a time with 5 1/4" floppies and like 10 MB HDDs, so a gigabyte was comprehensible but a terabyte... it was like infinity plus one. Today I got a single HDD bigger than that, it's actually rather insane. Though I'd probably be more freaked about the Internet, I mean back then we had nothing but sneakernet with floppies and today I have fiber. Or rather at home I had my C64 with cassette tapes, I only got a floppy drive much later.
Well, a high-res file (40-50 MP) is typically around 50MB compressed RAW. So ~20000 photos. If you say maybe 3 seconds between each in a slide show that's ~60000 seconds so ~17 hours. Though honestly if you're doing photos you can just offload those any time you take a little break. I expect this will be used for extremely long continuous video shoots, like if you're doing 400 Mbps all-I like some cameras offer now you'll get ~6 hours. But let's be honest, you're either going to flee or strangle them in the end so just bail immediately.
There's plenty happening in the tech world that is still fascinating, if it doesn't seem so you're less impressionable than 20 years ago or just not paying attention. Take a little dive into the story archives and you'll see it was a lot of random junk back then too. The difference is that we were young and /. was cool in a nerdy way, I mean "No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame." was not only hilariously wrong in retrospect but also pretty juvenile and so were we. In objective terms there was probably better sites dedicated to each topic, but the discussions carried the site.
It became it's own little subculture, that obviously the next generation didn't feel part of... we just aged and cool nerdy became neckbeard nerdy, while the random story mix felt more like buckshot from a sawed off shotgun. I mean /. fit better the paradigm of "I'm a nerdy teen basement dweller, amuse/intrigue me with random nerdy bits" than "Okay, I got job/family/commitments but an hour to spare - do I really want to use it on random nerdiness?" You're probably more likely to find a site or subreddit that's more focused and spend your time there rather than here. I'm not quite sure what drugs they use on this site, but I keep coming back though I'm pretty sure I'd never get hooked today.
Waiting for 4K / 60 FPS [@ Ultra] under $500
Fixed that for you. Most games now come with four-ish graphics settings:
Ultra: To punish your GPU
High: Ultra minus the FPS-killers
Medium: Best you get looking decent
Low: Just make it run somehow
The biggest performance killer was texture memory, like if you ran out performance grind to a halt and 4K typically takes 3-4 GB but with cards having 6GB+ RAM you can usually do okay just dropping the settings. I generally try at least medium before I drop to 1440p, of course my 1080 Ti is a bit out of your $500 budget but don't think the review FPS are all that matters. Most reviewers simply don't have the time and interest to benchmark at lower settings, so you look at the graphs and think you "must" have the RTX 2080 Ti OC edition when you really don't. Of course, I'd take it if you were handing them out....
The standard hack has always been to put an arbitrary ambient light in the scene, most viewers won't notice the difference.
I think it's absolutely noticeable... but so are a lot of other obvious clues that you're running around in a game world, you wouldn't exactly confuse it with a live video stream. Heck they're still struggling with that in all-CGI movies though I must admit they're getting pretty good at it.
Personally if 2080 can't deliver high frame rate ray tracing at 4k what does it matter? Modern shader hacks for dynamic lighting are quite realistic.. so is it really worth cranking resolution down so much .. just for slightly more realistic lighting? Would that really produce a better overall quality image?
Well... it's 50% shader hacks and 50% avoiding the situations where the flaws are obvious. There's a reason most games avoid shiny reflective surfaces, mirrors, translucent materials and that you don't get proper shadows from dynamic elements like leaves blowing in the wind or the right reflections from a muzzle fire or explosion. But that also means that until it's a commodity you'll continue to avoid the situations where ray tracing makes the most sense. And with the current performance drop I'd probably just leave it disabled anyway. I guess it's great if you're doing rendering for a movie or something though.
From the holistic view, it changes who holds the most risk. Instead of school getting paid no matter what, they most likely only get paid and get paid the most if they create decent employees.
Unless it's about getting people on the hook, pull it off as cheap as you can and see how many still manage to land $50k+ jobs based on their own merits. It's not necessarily so that a better tutor means more profit.
Pastureland is the greatest use of land on Planet Earth. At some point, people will have to stop eating meat, whether you like it or not.
Only if we try to squeeze in 20 or 50 billion people on this planet despite all the other resource shortages we'd run into. Between 1950 and 1987 the world population doubled from 2.5 to 5 billion, if we had kept going like that we'd be at 10 billion in 5 years and 20 billion in 2060. At that rate we could kill all the livestock and the human biomass would eclipse it in 60 years. For all the people worried about global warming you can look at this curve and you'll see total emissions explode from 1950 and going forwards. We got room for cars and cattle and whatnot, but not for endless billions of people. An incel in a gas guzzler with a love for BBQ is doing far more for the environment than an vegetarian eco-hippie with five kids, because he'll die out while the hippie's kids will each have five kids who'll each have five kids and in less than a century you'll spend more land on lettuce than you ever did on beef.
I want it to make very large consumer sets viable. 200 inch sets can't be shipped without damage.
I think the hope for the future there is MicroLED. They just showed a huge 219 inch set and because it's made up by tiles the price may not go crazy with size. Like now an 80" TV is way more expensive than 4x 40" TVs, but with tiles it should be proportional to screen size. They also showed a smaller 75" version that's closer to market. Of course they still haven't revealed any pricing info and it's probably going to be very pricey to begin with, but the scaling possibilities are extremely interesting. If it's as seamless as it looks I could imagine there being a good number of affluent buyers who could just pick up 9 of those 75" screens and put them in a 225" configuration. They do say the stitching is now much less visible than last year's demo and invisible from a normal viewing distance. It all sounds good except it's not an actual product yet...
More important than the volume is the cost. The cost of storing it, the cost of finding the mail you want. Storage is cheap. Finding stuff depends on the quality of your search system, or how much time you invest in organizing.
I try to look at it from an efficiency standpoint, if I can spend one hour now organizing to save ten hours searching later then I organize. If it's ten hours to save one hour I don't. My conclusion is that as long as you don't have an obvious need for it in the future and you got a timeline it's best to just leave it be and see if you ever need to spend any time on it at all. If you do need to spend the time though, throw away everything you for sure don't need. If it's a couple years old that's probably a lot of it, sometimes I do this with a pile of old papers and in the end I might have two or three keepers. It's not really worth organizing as much as it's just taking out the trash. Other than that just put it in an "old" folder in the corner of your multi-TB drive. Unlike physical clutter it doesn't take up any living space, it doesn't collect dust, rot or grow mold, it's not a fire hazard... it's just a near invisible, near free, near infinite storage space.
I mean it's different if you're like trying to archive the internet and intentionally make huge libraries and stuff, like you want to be your own mini-Netflix or mini-Spotify. But for the average person I think those who don't keep such a pile of their documents are the strange ones, like they got some neat freak thing about having a big number somewhere like it somehow matters. I do care about the number of incoming mails, because I do have to spend time reading them or at the very least decide not to read them. But whether there's a hundred or a million mails in the archive doesn't bother me one bit. I think that's some strange hold-over from the physical world, like a whole diary is a lot of text but it's still extremely little data. The whole library of Congress is about ~15TB of data, I could mirror it. And there'd still be more clutter on my bookshelf.
Back in the early 2000's AMD had a clear and convincing lead in both absolute performance and price-performance for 2.5-3 years. Intel successfully kept them out of mass-market OEM products and cash-starved AMD was not able to keep up with Intel's research budget -- eventually paying a $1.25B settlement to AMD but this was not sufficient to make AMD whole.
September 23rd, 2003: AMD launches Athlon 64, kicking ass
July 24th 2006: AMD buys ATI for $5.4 billion
July 27th 2006: Intel launches the Core 2 Duo
They had more than $5 billion to invest in R&D/fab technology. They spent it on graphics instead and on top of that Intel took the opportunity to throw nVidia out of the IGP market, giving them full control over chipsets and the chance to undermine the graphics market by integrating their graphics on the CPU. Almost nobody took advantage of the APU synergy because it was too niche and because their credit lines were stretched so far already they couldn't mount any effective response. Yes Intel played dirty but AMD made the biggest screw-ups themselves. I'm just glad they somehow managed to stall the death spiral long enough for Zen to show up, I was sure they'd end in bankruptcy.
...because the AI we have now are parlor tricks and there is no strong AI yet.
How do you feel about the bartender in Passengers? I mean he's obviously not strong AI, but he's faking it though a fairly rich set of bartender mannerisms, he can pull in external information like when the ship is due to arrive, he'll remember and play on information you tell him but ultimately if you push him you'll just run into a wall like "Jim, these are not robot questions" or "Hmm. It's not possible for you to be here." I'm not saying what we have today is anything like Arthur, but I'm not sure strong AI is a necessity. Just don't tell him you and your date have no secrets from each other when you do....
Why is Grindr the villain in this suit?
Nobody's expecting Grindr to pre-verify content. But once it's established once that someone is trying to fraudulently send people to have sex with [name] who lives at [address] and works at [workplace] they have choices. Think of it like YouTube and their video content filter, formally they only have to take down the URL if anybody asks. They don't have to keep a MD5 sum of the content. They don't have to create video and audio "fingerprints" looking for similar content. They don't have to offer tools for content creators to preemptively register their works. Some people think they have a moral obligation to do more than required by law and some people think it should have been a legal obligation too.
From the sounds of it this has become something of a whack-a-mole and Grindr is enabling and facilitating it by letting the harasser constantly create new profiles that all point to the same person. Arguably there's a lot they could have done with profile "fingerprinting", extended verification, fraud warnings and whatnot. Like any time anyone mentions that address or that restaurant's name it'd trigger some sort of process or information to the would-be date that he might be getting set up. Of course such a system would take work and become something of a cat-and-mouse game and possibly make Grindr harder to use by requiring users provide specific information in specific fields etc. so the easy answer is no, we don't need to.
They might feel that the moment they touch that problem any failure to solve it is also their problem, because probably there's many ways you can get people to show up at the same place looking for the same guy and they probably can't keep up with a malicious actor circumventing the blocks. At the same time the harassed might feel very strongly that they just don't give a shit and isn't losing any business over it so they simply don't want to do anything. Personally I think the cops are the right address though, slander, identity theft, harassment... surely there must be some legal way to go after this guy more than simply disabling profiles?
Additionally, nVidia didn't overproduce the 1080 Ti
This is pretty much the whole story, it wasn't a card popular with miners so it saw no inflated demand so nVidia doesn't have any unsold inventory. Looking at the online retailers here in Norway nobody has any in stock and the last stragglers seem to have sold out in end of November. If you want to buy new it's now 2000 series prices so if you can find a 1080 Ti that's what it'll be priced against. If you ignore all the new ray-tracing stuff it's a >10 TFLOPS card matching the RTX 2080, so no reason to sell it cheap. I was able to get one at MSRP at launch, seems it was one of the best computer "investments" I could have made. Too bad I didn't splurge on that 64GB of RAM too...
If a part is defectively weak by design, the rate of early breakage during assembly will be much higher with human assembly than with automated assembly, because humans are less careful.
What part of a car do you think is meaningfully tested through assembly? I'd say next to nothing. Sure it would be nice if it was factory tested afterwards, but I doubt anything is so flimsy that it breaks when you're putting it together. Even cheap plastic crap from China typically lasts a little while before it breaks...
All suicide attempts are cries out for help.
Not really, at least not from the person's own perspective. Sometimes they don't inherently want to die, but feel their situation is so terrible they can't get the necessary attention any other way. This is presumably often the case with people with a history of lesser self-harm, they take it one step too far and actually die. It's like an adrenaline junkie trying increasingly extreme stunts, technically not seeking death but taking it to the edge. Other times there's nothing to be done, like in Terry Pratchett: Choosing to die they talk to Andrew Colgan who did try to take his own life before getting euthanasia, because he has a crippling disease that's getting worse. Some people are like that mentally too, they did get all meaningful help but are just broken inside and want it to end.
Remember suicides are a mixed bunch. You have all the people who commit a rash suicide over heartbreak or something like that, that really just need to take their life in a different direction. You have the people who feel like everything is pitch black, even if they have fame, money, love and no objective reason. You have the people who've suffered through terrible traumas like physical and sexual abuse, war and terror. I know some people think everything can be fixed but talking to a psychologist isn't exactly a guaranteed cure you won't wake every night screaming from your nightmares. In fact, some seem to fear failing more than succeeding and make like really, really sure. Of course you don't hear much about those because they're all dead, the stories all come from those who "failed".
Everybody else was automating too, if they stood still or went backwards towards more manual processes they'd be long since dead. Besides, automation is a bottom-up process, you automate the simplest, most routine operations freeing up people to do more complex tasks. If they couldn't grok it 50 years ago, they should see what assembly line work was like 100 years ago. There was competition and they lost, simple as that. A lot of people reason like things were great, we made changes, then things were shit, so the changes were shit. That happens too, but sometimes the world is changing around you and you can either try to roll with it or bury your head in the sand and hope for a miracle.
Despite all the "you get what you pay for" trash talking the truth is that automation is often really good at pushing out thousands of almost identical objects. Sure those objects can be built flimsy and cut safety margins to sell even cheaper, but that's a problem with the market and not the tool. Maybe I'm just exceptionally lucky but I find it's really rare that I find something that's a manufacturing defect. It's usually either a design flaw meaning they all got it or it's transport damage somewhere between the factory and me. Of course nothing is ever without exception, but unless it's like really unique handmade piece of art you don't get special attention with manual labor either it's just dull routine work.
Can Google design a CAPTCHA that's too difficult for their text-to-speech to read?
Google isn't reading its own CAPTCHA, they generate it and offer a speech version for accessibility to the visually impaired. It's not very difficult to create some horribly mangled text though, the problem is creating one that untrained, average humans can solve but computers don't. CloudFlare at some point went overboard on this, resulting in CAPTCHAs that were near impossible for a human to reliably read. And bots don't care if they have a mediocre success rate, for humans it's extremely frustrating to try multiple attempts to succeed. Sometimes even the definitions become a problem, like Google sometimes ask me to flag sections with traffic lights. Do they mean lights as in where I can actually see a lit red/yellow/green light, the front face, the back face and the pole or that light a block down that's 2 pixels wide? I'm just guessing until they're happy.
What, is utorrent going to arbitrarily slow down ALL traffic if you don't buy a token? (...) So this is some convoluted way of bribing seeders to bump their bandwidth to you. Why would you do that when you could just use any other torrent client on the planet and say fuck utorrent users altogether?
Because those "other torrent client" seeders haven't got any reason to stick around so the torrent is quickly abandoned or left incomplete if it's not very popular. I assume the theory here is to create users seeding lots of torrents at very, very low speeds fishing for crypto currency. The positive side is that it could keep a lot more "long tail" torrents alive, the negative side is that uTorrent users could end up hoarding bandwidth for coin rather than seed for free.
ugh.. oh man but I prefer the uTorrent UI so much. I've tried so many alternative BT applications and they all suck at having a tight UI except for utorrent even with the bloody ads that for whatever reason pimp my utorrent isn't removing anymore.
I see the qBittorrent UI about two seconds every time I add a torrent file and five seconds when I launch a finished file. Why do you spend enough time with it to care?
I don't think for a moment that people will just be buying "bandwidth" with this.
This is already the business model of most premium file sharing hosts. You get very slow/limited download for free, allegedly you pay for bandwidth. Those who provide premium links that drive a lot of traffic get kickbacks. Guess what most popular links are? This looks like the same principle just with less desirable protocols and less plausible deniability.
I will never be able to wrap my head around watching someone else play video games. I get how there should be a similarity between that and watching pros play physical sports, but I just can't get over that gap.
Or maybe it's just the type of sports... I mean I doubt there's a big overlap between the people who watch snooker/golf/tennis and those who watch football/basketball/racing. I'm absolutely a gamer, but I very rarely watch any eSports.