> Watching movies on OLED (or at least on this particular OLED) looks crap, because if you turn motion interpolation OFF, the image looks stuttery, apparently due to OLEDs ultra-low response time, which produces zero fading between adjacent frames. (By the way, why didn't this happen with 35mm movie projectors? They couldn't blend adjacent frames either, because they are just shining light through individual pictures on a sheet of celluloid, yet I don't remember seeing this kind of stutter in movie theatres back in the day!) And turning motion interpolation up a notch already produces the well-known soap opera effect. No, thanks.
My guess would be that it's not so much a difference between projectors and OLEDs as it is a difference between old movies and new movies.
Personally I think that slow pixels is the wrong way to "fix" poor motion blur in movies.
That's the thing with these fines. 19/20 times they make a lot of sense. But even so, there will be people saying "but why not this other org" to which the answer is "Yes! Hand out more fines", not "it's unfair, so just let everyone break the law".
The rules where retail companies can extract value for no added value from consumers? And no the rules has not changed. It has always been allied to compete with importers trying to screw over consumers. Which law are you claiming was changed?
We have rules that should prevent companies from selling broken and dangerous crap. Should I not be upset that Temu ignores those rules deliberately and floods the EU with exactly that?
> What we call “consciousness” is merely a product of evolution, and also a tool shaped by evolution
> When such a system reaches a certain level of complexity, it inevitably generates the concept of “I” as a way to simplify the processing of overwhelming information.
I don't see how this is different from someone saying that a concoction of random ingredients will turn into a magic potion.
The big question is how a group of cells (or potentially something else) becomes sentient. Accepting "because it would be useful" as valid explanation would be the same as accepting Darwinism as a religion rather than science.
Why though? Why is it unreasonable to expect a company to have some level of responsibility for serving clients that are using their platform for illegal activity?
It the same thing with social media and moderation. We don't have to let them off the hook just because doing the right thing would make them unprofitable.
Because the expectation that companies police every single bit that crosses their network is completely unworkable. It's functionally impossible to tell a licensed stream from an unlicensed stream, the distinction isn't available to Cloudflare or any other networking provider it's in private contracts between the copyright owner and the streaming provider and there's a whole snarl of copyright exceptions.
To make the distinction the LaLiga would want they'd have to inspect every single packet, determine if this is a LaLiga game, determine if it's the current game, and determine if it's a licensed provider. There's a reason section 230 was created in the US.
I mean, how do we qualify which companies get punished for which crimes?
Do we punish gun manufacturers for someone being shot? Kitchen utensil companies for someone being stabbed? Car manufacturers for car crashes? Road construction companies for human trafficking?
How deep does this go? Is a steel foundry responsible for the stabbing? Is a camera lens manufacturer responsible for illegal porn?
That is something we'll need to figure out. Just because it requires some work to figure out where to draw the line, it doesn't make it wrong to draw one.
Banks are generally required to check that their customers are not laundering money. In a lot of countries it's illegal to buy or sell goods that you know are very likely stolen.
It don't think it's outrageous to expect more action from Cloudflare when they must know that their service is used for protecting criminal sites.
Relatedly I'd want the betting companies whose ads are shown on these illegal pages to have some amount of responsibility for where their ads are shown, and the same goes for well-renowned websites that show clearly deceiving ads.
This law on banks is a bad law. It doesn't stop money laundering, it does make it hard for lots of people to have bank accounts. We should abolish that law, not copy it.
It lacks a lot of features, but IMO feels less "busy" than the terminal version, which I like.
Very recently Zed also gained support for parallel sessions, which is nice.
In general it's very obvious that a lot of effort goes into improving it, and it gets better with every release.
I love the search in zed. If it was up to me it would open a new tab on every search rather than reusing the same tab, so that I didn't have to redo past searches.
The multibuffer result is so nice for "hands-on" search and replace.
You are attempting to invoke strawman. So is your point that there is not a significant overlap between posters who think that AI companies should not be allowed to pirated use copyrighted material in their training corpus and posters who themselves pirated copyrighted material such as movies, music, games, etc.?
Yes, that is their point. Do you have evidence against it?
I'm sure you can find some overlap, but I bet the vast majority is caused by people making a distinction between commercial and noncommercial piracy. I don't think there's a big cohort of piracy hypocrites.
Due to the nature of the argument, of course I do not have evidence for or against it. However, I am willing to leave it at that, because I think that any rational observer will be able to look at the general mood toward copyright/privacy online (including using Limewire back in the day, pirating movies, downloading Photoshop etc.) and come to their own conclusion whether or not it's plausible that there isn't a significant overlap between the two.
With the battery no longer a concern, more people will opt to buy used phones rather than cheap new phones.
Som even if most people change phone before the battery gets really bad (I doubt that this is really the case), the end result will still be that fewer new phones will be purchased.
Now we just need a law that requires hardware makers unlock their devices when they stop providing updates.
My guess would be that it's not so much a difference between projectors and OLEDs as it is a difference between old movies and new movies.
Personally I think that slow pixels is the wrong way to "fix" poor motion blur in movies.
reply