Also, some people want to work on what's already familiar to them. If building a framework from scratch is what appeals to them, they'll do that even if a framework already exists. Busywork to look productive.
If you're on Windows 11, search for "Startup Apps" and disable CoPilot, Teams and OneNote (if you don't use them). It'll speed up your system.
CoPilot is a great name. But Microsoft being Microsoft even messed that up. Apparently there's a Github CoPilot and a Windows CoPilot, and they're different.
Those are just two of the several Copilots MS now has, including re-branding the entire Office suite as Copilot… It's is a brand - as you said, a name – not a product.
Flashback to the days when literally every MS product had “.NET” shoehorned into its name somewhere because they had to show they were hip to this newfangled information superhighway thing. The development platform that still has that name 20 years later was just one of a zillion confusingly named marketing initiatives back then.
I think that campaign followed on from everything being named "Enterprise" something. I still miss the days when SQL Server Management Studio was called "Enterprise Manager"...
Also, it seems there are a lot of paid posts on NYT.
Recently, both NYT and WP had front page articles about a book by some billionaire's daughter whose husband cheated on her. They seemed like puff-PR posts.
This sort of nearly open corruption at NYT is worthy of a Trump operation, to be honest.
When Kanye West bought a full-page ad apologizing for his anti-semitisim upon release of a new album, he apparently also bought a full-on legitimate looking "news" article to go with it:
This is the same newspaper that has reporters bragging on Twitter that they shouldn't have to report on major economic news, like the broad effects of the Inflation Reduction Act, because they don't need to report on anything that would benefit Biden. Apparently Biden didn't pay off the right people at the NYTimes.
You get that the economics underlying these claims about buying articles don't make much sense, right? The whole point of the NYT is that the newsfeed isn't the core business.
The newsfeed doesn't need to be the core business for NYTimes to sell full-page advertisements, nor does it need to be the core business to sell stories on preferred topics.
Sure. They could sell a lot of things that aren't core to their business. But why would they? Their next marginal dollar doesn't come from squeezing the news organization; in fact, the way things are trending, news is basically looking like it'll be a loss leader for them.
They are already selling ads, why would you think they wouldn't be raising revenue on the news side? Your argument that they wouldn't take money if it's not coming from the "core business" does not make sense economically. If your argument is that they wouldn't sell editorial selection of article topics, well, they did it publicly when they decided to report on the sale of a full page ad. Placement of articles on topics selected from the outside is usually far more discreet, with the proper PR firms mediating the selection, but the NYTimes is notorious for doing this.
Way to fall-off from being the one source of news everyone in "Anglo" countries in the Third-World used to turn to (and love and respect... however biased the news may have been).
Edit: am trying to access from US, I see a paywall. Good to hear from comments that other countries don't see a paywall.
Huh, viewing from India here - no paywall. BBC can be biased, but it is very useful to know what the British state media thinks. This article is neutral reporting with barely any "analyst opinion" flavor.
Just for clarity: the BBC is not "state media," it's a public broadcaster. This is an important distinction as the UK Government cannot determine its agenda or directly influence its funding.
The BBC will regularly criticise the government, especially when it's a Labour government.
> UK Government cannot determine its agenda or directly influence its funding.
> The BBC will regularly criticise the government
The funding is set for a 10 year cycle, beyond the scope of any individual government specifically to protect the BBC from editorial interference by the government. That’s why it’s a publicly funded broadcaster, not “state media.”
The onus is now on you and the OP to prove your claim that the BBC is state media.
When I say state media I mean media that exists as a part of the state. Like when it's funded by the state or the state has some other kind of influence over it.
Your definition conflicts with UNESCO’s definition. By your reasoning, private US media outlets would have qualify as “State Media” because they kowtow to the Trump government - “some other kind of influence”. This is patently nonsense, so your definition is incorrect.
UNESCO using a definition that doesn't account for fascist corporatism and other means vy which nominally private entities can serve as arms of the state doesn't make that definition universally correct, it just makes it UNESCO’s definition.
> US-based visitors to BBC.com will now have to pay $49.99 (£36) a year or $8.99 (£6.50) a month for access to most BBC News stories and features, and to stream the BBC News channel.
Only the US traffic has a paywall, there's none if you visit it from somewhere else. Understandable to charge people who don't pay for it with their taxes in my opinion, especially if you delivery videos and other expensive content for free without ads.
Most of these cuts happened under the previous government, including where they restricted how revenue from BBC World Service can be recycled into its local broadcasting. You'd almost think the Conservatives were trying to get rid of it.
There are another two hundred-odd countries who also do not pay for it with their taxes. The BBC has apparently not seen fit to paywall them. This is a very confusing and inconsistent move.
The other countries most likely don't make up such a big chunk of visits / costs.
FWIW: There's many news sources in the US (Usually regional news papers etc.) that just throw a forbidden or 402 status code right away at anyone not using a US IP.
The very first sentence misses the point. (It might be a literal translation. Perhaps. But that's not the essence.) I couldn't go (pun intended) beyond the first sentence. There are much more "essential" translations out there.
So sad that nobody thought it important to ELI5 whatever on earth "gaussian splatting" means, and how it's different than regular splatting (if there's such a thing), or regular video. To me the video looks like the figures have slightly rounder edges, that's all.
Say you have a photo, but you want to be able to explore it in 3d so you put it into fortnite but when you move you can't see behind objects because the photo never "saw" behind object.
So you decide to take lots and lots of photos at every single angle possible, but you need a way to link these all together, so you decide that each Centrepoint of the image is a "gaussian". These splat everywhere.
Now you have taken all of these photos and you can now explore the image in fortnite because you took thousands of images of every possible view!
But what if you didn't want to just look at the frozen image in a landscape in fortnite, instead you wanted to use a man dancing in your new upcoming YouTube video called helicopter.
If you isolate this person (let's say taking all these photos on a green screen) you now have a 3d like recording model, you can reshoot and "scene" on-top of something else (like a 3d diarama like in your video!)
reply