I SO hate this style of reporting. They make me read through 10 paragraphs of human interest pap, when what I really want is to learn something about the medicine that the headline promises. Then a couple of paragraphs of concrete info, then dive back into another vignette. I didn't click into the article to read shocking sad stories, I came to learn something, and the writer is making it unnecessarily difficult to do so.
But....the human stories are the whole point of this, no? I just finished the article and it shows clearly(to me) that there are patients who suffer horrible consequences of having those transplants and the system just mostly.....doesn't care? Like one of them says - he can't afford a $100 uber to the hospital, so the hospital just writes him down as non-compliant. So in the medical stats behind this he's probably recorded as healthy and happy, since he doesn't even turn up to his appointments anymore! As one of the surgeons is quoted later "most patients are happy and don't complain" - that's the entire point of this article, maybe they don't complain because they can't or they feel like they can't. If they are being wheeled around to be shown publicly as the pinacle of human surgery they feel like they can't go and say "actually this isn't working for me".
Again, it just sounds like the fault of the system, mostly the American non existent healtcare system. When my dad was treated for cancer using an experimental treatment at a leading oncological hospital in warsaw, he had all his travel costs covered by the hospital. But it sounds like in US insurance companies are just not interested in actually helping these people, I guess it's cheaper to let them die from complications?
>>when what I really want is to learn something about the medicine
I think you can learn - the fact that for some procedures the interest in outcomes ends with patient survival and not with long term prognosis. I imagine it's not universal, but the article describes specific cases of specific people. They are essential to the story.
This matches my experience as well. As a FF user, I very occasionally encounter problems, but these don't seem to be correlated to their using CF protections. Much more often I find sites broken that rely on cloud domains with bad reputations, which my DNS filters block.
I was actually wondering if the stuff that Mozilla's talking about here will be used by bad bot people to try to circumvent CF's abuse protections. As I recall from when I was working with them, CF's service relies in part on being able to identify botnet attacks by doing its own fingerprinting.
Honestly, I think it was misfounded. As an photographer and artist myself, I find the OpenAI results head-and-shoulders above the others. It's not perfect, and in a few cases one or the other alternative did better, but if I had to pick one, it would be OpenAI for sure. The gap between their aesthetics and mine makes me question ever using their other products (which is purely academic since I'm not an Apple person).
How many of those result did you actually look at? I thought it did ok with the cats, but check the other images and OpenAI strait up failed to do the prompt a large fraction of the time.
I'm wondering if I read the same article. Yeah, I looked at every single one the results. And although it's been a couple of hours since, I don't recall ANY examples where it completely failed to do anything. Can you point me to an example?
I don’t want to go through every image, for the mountain:
It failed Remove background, Isolate the background, long exposed (kept people), Apply a fish-eye lens effect (geometry incorrect), Strong bokeh blur (wrong blur type)
Some were more ambiguous. Give it a metallic sheen looked cool but that isn’t a metallic sheen and IMO it just failed ukiyo-e Japanese woodblock print style but I wouldn’t object to calling it a vaguely Japanese style. Compare how colors blend with ukiyo-e woodblocks vs how OpenAI‘a sky is done.
Removing the background is impossible - or more to the point, it would yield a blank image. There is no foreground in the image, it would wind up removing everything. Which also means that its result for isolate the background is exactly right. Although we might want to argue that the lower part of the image is a midground, that's ambiguous.
You're mostly right to criticize the fisheye - it's plausibly a fisheye image, but not one derived from the original. For bokeh, you're right that it got the mountain wrong. But it did get the other samples, and it's the only one that seems to know what bokeh is at all, as the other models got none of them (other than Seadream getting the Newton right).
For the "metallic sheen", I assume you mean where they said "give the object a metallic sheen", since the first attempt had OpenAI giving the image itself a quality as if it were printed or etched on metal, arguably correct. But for that second one, for all but the 4th sample, OpenAI did it best for mountain and rubik's cube, and no worse for cats and car. Seadream wins for the Newton.
I don't have any knowledge of the Japanese styles requested, so I'm not judging those.
I've reviewed your examples, and it hasn't changed my mind.
> I don't recall ANY examples where it completely failed to do anything
> I’ve reviewed your examples, and it hasn’t changed my mind.
I think I have a better understanding of your thinking, but IMO you’re using a bar so low effectively anything qualifies. “it's the only one that seems to know what bokeh is at all, as the other models got none of them (other than Seadream getting the Newton right).” For bokeh look at the original then the enlarged images on the car. OpenAI blurs the entire image car and ground fairly uniformly, where Seedream keeps the car in focus while blurring background elements including the ground when it’s far enough back. Same deal with the cats where the original has far more distant objects in the upper right which Seedream puts out of focus while keeping the cats in focus while OpenAI blurs everything.
In my mind the other models also did quite poorly in general, but when I exclude failures I don’t judge OpenAI as the winner. IE on the kaleidoscopic task OpenAI’s girl image didn’t have radial symmetry and so it simply failed the task, Gemini’s on the other hand looks worse but qualifies as a bad approximation of the task.
I expect that it's much worse than zero impact. Don't forget that they've got to build and maintain the ship, feed the crew, and so forth. It seems likely that what they're not using in the actual propulsion of the ship, they're expending anyway - and then some - because they've lost the economies of scale of giant cargo ships.
This is ignoring the massive surge in popularity of college sports in recent years. At a quick glance, it looks like NCAA revenue has ~tripled since 2000. While not exactly the same thing, I think the author needs to explain the phenomena in his theory.
There's an enormous amount of money commanded by F1 racing. There are only three, or maybe four, teams that have any chance of winning a race. The other six or seven teams battle to just end up in the points because that determines how the revenue gets shared with the teams.
I'm pretty sure that PlexAmp, backed by Plex Media Server, is the pinnacle of music discovery, within whatever you've got in your library. I've got that serving an enormous library that I've compiled through my whole life, but there's no reason (well, other than legalities) you couldn't feed this through the *arrs.
The discovery algorithm works based on fundamental metadata, additional data pulled from Last.fm (e.g., "related artists" and "popular tracks"), as well as its own acoustic matching algorithm.
This arrangement obviates the SD card, and also any other external syncing (PlexAmp plays live from the server, or has its own scheme for downloading to a local cache).
I guess that gets to what each of us means by "discovery". I think you're talking about the existence of a given artist/track. But for me, with a sufficiently large library, it can be difficult to remember what you have, and what would go well in a given context. So PlexAmp's "discovery" helps me to navigate through that large library to find and re-experience stuff I'd forgotten about or overlooked.
I do it similar to you, except that I use PlexAmp for my music.
But I have to note that you and I are the exception. The VAST majority of users are, I think, doing it through, if not the Play Store itself, then some other service (e.g., Spotify).
That said, though, at least we have this option. But is there any reason that an iPhone user can't just use PlexAmp like I do? I'm pretty sure that Firefox is available to them as well.
My understanding is that Firefox on iOS is substantially limited from Windows and Android. Like they can only run uBlock Origin Lite and many add-ons aren't available. Something about Apple policy blocking browser extensions that can run scripts/code, as it might compete with Apple's app store. But that's just what I've read online from other people. It also might be somewhat different recently in the EU, at least about the installing alt app stores. As I said, I haven't used an iOS device in over a decade, so have no first hand knowledge.
One surprising thing I got from this is that the "Energy Saver" mode used just as much energy, and even more water.
But he said that almost as a throwaway, with almost no explanation of his methodology in determining this, nor discussion about how common this problem might be.
Tl;dr He actually tested each cycle, timed what it did, and measured the energy with a Kill a Watt. He also found the repair manual, which included a diagram of each cycle that matched his tests.
His ultimate finding was that all of the cycles and modifiers did wildly different things, none of which correlated in any way to their name.
My dishwasher came with a booklet that showed energy and water consumption for each setting. Eco mode is about 20% - 50% more efficient in comparison to the other programs.
...which I suppose is why IBM is still the industry leader in computing, while Ford, GM, and Chrysler can't be competed with. Photographers always use Kodak film, and we all talk on our Nokia cell phones. We all shop at Sears, and fly on Pan Am.
IBM's stock price is 10 times what it was in 1991. What the hell have they even done in that time?
They don't have to be whatever you think is "industry leading in computing", because apparently just once being worth something was enough to enrich an entire generation of management while the rest of us struggle.
>Ford
Despite decades of failure that led to their struggles in 2008 and an increase in energy costs, they didn't die, and despite then selling several lines of cars that had serious defects that should no longer happen, they abandoned selling anything other than overpriced trucks and are STILL doing just fine.
>Sears
Sears was murdered to enrich a few already wealthy people. At no point did it do worse business.
Do you know which companies you didn't even mention that do not support your claim? All the gigantic conglomerates that own you.
From Disney owning a giant chunk of all media and setting national IP policy, to Sysco being one of the only food service companies because they ate all the other ones so now every restaurant is stuck selling the same food as most prisons, to Nestle owning most of the grocery store so they can sell you water that they pumped out of your aquifer for crazy rates while complaining they couldn't be profitable without slave labor, to Dupont poisoning the entire earth, to fossil fuel companies that set national energy policy, to most farming in the US being beholden to a single legal entity, to the vast majority of "Brands" in the US just being a label change of a product they did not design.
You seem to be under this absurd notion that as long as the brand name on a couple consumer items changes occasionally (due to the kinds of technological innovations that we will never see again and cannot be predicted or relied upon), everything is fine?
I never claimed that companies can't fail or change, only that bloat and inefficiencies aren't a death sentence. Even several of your examples are still alive and well and it's telling that their major declines took place in the 1980s and 1990s. Companies have gotten a lot better at abusing government and law to protect their profits over the last 40 years.
Companies have gotten a lot better at abusing government and law
Comments like this always seem to lead to calls to give the government greater power to rein in those companies.
I'm not claiming these abuses don't exist. But there's no reason not to also look at them as the government getting a lot better at taking advantage of companies, to protect their offices. If you look at it in this context, it should be clear that increasing regulatory authority is far from a solution: it's actually counter-productive, creating tools to facilitate ever-greater abuses.
reply