> I personally think this obsession with open-source software is simply an obsession with communism and getting things for free, and not wanting getting rewarded for the value of the stuff you build, etc.
Except that both platforms (iOS as well as Android) were either born out of OSS or are still reliant on active development in such projects. They created nothing, they took something from the commons, polished it and are now rent-seeking. It was tolerated till they threatened to choke all competition and trap and rent-seek the entire world with their duopoly.
> they threatened to choke all competition and trap and rent-seek the entire world
They did so legally and didn't break any rules. This is the game of capitalism, and the fact is, IOS and Android are extremely well built and developed, and no open-source project would ever come close to the hundreds of thousands of paid engineers that built IOS and Android.
You can either have capitalism and IOS and Android, or you can have communism and a society that is 10+ years behind in development. Do you really want to give up IOS 26 for a blackberry?
The GNU stuff was precisely what FSF managed to do. They didn't manage to do more because they had a fraction of the resources large corporations had. People wanting more just doesn't create more by itself, they were reliant on our contributions and we failed them.
Today, I have access to quality tools on my computer and my computer runs Linux without any of the drama that proprietary equivalents bring and looks visually fantastic. My computer feels mine again and for that, I remain eternally grateful to the FSF.
that we failed them might be true, but mostly they did their things and the times changed, and lots of those things are not what users want/need, so the FSF/GNU got almost completely weightless.
... it seems to me that Stallman and the FSF got complacent by their relative (and out of my ignorance I'm now assuming that also unexpected) success, and also they completely misunderstood their value proposition, ie. the product, it was not gcc, emacs, or Hurd or whatever, it was the innovation to allow and foster technical public capital accumulation. (and still, it's absolutely a not solved problem to this day. the wheel is reinvented too fucking many times, even in software.)
... of course they do deserve credit, gratitude and a lot of respect and support for their integrity and steadfastness!
You tell us? You’ve just levelled an accusation and provided no information about what specifically happened.
In general, a website cannot directly modify or change a browser’s certificate store through normal web browsing. This would be a serious security vulnerability if it were possible.
Linux can be an excellent choice if you're willing to invest time in finding compatible hardware. I’m running a 2023 laptop (Lenovo Yoga family) with a 12th Gen Intel CPU and have found the experience to be flawless. I'm using Fedora Silverblue. I've customized GNOME (slightly) to my taste and it’s been a great stable, personalized environment.
However, newer hardware features like exceedingly-good displays (talking about XDR displays) and amazing touchpad support can sometimes be tricky to get working perfectly under Linux—these are areas where compatibility might still lag, so if such features are critical for you, Linux might not yet be the ideal fit.
A lens is a BIG part of the final image you get. So much so that the common advice in most photography forums is that within a price gap, buy the best lens you can find and an okay camera. Camera tech, especially in large dedicated full-frame and APS-C units, has plateaued since 2018, and most cameras from that period take exceptionally good pictures, even by today's standards. Thus, lens availability, price, and quality, as well as AF tracking, are what fundamentally differentiate modern cameras.
EDIT: I got pulled into the discussion without reading the article. The lens is for industrial uses.
You're missing that this is not designed as a tool for photographers, but rather in a collaboration with Mitsubishi aimed at better situational awareness for vehicle operators. The headline doesn't mention this, but it's impossible to miss in the article.
In the context of the GP, I think the point still stands though which is roughly: “the lens matters a lot”.
Without knowing more about the optics, it’s hard to know how much of a role the sensor/ISP play in the innovation, but those are well established and widely capable across both photographic and industrial use cases.
Very curious to eventually learn more about this and whether it might eventually find its way into traditional cameras.
Sure, I guess. But the whole discussion is so void of subject matter knowledge that it's like trying to argue the pros and cons of different bowling balls in terms of how well they pair with Brie.
Nikon is an optics company that's also made cameras for a long time, and then very nearly didn't; before the Z mirrorless line took off, the company's future as a camera manufacturer was seriously in doubt. But even a Nikon that had stopped making cameras entirely after the D780 would still be an optics company. There is no serious reason to assume the necessity of some sensor/ISP "special sauce" behind the novel optics announced here to make the system work. And considering where Nikon's sensors actually come from, if there were more than novel optics involved here, I'd expect to see Sony also mentioned in the partnership.
Of course that's not to say photographic art can't be made with commercial or industrial equipment; film hipsters notwithstanding, pictorialism in the digital era has never been more lively. But I would expect this to fall much in that same genre of "check out this wild shit I did with a junkyard/eBay/security system installer buddy find", rather than anything you'd expect to see on the other end of a lens barrel from a Z-mount flange.
I couldn't tell from the article: is it for human eyeballs or for computers?
If it's for eyeballs it would be nifty to know what kind of image displays both kinds of information at once.
If it's for computers, what is the advantage over two cameras right next to each other? Less hardware? More accurate image recognition? Something else?
I would expect a big photo with an ok resolution including inside an area of much higher resolution (aka teleobjective part). That special area can be cropped later to obtain a much bigger photo with all the detail than a tele would bring.
Chat models were not invented with ChatGPT. Conversational search and AI was a well-established field of study well before ChatGPT. It is remarkable how many people unfamiliar with the field think ChatGPT was the first chat model. It may be the first widely-popular chat model but it certainly isn’t the first
Nobody thinks of the idea "chat with computer" as a novel idea. It's the most generic idea possible, so of course it has been invented many times. ChatGPT broke out because of its execution, not the idea itself.
What you have failed to grasp is that people are not logic machines. "First chatbot" is never uttered to mean the absolute first chatbot – for all they know someone created an undocumented chatbot in 10,000 B.C. that was lost to time – but merely the first chatbot they are aware of.
Normally the listener is able to read between the lines, but I suppose there may be some defective units out there.
It's like arguing over who invented the light bulb or the personal computer. Answers other than "Edison" and "Wozniak", while very possibly more correct than either, will lead to an hours-long argument that changes exactly 0 minds.
Except that both platforms (iOS as well as Android) were either born out of OSS or are still reliant on active development in such projects. They created nothing, they took something from the commons, polished it and are now rent-seeking. It was tolerated till they threatened to choke all competition and trap and rent-seek the entire world with their duopoly.