Much like that comment. Can you give a better example, or express why it's a bad example? That would bring some quality in.
Spzi
joined 1 year ago
Gripen sounds like a perfect fit. From the little I know about it, I got the impression it can be operated, just fine, under non-ideal conditions. Like using roads as runways, easier maintenance with less personel than usual and so on. I learned that from watching very short videos, so you might want to double check.
I think it makes sense: Gripen was developed by a small country close to Russia, with no reason to fear anyone but Russia. So kind of designed for the defensive underdog role.
The F-16 and even more so the F-35, are more demanding on organisation and logistics, I believe. Great when you have the capability to double down on it, not so useful when your Hinterland is constantly bombarded. Like I heard they have trouble keeping electricity and water going. Not sure if maintaining a fleet of 35s is possible under these conditions. Fingers crossed they can make good use of the 16s.
That's a self fulfilling prophecy, isn't it? The effect you describe would not be there if it wasn't for comments like this. Or at the very least, these comments make the effect bigger.
Dumm di dumm. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase-out_of_fossil_fuel_vehicles
Der Markt für Verbrenner verschwindet in den nächsten 10 bis 20 Jahren. Zeigt mal wieder deren Wirtschaftskompetenz.
Würde ich auch vermuten. Ihre bisherigen Forderungen waren es aber nicht, mit großem Abstand. Also mal schauen.
This meme is so wrong it is deliberate misinformation. The Guardian made an article which is probably this meme's source. It even linked to the original source, the Carbon Majors Report. But blatantly misquoted the CMR. For example, CMR says something like "100 fossil fuel producers responsible for 71% of industrial GHG emissions", but The Guardian (and meme posters) omit the italic bits.
What do they mean with producers? Not companies like Apple or Heinz, but simply organizations which produce fossil fuels. Duh. Shell, BP, but also entities like China's coal sector (which they count as one producer, although it consists of many entities). CMR also states 3rd type emissions are included. Which means emissions caused by "using" their "products", e.g. you burning gasoline in your car.
So yes, the downvoted guy saying "Consumer emissions and corporate emissions are the same emissions" is pretty spot on in this case, albeit most likely by accident. Rejected not for being wrong, but for not fitting into a narrative, which I call the wrong reasons. Please check your sources before posting. We live in a post-factual world where only narratives count and truth is just another feeling, because of "journalism" and reposts like this. Which is the infuriating part in this particular case. I guess you want to spread awareness about the climate crisis, which is good, but you cannot do so by propagandizing science and spreading lies.
All that from the top of my head. Both the ominous TG article and the fairly short report are easy to find. In just a couple of minutes you can check and confirm how criminally misquoted it was.
Eventually, things settle at almost perfect ratios. Everything between creates some kind of friction.
What does it even mean to bruteforce creating art? Trying all the possible prompts to some image model?
Doesn't have to be that random, but can be. Here, I wrote: "throw loads of computation power, gazillions of try & error, petabytes of data including human opinions".
The approach people take to learning or applying a skill like painting is not bruteforcing, there is actual structure and method to it.
Ok, but isn't that rather an argument that it can eventually be mastered by a machine? They excel at applying structure and method, with far more accuracy (or the precise amount of desired randomness) and speed than we can.
The idea of brute forcing art comes down to philosophical questions. Do we have some immaterial genie in us, which cannot be seen and described by science, which cannot be recreated by engineers? Engeniers, lol. Is art something which depends on who created it, or does it depend on who views it?
Either way what I meant is that it is thinkable that more computation power and better algorithms bring machines closer to being art creators, although some humans surely will reject that solely based on them being machines. Time will tell.
That depends on things we don't know yet. If it can be brute forced (throw loads of computation power, gazillions of try & error, petabytes of data including human opinions), then yes, "lots of work" can be an equivalent.
If it does not, we have a mystery to solve. Where does this magic come from? It cannot be broken down into data and algorithms, but still emerges in the material world? How? And what is it, if not dependent on knowledge stored in matter?
On the other hand, how do humans come up with good, meaningful art? ~~Talent~~ Practice. Isn't that just another equivalent of "lots of work"? This magic depends on many learned data points and acquired algorithms, executed by human brains.
There also is survivor bias. Millions of people practice art, but only a tiny fraction is recognized as artists (if you ask the magazines and wallets). Would we apply the same measure to computer generated art, or would we expect them to shine in every instance?
As "good, meaningful art" still lacks a good, meaningful definition, I can see humans moving the goalpost as technology progresses, so that it always remains a human domain. We just like to feel special and have a hard time accepting humiliations like being pushed out of the center of the solar system, or placed on one random planet among billion others, or being just one of many animal species.
Or maybe we are unique in this case. We'll probably be wiser in a few decades.
This ambiguity is what I had in mind when I read "let me be clear". Though now I get it.
8
[Bundestags-Petition bis 21.02.24] Keine Kürzung von Finanzmitteln für den Nahverkehr
(epetitionen.bundestag.de)
225
Unity tutorial creator Brackeys highlights systemic issues with public company, promotes Godot (FOSS)
(programming.dev)
https://www.youtube.com/@Brackeys/about
Text version, thanks to @[email protected]:
Image Text
BRACKEYS
Hello everyone!
It’s been a while. I hope you are all well.
Unity has recently taken some actions to change their pricing policy that I - like most of the community - do not condone in any way.
I have been using Unity for more than 10 years and the product has been very important to me. However, Unity is a public company. Unfortunately that means that it has to serve shareholder interests. Sometimes those interests align with what is best for the developers and sometimes they do not. While this has been the case for a while, these recent developments have made it increasingly clear.
Unity has pulled back on the first version of their new pricing policy and made some changes to make it less harmful to small studios, but it is important to remember that the realities of a public company are not going to change.
Luckily, there are other ways of structuring the development of software. Instead of a company owning and controlling software with a private code base, software can be open source (with a public code base that anyone can contribute to) and publicly owned. Blender - a stable 3D modelling software in the game dev community - is free and open source. In fact some of the largest and most advanced software in the world is built on top of open source technology like Linux.
The purpose of this post is not to denounce Unity because of a misstep, to criticise any of its employees or to tell anyone to “jump ship”. Instead I want to highlight the systematic issue of organizing large software projects under a public company and to let you know that there are alternatives.
I believe that the way to a stronger and more healthy game dev community is through software created by the community for the community. Software that is open source, democratically owned and community funded.
Many of you have been asking for us to produce new tutorial series on alternative engines such as Godot, which is currently the most advanced open source and community funded game engine. I don’t know yet if this is something that we can realise and when.
I can only say that I have started learning Godot.
Best of luck to all of you with your games, no matter what engine they might be built on!
Sincerely,
Asbjern Thirslund - Brackeys
view more: next ›
What's up with the wiggeling, is the camera dangling from a balloon?
I guess if drones can fly into doors on moving targets, an observation drone should be able to hold relatively still.