BugsJustFindMe

IME intelligent people don't have difficulty understanding that different people want different things and that your computing preferences are not objectively more correct than someone else's.

Also, the ICD ontology specifically exists for billing purposes and isn't the same as patient diagnostic classification, though there is overlap and people do mistakenly use it as such sometimes. But there's a difference between "emergency visit for X" (treat X) and "emergency visit because of X" (treat Y proximal to X). (I also edited my original comment to include this last part, since it seems likely to create confusion)

Huh?

> "More than 70 per cent of gambling disorder emergency department visits involved another mental health condition or heavy substance use and almost one-third of the visits led to hospital admission."

Ok, so I assume they mean that these emergency visits were for things like drug overdoses and psychotic episodes in people led to by their gambling disorders, not for the gambling disorders themselves. What a strange way of writing this up. A gambling disorder is a chronic problem, not an acute one.

There's a difference between "emergency visit for X" where you treat X and "emergency visit (for Y) because of X" where you treat Y proximal to X, and people could learn to be more discerning in their use and interpretation of language.

> "potential release date in 2029, but it could be canceled before then."

It seems unreasonable to care about this so soon.

> increasing the difficulty of producing a forgery

The problem with this thinking is twofold:

1) Whether it actually meaningfully increases the difficulty of a forgery remains to be seen. Despite their initial language about discerning real events, we see no details here about what scene information is used.

2) It increases the potential value of a forgery because now your forgery is attested by Apple.

So it either makes it easier to defraud people or more worthwhile to put in the effort to defraud people or both. None of those outcomes are great.

The problem with this thinking is twofold:

1) Whether it actually meaningfully increases the difficulty of a forgery remains to be seen. Despite their initial language about discerning real events, we see no details here about what scene information is used.

2) It increases the potential value of a forgery because now your forgery is attested by Apple.

So it either makes it easier to defraud people or more worthwhile to put in the effort to defraud people or both. None of those outcomes are great.

I think this will depend on how it gets used. I can imagine numerous outcomes where it's in fact worse than nothing (significantly more effective blackmail, for instance).

But I really mean that if the lidar barely works outdoors anyway then actually you don't need to be 16 feet away at all.

Anyway, one may presume that they've thought about this.

It is the problem that they say they're trying to solve, though. They specifically say "where the essential role of a photograph is to prove that something actually happened".

It fails the reasonable person test to say that the "something" in that phrase refers to the act of taking the photo itself.

Likewise in "distinguish between photographs that depict real events and...".

The page says that at least 50% of all people are not, so this seems like a very moot question until such a time as that changes.

And if it ever does change, we can then move on to the issue that "fairness" only exists to the extent that one is willing to acknowledge that having money fundamentally and inherently leads to having more money due to the nature of compounding growth, and the more money you have the more money you get by no real action at all.

You talk about "earned", but how exactly have I "earned" the compounding growth on my holdings? I certainly don't work for it. It just flows in for free as the world population continues to grow and produce. I can do literally nothing at all but drink margaritas on the beach and my assets will grow more per year than an average person ever makes by labor. Would you say that I "earn" it? I call it "getting" not "earning". There's nothing fair about it.

It's going to be really funny when the next Mac is just two iPhones in a trench coat.

Maybe I hallucinated, but I seem to recall that your very fine AVIF work happened only well after major browser adoption. "Rules for thee, not for me", I guess. Talk about trying to pull up the ladder.

> SVT-AV2 has just been announced

Best of luck to it and AV2. That's a non-sequitur.

> The part you omitted makes the entire difference.

It really does not. Because...

> Implementing splines will improve JXL's efficiency (again, this was never contested)

your given position is that it will never be improved enough. That is the problem. That your position is that it will never be improved enough to be better than AVIF (I mean again, though it was previously until quite recently) is entirely the problem.

You grip tight to this idea now that if JXL ever improves even one iota then you're vindicated in having graciously allowed it to improve, but you have not granted it the capacity to be improved any bit more than AVIF.

> than dir-pred

This is what I'm talking about.

> I *did* take a shot at writing an automated splines implementation for libjxl, and I failed.

I'm sure you're very good and very smart, and you've clearly done very good things. You're not the only very good and very smart person, of course. But you do have very strong opinions about what is and is not worthwhile for the world to pursue.

> Oh, you're still doing the weird "subtext" thing.

What can I say. I'm used to very good and very smart people knowing about subtext, so I guess I assumed you would.

I'd like you to spell out your thought process, because I completely disagree with the relationship between your given and your conclusion, and I'd like to know what you're thinking.

Because it's understandable that you'd be defensive in the comments here, but you're not being honest about what's written.

> The post literally goes over known ways that JXL can be improved.

You think so? Let's name them, yes? Ok, I'll go first:

* Splines. Explicitly derided as "vastly more difficult" and "I have no reason to believe they'd be better anyway".

Now you point out the next one.

You see, any unfilled area is specifically mentioned only to dismiss it as meaningless. Meanwhile, out of the other side of your mouth, you say "don't assume AVIF or even WebP have maxxed out yet". Sure. I don't. I'm not the one doing that. I'm just the one pointing out the hypocrisy of approach.

The entire argument trajectory is "this path is good, that path is bad, this one will naturally get better, that one surely won't get better enough", and the primary evidence given is deceptively inapt.

The entire post amounts to saying "JXL in its first iterations was better than AVIF's more advanced state of development and support, but AVIF very recently got better only after several years of widespread adoption, and I don't think JXL would too".

The arguments given against JXL cannot be reconciled with the history of codec development.

1) AVIF has now been radically improved to the point where it's actually quite good in ways that previously it was not.

2) JXL will not be improved despite the fact that the performance of every other codec has always radically improved over time.

Everything else aside, including a few clear methodological errors, it's ahistorical and unsightly to be unwilling to imagine that future implementation effort will accomplish anything. Some might call it hypocritical.

Those scenario amount to epsilon percent of scenarios, though, so it makes sense to ignore them most of the time.

Wake us up when it can safely navigate a speed bump or enter a driveway without smashing against the bottom.

I believe that you haven't actually thought about the problem. Your choices are, universally, respond sooner than desired or respond later than desired. There is no universal right amount of time to wait. There is no universal pattern to when your inquiry completes. So there is no universe where the machine responds only after you are finished and no sooner but also without waiting longer than it would take you to indicate that you want a response.

There are only 7 posts in alt.music.bjork on the first date, and one of them has your name on it. There's 1 post with your name on the second date, and it gives a website. The earliest wayback entry for that website redirects to another wayback location that exists.

It's painful to contemplate how you thought this wasn't an absolutely terrible idea.

Sending, processing, and responding to "not the thing I want you to respond to because I'm not done composing my query yet" is really not the way to go. But congratulations on burning more of the sky for fun while creating a worse human experience?