deadbeeves

Yes, the non-raw values are always reported with higher meaning better. The raw values are the raw measurements/counts and they each mean different things.

Hm... Would you mind expanding on what you mean?

See, you've misunderstood. To many a website is a pox on society. To many, if you don't completely agree with them, you're the same as a Nazi. I suppose life does become more interesting if you have no sense of scale, can't conceive of nuance, and think everything is life or death.

Fun fact: if you don't like this place, you don't have to come here.

They sound like people bitter because they couldn't get a moderation team on their side. Good! I'm not fond of Nazis, but I don't need or want them silenced. Let them condemn themselves with their own words.

>They are dictating what can happen on HN about as much as you are dictating what they can post on their twitter.

Hardly. I never said, "Foone mustn't say X on Twitter", or even "they should not say X on Twitter". The latest post actually contains the phrase "NEVER POST ME ON YOUR SITE EVER AGAIN." I'm not even gonna say that they should not make this demand, I just find it pretty funny that they think anyone is going to respect it.

This sounds like a reason to not like the Internet. You can read comments like this on just about any open forum. And it's perfectly fine to not like that, but that doesn't mean you get to dictate whether other people can talk about what you publish. If one doesn't like one doesn't have to read it.

It's fascinating. From what I've seen, OP's problem stems from:

* They post something. Someone links to the post here. Someone makes a comment here to the effect of "I think this about what he said". Someone else replies with "actually, it's 'they'". Shitstorm. Therefore, HN is populated primarily by transphobes.

* They post something on Twitter. Someone links to the tweet here. Someone comments on how they wish it was a blog rather than a series of tweets. Apparently the author feels personally attacked by such comments.

* They post something. Someone links to the post here. A Twitter bot tweets the article from here and @s them, therefore they have to keep blocking those bot accounts, and this is apparently HN's fault.

What I find fascinating is that, other than the bots thing, which is now irrelevant because apparently they don't use Twitter anymore, whether someone links to a post of theirs here or not has no effect on them unless they decide to come here and read what people say about it. It's an unusual case of extreme fragility and seemingly wishing to be punished. "Ow! The fire burns me! I should be able to stick my hand in the fire without being burned!"

EDIT: Relevant Twitter thread: https://twitter.com/Foone/status/1440375176604966924?s=20

I find it rather interesting that someone wants to write publicly and can't deal with others disliking specific aspects of their writing. Not that the readers tell the writer they don't like it, but the fact itself that the readers don't like it and that they tell that to each other. I'm not sure someone this ill-equipped to deal with dissent should be on the Internet.

No, it gradually increases its consumption at a rate of 1 kW every hour, thus at the 3-hour mark it's consuming 3 kW.

It's the icon for the "Programs" submenu of the Start menu. It is somewhat cryptic, but I think it's difficult to communicate "here's where your installed programs can be accessed" graphically. I don't think the icon is used anywhere else, so it's not much of a problem. You'll never see it out of context without the accompanying text.

That's something the browser is doing, not something the SVG renderer is doing. Someone still has to make multiple versions of the same image with different levels of detail, and some software still needs to pick the right one for a given resolution.

The expansion of space itself is not comparable to the speed of light, but yes, I would say it's probable that it would have caused particles (or whatever there was at that time) to spread out faster than light, thus disconnecting them causally and preventing gravitational interaction. As for the why, answering that would involve answering why the Big Bang happened, which given our current understanding would veer into metaphysics. As far as we can tell, it's just what the universe does.

Vestigiality is not about having no function, but about losing the original function. Vestigial organs are also often in an atrophied state when compared to analogs in other species. The appendix is indeed vestigial, and while not entirely without function, it is almost entirely without one, to the point that you can not have it and not even realize it.

>When the most powerful telescope could see N lightyears, people believed the universe was N years old. [...]

What are you talking about? Before the 20th century it was believed that the universe was eternal. After then, advances in determining the age came primarily from theoretical models, not improvements in equipment.

>Yet astronomers and cosmologists refuse to learn the lesson, and keep repeating the same mistake.

You seem to be under the misapprehension that the goal of science is to not make incorrect statements. It's not. It's to incrementally (by necessity) learn about reality. There's nothing with the statement "by our best current measurements, the universe is about 13 billions years old" even if tomorrow new findings point to it being twice as old. To demand otherwise would mean that no conclusions can ever be drawn, because necessarily all scientific conclusions are tentative. It is true at all times that tomorrow's evidence may overturn today's conclusions.

You're describing the Big Rip. It's now thought that the acceleration of expansion is not high enough for that to happen. Gravity is strong enough that the particles inside galaxy groups will stay causally connected indefinitely. Long enough into the future, whole groups will become disconnected from the rest of the universe, though.

Because the primordial universe was in a state of extremely fast expansion, while black holes today exist in space-time that is almost exactly flat. In fact, if the universe really started from a singularity, the expansion was infinitely fast for an instant.

Perhaps they should.

No one is saying that jobs should be "treated as sacrosanct as lives". The argument put forward by waylandsmithers is about responsibility and accountability. If we make sea captains legally accountable for the lives they are charged with, why don't we make CEOs accountable for the livelihoods they are responsible for (i.e. that they make decisions about)?

Right. In a situation where people may die, the leader must risk his own life to protect the lives of those under him. In a situation where people may lose their livelihoods, the leader should risk his own livelihood to protect the livelihoods of those under him. How is this analogy inappropriate?

There's something much worse than including a library header with "", which is a library including its own headers (in the same directory) with <>! That means the user has no choice but to modify the include path.

Your point is that you can't copy Google's secrets because of copyright, and therefore copyright is valuable to its employees. I'm saying that the reason you can't copy that information is different from copyright.

Pretty sure you could sue them using other means, such as through contract law, if they signed an appropriate contract. You really don't need copyright if you aren't broadly distributing information.

>Now, when the source material is someone else's property this means that without - someone else's property - you would have had no output.

Exactly the same happens with artists. The only artists who can claim not to have been influenced by seeing the work of other artists lived tens of thousands of years ago. So what makes it okay to process artwork via some processes but not others, when the ultimate output may in some way copy the input anyway?

>But if I took 100 paintings from a single artist and combined them all into new works of art, that would probably be copyright infringement in my view

What makes you say that? A work is considered derivative with regards to another work, not to an author. If we take your jigsaw example and accept that the final result would not be derivative of any of the works that contributed each individual piece, and then pretend as if in actuality all the sources were from the same artist, what would change that would suddenly make the result derivative from some or all of the original works?

I don't think so. The highest paying companies don't distribute software, they provide access to a remote service. Even if copyright didn't exist, you couldn't copy the Google executable.

I agree, traditional animation was better than modern CGI, but I don't think it's as simple as CGI being an inherently worse medium, but that films are produced more cheaply. Some weeks ago a friend and I were watching and comparing some scenes of Snow White and Cinderella in English and Spanish and were stunned by the singers in both languages. How often do you hear actual opera singers in modern Disney films?

So, yes, what you say may definitely happen, but it's a trend some graphical industries have been on for decades. It's why there are so many fewer professional animators anymore. I wouldn't be surprised if some techniques of traditional animation have been lost by now.

We can try to evolve it, sure. I don't think that's an option that will interest enough people to matter.

While it's possible that these AI tools will leave some (certainly not all) artists without work, what I think is really going to happen is that artists will harness them to do new things that were simply impossible before, or to make their work easier. Technology rarely destroys jobs; it more frequently changes their nature. Just like how at some points animators needed to know how to use 3D tools when in previous decades they didn't, in the near future graphical artists will need to know how to use AI. It's possible that where there were previously two artists working there will then be only one, but such is life. Demand for art is finite.

>Ironically, what could help is NFT type tech. Signed with a private artist key, your copy is "original". Even if knockoff generative copies are produced, the digitally signed produced-bys are still authentic.

That solves a completely different problem, though. I don't think anyone is saying that the problem is one of false attribution, where people are claiming generated images are the work of a particular person. What's being discussed is artists having less work because people generate art computationally rather than commission artists to do it.

And as we all know, music piracy over the Internet ended the day Napster stopped working. /s

Let's not kid ourselves. Those protections exist for the benefit of corporations, not software developers. If those corporations could have robots write the software and copyright that software and patent it, they absolutely would.