Stow the propaganda. 1) it's not over, the pandemic continues and will likely continue for a long time 2) it's already the fifth deadliest pandemic in known history. "Quarter pandemic" is an insane thing to think let alone say out loud.
No? I don't see how you arrived at that, it seems entirely non-sequitur. I guess you deeply misunderstood what I meant by "moral distance." I'm simply trying to give a name to the idea that there isn't just a binary good vs. bad, and that some things are vastly worse than others. You might choose to represent it on a simple scale where bad is in the negative and good in the positive. In such a case, moral distance would be the distance between the two points on that scale. That's all. This representation would have no impact on whether a single individual can do things that exist on polar opposites of such a scale.
In the context of my comment the point is more about the distance between saying something rude and killing someone, it would be a large distance despite both being negative, and the tolerance levels would likely start somewhere in the negative side of the scale, though in reality you're going to be dealing with much more complex perceptions of good vs. bad behavior and social tolerance of it. But when you compare to the law that's going to have more of a concrete boundary. But it's still not 0 on this scale.
This is pure nonsense. The moral distance between a good deed and the level of bad deed that receives a meaningful penalty, socially (e.g. felonies) is enormous and there is plenty of fungibility of good vs. bad actions in that space.
That said, it is strange to even consider being good, which is generally a rather easy thing to be, to be some kind of task you should be paid for even virtually. Being basically good is the trivial cost to avoid becoming anti-social. Why should a social group even tolerate you otherwise? With that in mind, as mentioned before, I think you'll find that social groups are highly tolerant of many misdeeds.
It's dark because OLED are not bright at all. Anything brighter than the filmmaker mode is modifying the source image to achieve it, or alternatively driving the pixels in a way that loses color accuracy.
If you care about film and getting the closest result to what the actual thing is supposed to look like you're going to need to couple correct settings with a light controlled room for best results. Or don't use OLED, because, it simply can't achieve the brightness of cinema projection, not even close.
Personally I like the results of a 120hz OLED so much better than other options that I strongly favor a light controlled space for movie watching. For lower grade junk it's usually easy enough to swap to another viewing preset that is brighter.
They're pretty good but when it comes to things like color, that can vary from panel to panel so you might actually end up with something worse. That said, I'd start there and if there's any question about the result you should just buy or rent a calibration tool.
It's rare but some source material is created with the assumption of overscan, whether that affects on-screen graphics or even some cases just total garbage is produced into the overscan areas... it all varies, but from the TV maker's perspective, doing what you're describing means this garbage never appears and they never get calls from confused angry customers who think their TV is broken because some broadcaster has some garbage at the edge of the feed.
Seriously. Imagine people going out and proudly buying a shiny new MiniLED TV only to have their half-educated HN jockey of a child come in and disable the entire point of that technological advancement.
Even normal LED backed LCDs can have FALD (Full Array Local Dimming for those who don't pay attention to this field) and that's not especially new, though, hit or miss in effectiveness on earlier TVs.
This is different than the backup feature, behaves extremely differently. The backup feature is so insanely slow that restoring from a typical USB media a 120GB game takes longer than downloading that same game on 100mbps internet connection.
This method I'm referring to (and probably what they will codify) is much, much faster.
For quite some time you could do this manually without much trouble, but you did need to know a few obscure steps to do it right. Basically a matter of finding the ID of the game so you can copy a certain metadata file along with the actual game data.
I used the trick to copy some games to my Steam Deck back in the Fall. I speculated then that they might make this a genuine feature since it's so simple. I'm glad to see it happened.
Apple ships an app THEMSELVES that enables this (for iPad anyway) https://apps.apple.com/us/app/swift-playgrounds/id908519492 and there are third party apps for general programming as well. I have one for Python (Pythonista) and one for C# and F# (Continuous) on my iPhone right now. There is a HUGE selection of similar apps for general purpose computing on iOS.
These are unique platforms with unique properties in their design. You value them or you don't. Nobody's forcing you to use them for general purpose computing and there are thousands upon thousands of BRAND NEW general purpose computing products with zero restrictions produced every year. People in this thread are being drama queens.
Fearmongering or maybe you just haven't been watching? Apple has already been doing advertising for years now. They make it quite easy to disable any tracking you might be concerned about. There's zero reason to think they'll change that.
I had several experiences with Nintendo customer service from the NES timeframe through the GameCube timeframe and every single one was amazing, legendary even.
I don't know if they're still like that, but, the past, apparent "severity" of their mandate to please customers who had issues leads me to find this story plausible.
I absolutely concur on the Turbo Pascal 5.5 book. It might sound absurd so I just had to add a voice to support this reality. It's been over 30 years but I really can't think of any writing about OOP or a specific language that was so... effective.
But I guess it shouldn't be so surprising. Turbo Pascal was kind of a well-spring of excellence in its time.
I love science. I fully support the desire to answer big hard questions that may be answered with this tool. I absolutely am 100% behind spending this money on this telescope.
I, however, do not believe it will ever provide any kind of substantial return beyond possibly helping to answer some esoteric questions about the universe that nobody alive today or in 10000 years will benefit from.
Life isn't an investment, or it's a really terrible one, as the final return is oblivion no matter what. Making all decisions on the basis of "investment" is stupid. Why? We all will eventually die, the planet incinerated, all of this is pointless. Even if the JWST helped lead to interplanetary travel that only changes the timeframe, the heat death of the universe being inevitable. If your only basis for doing something now is some material return in the future then you've totally lost the plot.
So yeah. I think it's a bad investment and I'm glad we spent the money on it.
This attitude disturbs me more than any other single aspect of the mass idiocy around adopting AI for critical things. 80% is horribly low accuracy for anything even remotely important.
For example, imagine you went to a store and could tell the cashier any price for anything so long as it was 80% accurate, as in, 80% of the original price. Just a 20% potential discount, nbd.
Or put another way, 80% of your items had to have a perfectly accurate price but you bought 5 items, 1 of them was a PlayStation 5 you priced at $1. It's fine. The rest were accurate!
80% is extremely low accuracy. It's absurd to think that's a good level to cut things off. We should demand systems like these demonstrate 99% or better accuracy. Until then they should be illegal to apply in any scenario where a decision is made about another person.
Uh well, along with others I'll just share how I differentiate them since both are common where I live.
3 Ways
1) if you can get a good look at the tail, think croW = wider/more or less even at the bottom, raVen = V like at the bottom (or diamond as a whole) but it's just a mnemonic and makes more sense if you see this http://naturemappingfoundation.org/natmap/images/drawings/ra...
2) Their calls are very distinct, hear one then hear the other and you won't confuse them atall but that requires having heard both and knowing which is which and I won't even bother to try to explain, you can find a million videos/etc. demonstrating if you really care.
3) Beak, ravens have a slightly curved tip usually and crows... don't but it's hard to see this because of the color, so again, depends on what you can observe
