fps_doug

> These songs don't have any hooks. Melodies don't get repeated. They all just meander along.

I've been playing around with it for a few days now. While I agree that it seems impossible to create songs with a more "sophisticated structure" (for lack of a better word off the top of my head), you still can get better results by fine-tuning, as is always the case.

If you just request "rock music" or "jazz", you get very dull, generic variants of the requested style. But on a second thought, isn't that exactly what should happen? You throw all the rock music on this planet in a blender, turn it on, and what you get is the most average rock music there is.

If you spend some time spicing up your prompt with flowery language or just a bunch of adjectives, you can get a sound that seems less bland. When you supply lyrics, using square brackets to denote verses, chorus and bridges can also result in a somewhat more structured song, but I found that the AI is pretty lackluster in that regard and you often need several attempts until it follows these inline orders.

So yes, in its current form it has mostly a novelty factor, this is Stable Diffusion for music, but I can easily see this being useful for a small indie gamedev who needs some BGM, or an alternative to the YouTube music library. Instrumental sounds fine, it's mostly vocals that have this clear digital distortion if you pay attention. It's surprisingly good, but still bad.

Ninja Gaiden was so fraking hard! At some point I used an invincibility hack and still gave up at some point! But it was pretty cool. Played Halo 1 & 2, PGR a lot, JSRF was just awesome even though I never finished that either. Fable just wasn't my thing, but had a lot of fun in DoA3 with friends.

It's built into the CPU, what did you expect them to do, burn it with a laser?

.... well in hindsight that might've been a smart thing to do :o)

This sounds like all of you are living in Berlin, which is known as "failed state" to the rest of Germany. ;-)

It varies form city to city, I live in one that I'd say is an exception on the positive side: Most clerks in the various offices are actually helpful and even giving you hints. I had to renew my passport in January and got an appointment the next day. I got the appointment online(!) in Germany(!!). Passport could be collected 4 weeks later. Meanwhile an ex-colleague who lives in Berlin had to wrestle with his nearest office to even get an appointment for a passport renewal, then gave up and made an appointment with the office in the neighboring district, where it was still a 4 weeks wait. He told me there are districts where it takes up to 6 months.

I guess if you want pain and suffering, move to Berlin. :o)

It's hypothetical. There is no difference between those two scenarios, we could also just assume the hacker pulled it out of their ass...

Sure, but this is a hypothetical scenario, focusing on the legal aspects.

What I always liked about HDMI is that it's basically backwards compatible all the way to DVI, just using passive adapters. I think that's the reason why HDMI dominates on laptops, where you're expected to move around and use projectors, which could then be very old and only have DVI inputs, and it "just works" with a plain old adapter. You could even go the other way round from a DVI output to a modern HDMI projector using the very same adapter, but I think laptops pretty much skipped DVI and went from VGA to HDMI. So in practice it doesn't really matter, especially with DP++ being supported by almost every device, which effectively gives you HDMI output using an almost passive adapter.

But still, I like it. :-)

> AMD obviously needs to license the logo for their GPU boxes

This poses an interesting question, maybe some of the hobby-lawyers on HN like to chime in and post heir theories :o)

Let's assume they print that Logo on their box, call it HDMI in their Windows drivers, but don't do so in their Linux drivers, while it's still a spec-compliant implementation. Would that pose a potential legal problem, and if so why?

If it's the fact that they have access to the official HDMI 2.1 spec, implemented that, but call it something else, which I could imagine they forbid in some contract, would things change if some random hacker with too much time on their hands reversed the protocol by sniffing it, implementing it for the AMD driver (again without calling it HDMI)?

Too bad the HDMI forum doesn't feature an email address on their home page, I'd have loved to tell them what I think of them.

I've worked and developed on Linux, for Linux, for 10+ years, I've seen my fair share of panics, especially using the bleeding edge releases. Most (not all!) of them were my own making though. :>

You're directly contradicting your sibling comment. I guess I'll experiment with this in the coming days, although I'm a little worried tinkering too much will just completely lock me out of my account.

This is surprisingly non-shitty by Google. I must admit that I didn't know that before. Can you limit such a passcode to just IMAP/SMTP, or can it be used to log in to other parts of Google?

Not just that; I'd be OK with closed source firmware if I can just put it on an isolated network and be done with it, but from typical listings on Amazon et al you cannot even tell if the camera works without a mandatory cloud connection.

I've bought a router from TPlink a while ago that wanted me to install a fucking app, create a TPlink account and send all comms over some cloud servers to configure a router that's sitting right next to me, that all the traffic from the very fucking phone is going through. It did have a classic web interface, but it was completely crippled and basically just allowed changing the Wifi SSID and doing a firmware update. There was nothing in the product description about this, and none of the customer reviews mentioned it, because obviously this shit is now completely normal to the average joe.

So will the 256bit one be dollar or euro?

Obviously, if you get paid to implement this you don't want the cognitive dissonance of knowingly doing something bad, so I'm sure those folks have already laid out their justification for this technology.

I wish Google could and would make Chrome closed source. It would at least give all those rebranded Chromiums (Opera, Vivaldi, Brave) a strong reason to reconsider their choice of engine, or at least maybe work together on a more divergent fork of it that stays away from Google's evil stuff.

I do, and I keep having those tiring conversations, but it's really hard to get the point across in layman's terms. I have enough friends in tech who stick with Chrome out of convenience instead of just falling back on it in case something actually doesn't work in Firefox. how do I convince tech illiterate people of doing this?