mclanett

I loved the first version of Salon. So many excellent writers appeared in their pages; I grew to love Anne Lamott.

It changes at some point, no doubt triggered by the crash of journalism, but it didn't try to be interesting and I gave up on it so far back I don't remember when.

Surprisingly fun!

I don't hate AI but AI writing is SO boring. Not worth suffering through to read the article.

What happens if ffmpeg ignores (after triage) the minor CVEs?

Wow this is quite a rant.

However Zitron seems to have forgotten that Google exists or makes TPUs. He mentions Google only 10 times in the entire article, always in a minor way.

I love this idea, trying it out now. There is QUITE a delay doing the analysis, which is reasonable, so I assume as a productionized (non-demo) release this will be async?

I'm at a total loss why social chat boards want to have the most antisocial names.

A very old NTSC TV will be 525 scan lines @ 30 frames / second => 15,750 hz.

The source of the sound is the transformer which resets the scan line back to the original side of monitor.

This is very cool. You can start with an image, generate a mesh for it, render it, and then compare the render to the image. Fully automated training.

Interesting to hear the author complain about Android, which today is held up as the one part of Google which knows how to ship product.

This has been the best app for years.

What I find both amusing and frustrating is that the linked article uses the word "accuracy" 110 times but never explains what is meant by it. For example in the headline "Over 500 ‘Migrant Caravaners’ Arrested With Suicide Vests", what is meant by rating for accuracy? Is it the number 500 and whether it is low, exact, or high? Is it whether the people were migrants? Is it whether the vests were explosive? Is it whether the story is in any way truthful? I really have no idea. Is "accuracy" an alias for "truthful" or something else? The article doesn't explain.