medlyyy

It's also incorrect: there is the back of a stop sign visible on the left of the picture but you must not select this to pass the level.

Par for the course with these captcha-like tests though.

You've missed the point. He isn't advocating for everyone to suddenly use JPEG where they wouldn't before. He's advocating that, since there are so many JPEGs already in use, the architecture for displaying them should avoid unnecessarily converting them into RGB 32bit, and instead display them without conversion in a YUV 420 format, to align with the internal encoding of JPEGs which is YUV 420.

Essentially, rendering JPEGs directly as a GPU texture (since GPUs can already natively use 420 encodings for textures). His point is that this would improve performance, very slightly improve quality, and reduce power usage as there's no colour space conversion.

So, you have experience in UI/UX yourself then to say this authoritatively?

>global capitalism is the major force for extreme poverty in this century.

The complete opposite. Where do you think globalised capitalism gets cheap labour from? Hint: it's not developed countries. Then to get them to work for them, they have to pay them something, and people aren't going to accept the jobs if it's not enough to live on.

The empirical data also bears this out, as the other reply notes.

Now, whether capitalism is a force for increasing wealth gap and relative poverty in developed countries is a different question; but the "poverty" in that case is certainly much less "extreme."

Why the fuck are you worrying about "metaphysical frameworks?" The things EA mostly focuses on are people dying of easily preventable starvation and disease. There is no need to bring up highly abstract ideas about "metaphysics" (whatever you mean by that - morality isn't generally considered to be in the field of metaphysics) when the suffering is so blatantly concrete.

Yep. It's just bad. He's essentially advocating for effective altruism to become another lobbying group or NGO.

Wow. If Amazon is being held up as a good example, things are truly bad. My only experience is with Audible, and it is way too difficult and obscure to figure out how to cancel your subscription. Although at least once you do they don't try to pull anything except give you a discount, I suppose.

Although that shouldn't be held up as a positive either. Where I am, it's literally illegal for utility companies to offer discounts or any other type of benefit to customers who wish to cancel or move to another provider. They aren't even allowed to contact you unsolicited after you have requested to cancel the service, as it could be interpreted as attempting to offer enticement to continue. Ending a subscription to a service should not be a difficult thing.

At the very least, if you are showing the instalment price, you have to show the number of instalments, and the fact that it is an instalment rather than a pay-as-you-go subscription.

You could certainly argue that describing the plan as $x paid monthly is outright false, when it should be "12 monthly instalments of $x".

So you're in favour of people phone-scamming the elderly? They just need to take personal responsibility and do their due diligence, right? Or do you want to take away the ability to buy things of people you deem incompetent?

It is a basic necessity for beneficial trade to occur that the terms are made clear, not just technically available, to the people potentially wanting to undertake that trade, before anything legally binding occurs. The issue is not that there are cancellation fees, it's that they are not made clear.

The exaggerated, but still representative, example might be the Earth demolition plans in Hitchhiker's Guide, which were "available for 50 years in the local planning office in Alpha Centauri." Totally fair, right? Anyone could have just gone there and read them.

Demanding "personal responsibility" as a solution to avoid bad deals is the same as accepting that it's OK for some people to be scammed. No one is perfectly on guard all the time. If it is permissible for companies to engage in scammy behaviour, and scammy behaviour increases profits, then in order to be competitive, companies will engage in scammy behaviour. So it will be everywhere. Since, as noted, individual humans aren't perfect all the time, eventually someone will get scammed.

The obvious, morally superior, and more economically beneficial solution is simply to not allow scamming to be profitable. That, among other things, means ruling in favour of the consumer when companies perform shady practices.

Postscript: People with this kind of "libertarian" stance really annoy me. To give the benefit of the doubt, I'll assume that "personal responsibility" isn't just thinly veiled personal exceptionalist elitism. If that's the case, the only reason you can even have these beliefs is because you take so much about the modern world for granted. There is a lot going on in order to create an environment where mutually beneficial trade can happen.

In the absence of strict, neutral enforcement of fair trading rules, people scam the shit out of each other. It's way easier, and more profitable, than actually creating something of value that people want to buy. The total effect of this, if it were allowed to occur, is that it creates an environment of distrust and uncertainty, which means mutually beneficial trades that would otherwise happen won't happen, making everyone poorer. Advocating for "personal responsibility" as a solution to avoiding scummy business practices is directly advocating for this situation.

Historically, before commercial law was explicitly codified, the means of ensuring that merchants were trustworthy was essentially reputation. The way this scaled was with merchant groups, where the reputation of one member going bad affected them all, so they all had incentive to police each other (or alternatively, collude). Plus the fact that people in general were much less dependent on markets for necessary goods, the labour force being mainly agricultural. However, this made opportunity for trade highly exclusive, and largely only available to the privileged ("merchant class").

I guess my question for you is, do you want to have to read every single EULA, thoroughly scan the terms of every transaction every time you buy something, and otherwise do a lot of work and research any time you have to make some vaguely commercial agreement to avoid getting into an agreement you, in retrospect, didn't want? If not, I suggest you carefully re-examine your beliefs and what they imply.

A final remark. The economics of scamming are highly asymmetrical. If individuals have to do a lot of due diligence even for routine transactions, that is a massive cost to that individual. In contrast, organisations willing to partake in scummy behaviour can spend almost endless resources optimising their ability to ensnare customers, because once the process is developed, the marginal cost is very low if not zero. So individuals cannot be expected to "keep up" in this environment.

I mean, the only reason things like this aren't commonplace is cost (of the skillset, tools). Basically anything's possible these days with CGI, everything is purely a matter of the amount of effort you want to put in.

And for artistic purposes, why does it matter how the final result was arrived at? If we have powerful and easy techniques for realising an artistic vision, that doesn't seem like a bad thing?

Yep. To be useful for exploring potential "true" values, a system would probably need some way of showing you the distribution of its guesses, so you can get an idea of whether there is any significant information there.

That aside, you'd still probably need a ML PhD to have a chance of correctly interpreting the results, given the myriad potential issues with current systems.

That's a fair point. Police use artist sketches from witness descriptions to help identify a suspect. It's a similar idea.

The difficulty will be making sure people treat it the same way, because it looks like a normal image.

I will admit I don't fully understand the implications of this.

Doesn't this mean it's essentially game over for running untrusted JS by-default? Doesn't default-deny functionality like NoScript have to become mandatory in browsers for security? If not, why not?