Well consider this: Two projects with the same amount of actual security issues. one project is willing to say "this bug doesn't affect security" and is willing to take accountability for that statement. Another project is not willing to do so. As a result the former has a lower count and the other a higher count. Which is better for a user valuing security?
As the actual number of issues is the same you might say it doesn't matter, but I don't agree. As a user it is easier to deal with "here are the n issues", than "here are m things any n of which are real".
Java did many things very right. It's a really fast language. It's memory safe. It could run anywhere. It had well-thought out namespacing at a time where namespacing was a concept most people barely knew they needed it. It had an advanced security model.
To go full schizo conspiracy theory: It may also not be a coincidence. There may be someone that dislikes that one Carol, knows she has schizophrenia and a smart fridge. They design this ad, or perhaps just plant the idea of it at the company they are working for with the intention of harming her.
If there really was a Carol I think police should look into this theory just to rule it out.
Nope, for the simple and trivial to check reason that it's not just an ad, or even just a whole ad campaign. It's the name of a protagonist of a drama, that the ad promotes, using a phrase that is said to that fictional character.
I think if Linux gaming becomes popular someone may come up with a solution where you run a native linux kernel-mode anticheat. That somehow connects to the wine-hosted game.
I'm not sure how I feel about that, but it's what I think will happen.
The purpose of zoomed out comparison is to show the quality reduction of applying this tool. The purpose of zoomed in before picture is to show how a typical pixel misalignment. Aligned pixels can be easily imagined.
> The purpose of zoomed out comparison is to show the quality reduction of applying this tool.
Reduction? Shouldn't the tool be improving the quality of the image? If it is reducing the quality then why do it?
> The purpose of zoomed in before picture is to show how a typical pixel misalignment.
Okay, but how does this supposed "misalignment" look on the picture? Would I even notice it? If not, does it matter? Did they just zoom in, and draw a misaligned grid over the zoomed in image? Or the grid fault lines are visible in the gestalt?
> Aligned pixels can be easily imagined.
Everything can be easily imagined. Misaligned pixels can be imagined. They could just write "our processed images look better" and let me imagine how much nicer they are. The purpose of a comparison is to prove that they are nicer/better/crisper whatever they want to claim.
The way I see it, converting something to pixel art is akin to lossy compression or quantization. The goal is to retain as much detail as possible given the constraints.
The exact way that pixels are misaligned is a feature of the specific AI models that generated the almost-pixel art.
There is another asymmetry that this article misses. Fear leads to inaction. Hope leads to action. The article seems to argue that we need to punish inaction. But this goes against the principle I just mentioned. Instead we could (and do) reward action. Recall the profiteer in point VII. Maybe he was critized. But he also did make a profit. Reward. In China, passing good samaritian laws undid damage. Why because lessening fear was enough for hope to prevail. Hope of gratitude and reward.
Like anon908 I also thought this was llm-generated, but unlike him I thought it was still a worthwhile read.
Maybe I'm a bit unfair to you but to me your comment basically reads as wishing employees would be good little cogs in your machinery rather than people. Like making friends is natural human behavior. Forming friend groups is natural human behavior. It's not nice to disrupt this except that of course everyone has to be able to work together when needed.
Making friends is great. Talking about work with friends is good and healthy.
Moving all of your work related chats off-platform so you can “say whatever you want” about work and eventually making it into a defacto team chat is what I’m talking about here. This isn’t chatting with friends, this is creating team divisions and huge gaps in context for the rest of your team. This approach is being a poor colleague in my opinion.
You can do both things - they’re not mutually exclusive.
You can’t do both things. Humans want to engage in certain kinds of conversation that companies try to prevent happening.
Sometimes you just want to vent and call your boss a fuckhead and it only takes one time in a persons life to see HR punishing/firing/admonishing someone for conduct on company communication channels that would have been perfectly fine in any other setting, for that person to never trust in the “company culture”
There is no environment where messy human beings fit into the perfect set of rules and behavior that companies demand
The freedom of a farm is that you don't have a boss telling you what to do (if it's your own farm). It's also harder for the government to know what is going on in the middle of nowhere meaning they can't enforce the law as well.
You obviously need some amount of protein as building material, but people eat much more than that because having a big excess encourages more muscle growth.
As the actual number of issues is the same you might say it doesn't matter, but I don't agree. As a user it is easier to deal with "here are the n issues", than "here are m things any n of which are real".
reply