voltaireodactyl
voltaireodactyl on Hacker News
One difference to consider: books require active participation on the part of the consumer. Whereas digital/screens can just happen to you whether you participate or not.
Similar to XBMC at least for a long time.
Elecom gives them a run for their money thumb ball wise in my experience.
Steermouse fills this gap brilliantly. Covers every device I’ve ever tried and I have some significant exotics.
FWIW you can do it for “all apps” in one go — I set one up for printing to PDF and it works great
Excellent article really enjoyed it.
Thought provoking critiques of recent implantations. Number 2 seems like a catch-22 though — how does the group with agency identify their own blind spots?
My impression is that the question is whether “business” in this instance refers to the Yellowpages company itself, or the companies that make up their customers base.
Damaging USAID irreparably damages the US soft power around the globe. As Elon’s businesses are not limited to US borders, I wonder if there is perhaps a bigger picture here.
FWIW wBlock is on GitHub and can be used without an Apple account. I’ve found it to be excellent.
Lossless Cut is free, open source, and very simple to use. Highly recommend. Wayyyyy lighter than screen flow.
If the US government requests such access, do you see a world in which Waymo says no, given the current landscape?
I think you might be happily surprised for sure.
This is something I’ve been trying to find for years at this point and I’ve tried all the competitors. LOVE how you’ve designed the workflow.
One question: any chance it can accept existing SRT files? This looks perfect for quick and smaller projects but I also have a pretty good workflow for longer more spelling-specific stuff involving MacWhisper outputting an SRT. Would love to be able to drop in an SRT (if not already possible).
One other note: does it require 15.4? I’m there on my laptop but desktop still on 15.1. Would love to use without updating but if 15.4 is required I understand.
Either way TREMENDOUS work. Just the kind of plugin I’ve been hoping to see for FCPX. Thank you.
Check out MacWhisper which is one time payment and does this among many other things.
On Mac I’ve found MailMate to be excellent in this regard.
I want to be on board with the “bring more audience” but the truth is knowing how this industry works, any success with AI on this front will lead almost immediately to a total drying up of funding for professionals engaging in this work currently. I hope I’m wrong, I really do.
There was talk a while back about them silently degrading print jobs that used third party ink. I forget the exact details but it was arguably more heinous than the HP stuff since at least that happens out in the open — this was special code to make third party ink look worse without explanation.
Fwiw I hear good things about aerospace but haven’t yet had a chance to give it a shot.
I love the Fountain spec for exactly this reason. I primarily began using it since it’s Markdown for screenwriting, but it has bold, underline, and italics along with the usual markdown stuff like comments etc. I find it to be by far the best way to write plaintext anything other than code. It’s also a bit more opinionated than Markdown which I highly prefer.
I for one do not think that they are similar because an election is a popularity contest not a logical examination of facts, and voters are not required to sit through a thorough presentation of the facts in evidence, which means they tend to make less than ideal jurors.
Filebot is very helpful for this. There are free utilities too but filebot is pretty fool proof so worth the cost imo.
Footnotes and references are the equivalent and imo often lead to more robust sources.
In the pileup example, the human driver is legally at fault. If a self driving car causes the pileup, who is at fault?
I am sorry you took that as my meaning! I certainly didn’t intend to claim you needed to prove your case 100% or be excoriated, and I understand you taking affront, given that interpretation!
My understanding was that you were arguing that any hint of disagreeing with current scientific understanding was equivalent to believing in witchcraft, given the similar lack of evidence — an eminently defensible position, no question.
However: the witch hunters at Salem also had plenty of evidence to support their claims — albeit evidence we can now see with modern eyes as hopelessly wrong and heavily weighted by the powers that be in order to advance their own interests (land grabs, mostly).
Unfortunately the average citizen at the time had no way of interrogating the veracity and efficacy of either the claims of witchcraft, nor the very tests by which said witchcraft could supposedly be revealed.
Which leads to my intended point, which is that I sure hope this doesn’t turn out to be another leaded paint situation (we knew lead was poison but didn’t account for dust particles and childhood curiosity), or a climate change situation (the companies themselves knew it was harmful and flooded the field with misleading studies), or an arsenic situation (basically Victorian leaded paint), or a tobacco situation (4 out of 5 doctors recommend X), etc.
Essentially: misaligned incentives can be equally, if not more, powerful than the scientific method itself when it comes to shaping public policy.
But I do I apologize for glibly mirroring your own phrasing when making my own point, I can see how that would be frustrating, especially without the added historical context with which you may be unfamiliar.
FWIW my understanding is that the policies against incest you mention actually have much less to do with controlling genetic reproduction and are more directed at combating familial rape/grooming/etc.
Not a fun thing to discuss, but apparently a significant issue, which I guess should be unsurprising given some of the laws allowing underage marriage if the family signs off.
Mentioning only to draw attention to the fact that theoretical policy is often undeniable in a vacuum, but runs aground when faced with real world conditions.
For my part, I’m certain your counter-argument is the more accurate take. After all, history tells us that such studies are never quietly funded by the industries most likely to profit off of positive results, without regard to human cost.
Given the apparent technical difficulties involved in getting insight into a model’s underlying data, how would anyone ever hold them to account if they violated this policy? Real question, not a gotcha, it just seems like if corporate-backed IP holders are unable to prosecute claims against AI, it seems even more unlikely that individual paying customers would have greater success.