"So, why is Qualcomm under so much pressure? China is one significant reason. China is one of their critical worldwide markets and both the US and China governments seem to be increasing pressure on various US companies, including Apple, Qualcomm and Google."
* You can't share your screen in a way optimized for text clarity. In the native app, even without nitro, you, effectively, have the "source resolution, 5 fps" option. With the web app, you are limited to 720p.
* You can't make the full use of your camera. On the web, 640x480 is the only available resolution, while in the native app, 1280x720 is the default.
* Also, on platforms other than Linux, with the native app, you can stream the game audio separately from your microphone. This functionality is not available via the web or on Linux unless you install an unofficial client.
Ah, I didn't know people were using Discord for video calls. No one has ever asked me to to jump on a Discord video call. Then again, I'm not a PC gamer. I honestly thought it was basically just a modern IRC, to chat in specific groups/channels, and to ask the MidJourney bot to generate images of cats wearing pajamas.
Loads less than a second for me using the website. I'm just on a 1st gen Mac Mini M1 w/ Chrome. I mainly use Discord for MidJourney, it has always been smooth.
Are there any benefits/features to using their Electron desktop app?
I generally find that it's easier to interact with AV devices (webcams, microphones) on the desktop app, than when having to deal with a browser's opinions. It also separates it from your browser, which might be desirable if you keep a bunch of tabs and don't want them open in the background.
I use either option in different circumstances, they're both comparably fine.
I'll admit I'm someone who has always said "I have nothing to hide." Do I want someone physically recording me outside my window while changing clothes? No. But the majority of the time, we're just talking about targeted advertisements (which I actually prefer over random crap). Or a system that listens to keywords on phone calls that may identify and deter a terrorist threat. I don't see how this relates to "freedoms of expression." Before the downvotes, please give me an example of where I should be scared. I'm open to learning.
During the cold war and the GWOT, people were profiled based on their race, religion, suspected opinions, or association with people suspected of {commun,terror}ism. A ton of these correlations were spurious, sometimes corruptly motivated, and yet the justification of fear caused people to be blackballed in their careers, targeted by law enforcement entrapment, or even just spirited away on thin pretexts. This is in the USA, not East Germany or North Korea. Now, we have much more sophisticated data collection and analysis, and false positives are still very frequent
Also, more mundanely, among the data that's collected by various unaccountable agencies, including nonconsensually, as in the case of things like Equifax, can be used to impersonate you and frame you for crimes, or just steal/use your money. This happens to millions of random people every year and is a direct consequence of a loss of privacy.
A loss of privacy has systemic consequences that change society for the worse. But even if you don't care about anyone but yourself, privacy erosion creates an ever-increasing chance of your life being ruined by overzealous governments making a mistake, or criminals targeting no one in particular but randomly getting you by happenstance
Would you be okay with people reading and questioning your search history, and any activity or messages ever posted on any site? How about your family members, or doctor, or insurer? How about during a job/school/TV interview?
Are you happy to share your net worth, bank and credit account balance and activity with advertisers?
Are you ok with some AI determining (based on its opaque reasoning) that you are a potential terrorist threat, and should be imprisoned?
Even if you are okay with all the above, do you recognize that not all of society would agree and that some people could even be put into grave danger due to eg: political, religious, sexual etc views? In an extreme case, if "most" people are open and "have nothing to hide", it means that everyone who isn't open must "have something to hide" and should be persecuted. Normalizing this openness actually inches us toward this extreme.
Also you should recognize that your answer based on today's government and political parties may not resemble the parties that hold power in the future. Does an extreme group -- who is the farthest from your own views and in fact violently disagrees with your lifestyle choices -- taking power in the future not worry you at all?
Q: I'm a student of visual communications and asked myself why links are blue. I found some answers that might be, for example blue is a color of learning, but I'm not sure what is right. Is there any reason, why links are colored blue ?
A: There is no reason why one should use color, or blue, to signify links: it is just a default. I think the first WWW client (WorldWideWeb I wrote for the NeXT) used just underline to represent link, as it was a spare emphasis form which isn't used much in real documents. Blue came in as browsers went color - I don't remember which was the first to use blue. You can change the defaults in most browsers, and certainly in HTML documents, and of course with CSS style sheets. There are many examples of style sheets which use different colors.
My guess is that blue is the darkest color and so threatens the legibility least. I used green whenever I could in the early WWW design, for nature and because it is supposed to be relaxing. Robert Cailliau made the WWW icon in many colors but chose green as he had always seen W in his head as green.
One of the nicest link renditions was Dave Raggett's "Arena" browser which had a textured parchment background and embossed out the words of the link with a square apparently raised area."
Eh, but the "pro" features aren't really necessary for it to work just fine. Like XDR/HDR brightness upscaling, Picture in Picture, Teleprompter mode, EDID override, etc. Those are niche case bonus features.
I mean, I could be hit by a bus tomorrow. A memoir type of story-telling is one thing, but I'm more interested in having some sort of application that can parse a Q&A that I made with myself (perhaps based on thousands of questions), while also giving responses that sound like me, have a voice like me, and maybe even an avatar that looks like me. But, locally. Not with a 3rd party service that may shut down in a few years.
Right, but what I mean is the work you put into the data (could be Q&A, journal entries, etc.) will be useable by any local AI model in 5 years. Or can be read by a human. Any coding you do will be out of date.
I'm saying I'd focus on the data first.
That said... suppose your father died and had written 2000 questions and answers about himself. Would you prefer to read what he wrote, or would you prefer to dump it in an AI and have the model do some black box improv version of what he wrote which may or may not resemble the original material very well?
What IDE do you use nowadays if not VS Code? I'm curious because I'm also using an M1 Mac and I've ran through the gamut (Sublime, PyCharm, Atom, etc).
Sublime mostly, not a fully-featured IDE I'd say. For front-end I'm using VS Code, that's only here and there, and that's where the struggle comes from.
Last time I've tried Idea/etc was quite a few years ago. It didn't feel great. But maybe I should force myself into it. Might be better on M1.
I also open regular Visual Studio every few months for C# on Windows, and while it's slow to start, the editor feels really solid, quick, and responsive.
https://www.rcrwireless.com/20230911/uncategorized/kagan-how...