antonim
@antonim@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- Comment on What if memes aren't better than TikTok for your brain? 3 hours ago:
Before you put a minus
This made me consider putting a minus.
You can, of course, downvote the post as much as you want if you’re offended, I don’t care if you don’t believe me.
This made me put a minus.
- Submitted 15 hours ago to technology@lemmy.world | 1 comment
- Comment on Roku launches Howdy, a $2.99 ad-free streaming service 2 days ago:
-ahh title
- Comment on Is this the end of Bootloader Unlocking in the EU? 1 week ago:
Notice how the article implies Samsung and other corporations don’t want to do this, even though it’s something they’ve wanted to do for a long time?
It’s already disproportionately difficult to just root a Samsung phone, so this change perfectly fits the pattern. (Posting this from a new Samsung phone that I’m desperately trying to root.)
- Comment on As Spotify moves to video, the environmental footprint of music streaming hits the high notes 2 weeks ago:
You don’t have the power to decarbonize all electricity
From the article:
Location also affects how carbon emissions are managed. Germany has the largest carbon footprint for video streaming at 76g CO₂e per hour of streaming, reflecting its continued reliance on coal and fossil fuels. In the UK, this figure is 48g CO₂e per hour, because its energy mix includes renewables and natural gas, increasingly with nuclear as central to the UK’s low-carbon future. France, with a reliance on nuclear is the lowest, at 10g CO₂e per hour.
This is a massive difference, and clearly doable, nothing that would be limited to the distant future.
So I get this right? I’m naive for expecting govt regulations to put companies’ behaviour under control, whereas you’re realistic by expecting hundreds of millions of people deciding to systematically minimise their Youtube/Tiktok/Spotify/Netflix/Zoom usage? Hmm, alright.
And yet in an another comment you also expect that Spotify shouldn’t introduce video streaming, without any external regulation but out of pure goodness of their hearts?
- Comment on As Spotify moves to video, the environmental footprint of music streaming hits the high notes 2 weeks ago:
No, since the article doesn’t mention anything of that sort. I really, really doubt that in the world of crypto mining and AI training the average people streaming some music and music videos will make a substantial difference. Your degrowth-oriented approach sounds like it would just solidify the already highly monopolised market, as any new players or innovation can be met with the “wastes too much bandwidth” hammer, as is this new service by Spotify right here.
I highly recommend reading research about the sustainability of the internet.
This is the first article that I get on Google. Now, as they say, “I ain’t reading all that” (I probably wouldn’t understand most of it), but I did take a look at the abstract:
Decarbonising electricity would substantially mitigate the climate impacts linked to Internet consumption, while the use of mineral and metal resources would remain of concern. A synergistic combination of rapid decarbonisation and additional measures aimed at reducing the use of fresh raw materials in electronic devices (e.g., lifetime extension) is paramount to prevent the growing Internet demand from exacerbating the pressure on the finite Earth’s carrying capacity.
Sounds good to me! With no mention of having to limit our internet usage.
And if reducing bandwidth waste really were that important, it would have go both ways anyway, with the providers optimising their content (probably forced to do so by regulations in some way).
- Comment on As Spotify moves to video, the environmental footprint of music streaming hits the high notes 2 weeks ago:
To minimise the environmental footprint of your own music streaming, use Wi-Fi rather than 4G or 5G. If you listen to a song repeatedly, purchase a download to play. Use localised storage rather than cloud-based systems for all of your music and video files. Reduce auto-play, aimless background streaming or using streaming as a sleep aid by changing the default settings on your device including reducing streaming resolution. And turn your camera off for video calls, as carbon emissions are 25 times more than for audio only.
Lol no I won’t.
What a stupid, bizarre and illogical article. It clearly shows that the key is in moving to renewables yet it still argues for the users also doing this sort of tiny useless gestures. I suspect it’s AI-written at least in part.
- Comment on As Spotify moves to video, the environmental footprint of music streaming hits the high notes 2 weeks ago:
55g of CO₂e is 50 times more than audio streaming and the equivalent of microwaving four bags of popcorn
How much is that in football fields?
- Comment on Itch.io deindexes NSFW games after becoming the latest target of skittish credit card companies and anti-porn group Collective Shout, catching an award-winning indie and more in the crossfire 2 weeks ago:
to say that Collective Shout is blameless
Twitter is not, as it turns out, the only place where well articulated sentences get misinterpreted.
- Comment on Is the peoples deep interest in chemical experiment viral videos (e.g. liquid nitrogen in a pool) related to being shooed away from understanding real science? 3 weeks ago:
No. What does liquid nitrogen have to do with “real science”, and since when do people get shooed away from it?
Those videos are the sciency equivalent of fidget spinners.
- Comment on Adblockers stop publishers serving ads to (or even seeing) 1bn web users - Press Gazette 3 weeks ago:
I have seen multiple businesses closing down due to poor marketing promotion/budget.
Only because they were competing against businesses with possibly shittier products but certainly better marketing. Remove all the marketing, good and bad, and suddenly it’s a real merit-based competition.
It is very idealist, but IMO worth considering. There can (or at least should) be less intrusive means of letting people know of a product.
- Comment on SHUT THE FUCK UP! 3 weeks ago:
Idk, I remember seeing some of his emails that were funny-rude, but this one is just rude.
- Comment on YouTube's Latest Update Shows That Online Monoculture Is Dead 4 weeks ago:
someone’s insane ramblings about the new world order.
We still have plenty of that, everywhere from Twitter to 4chan.
- Comment on YouTube's Latest Update Shows That Online Monoculture Is Dead 4 weeks ago:
It varies, because YT periodically breaks it, but it gets patched up again usually quickly.
- Comment on Microsoft Copilot falls Atari 2600 Video Chess 5 weeks ago:
That’s true. But people pointing out that the whole attempt is absurd and senseless also reinforces the point that current AI isn’t what companies tout it as.
then you likely live in a bubble of tech nerds
Well, we are on Lemmy…
- Comment on PNG has been updated for the first time in 22 years — new spec supports HDR and animation 5 weeks ago:
Also it’s not like this is some important topic with societal implications. It’s just a technical question that I had (and still doesn’t) that doesn’t mandate researching.
So why “research” it with AI in the first place, if you don’t care about the results and don’t even think it’s worth researching? This is legitimately absurd to read.
- Comment on Millions of websites to get 'game-changing' AI bot blocker 1 month ago:
are you comfortable with a single corporation having control over this sort of service?
Honestly? A tiny bit more than a single country. I have at least some miniscule control over the corporation through voting and local regulations that international corporations must follow, whereas I have absolutely no formal influence on US govt.
- Comment on Millions of websites to get 'game-changing' AI bot blocker 1 month ago:
Which govt? I’m not comfortable with the idea of the current US govt having control over this sort of service.
- Comment on Against AI: An Open Letter From Writers to Penguin Random House, HarperCollins, Simon & Schuster, Hachette Book Group, Macmillan, and all other publishers of America 1 month ago:
Yeah, usually they’re just sourced from public-domain book collections such as Google Books (who scan older books which can end up visually messy), and I’m pretty sure some of those that are offered on Amazon were straight-up based on pirated PDFs.
- Comment on Against AI: An Open Letter From Writers to Penguin Random House, HarperCollins, Simon & Schuster, Hachette Book Group, Macmillan, and all other publishers of America 1 month ago:
because you’re paying
Well no, it’s the buyer who is paying. Which they might find off-putting, if the final price is too high, so you get fewer buyers and less profit.
As for the quality, there’s literally no reason that a book that is printed on demand has to be low quality or use low quality materials.
Except that in practice they simply are of lower quality. I’ve seen quite enough of such books. Maybe higher quality materials could be used, but that would raise the price for the end-user even more, and possibly slow down the production.
and the proof is the fact that Amazon is filled with AI generated garbage books
One has to wonder how much money they actually make, though. I saw some YT videos about the topic, IIRC it’s really difficult. Their mere presence doesn’t prove their profitability but only the belief by many people that they could be profitable.
It’s easy to start a business, sure. But you didn’t explain the rest of the process and don’t seem to actually know a lot about the particulars of book publishing (neither do I, but whatever I do know doesn’t agree with your imagined “solution”).
- Comment on Against AI: An Open Letter From Writers to Penguin Random House, HarperCollins, Simon & Schuster, Hachette Book Group, Macmillan, and all other publishers of America 1 month ago:
I guess, but print on demand is also more expensive than printing in bulk, when looking per unit, and of lower quality (paper and binding). I’m not too familiar with the details of book publishing but I wouldn’t expect that people are not using this route simply because they failed to notice its benefits.
- Comment on Against AI: An Open Letter From Writers to Penguin Random House, HarperCollins, Simon & Schuster, Hachette Book Group, Macmillan, and all other publishers of America 1 month ago:
I tried to read about “just-in-time economy” but I really don’t see how it would apply to book market?
- Comment on Judge Rules Training AI on Authors' Books Is Legal But Pirating Them Is Not 1 month ago:
Large AI companies themselves want people to be ignorant of how AI works, though. They want uncritical acceptance of the tech as they force it everywhere, creating a radical counterreaction from people. The reaction might be uncritical too, I’d prefer to say it’s merely unjustified in specific cases or overly emotional, but it doesn’t come from nowhere or from sheer stupidity. We have been hearing about people treating their chatbots as sentient beings since like 2022 (remember that guy from Google?), bombarded with doomer (or, from AI companies’ point of view, very desirable) projections about AI replacing most jobs and wreaking havoc on world economy - how are ordinary people supposed to remain calm and balanced when hearing such stuff all the time?
- Comment on Judge Rules Training AI on Authors' Books Is Legal But Pirating Them Is Not 1 month ago:
Oh man…
That is the point, to show how AI image generators easily fail to produce something that rarely occurs out there in reality (i.e. is absent from training data), even though intuitively (from the viewpoint of human intelligence) it seems like it should be trivial to portray.
- Comment on Judge Rules Training AI on Authors' Books Is Legal But Pirating Them Is Not 1 month ago:
Yeah, I don’t think that would fly.
“Your honour, I was just hoarding that terabyte of Hollywood films, I haven’t actually watched them.”
- Comment on Judge Rules Training AI on Authors' Books Is Legal But Pirating Them Is Not 1 month ago:
Bro are you a robot yourself? Does that look like a glass full of wine?
- Comment on Judge Rules Training AI on Authors' Books Is Legal But Pirating Them Is Not 1 month ago:
AI can “learn” from and “read” a book in the same way a person can and does,
If it’s in the same way, then why do you need the quotation marks? Even you understand that they’re not the same.
And either way, machine learning is different from human learning in so many ways it’s ridiculous to even discuss the topic.
AI doesn’t reproduce a work that it “learns” from
That depends on the model and the amount of data it has been trained on. I remember the first public model of ChatGPT producing a sentence that was just one word different from what I found by googling the text (from some scientific article summary, so not a trivial sentence that could line up accidentally). More recently, there was a widely reported-on study of AI-generated poetry where the model was requested to produce a poem in the style of Chaucer, and then produced a letter-for-letter reproduction of the well-known opening of the Canterbury Tales. It hasn’t been trained on enough Middle English poetry and thus can’t generate any of it, so it defaulted to copying a text that probably occurred dozens of times in its training data.
- Comment on Judge Rules Training AI on Authors' Books Is Legal But Pirating Them Is Not 1 month ago:
Facebook (Meta) torrented TBs from Libgen, and their internal chats leaked so we know about that, and IIRC they’ve been sued. Maybe you’re thinking of that case?
- Comment on WhatsApp is officially getting ads 1 month ago:
And again in a year or so only a handful of tech nerds with few social connections will actually ditch it.
- Comment on YSK: Non-violent protests are 2x likely to succeed and no non-violent movement that has involved more than 3.5% of the country population has ever failed 1 month ago:
It can have effect when the opposition is relatively weak, e.g. individual small companies or govts that aren’t powerful and authoritarian enough to ignore massive protests.
