It's clear they are just outclassed by Disney+. People thought the hard part was creating the streaming platform, the content was mostly licensed with a few exclusives. It's now clear that exclusive content is everything. Disney have new content every month (ie. Moon Knight -> Obi-Wan Kenobi) and high quality movies like Luca and Turning Red.
Netflix's strategy seems to be just get big name actors and mediocre creatives and hope it works. The Adam Project might have a lot of viewers but how many of those are just because it's there? How many people would say "The Adam Project is my favorite movie" and how does that compare to Luca?
Netflix has been essentially making the equivalent of direct to DVD movies as its whole strategy while Disney has been bringing their best. They are becoming The Asylum of the streaming world.
Mostly it is latency added by webcams, microphones(But our ears are used to delayed audio anyway) and the software. Your webcam probably has >100ms of latency then the app adds >50ms then multiply that by 2x (for two way conversation). Even a display like a TV can have loads of latency.
If you just open up a camera view there's huge latency without it even sending data anywhere.
The internet latency is probably only a small portion of over all latency and WiFi latency isn't much either. There's already lots of latency with audio (Perhaps having a microphone could make audio travel faster then through air?)
I wish people would take latency more seriously. Using a rolling shutter, encoding a single line at a time and sending it via UDP could probably save almost all the latency. Sub 30ms latency IMO would make it much better.
I've been reading lots of books (On computer graphics) and it's surprising how much better the average book content is then most online resources. I guess the difficulty to get it published really forces the quality to be high. It's so easy to get a copy of "The Cg Tutorial" for a couple of bucks online and get an overview of the graphics pipeline that is super higher quality(Though for 20 year old GPUs).
It's great that people are putting versions of their books online. I just hope that they keep making physical versions. I much prefer reading on paper rather than a screen or even kindle.
If you just use regular vertex and fragment shaders then all of that is automatically handled. A game like World of Warcraft might not use advanced GPU features that would slow down a TBDR.
I'm not that good at focusing, but one thing I've found that's super helpful is to turn my computer screen to monochrome. Obviously this doesn't work if you need colour.
I don't think that people only value the output. Take "Selfie Girl"[0] by Inigo Quilez people appreciate that it's a shader, even people that are not into programming (though they'd need to see the making of video[1]).
I think people should assess their surroundings to find what is good exercise for them to do. I run trails just because I live across the road from trails to run. If I had to travel to the trail I probably wouldn't go everyday.
Wont this have a huge impact on all banks? If I had this I'd shut down my bank account and just have this + investments. Banks offer too low yields to be worth while. I think digital currencies are the future but it would have a huge affect on banks and payments companies.
I almost had a heart attack when I read this. I've been using bitwise operations to speed up the Wave Function Collapse algorithm... and the prime minister of Singapore has done something very similar years before!
In the future webpages will be streamed from a server and we will only see a video stream. No ad block will be possible as the whole page will just be a single html canvas (or some new stream element). It will suck.
I don't get how the UK has the tabloid culture while having a completely deranged legal system. Wouldn't anyone who has been in one be able to sue? Why does the USA have so much less(Obviously it has some) when their free speech laws are much tighter?
I wonder if AI can help better vet science to see if there's flaws. I was looking at a paper recently[0] about how Swedish men cause more emissions than women. I feel like it has big issues that could be fairly easily checked with an AI system to check for logical fallacies and statistical errors. I think most research is BS and it takes too long to tell if it's real or fake. The most common outcome unfortunately is that research is fake.
My issues are that more men than women live in rural areas[1] so on average men will have to drive more and use more fuel. This data also seems to come mainly from a study in 1998 but they continuously say "men today", the data is from two decades ago. It also suggests that buying local food is better for the environment then importing, but they probably don't grow food in Stockholm so it would come from regional areas. Men also need more calories so even though women emit more from their food, men are actually doing much better considering they are generally recommended to eat 1.25x more calories than women[2]. I'm also very sceptical about the energy used for clothing and furnishing in the study.
This study was widely shared in places like NPR[3], The Guardian[4], CNN[5, CBS[6] and The Independent[7]. I feel like the issues I've pointed out are super obvious and if there's a reason they are not problems then they should talk about why those issues are not relevant, especially in the news articles.
I haven't read the whole paper, I actually just looked at the study to see how much clothing emits per person(after an article on fast fashion was posted on here). It's very concerning to me that that is published in "pro-science" news papers. Perhaps even worse is the original paper is not even really casting blame but the articles all do.