Perhaps the prompts you are using could do with some love. We're pretty consistently getting great results up to and beyond the 10 minute mark in a large monorepo.
Have a look through the rest of the images. TMPI has some pretty obvious shortcomings in a lot of them.
1. Sky looks jank
2. Blurry/warped behind the horse
3. The head seems to move a lot more than the body. You could argue that this one is desirable
4. Bit of warping and ghosting around the edges of the flowers. Particularly noticeable towards the top of the image.
5. Very minor but the flowers move as if they aren't attached to the wall
Ah, fair enough! I read this as saying almost exactly that, but yeah, I get what you mean.
> but not appropriate for a mobile phone that you may want to operate untethered for hours at a time.
I do think this shifted a little when the first M1 Air came out. Anecdotally, many now associate it with being more than capable unless you’re an actual professional.
> In ensuing decades, high altitude electrical discharges were reported by aircraft pilots and discounted by meteorologists until the first direct visual evidence was documented in 1989.
This isn't a straw man - I'm not claiming you think life is all about movie optimization. I'm making the point that the effort of optimization might not be worth it in the broader context.
> Straw man again. And again -- why not choose quality instead of choosing ignorance and rolling the dice?
Also not a straw man. I'm illustrating that the downside of a bad movie is so minimal that extensive optimization might not be justified. This directly addresses your argument about opportunity cost by suggesting the cost is actually quite small.
> Again, straw man. Nobody's talking about ruining your life. But why intentionally choose a bad movie...?
Again, not a straw man. I'm making a proportionality argument about how much a sub-optimal movie experience actually matters in practice.
> To the contrary. For a lot of busy people, the plane is one of the few moments they have time to watch a movie. So it sure does apply.
Even on a plane, the stakes just aren't that high. A less-than-perfect movie isn't going to meaningfully impact your life regardless of how busy you are.
> You're arguing in favor of choosing bad things, because it's not going to ruin your life. Huh?
You're interpreting my position as "arguing in favor of choosing bad things," but that's just not accurate. I'm suggesting that the effort of optimization might outweigh the minimal downside of occasionally watching something mediocre. There's a middle ground between actively choosing bad things and obsessing over choosing only the very best.
There's a big difference between compensating skilled professionals for their work and running healthcare as a profit-maximizing business. Doctors deserve fair compensation for their expertise and time, just like any other skilled professional.
The issue with for-profit healthcare isn't about individual compensation - it's about corporate entities having the power to make sweeping decisions that affect access to healthcare. When large healthcare companies control substantial market share, they can unilaterally raise prices or restrict coverage in ways that leave patients with few alternatives. Unlike choosing a different doctor, patients often can't easily switch insurance providers or hospital systems, especially in emergencies or in areas with limited options.
I agree on money != success in a broader sense, but we live in a capitalistic society where wealth creation is possibly the top indicator of "success", so in that sense wealth captured and created is _the_ metric.
the same could be said for pretty much any change or update rolled out by any of these companies.