Thank you for leaning into the account name roleplay now and then :P

Honestly once they made it clear that holo-Thatcher was giving consent I thought they’d be redeemed in other’s eyes.

Science has gone too far

“for life” covers that eventuality :P

What about AV2 + Opus though!?

It’s a bit excessive for my taste as well. Traditionally if you felt the need to cut this much just to make the sentence come out the way you want, you’d just do another take instead of making this many cuts in post. Over-cutting of spacing also makes the pacing a bit too “word-vomit” rather than “polished” imo.

I imagine this is more normalized in stereotypically “zoomer” presentation of video content, but it might also just be this guy (or their editor’s) style.

It’s not the intended effect, but this just made me sad:

That really matters. Not because the internet is the most important issue facing us today. Far from it. Compared with the climate emergency, genocide, inequality, corruption, democratic backsliding, authoritarianism and sustained racist, homophobic, misogynist and transphobic attacks, the internet is just a sideshow. But the internet is the terrain upon which these fights will be waged. It is the communications medium we will use to organise to save our species and planet from their imminent eradication. We can’t win these fights without a free, fair and open internet.

It’s become increasingly difficult to imagine the sort of wide-scale change needed to achieve that vision actually happening.

Before posting I read the recent annual reports which she advertises having a hand in as part a push for greater transparency, but was still left very unsatisfied personally (half the budget – over $90 mil – just hand-waved away as “infrastructure” spending? Really?). So despite being an improvement, I didn’t feel that the CEO change has had much effect on the scales of “donate vs not”. Perhaps for others it might, but my comment still reflects my best judgement.

I simultaneously believe that Wikipedia is valuable and that it’s not clear that WMF needed $185 million dollars.

As far as I can tell the situation has not significantly changed since “the last time(s)” this was discussed. Wikipedia remains a valuable resource, and WMF continues to aggressively increase both spending and fundraising revenue. Whether you think that means you should donate or not is probably the same answer as it was several years ago for most individuals based on personal preferences.

edit: typo

It’s fine, it’s mostly just a federated software problem. For people on lemmy they can see the image itself in the UI.

For those who don’t see the image embedded, it’s this cursed URL: https://s2.qwant.com/thumbr/474x184/4/1/6e8510687c330d38e894f4a419f5068153b7312148590f6fca6b18001404db/OIP.JY7AimVCBQ6lSbPAKajQCQHaC4.jpg?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse.mm.bing.net%2Fth%2Fid%2FOIP.JY7AimVCBQ6lSbPAKajQCQHaC4%3Fpid%3DApi&q=0&b=1&p=0&a=0

Don’t worry, you can instead visit this reputable URL: https://cheap-bitcoin.online/scanner-hijacker/malicious-payload/trojan_extractor_tool.msi?firewall=tamper&id=11aa4591&origin=spoof&payload=(function(){+return+undefined%3B+})()%3B&sessiontoken=spoof&useragent=inject

( https://phishyurl.com/ via https://chaos.social/@FlohEinstein/115212955110814540 )

doesn’t allow filtering by number of users or amount of content

It does though?

https://instances.joinpeertube.org/instances?sort=-totalUsers https://instances.joinpeertube.org/instances?sort=-totalLocalVideos

I actually think this video is doing a pretty bad job of summarizing the practical-comparison part of the paper.

If you go here you can get a GitHub link which in turn has a OneDrive link with a dataset of images and textures which they used. (This doesn’t include some of the images shown in the paper - not sure why and don’t really want to dig into it because spending an hour writing one comment as-is is already a suspicious use of my time.)

Using the example with an explicit file size mentioned in the video which I’ll re-encode with Paint.NET trying to match the ~160KB file size:

• Original PNG (5,725,123 bytes) https://files.catbox.moe/l2wsxr.png
• Optimized PNG (5,579,693 bytes) https://files.catbox.moe/2dh00n.png
• Lossless WebP (4,504,946 bytes) https://files.catbox.moe/hiephv.webp
• Lossy WebP; default preset, quality 13 (162,820 bytes) https://files.catbox.moe/jnv4tp.webp
• JPEG XL; quality 12, effort 7 (164,859 bytes) https://files.catbox.moe/fylcqa.jxl (your browser probably can’t view this image)
• AVIF; lossless alpha compression [shouldn’t matter], quality 44, very slow preset, 4:2:0 chroma subsampling, preserve existing tile size, do not use premultiplied alpha (164,855 bytes) https://files.catbox.moe/u7q7dn.avif

Hadriscus has the right idea suggesting that JPEG is the wrong comparison, but this type of low-detail image at low bit rates is actually where AVIF rather than JPEG XL shines. The latter (for this specific image) looks a lot worse at the above settings, and WebP is generally just worse than AVIF or JPEG XL for compression efficiency since it’s much older. This type of image is also where I would guess this type of compression / reconstruction technique also does comparatively well.

But honestly, the technique as described by the paper doesn’t seem to be trying to directly compete against JPEG which is another reason I don’t like that the video put a spotlight on that comparison; quoting the paper:

We also include JPEG [Wallace 1991] as a conventional baseline for completeness. Since our objective is to represent high-resolution images at ultra-low bitrates, the allow-able memory budget exceeds the range explored by most baselines.

Most image compression formats (with AVIF being a possible exception) aren’t tailored for “ultra-low bitrates”. Nevertheless, here’s another comparison with the flamingo photo in the dataset where I’ll try to match the 0.061 bpp low-side bit rate target (if I’ve got my math right that’s 255,860.544 bits):

• Original PNG (2,811,804 bytes) https://files.catbox.moe/w72nsv.png
• AVIF; as above but quality 30 (31,238 bytes) https://files.catbox.moe/w2k2eo.avif
• JPEG XL could not go below ~36KB even at quality 0 when using my available encoder, so I considered it to fail this test
• JPEG (including when using MozJPEG, which is generally more efficient than “normal” JPEG) and WebP could only hit the target file size by looking garbage, so I considered them to fail this test out of hand

(Ideally I would now compare this image at some of the other, higher bpp targets but I am le tired.)

It looks like interesting research for low bit rate / low bpp compression techniques and is probably also more exciting for anyone in the “AI compression” scene, but I’m not convinced about “Intel Just Changed Computer Graphics Forever!” as the video title.

As an aside, every image in the supplied dataset looks weird to me (even the ones marked as photos), as though it were AI-generated or AI-enhanced or something - not sure if the authors are trying to pull a fast one or if misuse of generative AI has eroded my ability to discern reality 🤔

edit: to save you from JPEG XL hell, here’s the JPEG XL image which you probably can’t view, but losslessly re-encoded to a PNG: https://files.catbox.moe/8ar1px.png

Really wish they published the whole dataset. They don’t specify on the page or in the paper what the full set was like, and the GitHub repo only has one of the easy-to-read ones. If >=10% of the set is comprised of clock faces designed not to be readable then fair enough.

The human level accuracy is less than 90%!?

Anecdotally, quite a lot of users vote “selfishly” and don’t care that downvoting reduces visibility. all and local feeds also fall victim to people voting as if these are their own personal curated feeds.

And I hate it 🫠

“We’re going to collect as much data about you as we can to sell to advertisers”

That’s a rather pessimistic interpretation of a privacy policy that starts with this:

The spirit of the policy remains the same: we aren’t here to exploit you or your info. We just want to bring you great new videos and creators to enjoy, and the systems we build to do that will sometimes require stuff like cookies.

and which in section 10 (Notice for Nevada Residents) says:

We do not “sell” personal information to third parties for monetary consideration [as defined in Nevada law] […] Nevada law defines “sale” to mean the exchange of certain types of personal information for monetary consideration to another person. We do not currently sell personal information as defined in the Nevada law.

So yes, I suppose they may be selling personal information by some other definition (I don’t know the Nevada law in question). But it feels extremely aggressive to label it a “shithole” that “collect[s] as much data about you as we can to sell to advertisers” based on the text of the privacy policy as provided.

I guess perspective here depends on your anchoring point. I’m anchoring mostly on the existing platform (YouTube), and Nebula’s policy here looks better (subjectively much better) than what runs as normal in big tech. If your anchor is your local PeerTube instance with a privacy policy that wasn’t written by lawyers, I can see how you’d not be a fan.

However beyond being in legalese I’m not sure what part of it you find so bad as to describe it as a shithole. Even compared to e.g., lemmy.world’s privacy policy Nebula’s looks “good enough” to me. They collect slightly more device information than I wish they did and are more open to having/using advertising partners than I had expected (from what I know of the service as someone who has never actually used it) but that’s like… pretty tame compared what most of the big platforms have.

Nebula is a shithole, just have a glance at their privacy policy.

https://nebula.tv/privacy

It looks pretty run of the mill to me?