Goddamn that was poetic, ya cunt.

Eh, this seems a little half-assed, IMO. There's no adjustment for error magnitude in relation to the rest of the video content. If they fuck up a basic stat on an informational video, it can easily have a more significant effect of viewers than a major error on a niche topic in a long, multi-topic video.

This works into the whole prioritization portion of the post. Many of the things they classify as "low severity" and only warranting a pinned comment could lead to completely different behavior. Example:

1. Very Low Severity

• The statement could possibly be misunderstood, but it’s generally true and most people would be fine with how it’s currently presented.
• eg. The host says, “One of DisplayPort’s main advantages over HDMI is its higher bandwidth,” but this is only true when comparing certain generations of the standards. HDMI 2.1, for example, has much higher bandwidth than DP 1.1.

If the whole video is on the differences between HDMI and DP, this statement is completely opposite of the truth on a basic, primary statistic. The connector's ONLY purpose is to transfer data, which is rate and bandwidth. The erroneous statement is an absolute - something IS something. All LTT needs to do is add, "some versions" or "generally". THEN it becomes a softer interpretation error.

• DP's bandwidth is GENERALLY higher than HDMI's? Let me look up when this statement doesn't hold true...
• DP bandwidth IS HIGHER than HDMI? Guess I don't need to look up that info because they're presenting it as a universal truth.

Purchasing decision time... That GPU has 3x HDMI and 1x DP ports? Well, I'm not sure about these other stats, but I know that HDMI sucks compared to DP, so I can eliminate all the GPUs with more HDMI ports than DP ports. I guess I'm getting this 5 year old GPU with 1xHDMI and 3x DP ports instead.

If that mistake was in a 30 minute news video covering 8 stories and the statement was an aside, okay, maybe a pinned comment.

In reality, all these errors should be easy to correct, but that's hampered by YouTube's tools. LTT should be able to replace a small segment of video with a cut away to stock or b-roll and a voiceover with the correct information. But, you can't do that on YT.

Another alternative, if the information is insignificant enough for only a pinned comment, is to simply mute that 2-3 seconds of video. If the misstatement was significant enough that muting it makes the rest of the video tough to follow, then the mistake wasn't small enough for a pin.

It's like a watermelon on a toothpick. I bet he was going home to cry on his oversized pillow.

Ugh, you just had to say "anti-vax" for most people to know he's a certified stooge or a turbo-dumbfuck.

I think it's hard to go wrong with Murakami. I don't remember much TEV specifically, but I remember enjoying it.

Thanks.That's kinda what I thought, but assumed I was missing something with the amount of attention the transfer of this one weapon platform has received. I guess it's also symbolic of the level of commitment by NATO, since it's not just a few planes, but also ammo plus training plus support framework.

I'm glad we're not just throwing ammo at the situation and wishing Ukraine the best of luck, though I do wish we were doing more.

One thing I've missed in the discussion of sending F-16s is the role they'll play.

From what I've seen, Russia still has significant air defense capabilities, and they launch air fired weapons from deep in their own territory. So, if the F-16s can't get too far upfield, due to defenses, and there isn't much they can do in air-to-air combat, what advantage do they have over longer range artillery?

I see nothing fnord unusual about it.

Oh, here we are - another day and ANOTHER Reddit vs Fediverse meme! I'm soooo sick of all these extremely accurate memes being posted by so many beautiful and intelligent people on here. I bet you even smell good! The nerve of some people...

That's a pretty good list. I have a few differences in how I look at lists like this, though.

I generally lump major series together, unless there's a real standout entry or a long series. So I agree with having just Star Trek 2 in it, but think Star Wars 4 and 5 should occupy 1 spot and include ROTJ. For cases like Terminator, where there are a ton of crap movies, I'd put the original and 2 in a single slot.

There are a bunch of classic movies missing, too. Soylent Green, Invasion of the Body Snatchers, Forbidden Planet, Metropolis, etc. Personally, I'd have Dark City, The Last Starfighter, Short Circuit, maybe Iron Man, Black Panther, or Age of Ultron (some Marvel entry). A nod to anime should also be in there, even if it's just Akira. Others I'd might have in there if I ever sat down to rank these things in order: Total Recall, The Running Man, The Lawnmower Man, Cube, THX 1138, The Fly, MiB, Mad Max, The Thing, Close Encounters

Probably not making the list, but noteworthy conceptually: Minority Report, Johnny Mnemonic, Contact, Children of Men, Contact, Donnie Darko, Looper,

If they want to include movies that were great within their times or some specific context, the original animated Transformers was a crazy, but noteworthy departure from the franchise's previous media. Galaxy Quest and Space Balls aren't philosophical masterpieces, but definitely high on my list.

For kid friendly stuff, Batteries Not Included, Space Camp, Flight of the Navigator, and E.T.

I... I'm speechless.

Although, as a professional internet nitpicker, I have top s say I'm surprised he didn't go into color theory more. Easy 45 minutes of additional content there. (I guess he touched on it, but there's so much more.)

Now I remember why I looked at lasagna cat a few years ago and, after a minute or two, decided to set it aside. There's a whole lifetime's worth of content to drown in.

Counterpoint - yes.

Generally, if someone's being a total asshole so severely that they have to be yeeted with several thousand other unaware bystanders, I expect to see a bunch of examples within the first... 2, maybe 3, links.

If someone can point me to a concise list of examples (actual data), I find it more disturbing that an admin on another server can yeet my account because they make noise on a discord server.I mean, yes, federating is a feature, but why even offer the ability to enroll users? Maybe for a group of friends, or something, but just rando users is nothing but a liability to everyone involved.

Oh, I understand the tactics being used. I was implying that person c was obviously stalking person a and pounced the moment they did something less than perfect.

My guess is there isn't anything of substance, so person c's sensitivity got amplified with time and obsessing over whatever is going on, leading them to overreact. But, not c has to double down if they want any chance of being taken seriously if a significant cause to defederate occurs.

I got around 5 links deep for each of the links in the admin's post, and fuck if I know. There was an argumentative user, but they were articulate and thoughtful. Not dropping slurs or wasting space nonsense, but still bordering on "edgy". The person pushing the defederation appeared to be bullying them and on a power trip.

It was embarrassing. That's all I took away. (My opinion can change if someone digs through the shitpiles of nothingness to pull up some actual naughty posts, but that's not going to be me.)

I almost thought I had written your comment and completely forgot about it. No, I just almost made the exact comment and want that hour of my life back.

If there was some over the top racist rant, I sure didn't see it. And the admin pushing for the defederation sounds so bizarre. Bizarre is the best word I could come up with because "petty" makes me think it was like high school politics. This is closer to a grade school sandbox argument.

The worst I saw was "defedfags" and it was used in a way that was meant to highlight how they never said anything offensive. Like saying, "If you thought what I said before was offensive, let's see how you respond to something intended to be negative."

The crazy thing is that the decision is being made because the admin just liked a post. It's not even because of the post content - which has nothing controversial and appeared maybe 8 times in my Lemmy/kbin feed yesterday.

Editing to add that this is the article: https://kbin.social/search?q=wakeup+call

I'm not sure if it helps, but I wonder if this is linked to the inactivity error.

Load up any kbin thread or main page, open a new browser tab in the foreground, me around in the non-kbin tab for 15-30 minutes, and return to the kbin tab. Now any clicks on 'actions' (voting, posting, basically sending info to the server) sends you to an error page. Whatever info you were sending doesn't register (vote count or highlight, posts don't show up, etc.

I didn't have any logout problems at all until maybe a week ago. Since then I've been logged out 5+ times.

Not a big problem for me, but I could see it annoying others.

Agreed. I'm in my 40s, and I've never seen anywhere near the level of subsurface signaling and intentional complacency we're experiencing now.

Well, terrorists became boring, and they still want the loony wing of the GOP's clicks, so best to back off on Nazis and pro-Russians, leaving pedophiles as the safest bet.

At first glance, I probably thought JXL was another attempt at JPEG2000 by a few bitter devs, so I had ignored it.

Yeah, my examples/description was more intended to be conceptual for folks that may not have dealt with the nitty gritty. Just mental exercises. I've only done a small bit of image analysis, so I have a general understanding of what's possible, but I'm sure there are folks here (like you) that can waaay outclass me on details.

These intermediate-to-deep dives are very interesting. Not usually my cup of tea, but this does seem big. Thanks for the info.

(fair warning - I go a little overboard on the examples. Sorry for the length.)

No idea on the details, but apparently it's more efficient for multithreaded reading/writing.

I guess that you could have a few threads reading the file data at once into memory. While one CPU core reads the first 50% of the file, and second can be reading in the second 50% (though I'm sure it's not actually like that, but as a general example). Image compression usually works some form of averaging over an area, so figuring out ways to chop the area up, such that those patches can load cleanly without data from the adjoining patches is probably tricky.

I found this semi-visual explanation with a quick google. The image in 3.4 is kinda what I'm talking about. In the end you need equally sized pixels, but during compression, you're kinda stretching out the values and/or mapping of values to pixels.

Not an actual example, but highlights some of the problems when trying to do simultaneous operations...

Instead of pixels 1, 2, 3, 4 being colors 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, you apply a function that assigns the colors 1.1, 1.25, 1.25, 1.4. You now only need to store the values 1.1, 1.25, 1.4 (along with location). A 25% reduction in color data. If you wanted to cut that sequence in half for 2 CPUs with separate memory blocks to read at once, you lose some of that optimization. Now CPU1 and CPU2 need color 1.25, so it's duplicated. Not a big deal in this example, but these bundles of values can span many pixels and intersect with other bundles (like color channels - blue can be most efficiently read in 3 pixels wide chunks, green 2 pixel wide chunks, and red 10 pixel wide chunks). Now where do you chop those pixels up for the two CPUs? Well, we can use our "average 2 middle values in 4 pixel blocks" approach, but we're leaving a lot of performance on the table with empty or useless values. So, we can treat each of those basic color values as independent layers.

But, now that we don't care how they line up, how do we display a partially downloaded image? The easiest way is to not show anything until the full image is loaded. Nothing nothing nothing Tada!

Or we can say we'll wait at the end of every horizontal line for the values to fill in, display that line, then start processing the next. This is the old waiting for the picture to slowly load in 1 line at a time cliche. Makes sense from a human interpretation perspective.

But, what if we take 2D chunks and progressively fill in sub-chunks? If every pixel is a different color, it doesn't help, but what about a landscape photo?

First values in the file: Top half is blue, bottom green. 2 operations and you can display that. The next values divide the halves in half each. If it's a perfect blue sky (ignoring the horizon line), you're done and the user can see the result immediately. The bottom half will have its values refined as more data is read, and after a few cycles the user will be able to see that there's a (currently pixelated) stream right up the middle and some brownish plant on the right, etc. That's the image loading in blurry and appearing to focus in cliche.

All that is to say, if we can do that 2D chunk method for an 8k image, maybe we don't need to wait until the 8k resolution is loaded if we need smaller images for a set. Maybe we can stop reading the file once we have a 1024x1024 pixel grid. We can have 1 high res image of a stoplight, but treat is as any resolution less than the native high res, thanks to the progressive loading.

So, like I said, this is a general example of the types of conditions and compromises. In reality, almost no one deals with the files on this level. A few smart folks write libraries to handle the basic functions and everyone else just calls those libraries in their paint, or whatever, program.

Oh, that was long. Um, sorry? haha. Hope that made sense!

To be fair, the 80s were known for having commercials earlier in the day for the channel's newscasts that stoked fear. "5 items in your kitchen could kill everyone you've ever loved. Tune in to STFU News at 6 for more information."

Oh, I've just been toying around with Stable Diffusion and some general ML tidbits. I was just thinking from a practical point of view. From what I read, it sounds like the files are smaller at the same quality, require the same or less processor load (maybe), are tuned for parallel I/O, can be encoded and decoded faster (and there being less difference in performance between the two), and supports progressive loading. I'm kinda waiting for the catch, but haven't seen any major downsides, besides less optimal performance for very low resolution images.

I don't know how they ingest the image data, but I would assume they'd be constantly building sets, rather than keeping lots of subsets, if just for the space savings of de-duplication.

(I kinda ramble below, but you'll get the idea.)

Mixing and matching the speed/efficiency and storage improvement could mean a whole bunch of improvements. I/O is always an annoyance in any large set analysis. With JPEG XL, there's less storage needed (duh), more images in RAM at once, faster transfer to and from disc, fewer cycles wasted on waiting for I/O in general, the ability to store more intermediate datasets and more descriptive models, easier to archive the raw photo sets (which might be a big deal with all the legal issues popping up), etc. You want to cram a lot of data into memory, since the GPU will be performing lots of operations in parallel. Accessing the I/O bus must be one of the larger time sinks and CPU load becomes a concern just for moving data around.

I also wonder if the support for progressive loading might be useful for more efficient, low resolution variants of high resolution models. Just store one set of high res images and load them in progressive steps to make smaller data sets. Like, say you have a bunch of 8k images, but you only want to make a website banner based on the model from those 8k res images. I wonder if it's possible to use the the progressive loading support to halt reading in the images at 1k. Lower resolution = less model data = smaller datasets to store or transfer. Basically skipping the downsampling.

Any time I see a big feature jump, like better file size, I assume the trade off in another feature negates at least half the benefit. It's pretty rare, from what I've seen, to have improvements on all fronts.

We all have 21 dives in the 14 oceans.

I've seen nothing about neurodivergent harassing here.

Harassing assholes? Sure. Perhaps yo have trouble separating the two?

Even better, this must be fantastic when you're training AI models with millions of images. The compression level AND performance should be a game changer.

Yeah, that looks more reasonable. The original graph makes it look like there have been ~5x the number of deaths in the last few years compared to ~10 years ago. Adjusted for population growth, it's ~2-3x.

That's still really concerning and makes the point the article was making, while being much more accurate and defensible when scrutinized. Thanks for that!

Thank you so much for this! It reminded me to revisit my library's general resources and look specifically for which archive collections they had available. I'm 1 state over, so I figured there was a good chance we would have Newspapers.com Library Edition access here.

The main/default collection my library sent me to was no help, but they had a Newspapers.com Library Edition portal listed further down. Final-fucking-ly got it. I really, really appreciate the help.

I'm sure it's a fine service, if you want to use it regularly, but I just wanted 1 tiny thing. If they had a $1 for an obit or a page deal, sure. Instead, there's this whole microcosm of bullshit where some are archived, others available, some omitted from public collections, some on different 3rd party sites, etc.

The family paid for an obit. It wasn't in the 1800s. The paper has been digitized. I should be able to go to the paper with the name, exact date, and city and find it. They literally say it doesn't exist. Not that it's on our archive site or our partner site, just nothing.

I would have thrown a couple bucks to any of the sites for access, but no, I need to sign up for a subscription, give them all my details, get spam calls for the next 100 years, just no. Super frustrating.

Exactly. I stumbled across this report from the AZ Dept of Health which breaks it down into per 100k people and the data still supports the author's point. The report then goes on to divide up the population by age, residents vs visitors, county, etc.

Hell, the FT author could have just included a plot of the population growth, which was pretty linear. Not great, but better than nothing.

Grinds my gears.

Just thought I'd add this report from the AZ health department. This breaks down the factors MUCH better and comes to a similar, but not quite as extreme, conclusion. Only part is normalized for population, but it gives an idea of how to scale the numbers.

Yes. Hot air is thinner, so there's less lift on aircraft wings. There's actually a conversion they're supposed to use that basically says, 'At this temp, treat the plane as if it's actually at this other, much higher, altitude."

Here's one of the recent videos I've seen mentioning it (around 5 min in they mention the "density altitude"). I'm not a pilot and just find the stuff interesting.

I'm not advocating for better or worse. In the end, the data shows what it shows. I'm just saying that there was essentially no "analysis", making any interpretation inappropriate.

Hey, more people should survive, thanks to newer medical treatments and more concentration of populations around cities.

On the flip side, there's a larger portion of the population that's older and from out of state.

In between there's the chance that the threat of heat-related health problems should be much diminished due to widespread access to air conditioning. But, that also means more people haven't had first hand experience with heat exhaustion/stroke, and don't realize how quickly things can go from kinda bad to dead.

Yeah, it can be as simple as the death certificates requiring only a primary cause of death.

Old man collapses from a heart attack while trying to change a tire on a hot desert road? Cause of death: heart attack. If more details are requested, they could probably get away with just claiming age-related health issues. The guy is dead, no foul play, the case is closed.

The libs are making us slaves to those damn thermomasters! They better not take away my freedom to boil off those 3 remaining brain cells!

Very much this, and especially over this period. More universal diagnostics, more emphasis on secondary causes and contributors, etc.

And it works the other way, too. Fewer people should die per capita based on faster EMS response times, better medicine, more urban living, etc.

The big one for me is age. I never really heard of people retiring to Arizona until the late 90s. It was always Florida before then. The over 50 crowd is 36% now vs 23% in 1970.

I agree. And shit like this makes me trust financial reporting in general. It's akin to not accounting for inflation in financial graphs.

And yes, the risk adjustment can be as complex as they want to make it, but when I clicked, I was expecting a study of some type. Probably my bias kicking in. My first thought was, "Are they kidding?" Then I saw it was from a news source and thought, "Oh, okay... no wait. Still, they know this is bad, right?"

Still gets those nummy clicks, I guess.

I'm 110% on board with global warming, but this graph is misleading.

The author needs to at least correct for population changes (heat deaths per X residents). Even better would be to account for changing demographics, like age and county. From this random stats website, it looks like there has been a dramatic increase in proportion of older residents since 1970. Old people are more likely to die, so more elders = more deaths.

If I wasn't about to head to bed, I might try to fix it, but.... sleep.

Oh, and I'm pretty sure there has been an increase in small plane crashes in AZ. The hot air is much thinner than most pilots are used to, so they tend to forget accounting for changes in thrust and climb rates. I'm pretty sure a couple happened in just the last few weeks.

Haha, that just made my day. I'm among my own kind here.