Adds complexity, cost, and clutter. Meanwhile, the living situations of many (most?) people forbid it; no big-kicking subwoofers in apartments and condos, and you're probably keeping the volume at polite levels.
And for all that, it's likely still not up to par with a theater, unless you geeked out on a dedicated theater room.
I've noticed this, too, and have likened it to haircuts: If you gave yourself a haircut, you don't say so, because it inevitably opens the door to a level of scrutiny and criticism that it wouldn't otherwise.
People are just going to lie about using AI and honestly that's fine. An even older idiom is that you don't want to see how the sausage gets made. Not if you enjoy sausage.
Lie was probably the wrong word. Secrecy about how work is done is and has always been normal. Not saying anything at all if you're not obligated to is totally fair and, yes, fine. AI doesn't change that.
We frown on people who pass off something they didn’t do or make as the fruit of their labor.
AI isn’t good enough yet to make things autonomously, so someone who harnesses AI to make something can, at least in my eyes, claim they made it (AI isn’t just a tool).
If and when AI becomes autonomous, the human ceases to be the creator in my view since they are no longer in the creation loop. Then you cannot pretend you made the thing.
I've been called out previously here for having unknowingly introduced some undefined terms to readers, and which they found to be perplexing.
And I took that to heart, because I don't want my words to be perplexing. I instead want them to be clear and easily understood.
In my corner of the world, I haven't held a mimeographed document in my hands for ~35 years. I found it reasonable to assume that a non-zero amount of people here might find the term to be unfamiliar.
So I provided definition of the term on the basis that it may be unknown to some readers, and that more information is better than inadequate information.
In this instance I would have preferred to use hyperlinked text for visual brevity, but that's not a thing on HN. The normal and accepted style on HN consists instead of using footnotes.
And at this point, generating footnotes is nearly entirely muscle memory for me. So a footnote (with a URL) was included.
Thank you for your attention on this matter, fsckboy. I'm pleased to discover that you've found my footnote to be so unusually compelling.
I didn't downvote or anything, but I read the article a few hours ago and felt the information in that article is only political. If we're talking about destruction, ecological or of heritage, your choice not in whether it happens, but how much and where. Consequently, I feel that the stated reasons of political action groups are usually myopic at best. But really, I always suspect they're speaking in bad faith.
If you really care about animals, plants, or archeology, you're probably not a fan of coal or natural gas, which are obviously destructive of geology and habitats, and that's _without_ getting into more nebulous and catastrophic climate stuff.
I tried digging deeper into understanding the opposition's arguments. I do understand my article was light on details & as you stated, fairly politicized arguments.
Based on my research, 1/3 of the land that would have had major construction disturbances effecting plants & archeology. A fair counter argument is that construction crews deal with archeology all the time. I would also assume it should be fairly easy to take rare plants into account & make sure there is an equal amount grown & taken care of after construction is completed. I don't know what plants they are concerned about, but solar farms do improve a lot of vegetation by offering shade & reducing evaporation.
The entire area was to be fenced off which would prevent big horn sheep migration. It seems no pathways were offered to be built to help with migration of animals. This seems like something that could be fairly easy to do though it would add expense of fencing & reduce some solar panels possibly.
Calling it "the perfume industry" is a half truth. It's the flavoring industry, but it so happens that there's a lot of overlap between perfume and flavoring in terms of raw materials.
However, flavoring is a distinct profession. Besides that, very few novel compounds are allowed in food compared to fragrance. If any flavoring is synthetic in origin (which is not the same thing as novel, to be clear) then the product must be labeled as artificially flavored. If they call the product 100% juice and added flavoring is used, then that flavoring in turn has to have been sourced from the fruit.
In other words, they're using extracts from real oranges to reconstitute the flavor lost during pasteurization. They can further adjust which parts of the extract they use (called fractions and isolates) to dial in a particular flavor.
I appreciate the nuance! My intention was to show that there's a surprising amount of correction for flavor and taste necessary even for one-ingredient "natural" foods.
But there is a clear public health trade-off there, because far fewer people will drink O.J. if that work is required (vs. just pouring it out of a carton).
I don't disagree that Fox News is problematic for lots of reasons and I also have personal grievances with how they and similar outlets have affected several members of my family. That said, it's become folk knowledge that Fox News doesn't even think they're news, but that's simply a misunderstanding of the case. There's a tiny bit of irony that there are those who are patting themselves on the back for being above misinformation and getting this important detail wrong.
I've seen the actual news that comes from them and while it's certainly biased rightward, particularly in what they choose to report on, it's not outrageously so.
It takes an incredible lack of awareness or intellectual honesty to hold Fox news to this standard, but not CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, and ABC, or, if we include print media, the NYT, the Washington Post, the Guardian, Reuters, AP, Axios, LA Times, and the Atlantic.
reply