Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | MrMetlHed's commentslogin

Same experience for me. If I wake up but lie still it's not nearly as accurate. What I do find useful is the Body Battery score, that generally maps well to how I feel the next day. And the Stress Score is an eerily good indicator of when I'm getting sick and when the illness is stopping.


Power tool manuals are the worst.

Often times when I buy a kitchen appliance it has some basic info on all of the functionality and perhaps a nice recipe book. Vitamix stood out here, and Breville is mostly okay but could be better.

Power tools though. Dewalt has a folded up piece of paper in micro-font that has technical diagrams that are hard to read and understand. And forget about something like a "recipe" book for simple projects (even if it could be an upsell for another tool.)


Zwift is pretty great for all of that. The biggest challenge I had with the whole ecosystem is finding something that doesn't have a monthly sub. I don't really do a lot of the racing / social aspects -- and I really only use it in the Phoenix summer when it's just too hot to go outside and hike. What I've found that works for me is cancelling Zwift in the cooler weather and using courses and workouts on my Garmin watch or Edge computer, which works and is free.


But isn't the screen totally useless without a sub? I don't know enough about Peloton, but I thought you couldn't really do much with it other than ride the thing without subscribing. I guess a jailbreak for the screen (is it Android?) could be pretty useful if you want to put an entirely different UI on the thing and use it with alternatives.


Have I got a game for you: https://www.gtbikev.com/


Thumbs Up Emoji Intensifies.


Zwift, maybe. But you need / should have a power meter to do that properly, and it works way better with a trainer that can adjust resistance on its own.


I was just delighted that "free little dude" worked on rescuing the creature early on in that game. It's also the first game I've ever played of the sort (as like a ten-year-old) and I spent weeks and weeks with it.


It'd be fine to not negotiate if you weren't going to use a voice that sounded famous. If I were offering something that let you make any kind of voice you want, I would definitely not market any voice that sounded familiar in any way. Let the users do that (which would happen almost immediately after launch). I would use a generic employee in the example, or the CEO, or I'd go get the most famous person I could afford that would play ball. I would then make sure the marketing materials showed the person I was cloning and demonstrated just how awesome my tool was at getting a voice match.

What I wouldn't do is use anything that remotely sounds famous. And I would definitely not use someone that said "no thanks" beforehand. And I would under no circumstances send emails or messages suggesting staff create a voice that sounds like someone famous. Then, and only then, would I feel safe in marketing a fake voice.


Sounds judicious. You probably wouldn't get sued, and would prevail if sued. However, the question of how much human voice space Scarlett can lay claim to remains unsettled. Your example suggests that it might be quite a bit, if law and precedent causes people to take the CYA route.

Consider the hypothetical: EvilAI, Inc. would secretly like to piggyback on the success of Her. They hire Nancy Schmo for their training samples. Nancy just happens to sound mostly like Scarlett.

No previous negotiations, no evidence of intentions. Just a "coincidental" voice doppelganger.

Does Scarlett own her own voice more than Nancy owns hers?

Put another way: if you happen to look like Elvis, you're not impersonating him unless you also wear a wig and jumpsuit. And the human look-space is arguably much bigger than the voice-space.


> However, the question of how much human voice space Scarlett can lay claim to remains unsettled

I don't think it's that unsettled, at least not legally. There seems to be precedent for this sort of thing (cf. cases involving Bette Midler or Tom Waits).

I think the hypothetical you create is more or less the same situation as what we have now. The difference is that there maybe isn't a paper trail for Johansson to use in a suit against EvilAI, whereas she'd have OpenAI dead to rights, given their communication history and Altman's moronic "Her" tweet.

> Does Scarlett own her own voice more than Nancy owns hers?

Legally, yes, I believe she does.


There are other ways public figures are treated differently in the courts in the US. It's much more difficult for them to prove libel or slander, for instance. They have to prove actual malice and intent, whereas a private citizen just has to prove negligence. I imagine "owning" their likeness at a broader sense is the flip side of that coin.


I know toying with these edge cases is the “curious” part of HN discussions, but I can’t help but think of this xkcd: https://xkcd.com/1494/


HN discussions, grad school case studies, and Supreme Court cases alike. Bad cases make bad laws, edge cases make extensive appeals.


Would love to see this get far enough for discovery to see how that all played out behind the scenes.


They’ll settle as soon as they figure that out. Idiot tax.


She has no incentive to settle and actually could win big by being the figurehead of the creative industry against AI. It’s understandable why she accepted a settlement from Disney, but there’s no reason why she should settle with a random startup that has no other influence on her employability in Hollywood.


And plenty of her peers have been fighting against AI content harvesting in their recent contract negotiations[1].

1. https://apnews.com/article/hollywood-ai-strike-wga-artificia...


OpenAI will settle, not sure how you read that in reverse.


Settling isn't unilateral. OpenAI can offer to settle, but if she doesn't accept, there will be no settlement.


I also said “they” instead of “her”, I’m confused as to why anybody misinterpreted what I said.


Everyone knows what you meant. But it’s not up to them to “settle”. If she brings forward a formal complaint they can offer to but she has no obligation or incentive to accept.

This may turn out to be something they can’t just buy their way out of with no other consequences.


She has a net worth of $100-$200m dollars. I doubt she wants $5-10m more.

OpenAI cannot hurt her standing in the industry— in fact, “ScarJo takes on Big Tech and wins”, in an era after the Hollywood unions called a strike and won protections from studios using generative AI for exactly this scenario, is ironically probably one of the best thing she can do for her image right now.

She is also one of the most litigious actresses in the industry, taking on Disney and winning what’s estimated to be 8 figures.

Good luck OpenAI!


Being stuck in a free GSuite legacy account is even worse. Migrating to a regular Google account seems impossible (moving everything, losing purchases, changing my YouTubeTV and Google Fi subscriptions) and I get every feature later, if at all (can't use YouTubeTV Family Sharing, for example.) But I'm stuck for the most part! By the time it's available for me, I'll have forgotten about Gemini altogether.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: