We have this in sweden and it works fine. I kinda think the US would be better off with this since it'd lead to less crime or lower costs to investigate it
It actually kind of did for a lot of people. Streaming was cheap, available, and convenient.
Now it's none of those three. Once again, choosing not to pirate is just an objectively wrong choice. It's a worse experience, with worse quality, worse availability, and at a higher price tag.
> Choosing not to pirate is just an objectively wrong choice. It's a worse experience, with worse quality, worse availability, and at a higher price tag.
Choosing not to pirate and not to consume simultaneously is not necessarily a wrong choice. A difficult one? Yes. But I propose that it could be beneficial for your mental (and maybe physical) health.
> Perfectly good excuse to make society worse for people
What an incredibly silly accusation to make of a company/service that streams movies and television. Like you understand it is possible to dilute the concept of civic responsibility right?
Companies don't care about society, unless it affects profit. Companies are not people, they are cold machines that through different means try to reach the same purpose, make more money.
No one should anthropomorphize companies. They might look like they have human qualities, same way like the T800 in the Terminator looked human.
Can you add more details? This seems to directly contradict GP. GP said ray tracing can do higher voxel counts = ray tracing is more performant (than rasterization).
"You're totally right in catching that mistake! The temperature is indeed one order of magnitude off. Let's walk through step by step what it should be:"
I think it's in large part just having to do with us developing our frontal cortex and like impulse control. I would have probably gotten dopamine addicted to it 15 years ago, as well as wouldn't have some nagging back-of-mind thoughts about having to use my time to be converted into money to survive at that age.
Check out Voxon [1]. From the specs and youtube videos it seems like it's working on the same principle (rotating LED screen). Fun fact, it was co-founded by none other than Ken Silverman (the creator of Build engine) [2]. They've been pushing commercialization of this technology for years now.
Also check out the company named "Light Field Displays" for stunning displays. Not exactly the same as volumetric. Arguably better in some ways. Definitely more expensive though.
Looking Glass displays (not the "hololuminescent" ones) solve many of the same things (multiple viewers, no glasses) while looking good, and in principle you could build a cube out of them, although the display can't be seen from the full 180 degrees.
It's probably good if some portion of the engineering culture is irrationally against AI and like refuses to adopt it sort of amish style. There's probably a ton still good work that can only be done if every aspect of a product/thing is given focused human attention to it, some that might out-compete AI aided ones.
I think you hit the nail in the head there. There's absolutely nothing we can do with AI that we can't do without it. And the level of understanding of a large codebase that a solid group of engineers has is paramount to moving fast once the product is live.
Crazy how we went from google feeling like they were a dinasour who could never catch up to openai, to almost feeling like the opposite in terms of being able to catch up. All within just 1-2 years.
Thats like innovators dillema in action. Google had one of the strongest ML teams years before majoriry of AI companies was founded, but no desire to make a product that will compete with their search.
reply