Well, if you have a lot of hair to play around with, you can just try it without much risk. I cut my own hair (male, short hair) but I find it really difficult to manipulate scissors or clippers while looking in the mirror. I also can’t really do the back of my head so I have to get someone to help me.
Just be ready to clean up, because hair will fly all over the place if you aren’t careful.
What you are looking for is a monitor. A TV will be filled with features.
Chickpeas. They have so much fiber. And they taste awesome when prepared well.
I would expect most of the cars to be stolen
I started with Rufus as well, but then I just uninstalled things directly through Windows and went through the settings to disable everything I didn’t want. Probably safer than using 3rd party applications to remove things. I also use Openshell to replace the start menu. If you change the time and currency settings during install, that apparently disabled some things as well. See here And if you don’t want to set up a Microsoft account, just stay disconnected from Internet during install, it will let you just set up a local account.
I feel like the deployment shouldn’t be too difficult. I have the game Street Fighter 6 on steam, and there is an option in the steam menu for whether to download single player content or not. If you disable it, you can save about 20gb, and of course it is enabled by default. I feel like the exact same process could be used for the high end texture packs. Most users would just download everything by default, but if you are someone who cares about your disk space, you could just easily disable it. It would just be on the devs to implement it.
My understanding is that the vast majority of space is dedicated to high resolution textures. I don’t have a 4k monitor and I don’t need ultra high fidelity textures. Why can’t they just be an additional download rather than a required part?
I think 50gb is a fairly reasonable max size for most games.
Well, it took them long enough. The container has been around for over 20 years now.
You never know what the future holds. Much better to work now while you are in a good position to do so, than to be forced to work later on, when you have been out of the workforce for years.
Most people don’t love their job.
Maruchan for sure
That would depend entirely on WHAT its doing. I have not personally seen any of these videos yet, but based on what was described in the article, I would imagine that a typical CPU would not be able to handle it.
You are right that nvidia cards can do it for games using DLSS. Nvidia also has a version called RTX video that works for video. But are they could to be dedicating hardware for playback every single time a user requests to play a short? That is significantly different than just serving a file to the viewer. If they had all of these Nvidia cards laying around, they surely have better things that they could use them for. To be clear here, the ONLY thing I am taking issue with is a comment that it seems that youtube may be upscaling videos on the fly (as opposed to upscaling them once when they are uploaded, and then serving that file 1 million times). I’m simply saying that it makes a hell of a lot more sense any day of the week to upscale a file one time than to upscale it 1 million times.
While it could theoretically be done on device, it would require the device to have dedicated hardware that is capable of doing the processing, so it would only work on a limited number of devices. It would be pretty easy to test this if a known modified video were available.
They could do that without upscaling. Upscaling every video only fly would cost an absolute shit ton of money, probably more than they would be making from the ad. There is no scenario where they wouldn’t just upscale it one time and store it.
It would not make any sense for them to be upscaled on the fly. It’s a computationally intensive operation, and storage space is cheap. Is there any evidence of it being done on the fly?
I don’t remember if it was 2nd or 3rd grade, but I just memorized them. My grandmother bought flash cards and drilled them with me every day until I had memorized them all.
In the early days, game shows were sometimes rigged. Then laws were passed in the USA requiring fair play. So, no I don’t think it’s rigged. I don’t watch the show often, but I have definitely seen people lose.
I think this is a bad faith argument because it focuses specifically on chatgpt and how much resources it uses. The article itself even goes on to say that this is actually only 1-3% of total AI use.
People don’t give a shit about chatgpt specifically. When they complain about chatgpt they are using it as a surrogate for ai in general.
And yes, the amount of electricity from ai is quite significant. https://www.iea.org/news/ai-is-set-to-drive-surging-electricity-demand-from-data-centres-while-offering-the-potential-to-transform-how-the-energy-sector-works
It projects that electricity demand from data centres worldwide is set to more than double by 2030 to around 945 terawatt-hours (TWh), slightly more than the entire electricity consumption of Japan today. AI will be the most significant driver of this increase, with electricity demand from AI-optimised data centres projected to more than quadruple by 2030.
I’m not opposed to ai, I use a lot of AI tools locally on my own PC. I’m aware of how little electricity they consume when I am just using for a few minutes a day. But the problem is when it’s being crammed into EVERYTHING, I can’t just say I’m generating a few images per day or doing 5 LLM queries. Because it’s running on 100 Google searches that I perform, every website I visit will be using it for various purposes, applications I use will be implementing it for all kinds of things, shopping sites will be generating images of every product with me in the product image. AI is popping up everywhere, and the overall picture is that yes, this is contributing significantly to electricity demand, and the vast majority of that is not for developing new drugs, it’s for stupid shit like preventing me from clicking away from Google onto the website that they sourced an answer from.
Yet another reason to be skeptical of reviews is that they are heavily weighed towards first impressions. So if someone gets a product and it works great, they might go and immediately leave a glowing review for it. But if it breaks 6 months later due to poor manufacturing quality, a lot of people aren’t going to go back and update their review.