It's looking like a slightly updated reskin of chromeOS with gemini features built in.
Definitely not a developer machine based on how they presented it in google IO. So if you write software, it's not looking like it'll be relevant whatsoever. I hope to be proven wrong.
And one interesting aspect is the number of children getting these types of neutered machines as their first learning tool. I read another thread comment saying people that started with react actually feel that using straight html is more complicated. My professors say that the best textbook is the one you've read. The next generation is being indoctrinated into this way of thinking
as AI native developer I need VS code forks for AI to be pre-installed. Also every single command or work need to be vetted by AI by default. I am going hardcore now.
These models aren't products? They are open source ish (open weight I guess), research outputs. While the naming scheme may be confusing, it is relevant and important. I believe it's on you to understand it.
And you're absolutely right to point out they aren't products - I hoped that was clear - when you're building a product with them, you end up having to do the same build loop 4 times, in this instance :)
You can stop after the first one. Choosing to repeat the process is on you, and probably because you see some benefit in using the variant(s) you build on top of.
Yes my framing was a little confusing. You were clear in that you are building products on them.
I was more saying that because these gemma models are not products, and instead research outputs, the naming scheme should be more scientific rather than consumer friendly.
Am I correct in my understanding that- they had specialized software that not only tracked the ball, calculated spins using the logo, and fed calculated trajectories?
I would just think that taste has changed. I was actually thinking to myself that I prefer 2049's style as I was reading through this. But I was also born in the late 90's, so I assume it could be a generational difference.
It's not even so much that I like the taste / style of the fashion in the original Blade Runner, more that it just feels more real and interesting. The recent film feels like any other generic sci-fi movie.
> The recent film feels like any other generic sci-fi movie.
While that's true to some extent, as I noted in my sibling comment (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46775053), it's partly because 2049 lives in a world where, for over 30 years, most other sci-fi visions of urban environments were strongly influenced by OG Blade Runner. It's hard to appreciate how much the 1982 original visually impacted everything that came after.
Denis Villeneuve faced an almost impossible challenge in balancing faithfulness to the original production design while evolving the original's vision of 2019 forward 30 years to its own related but visually distinct descendant. Almost every visual choice risked either being "nearly a copy of the original" or "hardly related to the original".
I'm a huge fan of the original - so much so, in 1992 I bought a plane ticket to fly across the country for one evening just to see the limited run of the original "lost workprint" in Westwood. In 2017, I was so concerned any attempt at a sequel to such a seminal classic was doomed to fail that I didn't even go see 2049 until I heard reviews from fans I trust. I mean, for decades "Blade Runner Sequel" was a project no competent director would ever consider touching. I assumed anyone who would take the job was either incredibly arrogant, greedy or stupid. But Denis didn't need Blade Runner, being a huge fan, he wanted it.
I was pleasantly surprised that, given the near-impossible task, 2049 was a reasonable success on its own terms. Despite the limited budget, Denis managed to not only avoid tarnishing a classic, he did it credit by not camping on its coattails. And Roger Deacon's cinematography definitely deserved the Oscar he won. My only regret on 2049 is that Denis didn't get the budget he wanted. Another $5M and three weeks shooting would have gone a long way. But, like the original 2049 is remarkable, in part, because it's as good as it is despite being starved of adequate resources.
I don’t really think it’s as simple as BR1982 influencing everything else. Other movies that came out before it also had more interesting visual styles than movies being made today. For example: Escape from New York.
The more recent movie looks more minimal because Villenueve makes minimal looking movies. Personally I find it devoid of visual interest compared to the 80s films, especially the original BR. Even the “inspired” scenes like the market/food stalls are so lifeless in comparison.
Here are two clips to compare. The more recent film is typical of movies today: too digital, too clean, not enough movement or energy.
I think the visual differences broadly break into technical aspects (film grain, contrast) and aesthetic (composition, lighting, density, motion). A lot of modern viewers don't like film grain so any director not named Christopher Nolan, will get studio push back.
Personally, I'd prefer more grain texture in cinematic images but it's the era we live in, so I don't hate on BR 2049 for being an artifact of its era. It's nowhere near as bad as the visual sterile wipe that Wicked is. I do agree the compositional energy is a stylistic choice by Denis for this film. While Dune strikes a similar note visually, Sicario does get pretty kinetic at moments - so it's not his only note.
My main point was 2049 couldn't be the innovative, style-setting, visual sledghammer to that BR was - simply because there can only be one first and 2049 still had to be related to BR. Also, it's worth noting that the back story has much of Earth's population moving off-world in the 30 years since the original - as the constant ads in BR were urging. So by 2049 L.A. is no longer crowded. Most humans have already abandoned Earth, which is one reason replicants are openly doing work-a-day jobs.
Ultimately, I have so much reverence for the original as a visual seismic event still influencing films decades later, I went into 2049 with low expectations - which Villenueve managed to exceed. 2049 is nowhere near as great as the original, but I don't think there was any way it could have been - and very few films ever are. So it was enough that it didn't insult the original or stain its legacy. Then starting with a clean slate, by simply being pretty good, 2049 manages to be a reasonable success on its own terms - at least artistically.
Personally, I'm happy 2049 performed as poorly at the box office as the original. I still feel like BR fandom dodged a bullet with 2049, so it's good it didn't give Alcon aspirations of a 'cinematic universe' cash grab. Sadly, Alcon did sell a BR limited series to Amazon Prime that's in post-production. Absent Villenueve it's likely to suck, but hopefully it'll go away quickly and we can pretend it never happened.
- and thanks for the call back to Escape From New York, a film I saw on opening night at the Pantages in Hollywood.
Clothes in '80s were overall louder than the minimalist aesthetics of today. It all fits in with gen z's apprehension at being perceived, related to "cancel culture" and cameras everywhere.
reply