If they knew what all of the 0.x breaking changes were going to be ahead of time they wouldn't need to be trying out different choices to see how well they really pan out!
The Wii is just barely within the last 2 decades but it does very much struggle with 480p decoding of most anything (and even sweats a decent amount on 240p) as it was pretty low end for even 20 years ago.
> "Master" didn't really make sense. It was supposed to mean one thing that controls another thing (the slave), but nothing ever works out that way in reality.
I always thought it took, pretty directly, the 1st meaning in https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/master_copy, which does fit the ultimate definition as it's the copy all of the edits follow from until they are merged at which point they become the new master edit and the following edits become based off of it. Same of branches, just on a large scale of edits.
That's why one is called the golden master and the other is a master, not much to confuse. The "golden" is what signifies the unique meaning, i.e. the final, that both are masters is an accurate takeaway.
Main (or most any other common primary branch name) can have equally trivial confusions that are not actual problems. The endless debates about branch names didn't come about because people were so confused we needed something else to stop the madness, they came about because people were convinced they could find a problem to need to fix. Any of these branch names work equally fine, it really doesn't matter and there is no deeper logic needed to justify why we switched.
I don't think anyone is trying to have you get rid of the subscription option in order to have the non-subscription option. Same with defendending the good value - whether it's subscription or not is orthogonal with whether it's priced reasonably.
Low cost subscriptions as the only options can also give multiple vibes, not just one intended one, as well. The one you highighlight is somewhat optimistic takeaway "the publisher is fair with this price and I only need to pay for however much I actually use - what a great guarantee this will be good for the long run".
Another valid takeaway is basically the opposite "It's not clear if the publisher is committed to this software. The only payment option they think they can sell is for just $10 and are only showing commitment in being around for up to just 1 year - are they really confident in the product or value"? Even more doubtful are those suspicious of new dealings "It's fair enough now but do I really want to get used to it for a year and then the price is jacked up by renewal?" (this can be solved with more than a non-subscription option too. E.g. longer term subscriptions, only if you truly are trying to advertise "years of support to come" can help provide the feeling of commitment).
Even in the case one wants to start/stick with the subscription having a lifetime and/or versioned option only adds more to all of the things you listed as reasons for offering a subscription alone. E.g. seeing that "lifetime is equal to at least x years" or "y year term subscription" and then the user going with the 1 year subscription is strictly better signaling to them than just having a 1 year subscription.
The only thing suspicious from your comment is the current subscription option is 1 year, the ask was for longer/perpetual options, and the justification given was the price per month seems great. Other than the absolute value of the price per month is lower and sounds easier to defend, there doesn't seem to be anything about your product, the subscription for it, or the context made the cost per month the relevant interval for a user to consider the value.
For anyone not wanting to read through it all, the story in the conclusion of the chapter was a particularly good laugh:
> I have referred in a former chapter to the King's partiality for his dogs; one species of which is still celebrated among the fancy as King Charles's breed. On the occasion of an entry into Salisbury, an honest Cavalier pressed forward to see him, and came so near the coach that his Majesty cautioned the poor man not to cling too close to the door lest one of the little black spaniels in the coach should chance to bite him. The loyalist still persisting in being near, a spaniel seized him by the finger, and the sufferer cried with a loud voice, "God bless your Majesty, but G—d d—n your dogs!"
I've been thinking about true/false positives/negatives on this a lot lately and trying to see if there are any non-obvious signals in current AI/human text that impact those.
GP's comment doesn't seem to have any of the "obvious" signals most look for, would you be willing to share what signals you latched on to for this conclusion?
I'm not sure I manage to follow accurately. If you don't save the art you make then it's gone, generative or not. If you do save the output in some way (either by saving the output itself or saving the full information needed to regenerate the output) what is special about doing so on the blockchain vs anywhere else beyond the aforementioned proof of ownership?
One is of course allowed to care about proof of ownership and the method used to do so if they like :). I just didn't follow the response in context of the question of how it's different from doing the same without the blockchain otherwise.
Unrelated: Kickass you're the Monokai author - I still use that today! Have you ever posted a retrospective about Monokai?
A generative system can produce an infinity of outputs. An art platform combined with a blockchain allows you to store a finite number of outputs from the same system definitively without knowing upfront what the outputs would look like. This forces you to think carefully about your system: it should produce interesting works with each iteration. Some people call this long form generative art.
The special thing is that it’s decentralized. I know this discussion will not resolve and I’m not a blockchain zealot. I do think it’s an elegant decentralized storage system for algorithmic art where you make outputs definitive and collectible after initiating a run.
I think that's more than fair - "I like blockchain for decentralized proof of ownership more than other methods for the same." is as fine a preference as any other, of course.
This seems, either intentionally or unintentionally, an extremely narrow view of art.
E.g. are the artists who worked on Flow (2024) no longer artists because the resulting images are generated rather than drawn? Most people would disagree, and hold/put forth a very different definition as a result, given even they were already credited as the artists on the piece before I asked the question.
Even the arguments in the courts about AI, which is a very different kind of "generated" output, stuck to showing the outputs can't be copyrighted rather than trying to argue whether the outputs were still art as the problem.
It links to fca.org, gov.uk, and racfonudation.org. I think the goal of this page is activism rather than journalism though, and the donation links are a much more apt way for privacy activism funding than ads like on that news site.
Agree to disagree for the same reason the guidelines don't say anything about citing claims in comments: What you're looking for where claims are cited for a full background is provided, is not the only valid way to write something worthwhile on the internet.
You insist this piece should be in the form of a cited and fully explanatory journalistic article when writing such a blog post signals no such goal. The intent here is to alert for support, not to be a news source about the topic. Adding the news piece is great for the conversation here, it's just dunking on the post for not being that type of piece itself is overly dismissive.
Yes, and now they (will) have ads in the lower tiers and eventually will add them in higher tiers as well. It's no different to Netflix's methods. Therefore the statement would have been proven right if it were claimed back then.
You can't just say because they've added more things the old things are over - the old things actually have to go away first. Eventually they may get there (or not). It may be another few years (or not). Nothing is actually now over though any more than it was now over in 2024.
Additional tiers to get people to move up as they enshittify the lower tiers. We already see it in other companies as well as OpenAI themselves so my inference is based on that, not to wait and see until they do indeed enshittify it.
That the inference would say these existing paid tiers should have already enshittified with the 2024 $200 Pro announcement is precisely why one does need to wait & see.
reply