I'm old enough to have an mp3 collection, so I haven't needed spotify. They don't have 20% of the tracks in my playlist and their integration of local audio has been steadily eroded to be almost unusable now (i.e. it's completely separate, doesn't show up in regular search, playlists etc.). They also push audiobooks and sponsored results in my face even on the Premium subscription, and their UI sucks.
If you already have a collection and are reasonably content in what you listen to, topping it up with a few albums a year is not that hard.
> Even if you have an mp3 collection, the streaming apps are good for discovery, recommendations ...
No they are not. Hi there. We noticed you have been listening to Rage Against the Machine, Metallica and Deftones. Why not have a listen of this Robbie Williams song too ... blasts out some pop song at extra high volume.
In my country you do not. No idea how they do it, but the plan and buying the phone separate (iPhone 16 pro Max) phone costs about 300 more than the phone and plan combined.
That implies you are paying too much for phones then, since the mobile providers can apparently get them significantly cheaper. They may also be selling your data and pre-installing apps, but every country does that.
I think it's a way for Phone OEMs to push their phones into the market as a marketing measure/to gain market shares without destroying their retail price because it never happens to very popular phones like the iPhone
The refusal is probably because OP said "100% written by AI" and didn't indicate an interest in actually reviewing or maintaining the code. In fact, a later PR comment suggests that the AI's approach was needlessly complicated.
Also because it's a large PR. Also because the maintainer has better things to do than taking longer and more energy to review than the author spent to write it, just to find that multiple optimisations will be requested, which the author may not be able to take on.
the creator of llama.cc can hardly be suspected to be reluctant or biased towards GenAI.
Absolutely -- it's perfectly understandable. I wanted to be completely upfront about AI usage and while I was willing and did start to break the PR down into parts, it's totally OK for the maintainers to reject that too.
I wanted to see if Claude Code could port the HF / MLX implementation to llama.cpp and it was successful -- in my mind that's wild!
I also learned a ton about GPU programming, how omni models work, and refined my approach to planning large projects with automated end to end integration tests.
The PR was mostly to let people know about the code and weights, since there are quite a few comments requesting support:
To be honest it looks like it was rendered in an old version of Unreal Engine. That may be an intentional choice - I wonder how realistic guassian splatting can look? Can you redo lights, shadows, remove or move parts of the scene, while preserving the original fidelity and realism?
The way TV/movie production is going (record 100s of hours of footage from multiple angles and edit it all in post) I wonder if this is the end state. Gaussian splatting for the humans and green screens for the rest?
The aesthetic here is at least partially an intentional choice to lean into the artifacts produced by Gaussian splatting, particularly dynamic (4DGS) splatting. There is temporal inconsistency when capturing performances like this, which are exacerbated by relighting.
That said, the technology is rapidly advancing and this type of volumetric capture is definitely sticking around.
Several of ASAP's video have a lo-fi retro vibe, or specific effects such as simulating stuff like a mpeg a/v corruption, check out A$AP Mob - Yamborghini High (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tt7gP_IW-1w)
Knowing what I know about the artist in this video this was probably more about the novelty of the technology and the creative freedom it offers rather than it is budget.
For me it felt more like higher detail version of Teardown, the voxel-based 3d demolition game. Sure it's splats and not voxels, but the camera and the lighting give this strong voxel game vibe.
I guess the technology still has some quality limitations, otherwise we would already see it in mainstream movies, e.g. to simulate smooth camera motions beyond what is achievable with video stabilization. It's much more difficult to achieve 4K quality that holds up on a movie theater screen, without visible artifacts, than to do an artistic music video.
I would say Superman's quality didn't suffer for it.
I would say cost is probably the most expensive part it's also just like "why bother", it's not CG, it's not "2d filming" so it's just niche, like the scenarios you would actually need this are very low.
That's interesting. 192 cameras is certainly expensive. Though they are doing 4DGS, with movement, so they have to capture every frame from different angles at the same time. I assume 3DGS for static environments (locations) would be a lot easier in terms of hardware. E.g. a single drone could collect photos for an hour and then they could create arbitrary simulated camera movements that couldn't be filmed conventionally. But again, the quality would have to be high in most cases. The nature of the Superman scene (some sort of hologram) is more forgiving, as it is inherently fake-looking, which helps excuse artifacts slipping through.
Varies widely across country and the type of thing you're recycling. People are so extreme with recycling, it's either "recycle everything!" or "it's a scam, just chuck it all in the garbage"
I’m relatively sure that electronics are not recycled properly anywhere. At best some of the metals are extracted (hopefully not by mixing the ashes with mercury).
That would fall under Reuse rather than Recycle. Reduce, Reuse and Recycle are in the order of best to worst. Recycling is the last ditch effort to not completely waste something. It's always going to feel like a half measure, because it is.
If salvaging 100% of the materials that make up something is the only way to "properly" recycle, we are not recycling anything properly. Some components are not recyclable.
I won't speculate about whether the plastic on the board is recyclable, or ecological to recycle. I don't know. This is what I'm asking.
I can't tell if this is a tongue-in-cheek comment or not, but all of that is shipped off to 3rd party "recyclers" who pinky promise that they will dispose of it properly. Very often those 3rd parties rely on other 3rd parties until the it ends up in a waste pile in a developing country, but with a long enough chain of differed responsibility that nobody can be held accountable.
The fundamental problem with "recycling" is precisely the fact that we just hand it off and don't ask questions about where it ends up, all while feeling great about ourselves afterwards. Bestbuy and Staples are offering accountability laundering so that you don't have to feel bad and in exchange are more likely to become a customer. The 3rd parties working for them do the same thing, but they usually want cash for it.
This sentiment is the case because very often that's where recycling ultimately ends, we just pay someone to move it far away from us so we don't have to see it when it happens.
Until 2018, when they finally stopped accepting it, one of the US largest exports to China was cardboard boxes sent over for "recycling". We burned tons of bunker fuel shipping back the boxes Chinese goods arrived in. The net environmental impact would likely have been less had we just kept the boxes at home.
It's strange to me how often people prefer a widely acknowledged lie than to simply admit the truth.
I always recycle though because the recycle bin in my city is larger than my trash bin, and I don't have enough room in my trash bin sometimes.
It varies very widely indeed. In some countries it isn't a scam because it gets burned like Denmark but other than that majority of recycling just means shipping it to a landfill in a poor country that they promise to recycle.
In Hungary it gets sorted out locally. We also recently implemented a bottle return system that (although it's annoying) produces clean stacks of PET, aluminium and glass, all of which are recyclable.
Even with PET, arguably the most recyclable plastic, most of it doesn't go bottle-to-bottle but rather bottle-to-textile. Because most PET "recycling" doesn't close the loop, so it's dubious to even call it recycling. That said, some bottle-to-bottle recycling of PET is done, and this has been getting better.
As long as the heat is used for something (electricity, building heating etc.) there is at least some reuse of parts of it. And if exhaust ist filtered pollution is also limited. Better than just putting it on a garbage dump and forgetting about it.
Even with 3 films out the visual spectacle is what brings people to the cinema. That and the fantasy of living in a different world. The second film focused on previously impossible in-water filming techniques.
100 books is too small a datasize - particularly given it's a set of HN recommendations (i.e. a very narrow and specific subset of books). A larger set would probably draw more surprising and interesting groupings.
this to me sounds off. I read the same 8, to 10 books over and over and with every read discover new things. the idea of more books being more useful stands against the same books on repeat. and while I'm not religious, how about dudes only reading 1 book (the Bible, or Koran), and claiming that they're getting all their wisdom from these for a 1000 years?
If I have a library of 100+ books and they are not enough then the quality of these books are the problem and not the number of books in the library?
The definition of 'vibe code' is somewhat nebulous at the moment. For many it means "only look at the end product (website) and use prompts to fix it" but for others it means "mostly don't hand-code anything, but check the diffs".
If you already have a collection and are reasonably content in what you listen to, topping it up with a few albums a year is not that hard.
Or just use youtube music!
reply