Currently studying CS and some other stuff. Best known for previously being top 50 (OCE) in LoL, expert RoN modder, and creator of RoN:EE’s community patch (CBP). He/him.
(header photo by Brian Maffitt)
This is a genuine question and not a passive aggressive one: why make the submission a link to a social media post when that post is mostly just a link to a news site anyway? (you could include link to or even quote the commentary either in the submission body or a comment if you think it’s a valuable addition)
edit: has since been answered in another comment orz, I opened this and then was talking to people for a while before commenting
Don’t worry, you can instead visit this reputable URL: https://cheap-bitcoin.online/scanner-hijacker/malicious-payload/trojan_extractor_tool.msi?firewall=tamper&id=11aa4591&origin=spoof&payload=(function(){+return+undefined%3B+})()%3B&sessiontoken=spoof&useragent=inject
( https://phishyurl.com/ via https://chaos.social/@FlohEinstein/115212955110814540 )
Yo, don’t shit talk the makers of the award winning game Ricochet like that
I actually think this video is doing a pretty bad job of summarizing the practical-comparison part of the paper.
If you go here you can get a GitHub link which in turn has a OneDrive link with a dataset of images and textures which they used. (This doesn’t include some of the images shown in the paper - not sure why and don’t really want to dig into it because spending an hour writing one comment as-is is already a suspicious use of my time.)
Using the example with an explicit file size mentioned in the video which I’ll re-encode with Paint.NET trying to match the ~160KB file size:
Hadriscus has the right idea suggesting that JPEG is the wrong comparison, but this type of low-detail image at low bit rates is actually where AVIF rather than JPEG XL shines. The latter (for this specific image) looks a lot worse at the above settings, and WebP is generally just worse than AVIF or JPEG XL for compression efficiency since it’s much older. This type of image is also where I would guess this type of compression / reconstruction technique also does comparatively well.
But honestly, the technique as described by the paper doesn’t seem to be trying to directly compete against JPEG which is another reason I don’t like that the video put a spotlight on that comparison; quoting the paper:
We also include JPEG [Wallace 1991] as a conventional baseline for completeness. Since our objective is to represent high-resolution images at ultra-low bitrates, the allow-able memory budget exceeds the range explored by most baselines.
Most image compression formats (with AVIF being a possible exception) aren’t tailored for “ultra-low bitrates”. Nevertheless, here’s another comparison with the flamingo photo in the dataset where I’ll try to match the 0.061 bpp low-side bit rate target (if I’ve got my math right that’s 255,860.544 bits):
(Ideally I would now compare this image at some of the other, higher bpp targets but I am le tired.)
It looks like interesting research for low bit rate / low bpp compression techniques and is probably also more exciting for anyone in the “AI compression” scene, but I’m not convinced about “Intel Just Changed Computer Graphics Forever!” as the video title.
As an aside, every image in the supplied dataset looks weird to me (even the ones marked as photos), as though it were AI-generated or AI-enhanced or something - not sure if the authors are trying to pull a fast one or if misuse of generative AI has eroded my ability to discern reality 🤔
edit: to save you from JPEG XL hell, here’s the JPEG XL image which you probably can’t view, but losslessly re-encoded to a PNG: https://files.catbox.moe/8ar1px.png
Really wish they published the whole dataset. They don’t specify on the page or in the paper what the full set was like, and the GitHub repo only has one of the easy-to-read ones. If >=10% of the set is comprised of clock faces designed not to be readable then fair enough.
The human level accuracy is less than 90%!?
the kbin.social domain expires in a few days, on 10 September
Looks like someone might’ve bought the domain?
I actually thought it looked pretty good because of Return to Monkey Island (which has never been bundled before and the ATL price of which is ~half the bundle’s cost). The average OpenCritic score (if that’s what you meant?) for the games excluding the Destiny 2 bundle is high 70s, and the average Steam review score is 83% positive. Seems fine to me but ymmv depending on personal preference I guess.
Anecdotally, quite a lot of users vote “selfishly” and don’t care that downvoting reduces visibility. all and local feeds also fall victim to people voting as if these are their own personal curated feeds.
And I hate it 🫠
“We’re going to collect as much data about you as we can to sell to advertisers”
That’s a rather pessimistic interpretation of a privacy policy that starts with this:
The spirit of the policy remains the same: we aren’t here to exploit you or your info. We just want to bring you great new videos and creators to enjoy, and the systems we build to do that will sometimes require stuff like cookies.
and which in section 10 (Notice for Nevada Residents) says:
We do not “sell” personal information to third parties for monetary consideration [as defined in Nevada law] […] Nevada law defines “sale” to mean the exchange of certain types of personal information for monetary consideration to another person. We do not currently sell personal information as defined in the Nevada law.
So yes, I suppose they may be selling personal information by some other definition (I don’t know the Nevada law in question). But it feels extremely aggressive to label it a “shithole” that “collect[s] as much data about you as we can to sell to advertisers” based on the text of the privacy policy as provided.
I guess perspective here depends on your anchoring point. I’m anchoring mostly on the existing platform (YouTube), and Nebula’s policy here looks better (subjectively much better) than what runs as normal in big tech. If your anchor is your local PeerTube instance with a privacy policy that wasn’t written by lawyers, I can see how you’d not be a fan.
However beyond being in legalese I’m not sure what part of it you find so bad as to describe it as a shithole. Even compared to e.g., lemmy.world’s privacy policy Nebula’s looks “good enough” to me. They collect slightly more device information than I wish they did and are more open to having/using advertising partners than I had expected (from what I know of the service as someone who has never actually used it) but that’s like… pretty tame compared what most of the big platforms have.
Nebula is a shithole, just have a glance at their privacy policy.
It looks pretty run of the mill to me?
TechSpot / Hardware Unboxed did some tests (on Windows, where DirectStorage is available so this will alter some of the results compared to your own context) on this recently: https://www.techspot.com/article/3023-ssd-gaming-comparison-load-times/ (video form: YouTube)
In their results (which again may not map 1:1 to your own environment given OS differences etc), there was some difference when moving from a SATA SSD to a “slow” (by current standards) PCIe gen 3 NVMe SSD, but pretty negligible difference beyond that within gaming contexts when moving from that to other, newer/faster NVMe SSDs.
If I were to hazard a guess for your specific setup (assuming you’re currently loading mostly from a SATA SSD), it sounds like you might eke out a small loading speed improvement with either a RAID0 (or similar) SATA SSD setup or by moving to an NVMe drive, but the gains are probably only going to be generally meaningful if you’re able to somehow use DirectStorage (or a “Linux’d” version of it) somehow. Indiana Jones and the Great Circle was the only game within the tested samples that saw meaningful improvements without using DirectStorage when moving to something faster than a single SATA SSD.
Can access fine (with reduced functionality) on my end with JS disabled - maybe you have something else tripping it up or something?
Nobody linking it!? https://store.epicgames.com/en-US/p/road-redemption-ce16fb
I’m sure everyone is for better treatment of developers but in the context of the movement they’re not important.
I’m not sure I agree with your premise. If developers with good work conditions had their say over whether games were killed or preserved, I think most would choose the latter. The two issues are perhaps not as insular as we wished they were for the sake of a clean and simple “message” for SKG.
Yes, it actually spends the majority of its word count on the Stop Killing Games movement as-is, then notes in a single section at the end that industry practices for developers are also killing games (since developers make the games). Thus if you support Stop Killing Games uppercase because you want the industry to stop killing games lowercase, reforming that part is important too.
Imo that’s as much a problem of the sorting algorithm as it is with a single community blasting out too many posts at once without any consideration for how current frontends are unable to usefully integrate that into people’s feeds. A couple of years ago nanoUFO was being a bit (subjectively) overenthusiastic about posting - I counted and !games@sh.itjust.works had 40 posts at once from them and it made the first couple pages of my feed basically unusable for a while.
Scaled is also probably better suited for your subscribed feed rather than /All.