I watched the "Project Turntable" video, and that is unbelievably cool.

To work, the AI has to recognize what the drawing represents, figure out how to reverse-transform the 2D representation into a 3D object, and work out what the hidden parts should look like. It's amazing.

It's only a short step between this and working out walk cycles, matching mouth movements to dialogue, adding facial expressions, etc.

This will revolutionize 2D animation.

I don't necessarily disagree with where you're going here, but can you elaborate on this:

I've worked at government contractors that had real air-gaps for things like their databases, but that does not seem to be the norm for the rest of the world. How would ordinary businesses make use of their databases if they are not network accessible under any circumstances, printed reports? Some sort of unidirectional transmission? What sort of data ingress are they using?

I ask this because I have been involved in the transfer of data in highly regulated, air-gapped systems, and they are incredibly expensive. Are you really indicating that true air-gap databases will be ubiquitous (or at least commonplace) in the forseeable future?

It's a cool idea and they stand for a lot of great ideals, but laptops are incredibly hard to get right, drivers are hard to get right, and they are a small team trying to support a large number of possible configurations. Hardware gets more complicated by the year: forget the CPU and various GPUs, just look at how many other devices in a modern computer have a full-on processor, e.g. fancy touchbars, displays, even hard drives! Hell, your CPU probably has its own secondary general-purpose processors for things like security, and our CPUs themselves get firmware updates now to change how their instructions function. They are doing great work, but the deck is so stacked against them that it's not funny.

Most space launch companies are inefficient and ineffective. SpaceX has the margin to pay these taxes, those unfortunates don't. If you want to kill competition in an industry, tax it enough that only the large corporations can survive the loss, and add some complicated regulations in for extra effect. No one else has anything close to what Starship may become, and further reduction in margins will ensure that SpaceX will have a defacto monopoly on non-military space launches while their competitors are strangled paying for FAA services that is disproportionately benefit owners of private jets and charter flights for the rich.

The idea that software not signed by some entity in the country that they represent is installed any high-level official's phone is absurd. How did the world get this way?

It's time to sell the company to Elon and retire.

Just be remembered for Facebook and amihotornot, as opposed to a dystopic VR system with Nintendo 64 graphics, and retire with your reputation as intact as it will ever be.

I see it that we have evolved to the point where we can recognize the same flawed argument used to oppose one form of moral harm to when trotted out to oppose a different form of moral harm.

There is no need to try and force an equivalency on different types of moral harm; that's just another form of "whataboutism".

UBI makes a huge dent in the problems of homelessness and hunger - it does a lot more than that too, but just those two problems alone are major moral harms that deserve being addressed, if not solved outright. And while it is a comparison between apples and locomotives, I'll put "hunger" and "homelessness" on the same side of the moral scale as "slavery".

> you also need to talk mechanisms to keep it from snowballing out of control.

What's to snowball? UBI is fixed to population size - it is *universal* basic income, so everybody gets it. The US population is growing by 0.5% annually, so unless there is a dramatic increase in birth rate coupled to a dramatic decrease in death rate, this is a fixed cost.

That comes out to roughly $164 billion, or roughly 25% of the annual defense budget. Not only is that not "out of control", it is relatively cheap for what it buys you.

> The alternative to UBI isn't necessarily working, it could also be living in a homeless shelter.

That is an excellent point.

> You still get UBI while working

I thought this was more generally understood... but fair point that bears repeating.

My confidence in your ability to correctly identify "socialism" is not high.

When did Slashdot become the home of alt-right Nazi types?

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot!

Seems to me a similar argument was put forward vis a vis slavery - as in "we need slavery or the economy would collapse"

What the pearl-clutchers seem to not quite get is that the guy staying home and playing video games is still contributing to the economy. His UBI is buying food, rent , power, and video games. He almost certainly isn't *saving* any money, so 100% of that UBI goes back into the economy.

What he *isn't* doing is being a lazy, inefficient worker. He's not phoning it in on a manufacturing job, or a clerical job. He isn't making mistakes and lowering productivity. There is *value* in having that guy out of the workforce.

I've been using this site for over twenty years, and it's a been most of a decade since I've commented. This is the best thing I've seen on here since then. Whatever you do, keep drumming up the fight against ignorance and propaganda, and the people who've fallen victims of it. I don't want to get personal, but lets just say that I know from intimate experience what brainwashing does to a person, and the tremendous cost of clawing one's way out of it. Division in modern society is inevitable--and we must fight against those who seek to destroy rational thought!--but without empathy for those infected by bad ideas, shortchanged by their personal experiences, we'll end up punishing and alientating those victimized by bad actors exploiting cognitive vulnerabilities that every one of us has, we will push them out of sheer self-defense into voting in the people who will undo us.

Not the person you're responding to, but I'm pretty sure their less-than-polite phrasing meant "biological female who has ever been involved in jetpack development or *jetpack* flying".

Everyone knows Amelia Earhart was a big part of aviation history in that era, but I strongly suspect that she didn't moonlight as the Rocketeer.