> This was probably an okay idea terribly implemented. GenAI creators on social media kind of sense.
It boggles my mind that there are people who think this is a good/ok idea. From a human perspective, all it does is pulls the mind ever closer to fictional imaginative world rather than encouraging real life interactions which I believe is inherently wrong no matter what business strategy is wrapped around it.
I recently arrived in Germany and movie/cinema aggregation is a huge issue and a hassle tbh, so I'll be using this frequently.
A suggestion, if I may, is to add language of the movie if possbile? It'd be great if there's any way to fetch that info and display it directly on your website instead of visiting every multiplex website to check it.
> Does a film listing not having any of these abbreviations default to German audio?
In my experience, yes. The default is German without subtitles. I have seen the OV and OmU abbreviations a lot of times, but most showtimes don't have anything listed which will mean German.
Sometimes I don’t want to walk around with my valuables on me, I just bring a small sum enough to satisfy my groceries.
I do this especially when it’s dark outside and I have to go out to shop, this way, I don’t lose anything significant if I get robbed.
Another good reason is that some shops have to pay a fee for being able to accept digital transactions, for some shops, the fee is quite a lot.
So paying with cash is preferred and helps them a bit.
Lastly, while it sounds shady, being able to pay in cash keeps me from being traced by the government. I don’t really have anything to hide but having the option to be anonymous If I want feels good.
Cash is useful in cases where your phone/card isn't working. E.g. if your phone has run out of battery, you are in a location that has a poor signal, your account has been locked due to a suspicious/unusual transaction (even if legitimate), etc.
You don't need it all the time, just for emergencies.
Systems you want to use in an emergency have a tendency to start failing when you don't exercise them regularly. That's my primary reason for using cash. Privacy is the second. The tactile sense for how much money I spend is the third.
I don't think Bard can even perform at GPT 3.5 level, at least, not in my experience. Bard hallucinates pretty bad and you can't really be sure whether it's correct or not. Now, that's a given with any LLM, but in my experience, Bard usually gives you at least 1 wrong sentence in any of the results it produces whereas GPT 3.5 is mostly correct at surface level questions, but tends to hallucinate if you try to dig in deeper.
But, Bard can give you images as an output as well with the links to those images which may or may not be the correct links and GPT 3.5 can't do that. Still, in any general case, I'd say GPT 3.5 is way more reliable than Bard.
> I dunno, I think I quite liked the world how it was before that!
I agree. I don't know why but when I read this article and the responses here stating how things can be related and can be measured, I suddenly felt this sigh? disappointment? for 'demystifying the mind'.
Yes exactly. It won't take long till someone exploits it which would be more robust than the prediction models we have right now and that's what I don't want a single dime of.
I know we're not there yet, and perhaps we won't ever be, or we'll be there in 10 years, but we don't have to map every single thing in the brain in order to exploit the foundational behavior.
> Modern graphics looks better when you put them side by side, but the graphics 10 years ago was good enough that you easily get used to it.
Can you get used to it? Yes. Eg. Skyrim is still atmospheric, but graphically it is nowhere near what today's games offer. I'd say that one don't even have to look at games that are 10 years old and modern games side by side to see the difference. Someone getting used to older graphics is that person adjusting themselves to what they're presented, and not an objective observation and games today objectively look better even when they aren't compared side by side in my opinion.
Yes of course you can get used to it. Your brain is the same brain as it was in the year 2000. People still watch old TV shows in 480p and play old games all the time without complaining.
It's not like we couldn't tell back then that Final Fantasy 7 didn't look like real life, we just didn't care because it was so much fun.
People still play chess. Realism isn't everything.
> They feel pretty much interchangeable to me when it comes to graphics.
> The difference is nights and day...and I don't care one bit.
You used these 2 sentences back to back.
Tbh it's just you not caring about graphics whole lot, but can see the difference. To say that they're interchangeable is kinda hilarious because they're objectively better on PC, consoles than on Switch. You, yourself said so and the whole point in this thread was that of "how graphics definitely improved over the last 10 years" and not a subjective opinion of you not caring (which is fine but invalid in this conversation). Also, one can easily notice graphical differences between games that are released now and 10 years ago.
While I agree that there is somewhat over-reliance on CGI in movies nowadays, this post is like cherry picking the examples. Comparing bad CGI shots to few of the greatest films ever made (and with high budget for the time as well) just seems odd. I wouldn't say CGI itself ruined the movies, but how it is now implemented. There are films like Gravity which in my opinion, blended the CGI perfectly with what was happening in the scene and that's where CGI enhances the experience rather than otherwise.
reply