inetd supported "socket activation" using the "wait" directive, where inetd would listen on the socket and then hand off the listening socket when there was activity as fd 0 where the server would need to call accept, and could continue to call accept for new connections, or exit when all clients were handled, and inetd would respawn when there was new pending connection on the listening socket.
Editing and proofreading, of code and prose, are work themselves, which is often not appreciated enough to be recognized as work, and I think this is the basis for the perspective that if you can get the LLMs to do the coding/writing and all you need to do is just proof the result as if that's somehow easier because proofing is not the real work.
We have alt text for images, you want alt images for text.
You can see other people's interpretation of Zaphod's two heads by watching the BBC HHGTTG show (Mark Wing-Davey) or the movie (Sam Rockwell), among other renditions, which offer completely different interpretations, none of them canonical (not the least of which is because there was no canonical version of HHGTTG according to DA). I'm sure there are multitudes of fan art for HHGTTG on deviantart. Having AI generate an image doesn't offer any more "official" visualization.
Zaphod's second head is mentioned just as much is warranted. If a character has a limp or a crazy haircut it is not mentioned every time, because it has nothing to do with what is going on. And the book mentions that one head is often distracted/asleep, so it sounds like you do have a good visual of what his two heads are like.
While I understand that people think differently and some people are more visual thinkers, a good portion of the concepts expressed through writing are meant to be mindfucks that are difficult to express visually. A picture may be worth a thousand words, but the meat of writing is usually not the visual representation of its concepts. That's a great thing about writing: you can fill in the visuals yourself and it's fodder for fans to discuss.
(BTW, Hotblack Desiato's ship would just be black. Your eyes couldn't focus on it. Even the controls were black labels on a black background. There is nothing here to visualize other than, well, blackness).
I agree that people interpret things differently and visualise differently and that is my point. I want to see the concept from my head in a solid visual form. Some concepts that are not clear, like those that I mentioned having trouble with, I want to see any kind of visual representation at all. I will probably not like some of those, but there these tools can help generate a bunch of variations tailored specifically for me. I can choose one and carry on with that. I can come back and more details to that as I read further.
If someone can show me exactly what I am thinking of, won't that be amazing.
> Its also not clear for example that Studio Ghibli lost by having their art style plastered all over the internet. I went home and watched a Ghibli film that week, as I'm sure many others did as well. Their revenue is probably up quite a bit right now?
This sounds like a rewording of "You won't get paid, but this is a great opportunity for you because you'll get exposure".
Exposure has value! The meme around trying to pay artists with exposure is because some people think their "exposure" has meaningful value when they are offering to expose the artist to 100 people, 99 of whom aren't likely even target customers.
Studio Ghibli on the other hand had exposure to millions of people (maybe hundreds of millions), and probably >5% of those were potential customers.
So yes, being paid in exposure makes sense, if the exposure is actually worth what the art is worth. But most people offering to pay in exposure are overvaluing their exposure by 100x or more.
> Studio Ghibli on the other hand had exposure to millions of people (maybe hundreds of millions), and probably >5% of those were potential customers.
There's a lot of ifs in here. The number of people exposed to has an estimate that covers two orders of magnitude, "maybe". "probably". "greater than". "potential".
In order for this exposure to have more value than the ownership of the original, all of those things need to fall into place. And no one can offer meaningful exposure based on the off-chance that a meme goes viral. All the risk is on the creator, they lose control of their asset and receive a lottery ticket in return.
> So yes, being paid in exposure makes sense, if the exposure is actually worth what the art is worth. But most people offering to pay in exposure are overvaluing their exposure by 100x or more.
Yes, but that's a big "but"; it's difficult to know the value of the "exposure" that is being offered, not to mention if the entity offering it is legit or if it's just a scam because they don't want to pay.
Additionally, the AI companies who are slurping up copyrighted works to train their models are not offering exposure. And the mememaker who happens go viral can't offer it either.
> instead of shifting the numbers in filenames step11_ onwards
There are idioms used when programming in BASIC on how to number the lines so you don't end up renumbering them all the time to make an internal change. It's interesting that such idioms are potentially applicable here also.
Normally on Linux you'd put /home on a different drive/partition, which I do mainly for upgrade purposes (I upgrade my root filesystem to a new distro/distro version and then mount my home dir on the fresh install)
reply