I believe this is neither. I believe this is purely a form of control - not to make money later or lose less money - rather, I believe many are very afraid of how people would use an un-nerfed LLM.
A better way to think of it in my eyes is, employer pays you to write an app that shows cats.
You start and you're like, yeah, no fuck that, and you write an app that shows dogs instead.
Employer comes back to you and says "we pay you to show cats, since you don't wanna do it we'll find someone else".
Sucks but seems logical to me.
That's unrelated to the claims of spying and illegal procedures of course, that the new article claims. Very curious to see what they did that was illegal / what kind of spying they would have done. But right now its just claims.
They claim Google spied on Spiers and did something illegal. This might be the case, but they don't disclose what they exactly did. Maybe we'll know later on.
For what it's worth your comment is technically wrong and misleading - really, it's FUD.
Android is very specific about company-owned vs personally-owned phones. Personally-owned lets you setup devices with a work profile where very little non-work data is available to the employer. They don't know your personal apps, they dont know your IP address, and they dont know where these apps go (ie no personal network logs). They have no access to these either.
Even for company-owned devices (which require a specific setup, if you bring in your own device that means factory reset and things like hitting 7x the white screen on the first new setup page), the mobile device management api doesn't give you all that much. There's no remote access/rootkit, you can't see private messages (they can see messages you send over a work chat app they own, so if its google hangout chat f.e., by looking at the hangout service itself)
Except that in the Employment Agreement that Google made me sign when I worked there (I don't know if it is still like this) Google specifically called out that they reserve the right to rootkit your personal devices that access "Google's corporate information" (basically that means accessing your work email because you needed to use your corp laptop if you wanted to access the internal network)
But I agree that if they were talking about the "Android" feature, an employer could choose not to go that route.
When you signed your agreement, that Android technology didn't exist, so reserving themselves the right to get root on your devices accessing corporate information was the closest, yet very blunt, approximation. Personal devices were highly discouraged or even forbidden for a long time, but employees kept asking about them, for the convenience. These use cases and internal dogfooding were major factors in the eventual development of Android Enterprise and related products.
That doesn't track. By the time they pulled this crap (including the "you didn't sign it, would you sign it again?" and it turned out to be different), we had been given at least one Android phone (ADP1) and maybe the second as well (N1).
I dogfooded pretty much everything from the G1 to the N5, Xoom included. Until Lollipop or Marshmallow arrived, we were discouraged or forbidden from having corporate accounts on personal phones, because there weren't the necessary Blackberry-style features yet, e.g. remote wiping. I remember Honeycomb (the Xoom) having only encryption, but no wiping. At some point you could add your work account as the primary on your personal gift phones (dogfood ones were a different story), but that meant that the device got bricked when you left the company, forcing you to a factory reset — and there was still no good isolation.
I definitely had my personal account as the primary on my N5 along with a work profile and I believe that's the first device/OS combo where it was feasible, if you ignored the annoying duplicate app icons in the launcher. The first truly "tolerated" personal devices were probably the Christmas gift Chromebooks from a few years earlier, as long as you used Yubikeys.
Didn't the policies even predate Android? They definitely were there well before Lollipop. Unless they were introduced post-Aurora, in 2010 — i.e. in the N1/Eclair days, keeping the phone vintage theme.
an organization is not a human, despite what people say.
A single human may be absolutely willing to act, but the organization won't - i.e. they will not be allowed to act by their bosses. Everything else is nitpicking and blame shifting. If someone's willing to do the job "but they have too many other things to do" then they're not willing to do the job. If someone's boss or with authority over them is unwilling to prioritize the work then they're unwilling to do the work as well.
the software magic "just" takes raw images and make something with it.
photographers prefer retaining the raws and do the something themselves on a fast computer.
Now, there's some good use cases for it but I guess the tradeoff hasn't been worth it so far. E.g. having some processing options in camera can speed up your workflow (but then again all the "toys" like this are removed from pro cameras because most people didn't use them). Also, the same magic Apple or Google use doesn't really exist outside of their phones (yet at least, I assume Adobe is working on this).
I think the photo of the woman is terrible. I don't blame the phone for it, its very hard to achieve with small sensors, and the iphone is probably the best of the bunch. But it doesn't make the picture quality near "good-enough" for that scenario.
With slightly better lighting it can be "good enough" to be hard to distinguish from a bigger sensor camera for "web" where "web" really means ~6inch phone display - and that's great, but let's not fool ourselves ;-)
I'm also curious what the max will look like - though at the size and price it's difficult to say if buying a RX100 and a cheaper phone isn't a better option still, for many.
You don't need a three second exposure with a modern camera and a fast lens. F/1.2 or f/1.4 with low-light stacking at 1/10 to 1/2 will more than do it for moonlight.
Plus, it has artifical light, a phone screen, so even less than that would be useful.
As for AF, the obvious solution is to simply have a light in the camera. Mine does, it works fine even in complete darkness. I've actually gone and took a photo of a subject lit only with a phone screen, in perfect darkness, at around 2 meters.
Very, very far from a challenging situation. Actually, quite easy.
With my F/1.4 lens, a cellphone screen provides enough light to illuminate a wooden plank to a shutter speed of 1/25 at ISO4000. More than serviceable. Especially with stabilization, where I can in reality get away with 1/2.
You know, dedicated cameras also evolved. A lot.
At the issue of this expriment, I can be confident that my camera can take pictures of much higher quality in the same conditions, at a higher resultion with much less noise and more detail, and all that at half of the price. Indeed, an a6000+EF-speedbooster+Tamron28-75 2.8 EF will run you 600$ tax included, for a higher performance, and will last you a decade or more.
EDIT: for some reason, I can't answer since I'm rate limited, but I can actually do a 3 second exposure, hand held, with my camera, and get a sharper result that that. Especially if I'm tipsy. Here's how I do it - I put my camera in image stacking mode, set the shutter speed to 0.8 seconds, and fire the shutter.
My camera will then take 4 pictures with IS on for 0.8 seconds in each of them, recenter IS in the few milliseconds between them, then warp and shift the images together and stack them. Bam, 3(.2) second exposure. It's not always the sharpest on the first try, but it's a hell of a lot sharper than whatever is in the picture there. Also, the iPhone is rejecting quite a few images there, so it won't be 3 seconds and more like 1.2 seconds.
Especially at the wide focal lengths equivalent to an iPhone. It's not very hard. I was at 1/20 before to ensure maximum sharpness, but if I'm willing to either stack in post or take 2-3 shots, more than possible.
Unfortunately it's too late to edit my comment now but yes, I should have been clearer that what I meant was taking a hand-held three second exposure with another camera, not that that specific photo itself would be impossible.
It's a reasonable separate point to make that a "proper" camera wouldn't need such a long exposure for the same amount of light.
Most cameras can't, I agree, but mine does. It has a 4 exposure stacking mode, but only in JPEG mode, and the stabilization is sufficient that I can get quite sharp images at 0.8x4 handled, especially at the 35-28mm equivalent focal lengths of an iPhone.
I can share some pics, if you want. It does require a steady hand.
But then again, the iPhone doesn't really do a 3 second exposure, it rejects a lot of frame so it's more like 1.5-2 seconds, which I can do reliably.
That shot is testing the low-light autofocus with no modelling light, which I think is a test that any f/0.95 lens/body combo on the market right now would fail?
Most modern cameras can autofocus in perfect darkness using a small AF light. Especially at f/0.95!
But really, I recreated the shot, in a perfectly dark room with a phone light as the only light source, and it focused adequately and the image came out more than adequate at 1/20x ISO 2066 @ f/2.8, or 1/30 ISO2400 f/1.4, all with good AF.
This is on a handheld three second exposure in the dark. Not sure you would do much better with an SLR. I have on Olympus OMD EM5 with great OIS and that shot would be pretty challenging
This is partly because the flash has blasted her face with light losing all the shape except for an ugly shadow under her nose. With my Nikon I could try at (very) high ISO for a natural-light shot or use an off-camera flash to shape her face in a more flattering way. But perhaps people used to the very flat / boring light common in mirror selfies won't care about this.
The blur on the edges of the fur look digitally smeared rather than optically blurred.
[edit - okay, I didn't spot that he used off screen light rather than flash. But the effect is similar and hasn't given any pleasing sculpting of the subject. Other processing may have made things worse]
He didn't use a flash for that image, the only light was from another phone screen. And it was a three second hand-held, it's impressively clear for what it is.
> This Portrait mode w/ Night mode 3-second exposure was shot with the iPhone 12 Pro in my right hand. Simultaneously, in my left hand, I held my iPhone 11 Pro and used the light emitting from the screen (not the flash) as an off-camera fill light for Esther’s face.
I don't think there was flash involved in the shot, it says he held another phone on his left hand and used the light from the screen (not flash) as an indirect light source. The washed out look I think is from software averaging to correct motion blur from the 3 second exposure.
The blur is actually insane amounts of noise reduction, it's not an attempt at bokeh, I think! You can tell because all other shadows are just as blurred out.
I think that it doesn't look flat just because of the flash, but really as a mix of incredibly severe noise reduction as well as a ton of dynamic compression necessary to keep the background in roughly the same exposure.
He says it’s “Portrait mode”, so it does have the fake bokeh on the background in addition to any smoothing from night mode denoising. That’s why he also mentions the depth map for the fuzzy hood.
It's unrealistic to get off-camera flash on iPhone unless two could be paired together with a friend holding iPhone acting as a flash. But what could be done easily is a ring flash around the rear camera that would make most portraits bearable instead of horrible basic flash.
There are also Deep Learning models that change angle of light on a final photo, so you would be able to get your Rembrandt lighting that way soon.
What percentage of people would rate portrait photo with bokeh much much better from a DSLR than from an iPhone 12 pro (or any other top Android phone) in a blind test? I would say that more people will prefer the phone photo, unless you edit the dslr photo (which phone is doing automatically unless you shoot RAW on iPhone).
I don't know how you would define "better", but if you mean higher quality, I'm certain that most people would be able to pick out the DSLR version in a "blind" test, even if you used the same approx. lens focal length on the DSLR and the phone (e.g. 52mm when comparing to iPhone). I would guess people would prefer the DSLR one, but it's simply a guess (and I'm biased because I know more or less what to look for).
I'm not sure if I'd say that most people would be able to tell. But I'm sure photography people would be able to tell. Unless you're a wannabe influencer or a working professional, what matters is not whether other people would be able to tell. Nobody cares about your pictures. What matters is if you can tell, and how it makes you feel.
I think if you let them zoom in to the edges they'd pick it easily enough. My iPhone always blurs a few little details, little part of a hat sticking out, thinking it's the background.
the picture we're talking about is taken at night, and looks like a painting, this has nothing to do with bokeh or the need to edit a picture taken with a large sensor mirrorless camera
> What percentage of people would rate portrait photo with bokeh much much better from a DSLR than from an iPhone 12 pro (or any other top Android phone) in a blind test?
As an iPhone 11 Pro + Halide user myself, I daresay a DSLR photo with a decent portrait lens would definitely look better — or at the very least — more natural, than any iPhone photo that relies on "computational photography" fake-bokeh.
Yes, anyone could tell the difference between this taken on a dedicated camera and this taken on iPhone. Really, anyone. No matter the resolution.
It really does just look like a blurry mess. A cheap 150$ DSLR with a bottom-bargain Chinese or very old lens (at say, F1.4 or lower) would provide significantly better results.
GP is the only person I can find in this thread referencing "woman in a park". Everyone else is talking about the "woman in a parka". I think you were correct in your assumption before. People are talking about the image without the dog.
As a photo for a magazine or other professional use sure. As a photo of your daughter the first time you've managed to get together after the lockdown late at night after a long journey, effing incredible.
id also say it works out okay. its just long and tedious and it feels more painful than it should - but really its not all that bad in general.
I see very toxic people being rejected that think its because of their gender/color/whatever <= lots of complains but the process work
I get rejected sometimes because of misalignement from me, or from them <= feels bad man.. but the process works
I've never been hired to a place where I found that this was all a terrible idea, in 25 years. Theres been places better than others, theres been adjustments after hiring.
I've seen places hire people using simplified processes and the candidates were unsuccessful and unhappy after being hired <= process fail
Medicine is definitely politics when its uncertain how much certain drugs really help.
One the one hand you could say: WHO has an unreviewed study that says "china early vaccine tests good, usa drug bad" and Gilead has a bunch of studies that say usa drug good.
On the other hand you could say: the studies wording is so fine tune that its hard to say if any are true.
Results:
- some side with their political/religious beliefs (and will downvote this probably)
- some are confused about what is true and admit they just don't know (I'm definitely there)
However, it's inevitable.
reply