• 0 Posts
  • 21 Comments
Joined 3 years ago
cake
Cake day: March 3rd, 2024

help-circle
  • I think when there’s implicit consensus on a topic, it disempowers people who disagree from speaking out openly. Anytime someone speaks out, there’s always a chance that anyone sitting on the fence would agree with them. I think that while rainbow washing was a flimsy shield, it was still a shield against bigotry because of the implied consensus of support and the disempowering of bigots from speaking out and potentially swaying anyone still on the fence.


  • I think when there’s implicit consensus on a topic, it disempowers people who disagree from speaking out openly. Anytime someone speaks out, there’s always a chance that anyone sitting on the fence would agree with them. I think that while rainbow washing was a flimsy shield, it was still a shield against bigotry because of the implied consensus of support and the disempowering of bigots from speaking out and potentially swaying anyone still on the fence.








  • ShaunaTheDead@fedia.iotomemes@lemmy.world•Miss him
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Right, CMY for ink, RGB for light though.

    this image is pretty helpful. With light you’re starting with white (the center of the left diagram) and subtracting colours to get your ideal colour. With ink, you’re adding colour to get your ideal colour, and adding all of your colours will get you to black.








  • Reminds me of an early application of AI where scientists were training an AI to tell the difference between a wolf and a dog. It got really good at it in the training data, but it wasn’t working correctly in actual application. So they got the AI to give them a heatmap of which pixels it was using more than any other to determine if a canine is a dog or a wolf and they discovered that the AI wasn’t even looking at the animal, it was looking at the surrounding environment. If there was snow on the ground, it said “wolf”, otherwise it said “dog”.





  • Looks like an article paid for by Epic.

    Here’s a repost of what I said the last time the Steam vs Epic Games Store “debate” was brought up:

    My biggest concern with Epic is their insistence on kernel level anti-cheat which is just ridiculous overkill and probably being used as spyware let’s be honest. They have many ties to China’s Tencent which has a 40% stake in the company and is known to basically just be an extension of the Chinese government.

    There’s also the very odd fact that just having the Epic Games Store open in the background will deplete your laptops battery life by up to 20%. Is it just horribly optimized and uses all that battery even when idling, or is it doing something nefarious in the background? We don’t know.

    As for exclusives, they have bought exclusives that were mostly crowd funded from the start which is quite the kick in the teeth to the early investors that helped get the project off the ground. And there were even some exclusives that were already listed for pre-order through Steam, forcing everyone to need to get a refund.

    Plus, any good will that they’ve purchased so far is just in service of making a good name for themselves. They’ve been losing around $400 million per year since 2019 just to bring in new users. They’re going to suddenly turn around and start being cut-throat as soon as they think they can.

    They are not consumer friendly, they want to dictate trends in gaming. Valve is already the king of that throne and they’re fairly benevolent and have pushed trends that are good for gaming and consumers overall. I have serious doubt that Epic would be anywhere near as good for gaming as Valve has been if they should actually become profitable, and an industry leader. Especially when it’s projected that they won’t be profitable until 2027, which means they’ll need to recoup their investment of nearly $3.2 billion since 2019.