Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)GL
Posts
1
Comments
390
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • Replacing the spinning disk hard drive with an ssd will give you a significant increase in battery life. And it'll also make the machine wildly faster on all tasks that aren't cpu intensive

  • Sorry, i deleted my comment like 10 seconds after posting because i googled it and saw i was incorrect. A few years ago Apple added a camera APP to the watch that remote controls your phone camera, but didn't actually add a camera to the watch. I misremembered, my bad

  • It's true that this is how most consumers act. It's dumb, but iirc it's factually correct.

    If you take a brand name shirt, remove the logo in a way that is visually perfect, and sell them side-by-side, then the logo shirt will outsell the non-logo shirt. Or so I've heard.

  • Absolutely, a ten year old computer today is still capable of doing pretty much everything that most people use computers for. It's not like the old days when every few years a new tier of computer would come out that made older devices no longer capable of doing what people wanted.

  • I agreed with op, then i read your astute response and now I don't know which position is correct.

    Thinking it through as i type... If you photoshopped an image of Tom Hanks giving a thumbs up to your product, that would clearly be illegal, but if you hired an exact flawless lookalike impersonator of Tom Hanks and had him pose for a picture with a thumbs up to your product, would that be illegal? I think it might still be illegal, because you purposely hired a lookalike impersonator to gain the benefit of Tom Hanks' brand.

    I think the law on AI should match what the law says about impersonators. If hiring an indistinguishable celebrity impersonator to use in media is legal, then ai soundalikes should be legal too, and vice versa.

  • Atoms are almost entirely empty space. And electrons themselves don't really occupy a specific dot in space, they're more of a blur that fuzzes out in a "large" region of space around the nucleus. So what's shown here is most likely a visualization of the area that the electrons occupy.

    But I'm no physicist and i didn't read the article, so take this with a big grain of salt

    EDIT

    Another person here said the round things are actually the nuclei, and they sound like they know what they're talking about. So while the informational stuff i said is right, it might not actually be a description of the image we're looking at

  • That's not at all a certain conclusion, based on the other possibilities i listed that could've led to these same numbers. It's at least as likely that it's a badly constructed poll. There isn't even a source cited for this picture. As the science saying goes: garbage in, garbage out