Yesterday I encountered AI-generated food photos on a menu for the first time. I immediately felt grossed out before even realising why. Their generated focaccias didn't even look like food, just off-putting trypophobia triggers.
> Yesterday I encountered AI-generated food photos on a menu for the first time. I immediately felt grossed out before even realising why. Their generated focaccias didn't even look like food, just off-putting trypophobia triggers.
Also, that's just misleading. When I see pictures of food on a menu, I expect them to be real pictures of an example of the actual dish I'd get (perhaps made a little more carefully with more of an eye towards presentation, but the actual, real item).
AI-generated food photos on a menu are dirty lies.
> When I see pictures of food on a menu, I expect them to be real pictures of an example of the actual dish I'd get
I don't get who would think that's a good idea. Like if I order something because the picture shows that the dish has carrots or something and the dish you bring doesn't I'm going to complain.
But then again I can't tell you the number of restaurants that have a photograph of a menu on a website where the original was clearly digital already.
>> When I see pictures of food on a menu, I expect them to be real pictures of an example of the actual dish I'd get
> I don't get who would think that's a good idea.
It's super helpful to the customer, because it gives you a much better idea of what you're going to get. That's especially true with ethic food, where the descriptions use unfamiliar terms or a lot of meaning is lost in translation.
> Like if I order something because the picture shows that the dish has carrots or something and the dish you bring doesn't I'm going to complain.
Seriously, what's the problem with that?
Are you, for some strange reason, taking the perspective of a restaurant that wants to behave in a very customer-unfriendly way? Randomly dropping or substituting ingredients is not something a restaurant should be doing.
Not that either are OK, but McDonalds basically stages their food to make it look more appealing, adding stuff that isn't in the product to make it look nicer.
Tangentially, I kinda like the idea of Doordashs crowd sourced food images. Take a Pic of your food before you eat and get like a $5 discount if it is chosen. Customers are not likely to manipulate the product (they may stage it nicely like you mentioned but won't put browning agent or other additives to make it shinier).
McD's is also not considered quality food so I don't think this example goes against the association of fake pics -> no thanks. But the practice also becomes more egregious when applied to more niche foods where the customer doesn't already have an idea of what the food could look like.
Jsoo supports self-recursive and mutually recursive tail calls, but for general tail calls it would need to trampoline every single call, since the only major browser with proper tail calls is Safari.
There's always a lag, you calibrate the test based on previous results, not future ones. If intelligence is decreasing I'd expect every IQ test to keep scoring a median lower than 100 unless taken immediately after calibration. Once it stops decreasing they'd converge again.
A one item collection is admittedly a lame one, but it is a collection. Pointers are collections of zero or one items in a sense.
Now, the verb "map" is the traditional name for this operator, but I agree it sounds confusing when the noun "map" is also a collection type. C# and SQL call this Select, if that helps.
By your definition a migrant needs to cross borders and successfully settle on the other site. What do you call the people being forced back or stuck in holding facilities and internation camps then?
I'm talking exclusively about this particular breach. 48000 out of 50000 have returned voluntarily. I don't think that counts as trying, so talking about success is a category error. This was a (deadly) flash mob.
I assumed their qualifier was being applied to this case as well. However I don't think there's any ambiguity about who are we talking about in this specific thread of comments.
48000 out of 50000 in Ceuta's breach won't be migrating actually, since they've already returned voluntarily. Most either were agitators or have realised they weren't any better off on the other side.
Most have already migrated actually, unless you believe they were born in Morocco. And their intention was obviously to settle in Europe through Spain.
Obviously? Morocco is a well-known hub for migrants from all over Africa who try to reach Europe, but these ones are "quite obviously" Moroccan? What makes it this obvious then?
Is obvious because there is no way 48000 people on flip-flops and football t-shirts, without neither documents, nor money, would be allowed to happily step back into Morocco unless they are citizens.
Also because real sub saharan immigrants would fight tooth and nails before to voluntarily returning to Morocco. A place where many report been abused for months and years, and where they are trapped unless they pay the local mafias a small fortune to quit the place.
Flash mob is a perfect way to describe this, but if Morocco government was behind that, it backfired spectacularly with zero real gains to show for the at least 67 Moroccan citizens that died at the sea just to have a laugh at Spain.
Spain is seen as the victim and after past negative experiences has endured this with relative grace and dignity. Haters will hate, trumpers will trump, and nobody cares. Europe can say what they want, but the crisis has mostly solved itself in 24 hours, and the video of the Spanish agents running to comfort a lost little child crying alone, has made the entire country proud of their policemen.
Morocco instead is seen as the invader, has lost international trust and now it needs to bury many of their citizens including children. The families of the children drown probably think now that this has been a really stupid idea.
You may have misread: Java will keep supporting ARM macOS, they're just deprecating Intel macOS. Also this is a decision taken by the JVM team, not Apple; the latter simply deprecated their Intel platform first.
I swear HN has some sort of Mandela effect about Codeberg's mission. Their website clearly states they're a community-led non-profit that hosts like-minded FOSS projects, and their FAQ directly asks you to host private repos somewhere else.
Yet the amount of comments in this site proposing them as a GitHub alternative for individuals and companies, and suggesting them to move their repos there is absurd, and not enough people correct them.
Do yourself a favor and look at the actual HN thread [1] when Codeberg was widely discussed for the first time. It is crystal clear that Codeberg was seen as a direct alternative to GitHub at that time, and even the founder's quoted statement gave a nod to that I think?
> [...] But as developers of free software we fell into a trap – we poured invaluable source code, documentation and last not least a huge and steady stream of data about our personalities, interests and social networks into proprietary platforms. [...]
(And no one knew Codeberg had a right to determine which source code and documentation is invaluable.)
I just did, in fact I vaguely remembered it from back then, and after reading the announcement blog post and the quote, I still think that anyone who expected Codeberg to replace their private use of GitHub was fantasizing. They already stated their mission is to be a community-led forge for FOSS.
Maybe we could blame them for having lowered their ambitions around "lesser" FOSS, but then again the economics are changing.
Even looking at the comments from that thread and the Codeberg page at that time in archive.org, I don't really see much that points to it as a proper GitHub alternative, other than the editorialized (I think) post title.
Which I think might be the cause of confusion here. I suspect that there was never an official statement (or intention) of Codeberg being a full GitHub replacement, but since a lot of people recommended it as an alternative to GitHub, it started to be seen that way.
I'm happy to be proven wrong, though, as I'm quite confused about the outrage about Codeberg's decision. At least in my mind, Codeberg was already a highly opinionated forge (with the private repo ban and all), so this was not much of a surprise.
Free services owe no one, anything. If you are joining a community, be respectful.
If you're not, and you get banned, that sucks. If it causes a whole category of your peers to be banned that sucks too.
…but its a bit rich to say, oh yeah, the promises you made before LLMs were a thing didn't include a note saying “except if you spam AI generated code”.
Come on.
They dont owe anyone anything.
Certainly not for some comment from ten years ago.
This could entirely legitimately be a case of “was this decision made the right way according to their own decision making process?” … but “is it ok for then to have made this decision?”
Yes. Its fine. It’s their platform. They can do whatever they want.
The OP said the Mandela effect [1] which is definitely about the past event. Anyhow, I'm okay with Codeberg's decision (I'm not even its stakeholder, so what can I say about that anyway) but it has to be honest about the intent. If its definition of "F/OSS" has changed, do say so.
reply