Cool study, I've got this question before from my 7yo and had no idea :P
If I'm reading it correctly, insects don't fly toward the light, they turn the front of their body toward it. Under natural light, this helps them fly correctly ("maintain proper flight attitude and control"), but with artificial light they end up just constantly flying around the light source?
I wish ElevenLabs didn't require a subscription to test voice cloning but I might try it out this month and see if it's cool enough to continue. It could be a really fun way to get my 7yo exposed to stuff like this.
Yeah, Eleven is very expensive (not for a hobby project like this -- but at scale). I think we'll see a lot of commoditization of TTS services in the next 6-12 months - but Eleven seems to be in the lead for now.
While technically true this is hardly an option... Both of those "alternative" plans exclude YouTube TV while charging considerably more. How many users who enjoy paying more for less did they sell to here?
$350/year for Sunday Ticket with YouTube TV included vs. $450/year for just Sunday Ticket, delivered via regular YouTube it seems.
$350/year for Sunday Ticket with YouTube TV included vs. $450/year for just Sunday Ticket, delivered via regular YouTube it seems.
YouTube TV is required—not included—with the $350/year plan.
So it's either $350/year + $73/month (with), or $450/year (without).
Assuming you only keep YouTube TV for the September-January football season, that's $715/season with YouTube TV, vs. $450/season without. If you don't get any value from YouTube TV (e.g. if you already have cable or satellite), it's cheaper without.
(Sunday Ticket doesn't show locally or nationally broadcast games such as Monday Night Football, so you kinda need access to broadcast TV alongside it.)
When DirecTV had the Sunday Ticket monopoly, you had to sign a two-year contract to be allowed to purchase it. At least with Google, you can cancel YouTube TV as soon as the season is over.
In my family's case, we weighed the cost against what we spent last football season on food + drinks at sports bars, and decided it was a better deal. ($715 over 18 weeks = $40/weekend. If we go out half as frequently, we come out ahead.)
I agree with your math, but the whole thing is offensive and abusive no matter how you cut it. $450/year (minimum) just to get football games. We've been evaluating our different options overall, given that Netflix price-to-value continues to weaken, as does Sling and Hulu, but I can't find any reason apart from NFL games why I would subscribe to YouTubeTv.
If you don't care what games you watch, an HD antenna isn't a bad deal.
Unfortunately, where we're located (South Dakota), there isn't a "local" team, so it's pretty random which games are broadcast by our local affiliates. If we want to follow a team and watch games we care about, it's either go out to a sports bar, or get Sunday Ticket at home. (And as discussed above, the latter is actually cheaper than the former.)
With other streaming services, we mostly stick to a "one at a time" policy. We'll subscribe to e.g. HBO Max for a month, catch up on the latest season of a show, and then cancel as soon as we're done.
I watch at most a couple of hours of TV a week, but my partner likes having "junk TV" on in the background while she's doing other stuff, so we do get some value from YouTube TV for cooking shows, shows like Deadliest Catch, etc. I wouldn't want to go back to paying $150/month for cable for that, but it's not completely worthless.
Compared to travel or my expensive tool habit, TV and football is actually a pretty small portion of our overall entertainment budget.
> "How does a brand show up in somebody's DMs or Discord server if they're not invited?" Haberman said. But in many ways, that's the point. People can still go on Instagram to check on their favorite celebrities and influencers, but young people don't want brands and marketers infiltrating the closed communities where they spend most of their time.
All people don’t want brands in their closed communities!
Anecdotally I strongly agree with the article. I pretty much only use Discord and group texts anymore among friends and family (though I do self host and share on Mastodon/Pixelfed/Lemmy it’s a fraction). Any time I poke around on traditional social media it just feels like a wasteland, 90% ads/curated content. Fine if you want to go read a magazine for a bit I guess but a shell of what it was like a decade ago.
The main thing for me is that I don't want everything I share with my friends and family to be public.
If I e.g. comment on a photo that my brother posted, I absolutely don't want any of his other random acquaintances to also see that. And also the other way around, if my friends comment something on my photo I don't want my brother to see that.
Private groups are the only way to avoid that. Or maybe a system like G+ had with the Circles, so I could e.g. share tech things only with my techie friends without bothering my aunt with it.
We can keep reinventing the wheel or we could just realize its all pointless anyhow, right? Why scroll to see the off chance Kevin went on vacation? Just shoot him a text and see what he’s been up to if you care. You don’t need a board or whatever to keep up with the people in your lives. Thats just a lazy way to do it which inevitably invites the ads in, so other ads we are exposed to in society makes us feel its necessary, but its not. Grandma isn’t active on facebook yet she keeps up with everyone she thinks about just fine with the good old land line, probably with a far more deeper connection than a laughing face emoji. Maybe something to think about before looking for the next online refuge.
> All people don’t want brands in their closed communities!
Since you can't avoid having these ads/brand placed in your preferred social media platform (the users are the product (to be sold to advertisers) and not the customers), the next best thing that you can do as a user is to subvert the undesired brands that you see in your social media stream (e.g. by posting something that makes fun of an ad that you see) to make the social media platform a less desirable place for the respective undesired advertiser.
Yeah agreed, odd to not even address that when it's no doubt the first question anyone would have here.
From another article[1] it sounds like psychological issues:
> [The woman's attorney's] filing stated, "She has not acknowledged the existence of her own medical condition. Because counsel is bound to represent the respondent's stated interest, a guardian ad litem would be able to provide representation of her best interests, which are not currently clear."
> [ . . . ]
> The filing added that when "the respondent has joined proceedings, she has spoken out of turn with rapid, disorganized speech."
> It noted, "She has primarily focused on how she dislikes papers coming to her home, and not the import of the process in which she finds herself. She has repeatedly threatened suicide in relationship to papers being served upon her home."
The US (especially California) basically made it illegal to provide mental health care unless the patient is currently requesting it.
This creates a catch-22 where people that have previously-undiagnosed mental health conditions are denied access to basic healthcare. Worse, even if you were previously certified insane (e.g., for paranoid schizophrenia or manic depression) and have temporarily recovered, it's extremely difficult (impossible?) to sign away your future self's ability to decline medical care, even knowing that you would only do that because of a mental health relapse that makes you unable to care for yourself.
A large percentage of the crazy homeless people you see when walking outside in bay area cities fell into that legal trap (according to workers at our local emergency mental health facilities).
I guess the above now applies to regular health care, since they've decided that imprisoning this woman indefinitely for being sick and unable to care for herself is more compassionate than putting her through a round of antibiotics.
I'm not sure what this even means. "certified insane" is not a thing, and if it were, there are many people who suffer from manic depression who lead otherwise fairly normal lives.
second, in California, a person can be involuntarily held if they are deemed a risk to themselves or others. This is typically done in a mental health facility.
third, you can't really force treatment on anything in the united states, if someone refuses care, the hospital can't just keep you there against your will. Are you advocating for the return of institutionalization?
The bar _should_ be high, but it's too high in California. You can quibble with the imprecise wording above, but in practice the law makes it basically impossible to hospitalize people with severe mental issues against their will. If you ever have to deal with this with elderly relatives, you'll quickly discover that you're essentially powerless no matter how bad it gets.
edited to add: to be super clear: you don't want to make it easy for people to abuse the elderly, which is why the bar has to be high, but there must be a way to compassionately help someone who actually needs help. And there basically isn't.
> but in practice the law makes it basically impossible to hospitalize people with severe mental issues against their will.
This is very literally not the case. In California, hospitals 51-50 people all the time. It's an involuntary 72 hour hold and the criteria for meeting it is not high at all. A professional just has to deem you are a danger to yourself or others. That's the bar, and it's easily met for healthcare providers.
You can't really hold an open source project like this to such a high level of scrutiny, all development was likely done in people's spare time with no compensation.
But seriously, I 100% agree! No one is paying for these icons. Mistakes happen. The world is not ending if they do not get corrected immediately. We all have a ton of things we are working on and cannot always make our FLOSS side-projects our top priority.
(Though, I will readily admit that this raises some provocative questions about how much "mission critical" projects should rely on open source projects which they have no contract/SLA/affiliation with...)
I don't think it really is that provocative -- clearly if you have no relationship with an open source project then they don't owe you anything, and you can't rely on them. So if your project is mission critical, then you either need to start up that relationship or apply internal engineering effort to vetting their code.
Of course I'm sure the second person to touch a computer did something irresponsible with it, so what can you do, right?
Hrmmm... while your comment is intended in good faith, I think it actually does a disservice to open source.
I've seen plenty of terrible quality closed source projects and even some impressive high quality closed source projects that were still imperfect and open to human error.
I don't think we should have lower levels of scrutiny or expectations from open source projects. I do think the gp's criticism was exaggerated and unwarranted for any project, open or closed.
On the other hand, it also displays the unbelievable entitledness of many, many people in tech, that feel right to not only shit on the work that others have provided for free (when they're probably going to use it in projects that make actual money), but also have the gall to say that the maintainers should fix it faster.
It's open source, you've seen the error and you know how to fix it. Make a pull request yourself.
If it really bothers you so much, it sounds like it would’ve taken you less time to fix it than to complain all the way over here. I’m pointing this out not because open source is often thankless (it can be), but because this kind of negativity snipe is often demoralizing even for those of us not even maintaining the project.
Thanksfully someone did which show also the beauty of the open source, it only took a few minutes for someone to volunteer and provide a correction, which the poster above could have done instead of complaining.
For me the rushing icon does look better. But I wonder why they didn't make the icon on a more normal position, with the body and arms closer to the resting position. We don't make signage with people running except when we actually want to say that they are going fast; the same should apply here.
> I wonder why they didn't make the icon on a more normal position, with the body and arms closer to the resting position.
The article linked by grandparent says: "the new design pictures a handicapped individual with their head tilted forward, indicating their mobility and that they are in control of where they are going. The new design also pictures the individual with their arms back, once again indicating that they are dynamic and in control of their own mobility."
I think it is intentional and I think the reason isn't very hard to figure out. Handicapped has been associated with "incapable" for a long time, and this is intentionally turning that on its head to force people to (maybe!) subconsciously reconsider when they start seeing this symbol spray painted in parking lots, plastered on walls, and otherwise surrounding them in the spaces they regularly visit.
This wasn't meant to be a neutral change, or even a change to bring it from negative connotations to neutral - it's the equivalent of affirmative action for symbols.
