How is the DCT of the two images done here exactly ? Clearly 8x8 tiles like in JPEG are not used, otherwise the similar blurry background tiles would still look similar in the DCT composite. Are the 2D DCT basis functions not a thing in this case ?
Btw, how much AI goes into designing the exterior of a car (panels, lights, windows, grill) ? Can they just drag a slider for "How much muscle do you want" from "Yes" to "Beige" ?
Very little. It's heavily computer aided, but the overall design is largely done by humans with some marginal input by engineers for annoying realities like aerodynamics and sensors.
I don’t think they use generative AI much in automotive design today, but you can play with stable diffusion and embeddings and make a slider for muscle cars in the textual weights.
It just seems implausible that the malicious x86 code would not have shown up in strace, perf record, or some backtrace. Once this ended up in all the major distros, some syscall or glibc call would have eventually looked like a red flag to someone before long.
Is there a competition where you win by showing something both compact and extraordinary but not obfuscated ? Like zlib compression in 100 lines or some song recognition using FFT in X lines, or a working ssh client in Y lines ?
Some of the winners of the last few years have been extraordinary - complete arcade games, with physics, in just 10 lines of BASIC. This competition definitely highlights the issue we have with software development, which is that we, as a species, don't generally get really good at it for decades...
Anecdotal evidence from my kids and their various friendship groups is that they all flocked to Brave (especially on desktop) to avoid the ads on YouTube.
They all seemed individually very proud for doing so, beating the system as it were, which meant it very quickly caught on amongst all of them.
That is the danger for YouTube, as it's a key demographic..
The SDK is paid for when purchasing the phone. Same as with Mac OS, OS X, DOS, Windows, Android, Blackberry, ChromeOS and every other OS out there. It's not shortsighted, it's worked well for the past 50 years or so.
and for advanced developer tooling you can charge. This is what MS does. Visual Studio (not Code) is not free for businesses.
One can still do C# development using only Windows SDK and/or dotnet SDK for "free".
You cannot do C/C++ or Rust developement without a license but with MinGW you also can do it without MS SDK. MS doesn't prevent people from using GCC compilers. Their core C++ developers even use it: https://nuwen.net/mingw.html
the point is, MS and others are free to choose how they will offer their services. They can say "hey I'll provide this for free, and I will make you pay for this other thing". As long as they are not a monopoly in computing, they should be free to do whatever they want, no? If they go bonkers with what they ask vs the value they provide, competition will wipe them out - easy peasy.
Apple could have said at the beginning "hey this is iPhone, there are no external apps for it though" - which was actually the case! iPhone did not have 3rd party apps at launch.
Then Apple could have said "good news everyone, you can now develop for the iPhone. Dev kits start at $10000 per unit, apply to partner with us, call us at this number" and that would be the end of it. Lots of gadgets still work like that and nobody bats an eye.
Apple decreased the barrier to entry and provided it as a service, charged for it but created good value in return, and it worked! But now that governments signal that they will punish such success, the next Apple will likely not go the way of low barrier of entry - this will hurt the regular folk, people with not so deep pockets.
What worked well for the past 50 years was freedom. None of those operating systems were forced to provide dev kits at no additional cost. They did it to compete. If Apple's additional costs' value proposition was not there, they would not be successful, they would not be able to attract good developers creating good software. Apple is not a monopoly either, there is competition. So forcing them to provide a service at no additional cost is just theft. And corporations can circumvent the hit they will get from being forced in innumerable ways in a capitalist system, all at the expense of the consumer.
The point is, nobody is disallowed from competing with Apple and its ecosystem on its merits. If Apple didn't provide enough value in return to what they ask, they would fail. Signaling that you will punish success with force means that the next Apple will be a lot more cautious about how they do things. Jacked up prices (as long as value proposition is there, people will pay, they will just pay more), requiring dev kits (can you force a company to change their hardware design so that it can be developed on? where is the limit?) / expensive partnership agreements / increasing the barrier to entry... Unless companies are "state owned" they have infinite ways to keep their profits at the expense of consumers. Apple's existing deal was a good deal - it was working, competition was (and is still) there. Now they will have to do the things that will just inconvenience users as a side effect, which is what they don't want to do, but they will be forced to do regardless.
