Rust dev, I enjoy reading and playing games, I also usually like to spend time with friends.
You can reach me on mastodon @sukhmel@mastodon.online or telegram @sukhmel@tg
In the long run everything might be false, even your own memory changes over time and may be affected by external forces.
So, maybe there will be no way to tell the truth except when experiencing it firsthand, and we will once again live like ancient Greeks, pondering about things.
To be fair, I hope that science and critical thinking might help to distinguish what is true or not, but that would only apply to abstract things, as all the concrete things might be fabricated
Not trying to become an expert in everything was the most important decision I made so far, I think
I half agree about fun, think it depends on how often clients want some weird shit done yesterday, it becomes a nightmare if it happens too often :(
The biggest scam about programmers is they barely program
He’s got a point, though, the further you go, the less time you spend inputting code. Although some people prefer to continue going head first and then remaking everything.
No big deal with the crop, you were right that the third doesn’t look like what I had in mind. Most likely I’m not informed enough on what iPhones use for photo improvements, maybe I will read something about that
On these I would’ve guessed only 1 or 1+2, but since you said that the photos in the post were shot on the iPhone, and there is a preview that shows that the third is a photo from the post, I expect that I’m wrong.
But yes, the third zoom-in is what I expect to see on a low postprocessing camera, and the first photo is more or less what I imagine from a high postprocessing camera.
Still, that’s very apparent on large ad posters Apple used to make “shot with an iPhone”, a zoomed in photo looks like it consists of irregular patches of solid colour, not pixels. That’s what I called upscaling, that’s what my old Honour used to do to photos when it fell flat on actually capturing the details, and maybe that’s what others meant, too.
I agree with many others, 1, 3, 5 look most suspicious (assuming numbers precede pictures)
Others seem to have heavy upscaling but it doesn’t tend to become too patterned. In 1, 3, 5 grass tends to become something like a fractal rather than grass, plus reflections are sometimes off (that is why 2 is a bit suspicious because of a small tree reflection, but maybe it’s just hard to see the original tree), and the branches tend to grow from multiple trees at the same time
They get power from it (and money), that’s enough reason for many to be anti democratic
Well, image models are getting better at producing text, just sayin’
I’d expect both to be depictions of the same anecdote, Joe Sacco just did it with more artistic freedom
At least that way we can be reasonably sure that en are from Jupiter
This was an amazing read, although that doesn’t mean that science is somehow at fault in this. As usual, it’s people and bureaucratic institutions that make this possible, but it’s also people who find it out and call con-artists out
I second the question but from the looks of a web UI maybe the subtitle is what appears under the link?
Only a loading screen, judging by the small size
That’s what I’m saying and people call me radicalised for that 😅
Maybe although I am sure they have a very sketchy contract as they don’t adhere to regulations anyway
But sometimes it’s hot outside 😓