There's a difference between criticisms of the content or the reader's ability to view it and complaints about "tangential annoyances" surrounding it.
There's a difference between criticisms of the content or the reader's ability to view it and complaints about "tangential annoyances" surrounding it.
Replying to an email inline rather than at the top marks you out as of a certain generation. Using text emojis rather than finding the graphical emoji does too.
Everyone needs to relax about AI generation anyway (did you learn something useful or not? If you did, does it matter if it was AI generated as a site?), but saying "this is what people under 30 frequently do, so it must be fake", is just this weird vibe spreading everywhere I don't get at all.
If that's the first thing he thinks of while transiting through a UK airport, he deserves a citizenship, no questions.
Wind farms have a certain amount of nimbyism because they "spoil the natural landscape." (So do regular farms -- nothing natural about grain silos or row crops, but that's a side topic...) Anyways, having that many towers blink in unison across that big a landscape is a weird effect when you first see it. I think there's an argument that if they blinked independently it would feel more natural in a way.
But since the blinking is all FAA requirements, I assume it's to help identify all the individual towers from the air. I suppose if they were all blinking independently, it would be a predator-trying-to-focus-on-a-single-zebra-in-the-herd problem, except in this case the predator is a pilot trying not to crash into a turbine.
Sure would emit more subtle 'part of the landscape' vibes though.
(Which I guess is exactly what you don't want when you're flying above them. Sigh.)
presumably this makes it more striking, and thus easier to notice and avoid
Here's something you know. It's actually neither adjective 1 nor adjective 2—in fact, completely mundane realization! Let that sink in—restatement of realization. Restatement. Of. Realization. The Key Advantages: five-element bulleted list with pithy bolded headings followed by exactly zero new information. Newline. As a surprise, mild, ultimately pointless counterpoint designed to artificially strengthen the argument! But here's the paradox—okay, I can't do this anymore. You get the picture.
Inside JPEG XL’s lossy encoder, all image data becomes floating-point numbers between 0.0 and 1.0. Not integers. Not 8-bit values from 0-255. Just fractions of full intensity.
Everything after the first "Not" is superfluous and fairly distinctively so. No switching between 8-bit mode and 10-bit mode.
No worrying whether quantization tables are optimized for the right bit precision.
No cascading encoding decisions based on integer sample depth.
The codec doesn’t care about your display’s technical specs. It just needs to know: "what brightness level does white represent?" Everything scales from there.
Same general pattern. JPEG XL not worrying about bit depth isn’t an oversight *or* simplification. It’s liberation from decades of accumulated cruft where we confused digital precision with perceptual quality.
It's hard to describe the pattern here in words, but the whole thing is sort of a single stimulus for me. At the very least, notice again the repetition of the thing being argued against, giving it different names and attributes for no good semantic reason, followed by another pithy restatement of the thesis. By ignoring bit depth, JPEG XL’s float-based encoding embraces a profound truth: pixels aren’t just numbers; they’re perceptions.
This kind of upbeat, pithy, quotable punchline really is something frontier LLMs love to generate, as is the particular form of the statement. You can also see the latter in forms like "The conflict is no longer political—it's existential." Why This Matters
I know I said I wouldn't comment on little tics and formatting and other such smoking guns, but if I never have to see this godforsaken sequence of characters again…
The web without ad blocking is revolting. Browsers building in these features makes them more popular.
Aside: Fuck the Washington Post. They have a line in their privacy policy that acknowledges the existence of "Do Not Track" flags in browsers. Their acknowledgement: since there is no industry standard for responding to it, they ignore it.
> Do Not Track. Some web browsers may transmit a “do-not-track” signal. Because there currently is no industry standard concerning how to treat such signals, the Services currently do not take action in response to do not track signals. We respond to legally recognized browser-based opt out signals such as the Global Privacy Control signal for California residents.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/privacy-policy/