Readit News logoReadit News
revelio commented on Striking SAG actors in disbelief over studios’ dystopian AI proposal   rollingstone.com/tv-movie... · Posted by u/rawgabbit
justinjlynn · 2 years ago
Well, they're not buying the 'likeness' in most cases as much as they're buying the actor's 'star power' - i.e. their ability to trade on their own name and performance independently of any one media product. That is, simply having their name attached to something makes that thing more likely to do well financially. This is what they're buying - and why casting "unknowns" in a "big budget" production is rather unusual. It's more risky than simply paying, say, Chris Pratt or Scarlett Johansson to perform. As you might imagine, investors don't like risk except the kind that guarantees them returns.
revelio · 2 years ago
Not for background roles though. There are no stars in that world.
revelio commented on Striking SAG actors in disbelief over studios’ dystopian AI proposal   rollingstone.com/tv-movie... · Posted by u/rawgabbit
linuxftw · 2 years ago
What if they wanted $1m each? Should he have just given them what they wanted?

He called their bluff and brought in replacements. Hollywood can do the same.

revelio · 2 years ago
That's what I don't get about these demands. If Hollywood wants to scan background actors and reuse them instead of paying them a day rate, then surely almost anyone can be scanned and used in such a process. At that point they aren't even actors, they're just sources of pretty faces for the VFX team. And that isn't even necessary is it because GANs can imagine pretty faces for years now.

Presumably if actors pick this as a hill to die on, well, suddenly there'll be even more surplus supply of actors to demand because the easy roles are VFX, and at that point Hollywood can just break the unions with scabs.

revelio commented on Last week was the hottest ever recorded – here’s why we keep smashing records   sciencenews.org/article/h... · Posted by u/web11
ben_w · 2 years ago
Guess which bit of the planet the aforementioned satellite temperature data I used was? Not many airports in the oceans. Satellites covered everything, of course, but I was working with marine biologists at the time.

Now, do you want to try again, this time with an argument that isn't so trivial to dismiss with the stuff I did 20 years ago in the middle of my degree?

revelio · 2 years ago
But we're not talking about what you, random HN poster, did twenty years ago. You asked, "Why are weather stations even still a meme in these discussions?" and the answer is "because governments keep announcing records based on them". Why would they not be a "meme" in this discussion, given that fact? If governments didn't use data from weather stations anymore for climatological purposes, indeed, discussion of them would eventually disappear. They will never do that because satellite data only goes back to the early 1970s and they want to talk about trends longer than that, therefore, weather stations will remain a meme.

So there's nothing to try again here. Your question was answered correctly the first time.

revelio commented on Last week was the hottest ever recorded – here’s why we keep smashing records   sciencenews.org/article/h... · Posted by u/web11
NotYourLawyer · 2 years ago
> On July 3, the planet sweltered as the average global temperature reached 17.01° Celsius (62.62° Fahrenheit), the highest ever recorded, according to data from the U.S. National Centers for Environmental Prediction. That surpassed the previous record of 16.92° C (62.46° F) from August 2016.

I am extremely curious about the error bars on these numbers. Are we really measuring the temperature in enough places around the globe with 0.01 degree resolution to make this a meaningful statement?

revelio · 2 years ago
No. Error bars on satellite measurements are OK (not sure what they are exactly but not too bad), but for anything before the 1970s the error bars are wide. 0.5 degrees at best but more realistically 1-5 degrees depending on weather station. That's government's own CI estimates btw.

And that's before you get to the way they rewrite the past in the temperature databases. It leads to problems like this:

Jeff Berardelli, WFLA-TV (Tampa Bay) Chief Meteorologist and Climate Specialist: “In case you missed it. The temperature soared as high as 100 degrees in the Northwest Territories on Saturday, the hottest temperature ever measured north of 65 degrees latitude in the Western Hemisphere”. Tough keeping up with all this climate chaos.”

https://twitter.com/WeatherProf/status/1678635894021005312

100 degrees, hottest ever measured in north of 65 degrees latitude. A factual statement?

No, because it's not true. It reached 100F at Fort Yukon (66.6 degrees latitude) in 1915, according to government logbooks since erased from their websites:

https://web.archive.org/web/20170209162324/https://www.ncdc....

This happens because climatologists engage in data fraud. They not only constantly change how they combine individual readings into global aggregates, but also rewrite the temperature history of every single weather station too. It leads to constant 1984-esque dystopian events, like trusted news sources claiming a new record has been broken when you can find records of that "record" having been previously already been reached or exceeded in newspaper archives and old documents.

revelio commented on Last week was the hottest ever recorded – here’s why we keep smashing records   sciencenews.org/article/h... · Posted by u/web11
ben_w · 2 years ago
Why are weather stations even still a meme in these discussions?

I used satellite surface temperature data nearly 20 years ago, it wasn't novel even then.

revelio · 2 years ago
Because governments announce new "records" based on single thermometers that are located on the tarmac of airports, at the moment that jet fighters are landing.
revelio commented on Global heat in ‘uncharted territory’: 2023 could be the hottest year on record   cnn.com/2023/07/08/world/... · Posted by u/abhayhegde
ygjb · 2 years ago
revelio · 2 years ago
The first is the insectopocalypse, which has been debunked:

https://theconversation.com/insect-apocalypse-not-so-fast-at...

The second is a prediction for 300 years in the future. But we're talking about the claim "the ecology is collapsing", present tense.

revelio commented on “Computer security 80% solved if we deprecate technology shown in this graphic”   twitter.com/matthew_d_gre... · Posted by u/mariuz
zenapollo · 2 years ago
Agreed. MacOS has much stronger security despite Apple not waiting for its users to get pounded by malware. I think it has something to do with basic philosophy - MS supports corporate certified malware. If adobe creative cloud needs a feature that uses 25%cpu 24-7 with telemetry and maxed permissions, MS is gonna support it.
revelio · 2 years ago
You're conflating telemetry with permissions. macOS doesn't attempt to stop apps reporting how they're used, why would it? Instead Apple gathers such data and then keeps it for itself, requiring devs to go via Apple to get it.

macOS does have stronger security, but it's security in the form of stopping apps accessing files until they need permission and things.

revelio commented on “Computer security 80% solved if we deprecate technology shown in this graphic”   twitter.com/matthew_d_gre... · Posted by u/mariuz
sersi · 2 years ago
I've never ran curl | bash once and I use linux fairly regularly in the past 20 years. If I absolutely have to install something where the only way is to pipe a curl to bash (which is incredibly rare), I first download the script, review it and only then execute it. Doing curl | bash is absolutely not security best practice.
revelio · 2 years ago
But realistically what those scripts do is always download and run even more code, and you probably aren't reviewing that.
revelio commented on Global heat in ‘uncharted territory’: 2023 could be the hottest year on record   cnn.com/2023/07/08/world/... · Posted by u/abhayhegde
defrost · 2 years ago
I'm having flashbacks to a famous decades old climate denialism talking point heavily pushed by the Koch pro oil media think tanks.

One so famous that it was studied in depth by a prominent US physics professor [1] and (then) climate skeptic using some Koch funding.

The results of the 2013 Berkeley Earth land temperature data analysis on urban heat islands answers your concerns:

    When we began our study, we felt that skeptics had raised legitimate issues, and we didn't know what we'd find. Our results turned out to be close to those published by prior groups. We think that means that those groups had truly been very careful in their work, despite their inability to convince some skeptics of that. They managed to avoid bias in their data selection, homogenization and other corrections.

    Global warming is real. Perhaps our results will help cool this portion of the climate debate. How much of the warming is due to humans and what will be the likely effects? We made no independent assessment of that. [1]
and

    The Berkeley Earth group concluded that the warming trend is real, that over the past 50 years (between the decades of the 1950s and 2000s) the land surface warmed by 0.91±0.05 °C, and their results mirror those obtained from earlier studies carried out by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the Hadley Centre, NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) Surface Temperature Analysis, and the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia.

    The study also found that the urban heat island effect and poor station quality did not bias the results obtained from these earlier studies. [2]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_A._Muller

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Earth

revelio · 2 years ago
You missed the followup. People investigated BEST and discovered it was doing the same things with the same sorts of mistakes as other climatological temperature datasets. For example they classified the weather stations at Bangkok airport as "very rural". Like always with climatology the process they used to do all this is non-replicable, so people could see the mistakes but not diagnose how they happened or attempt to fix them. Plus, although Berkeley Earth claimed UHI was unimportant, basic checks like comparing the warming of cities vs more rural stations showed huge differences.

There's also the issue that BEST has diverged drastically from satellite observations. It's not possible for both sources to be true simultaneously as they claim to be measuring the same thing.

It's not hugely surprising that they claimed to investigate these concerns and then simply duplicated the bad methodologies that were being criticized in the first place. Berkeley Earth is run by a guy who has said, amongst other things,

"I would love to believe that the results of Mann et al. are correct, and that the last few years have been the warmest in a millennium."

In the same article where he said that he observed that anyone who took issue with the Mann hockey-stick history rewrites were attacked and people had engaged in mass resignations simply because papers disagreeing with it were published.

There's a fundamental philosophy of science issue here that can't be resolved with the "one more study" approach. Climatologists don't attempt to improve their source data quality. They don't build and operate weather station networks, they rely on others that were built for other purposes. Although the changes they claim to be monitoring are very small (like 0.1-0.2 C per decade) they don't set up the instruments they need to obtain such precise and accurate measurements. Instead they suck up data from literally any thermometer they can find and then apply algorithms that they claim correct the bias and corruption. This isn't scientifically valid. If scientists have doubts about their source data they're supposed to use error bars, but when did you ever see a temperature graph that had error bars? They never do because many of the stations they use report uncertainty intervals of anywhere from half a degree C to even 5 degrees C. These CIs are much wider than the size of the claimed trend and would thus destroy any ability to detect warming from the ground station network. So, they rely on this algorithmic approach, but that isn't convincing due to how frequently they decided their previous algorithms were wrong and rewrite the history of the climate.

revelio commented on Global heat in ‘uncharted territory’: 2023 could be the hottest year on record   cnn.com/2023/07/08/world/... · Posted by u/abhayhegde
eyelidlessness · 2 years ago
They also keep happening in closer concentration. It’s not like you just break a record once and then the record is settled.
revelio · 2 years ago
More than you could imagine. Climatology is unique in that records can be "broken" by lower temperatures than previous records.

https://retractionwatch.com/2021/08/16/will-the-real-hottest...

u/revelio

KarmaCake day1142March 18, 2023View Original