And you didn’t even read past the first sentence I see.

Saying they’re the same because they both use a neural network is roughly equivalent to saying things are they same because they’re both manipulating kinetic energy.

… How if flying a spaceship different from driving a car? They’re both controlled applications of kinetic energy to move people or objects.

At the end of the day, it’s all a pile of transistors and the only thing that is of import is the intent behind usage.

In one case it’s saying you can use a neural net to take something rendered at resolution A/4 and make it visually indistinguishable from the same render at resolution A.
The other is rendering something and radically changing the artistic or visual style.

Upsampling can be replicated within some margin by lowering framerate and letting the GPU work longer on each frame. It strives to restore detail left out from working quicker by guessing.
You cannot turn this feature off and get similar results by lowering the frame rate. It aims to add detail that was never present by guessing.

Upsampling methods have been produced that don’t use neural networks. The differences in behavior are in the realm of efficiency, and in many cases you would be hard pressed to tell which is which. The neural network is an implementation detail.
In the other case, the changes are more broad than can be captured by non AI techniques easily. The generative capabilities are central to the feature.

Process matters, but zooming out too far makes everything identical, and the intent matters too. “I want to see your art better” as opposed to “I want to make your art better”.

There’s hardware required to shunt the display out the USB port and since it’s not a super in demand feature they usually don’t implement it. As such the software for looking nice while doing it isn’t as developed.

But yes, it’s been in developer settings for years, and was usable if your hardware supported it.

Yes. And now it’s native in all android! Samsung helped make it!

It’s good when things get better.

I mean, I’m here so my politics are predictably best described as “complicated”, but you can elevator pitch it as “human rights; morality and utility are different; context is everything”. France does more to improve the human condition than north Korea, so I much prefer France, although some of their actions are also not great.
I do know the type you’re talking about. Quite frustrating indeed.

Most of the point of my comments was purely to say that that type of hawkish mindset exists, initially for the purpose of clarifying things for the original comments question.
Beyond that, I just don’t feel I have reason to doubt his words on the subject, including beyond the speech.
They’re consistent with his actions, not particularly uncommon, and stubborn in the face of reason since it views the reasonable opinion as specifically weak.

I can’t speak for the veracity of the claim that it was intentional itself, since I don’t have the information.

… What are you even talking about anymore?
Nothing I said has anything to do with the world not being as it seems or being controlled by a small group of people.
Acknowledging that some public figures have expressed the belief that we’ve been insufficiently aggressive in wars and foreign policy over the past decades is hardly conspiratorial thinking.

Shill is still a skilled job

What does that even mean in this context?

I didn’t ask you to prove anything. You were reassured that the people in Afghanistan being in charge here meant there was someone who would cut off any of the idiocy certain types of people think make a good war. I wondered why, given the administrations rhetoric, their willingness to fire people who might push back, who they’ve put in charge, and what those people have done.

What specific conspiratorial world view do you think I’m going to express?
I think some people think we could have won in Vietnam or Afghanistan if we just hadn’t “held back”. They’re not secretive about that opinion. I think those people have political power right now because I see no reason not to believe them when they say so and they seem to be behaving in line with that belief.

I’m unsure why you think him having no relevant experience makes him less likely to hold a profoundly awful opinion. If he had experience I’d be more likely to think it was just talk, but given the lack of experience, being a talking head, and the company he keeps I see no reason to think he’s secretly holding different opinions.

I mean, they’re already replaced people with people like I was describing. That’s not a hypothetical.

“he” referred to hegseth, who you seemed to be assuming probably didn’t believe the rhetoric he was using.

No one asked you to prove a negative. You expressed that the war being waged by the people who were in Afghanistan was a reassurance that they cared about the optics of brutality. I asked why you think that, given the things that happened in Afghanistan. “Things they’ve done” aren’t somehow irrelevant anecdotes.

We’re talking about the distinction between people who think civilian casualties are justifiable as opposed to those who think it’s a tool.

Sure. Unless they were fired for being “woke” and replaced by people who think bombing Iran will help usher in Armageddon and the second coming of Christ.

What has he done to make you think he deserves the benefit of the doubt? What in this administration makes you remain confident that somewhere deep down there’s a responsible adult who’ll calm things down? They bragged about letting Elon musk fire all those people.

Why do you think the people who ran Afghanistan wouldn’t bomb a school? They bombed weddings. Hospitals. Shot children.

You say that, but also… They specifically said this wasn’t going to be a “politically correct war” with “rules of engagement”.

https://www.war.gov/News/Transcripts/Transcript/Article/4418959/secretary-of-war-pete-hegseth-and-chairman-of-the-joint-chiefs-of-staff-gen-dan/

This is the generational turning point America has waited for since 1979 and since the rudderless wars of hubris

No stupid rules of engagement, no nation-building quagmire, no democracy building exercise, no politically correct wars. We fight to win

Remember that while sensible people know optics matter, there are people who think the problem with Vietnam was that we were too soft on them, and too soft on domestic political dissident.
Those are the people currently in power. They are not competent military thinkers. They view strength the same way the people who were blindsided by our loss in Vietnam viewed it. We can’t lose because we have more weapons. If the enemy is still fighting it’s because we haven’t bombed hard enough. Anyone who wants to hold back is weak.

It actually didn’t. The carpet bombing and flattening of cities didn’t make the population want to give up or turn on the military.
The first nuclear weapon didn’t either.
The second made the emperor inclined to surrender, when paired with a declaration of war by the Soviet Union.

The civilian population never posed a significant threat to the stability of the military or imperial rule.

People aren’t generally idiots, and will lean towards supporting the people fighting the people who are hurting them. You may not like them, and you may want them to do something else, but you’re unlikely to trust the party that is currently trying to kill you.

“Take off your armor and we’ll stop shooting” just isn’t a compelling argument.

A common belief amongst some people, right or wrong, is that if you hurt someone badly enough they’ll do what you want because that path becomes less painful.
Those people believe that sending the message “war with the US means all your children die” will result in people furiously demanding that their military stop fighting to prevent the killing.

It’s quite literally the abuser mindset but applied to nations. “I wouldn’t have to hurt you if you had just done what I said”.
This fits with who’s in power.

Nah, it’s cool. We’re clearly talking at cross purposes. Have a good one.

It was bought by Microsoft after becoming established. Most free software projects don’t care enough to move if they don’t self host.

And I’m just letting you know that link bombing isn’t, and it’s actually a discussion if you explain your point rather than dropping someone else’s novel.
If for no other reason than because you don’t have to dig for what part of what was posted is related to what they were saying, and you can much faster say “ah, you’re talking about something totally different than I am”.

Just so you know, from looking at the wall of text you pasted by proxy: those are arguments against the notion that a tpm can make the device itself secure, not that it is untrustworthy for the notion of signing and storing encrypted data.

Next time, make your point and provide references (or not), rather than just link bombing.

I’m not seeing anything that’s not a great look about requiring strong authentication for access to sensitive portions of a users account. What you’re saying is akin to calling it a bad look that they force users to use complex passwords against user wishes.

I’m not sure what “trust me bro, my cloud is safe” has to do with anything. Passkeys live on your device. There are ways of facilitating device to device migrations of the keys if you want. You don’t need to use them to use passkeys. And at least on Android you don’t need to even use Google to manage the keys.

Most semiconductors are closed source. The processor, ram, and radio are also more than likely closed. The software interfaces to all of them have open specification and implementation. There’s like, six for Linux. Microsoft open sourced theirs.
Tpms are not security through obscurity. They are obscure, but that’s not a critical component to their security model.

What they do isn’t really what “collecting biometrics” implies. They’re storing key points in a hashed fashion that allows similarities to be compared. Even if it wasn’t encrypted in a non-exportable way you still can’t do anything with it beyond checking for a similarity score.

You’ve done a good job explaining what I said previously: there’s sometimes a disjoint between privacy and security concern, and so sometimes people don’t understand something about security.

That’s close enough for a privacy perspective. There’s also limitations on domains that can request the auth, specifically ”only the one the credential is for", and there’s a different key per domain and user typically.
It’s also implemented in a way where if the user doesn’t choose to disclose their account to the service, the service can’t know.

Caring about privacy and caring about the details of a security protocol are distinct. You’d be surprised how many people who care about privacy are deeply wary of passkeys because of the biometric factor, which is unfortunate because the way it authenticates is a lot harder to track across domains by design.

I understood they had a lot of concerns, one of which was biometrics via passkeys since GitHub was a very early adopter due to the supply chain risk they pose.

I know how device fingerprinting works, thank you though.

You don’t need my fingerprint, hardware or personal, or biometric shit.

To me that sounds like hardware identifiers, but also quite specifically the things passkeys use. Hence I mentioned it as aside from their main point, which was “don’t track me”, because the biometrics GitHub or any website is going to ask you to use can’t be used for that.

Tangential to the main point you’re going for: when you say fingerprint or biometrics I think you’re referring to passkeys.
Passkeys don’t share any of your fingerprint or other biometric identifiers with anyone.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/10/passkeys-and-privacy

One of the major design criteria of their creation was to be an increase in security without sacrificing privacy. It’s made them more finicky to get working but there’s a very good reason they’re very popular with security professionals.