I’ll just use this opportunity to mention kagi.com, a search engine that you pay for, but which doesn’t track you and gives you controls for customizing your search results yourself instead of letting an algorithm build a profile of your habits. I’ve used it for months now, and I’m not going back.
"In the physics-based gameplay, the player swings large melee weapons and relies on centripetal force to give the object enough kinetic energy to destroy enemies. The demo release had six main types of weapons - four melee and two ranged.
The different weapon types offer a certain variety. To be a slow, but well-armored powerhouse using hammers or maces to deliver slow, but crushing blows, or a nimble, but poorly protected sword-wielder, delivering quick, but weak attacks, is entirely up to the player. The game also contains a few different play modes, such as a hunt on worms or a Hammerball game."
I don’t think spamming Reddit with Lemmy links will do much besides paint a picture of Lemmy users as obnoxious. I’d rather have Lemmy differentiate itself as more than just a Reddit alternative by offering something different and have the users come on their own. It’s not about quantity for me, but quality. For example, I’d love to see some communities that focus on long-form discussions and heavy moderation to promote a more nuanced debate. I’d also love to see some media outlets host and moderate their own Lemmy instances to try and move the debate away from Facebook and the likes.
Most of Michel Gondry’s music videos are pretty impressive. For example: Cibo Matto - Sugar Water, Chemical Brothers - Star Guitar and Kylie Minogue - Come Into My World
The Lovely Bones. Haven’t actually read the book, but that movie was a painful experience to get through. Peter Jackson knows how to do special effects and spends over two excruciating hours showing off all of them, even though they add little to the story which could have been told in less than half the time.
Doesn’t that make it the BEST bastardization of the book then? :)
This. It costs money, but on the other hand it is FAST, looks good and ad-free. You also have the ability to block spammy domains so they just don’t show up in results.
I actually don’t have a problem paying for online services. I host my own email, I pay for Kagi search and I do monthly donations to Mozilla and Wikipedia. What I have an issue with is services that start out as advertisement based and then introduce paid plans, because now you still have all these shitty mechanics just for driving up engagement which results in unhealthy incentives for content creators and rabbit holes. I want a service that is for YouTube what Kagi is to Google Search. But perhaps that model is too difficult to monetize, I don’t know.
I hope so! Otherwise that statistic makes me a bit sad. I mean, I love playing games, but spending basically all your free time on a single game for 5 years straight?
Is that screenshot from this year? ARK came out 2015, so if this person had 2 years of playtime in 2020, then they basically spent 40% of their time every day playing this game. That’s 9.6 hours every day!
I don’t know, I think eating this many beans will make me poop, and I really need not to poop.
Do you even know how to read this analysis? It simply shows you the blocks in the JPEG that contain high frequency information, it doesn’t massively reveal areas that were edited. The documentation even tells you how to read it, but you obviously didn’t bother to reference it; you can only use it to compare areas with similar texture and edges to see if they have been compressed differently. Text and high detail textures are supposed to be highlighted because THAT IS HOW JPEG WORKS; it throws away information in uniform and low detail areas to save space, because human perception cannot tell the difference. This would only indicate manipulation if parts of the text contained less or more information than similar looking parts, indicating that someone e.g. took a highly compressed JPEG, added uncompressed new image fragments and compressed it again using high quality settings.
I really don’t care about this particular image, but you are claiming that you can tell fakes from reals by using an analysis method in a wrong way, and you didn’t bother to back up your claim, you just linked to an analysis which could cause people to jump to the wrong conclusion. This is how misinformation begins.
Edit: for reference, look at the ELA for this random bumper sticker: https://fotoforensics.com/analysis.php?id=0461290163af13fe55380b661fc1bf9d5d56a020.463104&show=ela
This effect is completely expected. Frankly, ELA seems like a crackpot analysis. At least you have to be REALLY careful when applying it to JPEG. You would need to have two similar looking bumper stickers of the same size and same level of detail in shadows in the same picture. Only if they differed significantly in the ELA could you maybe conclude something, but I still think it’s shit.
The method for producing these highlights is also really roundabout, since it just re-compresses the input and compares it with the original. A much more straightforward method would be to count the number of bits in each block in the raw JPEG data to get a measure of how aggressively the blocks were quantized.