I've noticed it for much longer than a year ago, it's been a thing for awhile now. Especially online, which may lend credence to the idea of it occurring most with those who didn't grow up writing English, but even with native writers it seems to be occurring more and more.
You may be completely right, but these examples are pretty meaningless without context, like what is the rate of lose/loose confusion per x words over time.
And yet with all these techniques easily available to them, modern filmmakers still churn out a lot of trash.
It’s a matter of taste and style, not technique or quality of gear.
But I don’t agree that old==good and new==bad. There was plenty of trash back in the day, and plenty of great stuff now.
Breaking bad had fantastic cinematography and it didn’t really use advanced techniques like dolly zoom, crane, drone, etc. It had buckets of style though. Compare it to one of its contemporaries, Dexter, which had completely unremarkable, boring, functional cinematography.
The single most important advancement for modern cinematography is to be able to instantly see what your shot is going to look like without having to develop film. This allowed filmmakers to shoot at night, use natural or diegetic lighting, etc. it used to be risky and require a lot of testing to do anything other than bathe your scene in bright light and then use even brighter stage lights for highlights, to give cameras enough light, and to ensure that performances and stunts are visible in the final product. This is way way more impactful than drones and dollies.
I'd agree with all your statements. I don't think your statements disagree with the observation that on average cinematography has gotten better over time. I might have painted too broad of a brush, and I think you raise really good points.
Actually, that won’t work. The flock cameras don’t only rely on license plate information. They use “AI” to determine the make model and color of your car as well as any outstanding features, such as bumper stickers or roof racks.
There are only two big instances that work any more, everybody is aware of them including twitter, and they exist only because twitter allows them as a safety valve for upper middle class people who believe that political consumption is a thing that works.
By the grace of Musk, a few thousand* 1) nerds who don't register on any invasive social media and 2) libs with the admirable self-control not to spend all day on twitter yelling about twitter, get a tiny trickle of nitter that can be cut off at will.
Meanwhile, we're on ycombinator.com.
Boycotting is not a thing that works under monopoly (especially with "free" products.) Monopolies boycott you.
-----
[*] I'm making this up, it could literally be hundreds, not even thousands. I don't think nitter has a sane caching strategy, and if it were more than a few users the servers would catch on fire.
Although I wouldn't be surprised at all if it turned out that the last nitter instances were being run from "X" headquarters as a project to track and study individual behavior (When do nitter users join X? When people quit X, do they still use nitter? When do people who have X accounts use nitter to conceal what they're looking at? Which accounts are especially popular for nitter users? What are the political opinions and demographics of nitter users, etc...). Or instead of X, it could be feds doing the same thing.
If so, they would have plenty of processor and the real user numbers could be tens or hundreds of thousands.
It's not always as deep as a principled stance on a boycott, political consumption, monopolies, or the general politics of X/Twitter.
Many of us never had a Twitter account either. The only time we've used the site is when someone shared a link and we tried to view it. It can be as simple as the idea of having to sign up for a site to see some link that has been shared is annoying and nitter (for now, for whatever the reasons of continued existence) is also a link to the same content without said annoyance.
I asked copilot how developers would react if AI agents put ads in their PRs.
>Developers would react extremely negatively. This would be seen as 1. A massive breach of trust. 2. Unprofessional and disruptive. 3. A security/integrity concern. 4. Career-ending for the product. The backlash would likely be swift and severe.
I agree. It's not an advertisement, it's simply a piece of information about your particular choice of technology.
--------------
Sent from HackerNews Supreme™ - the best way to browse the Y Combinator Hacker News. Now on macOS, Windows, Linux, Android, iOS, and SONY BRAVIA Smart TV. Prices starting at €13.99 per month, billed yearly. https://hacker-news-supreme.io
companies pay for ad distribution. its not like they give a free ad service -$-. maybe they dont chose how the campaigns are done (and dont give shits)
"Quickly spin up Copilot coding agent tasks from anywhere on your macOS or Windows machine with Raycast" is an advert. There's simply no better word to describe it.
> It’s not really ads, it’s more like "Sent from my iPhone"-style sentences at the end of PR texts.
The reason I immediately changed that text on my iPhone 1.0 to read, “Sent from my mobile device.”, is because it’s an ad. Still says that nearly 20y later. I’m not schilling for a corporation after giving them my money.
the difference is "sent from my iPhone" is on YOUR outgoing email. you opted into that default. this is copilot editing someone else's PR description with promotional text for third party tools. that's not a signature, that's injection. imagine if gcc started appending "compiled with gcc, try our new optimization flags" to your README every time you built a project.
reply