That's not correct. The watermark is robust to screenshots, file format changes (saving as jpeg/png) and at least light transformation (cropping, saturation level adjustment, etc).
"Monkeys with typewriters," is in one sense, a uniform sampling of the probability space. A brute-force search, even when using structured proof assistants, take a very long time to find any hard proof, because the possibility space is roughly (number of terms) raised to the power of (length of the proof).
But similarly to how a computer plays chess, using heuristics to narrow down a vast search space into tractable options, LLMs have the potential to be a smarter way to narrow that search space to find proofs. The big question is whether these heuristics are useful enough, and the proofs they can find valuable enough, to make it worth the effort.
Speaking of animations, I used D3 to build my first web video game, a little match-3 game: https://fwip.github.io/colormatch/
The whole game board is a single SVG.
It clearly has some bugs (like the score sometimes being NaN - no idea how I messed that up), but I haven't touched the code in over a decade, so it's a little time capsule.
I feel like if you're modifying the signature after they sign it and approve it - that could be a problem. As long as the modifications are applied in real-time (or with explicit user confirmation after modification), I think it is morally okay (and probably legally, but I'm not a lawyer).
You may find users who get mad if your settings are too aggressive though, and if they're unable to get a signature that they approve of.
I think you must be using an unusual definition of culture. As I understand it, culture is, broadly speaking, the shared values and practices of a group of people.
The only way to avoid having culture, in the usual sense, is to prevent groups of people from existing.
It is unusual. We have been condition to believe that culture is created by shared values. But actually is guided and molded by authority to create the illusion that its driven by society. Obviously this isn't true in all cases, but for most, its my belief that it is.
People can exist out side of the constrains of a culture that is imposed on then by understanding their own human value and worth that they are born with instead of looking to institutions and governments to give it to them.
In a society that doesn't have a centralized governing factor where the powerful impose their will on the people, then yes, I agree that its created by a shared understanding by its people. But that's not the case for 95% percent of the worlds cultures.
Oh, gotcha - if you'll permit me to paraphrase: it's not culture itself that you find evil; but that the powerful tend to warp the culture to protect their own interests.
Right. IMHO culture, at least for a very long time now, is used as a vehicle to push agendas, and people should be very wary about what to believe from what society says about a great many things.
I would agree if those shared values and practices grew entirely organically. But unfortunately people in power have a lot of, well, power, to shape culture.
Even stuff like "don't be overweight" is a maybe. This meta-analysis famously found that being overweight actually has a moderate protective effect: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4855514/
This is a BMI-only study and should be treated carefully. They also found a protective effect for one of the obese categories, which seems extremely weird (unless you consider bodybuilders or strength athletes, in which case it would be reasonable). If you replace "don't be overweight/obese" with "don't have excess amounts of fat" (in particular vascular fat) it is certainly not a maybe.
reply