I'm pretty sure @vitejs/plugin-react allows you to leave off the file extension for imports. (I say this because I'm looking at a working Vite project with no file extensions, and that's one of the few differences with an out-of-the-box setup.)
It's quite simple. Consumers realize either consciously or not that saying "AI" means the added AI will make the product:
1. cheaper
2. worse
It's invariably used as a cost-cutting measure that is quick, cheap, and worse. Companies use AI art because they are too cheap to hire a real artist that would make better art. Companies use AI chatbots because they are too cheap to hire real customer service agents who could actually help people.
If a company slapped a label on a bag of chips that said "Now with fewer chips and less flavor!", I'm sure that would turn off consumers as well.
The thing is Gruber tried to imply/claim that there was no reason to believe that there was an intent to steal credentials, i.e. the only part of the scam was the financial aspect.
So no, I stand by it. If by his belief, not mine, that the app was purely a financial scam, he literally downplayed it, effectively, as "even if you're being scammed, you could have been scammed more elsewhere", and most of the rest of his writing was implying people are being overly critical of Apple.
As for an uncharitable take? Were it Gruber's first forays into defending Apple in the face of evidence, maybe. After screen staining, batterygate, butterflygate, logic board issues, and several more (hell, he even defended "You're holding it wrong"), all of which Gruber insisted these were all user issues, non-issues or random events, several of which ended up resulting in warranty extensions and/or recalls, I'm less inclined to be ... 'charitable'.
Whenever I have seen code like that, it’s awful. “Name them what they are” becomes “name them after their content”, which is the opposite of separation of concerns.
This video isn’t really worth watching in entirety, but it’s one clip with motion smoothing on and off, so you can skip around to get the idea: https://youtu.be/INQrxHREmJ0?si=E5v3L-gZ__BrUHyC
So I see a lot of stuttering during panning in that video. With motion smoothing on, almost no stuttering. How can anyone prefer the stuttering version?
Some of us strongly prefer things to be presented as they are, without artificial enhancements.
This means that if a movie is shot at 24FPS (as nearly all of them are), and is shown to theater audiences at 24FPS, then it should also be displayed at 24FPS in the living room.
(But if you prefer to view the world through rose-tinted glasses, then you do you.)
I understand that, but everyone here is saying that the stuttering version is better in itself and the smooth version is horrible? To my eyes it's the opposite.
It's definitely something that is different from person to person. I strongly prefer it disabled, but not because it looks terrible most of the time - I could get used to it if it looked exactly like it would look if it had been produced with that higher framerate. The issue arises whenever it breaks, for example by making the acceleration of visible motion unnatural. This happens fairly often, either through unrealistic acceleration, or by breaking the previously established visual language of the movie. That's where it breaks my immersion - but that's not the case for everybody, and it's absolutely legitimate to say that you prefer either, or don't care at all!
Maybe a good analogy to understand the "it's objectively wrong" perspective (even if I disagree) is AI upscaling, for example of historical photos. Just like autosmoothing it adds details in a mostly plausible way, and some people prefer it, but it adds fake detail (which understandably annoys purists), and sometimes it actually breaks and produces visual artifacts.
To me, the "smooth" version is artificial and alien in ways I can't quite articulate, just as it is hard to articulate why a long-winded LLM response, while having good grammar, might be both stupid and wrong.
Sure, it's smoother; anyone can see that. It's also weirdly smeary or something.
The (presumably) 24FPS version has a regular amount of judder, and it's the same amount of judder that I've experienced when watching films for my entire life, and each of those frames is a distinct photograph. There is zero smearing betwixt them, and there is no smearing possible.
We don't want "low frame rates". A lower frame rate is not the goal.
If films were commonly shot and released at 120FPS, then we'd see videophiles clamoring to get the hardware in-place in their homes to support that framerate.
But we're not there. Films are 24FPS. That's what the content is. That's what the filmmakers worked with for the entirety of filming, editing, post, and distribution processes.
And the process of generating an extra 96 frames every second to fill in the gaps of the actual content is simply not always very good. Sometimes, it's even pretty awful.
It seems obvious to say, but artificially multiplying a framerate by a factor of 5 inside of a TV frequently has issues.
>If films were commonly shot and released at 120FPS, then we'd see videophiles clamoring to get the hardware in-place in their homes to support that framerate.
I'm not sure that's actually the consensus opinion. Some of the complaints about frame interpolation are about specific kinds of artifacting, but many are of "the soap opera effect", and those same complaints were levied against The Hobbit, which was actually filmed at a higher frame rate.
a lot of people actually clueless on why apple charge a fee so they are like, why are you charging? the web didn't charge me either. when in fact apple provides all the infrastructure, distribution, security, payment system.
You seem to be saying 'Look at all this infrastructure Apple gives you for free, of course you should pay them their cut'.
You could look at it the other way and say 'They made all this infrastructure in order to lock in vendors and monopolise the app market, thereby forcing you to pay them their cut'.
If posts on HN are anything to go by, it seems this perspective is decided simply by whether you like Apple or not!
Is that sarcastic? If not I feel you have missed the point of this whole thread/argument.
People would rather the freedom to choose what they buy, who they buy it from, and where they buy it. This freedom of choice is much more important to a great many people than being locked in to a service 'because its good'.
