11 minutes in, he mentions SICP as a book that he ended up working through exercises "in the past year" (so 2012 timeframe, well after the original Doom but before the reboot).
Still haven't clicked it, huh? If you did you'd see that the link takes you to straight to the moment in the video where he starts talking about functional programming.
tip: there is a service menu setting to disable ads. webos is much nicer since i toggled that. the entry point with the standard remote varies between models and os versions, but you can also get service remotes on amazon for cheap
instructions unclear. the traveler drowned attempting to wade the atlantic, washed up on the virginia coast, and had willed for their family to scatter their ashes in italy.
that's a pretty political spin. if i remember correctly the bridge in florida was entirely feasible but they got the pre-tensioning and assembly wrong.
the NLRA/B don't cover managers, and union leadership is a separate role from on-the-job management. for the readership of a magazine targeting current or prospective union members and leadership, this is fundamental knowledge, so it won't ever be spelled out in an article
it's also worth clarifying that labor notes is _pro labor_, not necessarily _pro union_, and especially not _pro one specific type of union (e.g. industrial vs craft)_. when a labor union fails its members, this is one of the canonical publications covering it
Right. It's also assuming knowledge about the auto industry. Ford is building
what they call "Blue Oval City" near Glendale, Kentucky, an all-new complex of plants.
If the article only works if you approach it as preaching to the choir ... maybe it does make sense.
But it certainly makes it a poor article if they're "advocates for a revitalization of the labor movement" beyond the the rank and file union choir who would assume the union took action. You'd think they'd want to appeal to others too.
For the record, I don't so much care what the union did or didn't do, my comment was more about the article itself.
right, i'm not taking a side either, just saying your comment showed you lacked the context to understand what you were reading. as you stated and defended. you made a misinterpretation that can only happen if you _don't know the basics what a union is_ — important context for reading a labor publication targeting labor people.
would it though? nothing would be stopping them. the idea something would relies on an assumption that we'll soon be able to generate long, coherent, and useful instructional videos with fully resolved text on demand, with such high quality and low cost that no one will be able to compete. but we already have people out there who can do this instruction/review live and off the cuff, and who would certainly be able to make use of this stuff in their own work
Because that style isn't that unique, so the difference is between getting paid nothing and now there is a bot that can do the same thing, or getting paid something and now there is a bot that can do the same thing.
It hasn't even been established that they're required to pay you at all.
My style is unique. If I'm teaching folks something I'm skilled in I wouldn't want to be learned from $3 especially for a $$$ company that abuses trust.
Style is how teachers make learning happen. If teachers follow the general generic book mundaneness, you learn far less than of you apply your own style.
Besides, if they were using the content without my permission I should be allowed to seek costs for such.
It doesn't matter if the thing is using your exact style or one which is enough of a substitute for it that the difference isn't going to make up the difference between your $50 fee and the $0.01 in electricity it takes to have the AI do it.
> Besides, if they were using the content without my permission I should be allowed to seek costs for such.
On what basis? How is it different than someone teaching their students your style, so the students can make their own original works in the same style? It's directly analogous to classroom use, which is an explicit example of fair use from the copyright statute.
This is moot. For sake of sanity, and that I said what I wanted to say and I'll agree to disagree.
This just shows that anyone is willing to cloned for less than their actual worth which is calculated on their own basis.
If you'd rather be ripped off, having a class taught for $5 from some AI bot from your own teaching style earning a single $3 than yourself teaching and earning $5 from each class, be my guest.
Edit: I'm now post capped, so can't comment/reply on HN for another four hours anyway. Old news.
The AI is the thing being taught, not the thing teaching a class. Once you have a model, $0.01 is the correct order of magnitude for the cost of generating an image from a prompt. If anything it's an overestimate.
it's barley short of what a 1920x1080 image costs from openai, but we're in a thread about instructional video, which is neither economical nor available yet
Video would cost more than still images for the obvious reasons, but still likely much less than the cost of however many frames per second times that number of images, because nearly all of the frames will be minor variations on the previous frame. Meanwhile it's going to be a couple years before that technology exists because you'd have to develop something that can sync video with audio etc., by which point the hardware would be more power efficient.
So now we're speculating on the cost of something that doesn't exist yet, but it's highly likely that hardware is going to get more power efficient over time, so the question then isn't whether "AI can do this for a lower price than humans" will happen, it's just a question of how long before it does.
it restricts one from making more videos? how? i understand your comment as reiterating the assumption i was responding to then reframing that assumption with a generalization. of course fair pay is good, and my point is we don't have a solid foundation to assume ai will impact that more any other creative technology we've seen on computers in the last few decades
i reckon nearly zero of these creators are making videos for a single viewer. and as a film student, or even as a professor, you wouldn't spend $300 per movie just to reference in study. demanding even more than that can only be hedging against the idea that one will be out of a job
