I’m pretty confident the blue and green colors have nothing to do with it. It’s simply the difficulties of using sms (or at least how Apple implements sms). iMessage allows much higher quality videos/images to be sent and enables group chats to be dynamic where people can be added and removed at will. On iOS sms group chats have to be made with every member in it at creation, if you want to add another person or remove a person then you have to make a whole new group chat. Compound this with iPhone dominance in North America it often presents an annoyance where the single android user forces all the iPhone users to use sms and all the difficulties/reduced features it comes with.

WhatsApp, Telegram, and whatever chat app isn’t used in NA because it’s just harder to convince someone to download and make an account. Why should a user download another chat app? Why isn’t iMessage (sms) app good enough? Usually I’ve seen people just use instagram to chat with android users because sms is just so bad (at least on iOS, I’ve heard some things about how android works around the limitations).

Yes Apple could implement better sms features but they won’t.

So don’t just parrot “it’s because of the colors” it’s most likely due to users association with past experiences of “green chat bubbles”.

Apple is still to blame here but it’s not because users are scared. Most iPhone users or phone users in general just want it to work and never think about what features they’re missing. Asking/convincing someone to download yet another app and set up yet another account to yet again be spammed by emails, texts, phone calls is just too much for a majority of people who are used to the simplicity of iMessage. It comes with your phone, you make a single Apple account, and it just works™.

Wait it’s been 4 years? Time really goes by. Yeah with most Ai things I assumed those with more time and resources would create better models. OS Ai is at a great disadvantage when it comes to data set size and compute power.

I don’t have examples but having listened to some samples of various Ai generated clones (the one paper had samples of I believe 10s, 30s, 1min, 5 min) and all of them progressively sounded better. The 10 second one basically sounded like a voice call whose bit rate dropped out mid word. And the voice so long as you used words that were similar in phoenix sounded pretty close. Although this is just my experience, but to you it might sound pretty bad while to me it sounded pretty reasonable if under bad audio conditions.

https://github.com/CorentinJ/Real-Time-Voice-Cloning

This is the main one I’ve seen examples of. You’ll have to find the samples yourself, I believe it was in the actual paper?

Wow, it makes sense but definitely not good at all

Also another factor is heavy vehicles. I don’t have the article or video, but I remember hearing that a majority of road damage comes from heavy vehicles. I believe the video was also comparing roads to Rome roads where it wasn’t that they were built better (although volcanic ash did help) it’s that horses and people are way less heavy than the 3,000+lb vehicles we have going almost 24/7.

Less road damage would mean less containments/pollution and less need for repair. So the future might be seeing more public transit and more rail transit for materials/products which would mean wherever we need to add more road or re do sections we would replace it with the greener option or potential normal asphalt since it wouldn’t need to be touched for another 20,30,40+ years.

Yeah as far as I’ve experienced they only ever ask for banking inside or right after signing the work contract.

It’s really quite fair that FSR and DLSS don’t look great at 1080p since they weren’t designed for that use case at all. Ideally it’s meant to upscale to 4K where the base resolution is at minimum ~1080p where’s there’s enough pixels to get a good output. When trying to upscale to 720p or 1080p the base resolution goes down to the 300ps (maybe even lower) which just isn’t enough that least with todays models.

So for me I don’t see FSR or DLSS being a solution at all the hardware question for longevity. To me it just allows a weaker GPU to look nicer on a 4K screen (theoretically) not to increase FPS as a main feature.

Maybe GPUs could get cinema upscalers? I don’t know how they work or feasibility other than for a while 4K Bluerays we’re just the 2K footage but ran through these upscalers.

It’s really quite fair that FSR and DLSS don’t look great at 1080p since they weren’t designed for that use case at all. Ideally it’s meant to upscale to 4K where the base resolution is at minimum ~1080p where’s there’s enough pixels to get a good output. When trying to upscale to 720p or 1080p the base resolution goes down to the 300ps (maybe even lower) which just isn’t enough that least with todays models.

So for me I don’t see FSR or DLSS being a solution at all the hardware question for longevity. To me it just allows a weaker GPU to look nicer on a 4K screen (theoretically) not to increase FPS as a main feature.

Maybe GPUs could get cinema upscalers? I don’t know how they work or feasibility other than for a while 4K Bluerays we’re just the 2K footage but ran through these upscalers.

Just an fyi bmp280 is not real temperature but an estimation based on air pressure.

Yes but usually cheaper/lower quality.

You can buy any one game separately. The master chief collection is just a bundle of all the halo games. So if you just want to play halo reach just buy halo reach.

Yeah a bit confusing at times but overall very cool and informative, thanks so much!

Interesting I hadn’t thought about how the reduced image size could allow for more data throughput overall. Also great to hear that’s it’s similar or lower processing required. Although I’m not sure what tuned for parallel I/O means? Do they split the data into subgroups so multiple threads can process it at the same time?

Hmm, I haven’t delved into image training in a couple years so I’m assuming they still downscale images anyway, so I’m not sure how much the format helps? Do you know if better compression helps at lower resolution? I could see it helping but I could also seeing it be marginal gains and depending on processing time it might not be worth it to convert whole image sets to jpeg xl. And for performance does jpeg xl require less power/time to decode than other formats? Maybe for new image sets going forward it will be the standard.

It is when you’re a cloud hosting platform and you have 1000’s of photos uploaded daily. That 44k saving scales massively when talking about cloud hosting platforms. The jpeg xl format license is more open than webp which is controlled by google.

The new format also enables more features than just file size, a quick google shows it supports animation, 360 photos, and image bursts (as well as more technical specifics that allow for better share ability without needing to have an accompanying json file or dropping to RAW).

This is more important because it means websites can embed photos and the web engine whether it be chromium, Firefox, or safari can handle it natively without needing JavaScript or some other intermediary.

What about png? It’s just another competing standard. At the end of the day it doesn’t really matter, but by not having competing standards we end up having one company controlling it. So since at the very least it gives a decent file size saving it’s good enough for me.