The Chernobyl tv show had a nice podcast that went with it as well. I think these kinds of extra features are especially nice when it is for a show based on real life. They get to point out things that may not have been 100% historically accurate due to budget/time, and also get to bring in experts to speak about things related to developing the show.
It is funny that these things often just get released on podcast platforms and aren't really integrated into the streaming service.
Especially since this show, and the shows mentioned in these parent comments are all produced by the platforms they got released on. So they also have a whole lot more control to actually integrate this extra content.
These streaming platforms often state they are competing to keep you on their platform consuming things, and it seems odd to me that they wouldn't want to try and capture people for longer with these kinds of extras. Especially since as the other user indicated, these would be much lower cost to produce and license compared to the original content. And for someone who really enjoyed what they watched it would be a pretty appealing extra to have.
If you make use of something like git-cliff style formatting for the first line of your commit messages it can actually make some decent automated release notes that can be broken down into features, bug fixes, documentation, chores, etc...
I've found this to be pretty useful for my projects, and users can quickly get a list of what they care about for changes (usually the features part). Since it's pretty automated, the amount of effort also means that even if barely anyone reads them, it's not a huge waste of time. It's actually kind of made me write better, more useful commit messages as I know that the first line of the commit will actually be presented to the user.
Yeah that pretty much describes every big companies release notes. I used to have manual updates in the Google Play store as I enjoyed seeing what was changing. But over time so many companies just started saying things like "Security fixes" and it became a waste of time even bothering to look at them.
And sometimes they do actually add a feature... but they'll mention it within the app itself despite the app updates not mentioning it. Or even more funny is how often I'll see a news article talking about the new feature, but then it never even gets mentioned in the release notes anywhere.
"all it takes" is a very naive simplification of how to accomplish this solution and is much more complicated for a non tech savvy person than just hitting "yes" on a backup option their phone prompts them for.
I feel like you must be in a social bubble if you think this is a task the average Walmart American views as easy. These devices also are typically marketed for PC backup and don't usually make backing up their phones "easy". It also is something they'd have to regularly remember to do. It's substantially easier for a user to have their photos immediately and automatically backed up to icloud or Google Photos, and you're being intentionally obtuse if you're suggesting otherwise.
It's also not at all appropriate to claim people are "developmentally challenged" simply because they don't feel comfortable backing up their own data regularly to an external device. As such I have also flagged your comment.
Unfortunately even when these people who are a drain on society get caught, they often are treated like a victim and get very light sentences (or even none at all). We see this with shoplifting too. When the consequences are virtually eliminated, this kind of crime becomes pretty lucrative. Especially if you're homeless or a drug addict, you the consequence of spending maybe a single night in jail is pretty much a non-issue. And fines given are absolutely useless because they aren't paid, and they have no assets to take to pay them.
I'm honestly a bit tired of nothing productive being done about drug addiction. And I am pretty convinced programs like safe injection sites are pushed by NGO's because they make a lot of money off them. A lot of the information suggesting they are useful is pushed by the same groups making major money off running them.
Can this similar approach be applied to image generation models, or is this a whole different concept? I used the Google Pixel's feature to take two images and combine them so that you can add the person taking the photo in after the fact. My arm looked like it was hovering over my brother. Gemini refused to make my arm look proper, saying it couldn't do that. I'm guessing some kind of rule it has to prevent people from faking romantic style things with strangers/celebrities etc? I've had quite a few fairly innocent image generation requests get denied despite nothing being problematic with them.
I really do hope we get to a time when these big models can stop worrying about censoring themselves so aggressively just to protect their brand's image. I sometimes go to Grok for things simply because it seems a bit less biased and a bit less censored.
The techniques here are 100% transferable. It would take some work to migrate it to diffusion + images. But if you tuned the input prompt and rejection detector that is fairly trivial work in a few days.
This is definitely a completely different thing, but for your problem, Qwen Image-Edit is a really good model that you can either download and run on your own hardware, or on an online service like civit.ai
How does the cost compare though? From my understanding o3 is pretty expensive to run. Is GPT-5 less costly? If so if the performance is close to o3 but cheaper, then it may still be a good improvement.
I find it strange that GPT-5 is cheaper than GPT-4.1 in input token and is only slightly more expensive in output token. Is it marketing or actually reflecting the underlying compute resources?
Very likely to be an actual reflection. That's probably their real achievement here and the key reason why they are actually publishing it as GPT-5. More or less the best or near to it on everything while being one model, substantially cheaper than the competition.
Maybe with the router mechanism (to mini or standard) they estimate the average cost will be a lot lower for chatgpt because the capable model won’t be answering dumb questions and then they pass that on to devs?
I used to wear custom orthotics for a lot of growing up and into my early 20's. I definitely feel like it was something that I really could have gotten away without having if I instead had better shoes, and strengthened the muscles more. Unfortunately even the physiotherapist I had when I was young advised orthotics and didn't seek to treat the strength issue. Of course I was kid and myself and my parents were just doing what the experts told us.
A lot of my problem also related to back pain when growing up, and I realized also in my 20's how much going to the gym helped with the back pain. As my back got stronger via strength training, I no longer suffered from back pain. Additionally I invested more in things like a good office chair at home and ensured I had a good one at work.
Overall I no longer have back problems and no longer require any inserts in my shoes.
I feel like that is part of the problem with it. Not only can somebody post about you make things up about you. You also may never know. And it could end up silently impacting you. Say you apply for a job and a female HR person checking your job application decides to use this app to do a "background check" on some of the males applying. If she sees someone on their saying you sexually assaulted someone, she probably isn't going to choose to interview or hire you. And she probably won't even tell you why. And the claim against you could be totally bogus.
This is the scary reality of an app like this, especially if it continued to go more mainstream.
It is funny that these things often just get released on podcast platforms and aren't really integrated into the streaming service.
Especially since this show, and the shows mentioned in these parent comments are all produced by the platforms they got released on. So they also have a whole lot more control to actually integrate this extra content.
These streaming platforms often state they are competing to keep you on their platform consuming things, and it seems odd to me that they wouldn't want to try and capture people for longer with these kinds of extras. Especially since as the other user indicated, these would be much lower cost to produce and license compared to the original content. And for someone who really enjoyed what they watched it would be a pretty appealing extra to have.
reply