I was very disappointed with Supernova in the East. What started as a telling of the Pacific War from the point of view of the Japanese empire morphed into the usual "war is bad but American soldiers are heroes" that's very common for this period.
I tuned out when he spent 30 minutes describing a famous photo-op of General MacArthur going ashore to the Philippines. That is the complete opposite of the original promise of the podcast.
The podcast started as a sequel to Mike Duncan's classic The History of Rome, and in my opinion surpassed it. Where THoR eventually falls into the narrative trap of turning into "The Lives of Roman Emperors", THoB spends a lot of time talking about economic, demographic, societal, and technological changes within the Empire and the world.
Extremely recommended if you want a proper history podcast.
The thing AI miss about the internet from the late 2000s and early 2010s was having so much useful data available, searchable, and scrappable. Even things like "which of my friends are currently living in New York?" are impossible to find now.
I always assumed this was a once-in-history event. Did this cycle of data openness and closure happen before?
Search "YouTube Revanced" on Android. It's a bit of a pain to install, but it lets you customise your YouTube app and add or remove as many features as you want.
These kinds of customisations should be standard for apps people use every day.
You -> Gear icon -> Revanced Settings -> General -> Navigation Buttons -> Hide Shorts.
You need to also hide them from the feed and a few other places. You are not stupid; Revanced has too many options and the settings and large and confusing. It's easier to search "shorts" and toggle everything.
Thank you. I already had that setting enabled, but your comment inspired me to review all the settings again and I have been successful in hiding Shorts from view (for now, until Google changes something again no doubt).
Everything on the internet is fake. That is as true now as it always was.
For every real post, I can make up a fake one that's more agreeable to the hivemind and therefore will be more upvoted. Since you see a limited amount of posts in a session, you will only see fake posts and the real ones will be hidden forever.
The author overlooked an interesting error in the second skull pancake image: the strawberry is on the right eye socket (to the left of the image), and the blackberry is on the left eye socket (to the right of the image)!
This looks like it's caused by 99% of the relative directions in image descriptions describing them from the looker's point of view, and that 99% of the ones that aren't it they refer to a human and not to a skull-shaped pancake.
I am a human, and I would have done the same thing as Nano Banana. If the user had wanted a strawberry in the skull's left eye, they should've said, "Put a strawberry in its left eye socket."
Exactly what I was thinking too. I'm a designer, and I'm used to receiving feedback and instructions. "The left eye socket" would to me refer to what I currently see in front of me, while "its left eye socket" instantly shift the perspective from me to the subject.
I find this interesting. I've always described things from the users point of view. Like the left side of a car, regardless of who is looking at it from what direction, is the driver side. To me, this would include a body.
To be honest this is the sort of thing Nano Bannana is weak at in my experience. It's absolutely amazing - but doesn't understand left/right/up/down/shrink this/move this/rotate this etc.
See below to demonstrate this weakness with the same prompts as the article see the link below, which demonstrates that it is a model weakness and not just a language ambiguity:
Mmh, ime you need to discard the session/rewrite the failing prompt instead of continuing and correcting on failures. Once errors occur you've basically introduced a poison pill which will continuously make things to haywire. Spelling out what it did wrong is the most destructive thing you can do - at least in my experience
I admit I missed this, which is particularly embarrassing because I point out this exact problem with the character JSON later in the post.
For some offline character JSON prompts I ended up adding an additional "any mentions of left and right are from the character's perspective, NOT the camera's perspective" to the prompt, which did seem to improve success.
The lack of proper indentation (which you noted) in the Python fib() examples was even more apparent. The fact that both AIs you tested failed in the same way is interesting. I've not played with image generation, is this type of failure endemic?
Came to make exactly the same comment. It was funny that the author specifically said that Nano Banana got all five edit prompts correct, rather than noting this discrepancy, which could be argued either way (although I think the "right eye" of a skull should be interpreted with respect to the skull's POV.)
Extroverts tend to expect directions from the perspective of the skull. Introverts tend to expect their own perspective for directions. It's a psychology thing, not an error.
Sorry to ruin your fun but in German it's actually just Bürger (capitalized because all nouns are). Though the true etymology might be entirely different.
Bourgeoisie or Burgher in English, Bourgeois in French or in German Bürger, all from old Frankish burg, for town. English has both words, but they now have different meanings, and the term Burgher is mostly obsolete.
The divide (or perception of a divide) between city dwellers and the country is not something the US invented, these divisions predate the colonisation of America.
The entertainment industry is by far the easiest way to tap into global discretionary income.
reply