I'm assuming that when the project says you can see 24 km from a given location, that you can see 24 km from that location. That's not the case. Fundamentally, it doesn't do what it claims to do.
Why allow the user to select any arbitrary location on a map and give an answer when you know the answer is most likely nonsense? You don't need to compute for 2 days to accomplish that; you could just make it up.
Surely you understand it's based on limited resolution data, and therefore intended to be used at the scale of general topography like mountains and valleys?
That it's not taking into account human construction or distances of tens of meters?
Presumably you can walk a little bit and climb on someone's roof to see the claimed 24.7 km. Assuming a sufficiently clear atmosphere, and that there isn't a tall office building in the way or something.
Why not complain that there's a point inside somebody's basement and you can't see any distance from that? Why not complain that it's wrong any time you close your eyes? Those would be about as sensible.
What's ironic about that? Of course it would. It's working off of large-scale terrain features, not structures. It will also tell you that you can see distant mountains when it's cloudy or you don't have your glasses on.
A copyrighted image of a nude model elected for no obvious reason has a test image in the University of South California by some pervs and then used in a lot of papers as a test image.
Or, a standard cropped image of a playgirl used in the field of image processing.
"elected for no obvious reason" isn't quite right, as a test image for computer graphics it has regions of very high frequency detail and regions of very low frequency detail which make it easier to spot various compression artifacts, and it makes a good study for edge detection, with both very clear edges along the outline, but more subjective edges in the feathering.
It's redish. Ok it has a blur and details on the foreground but could have been any image with blurred background and a face.
"very low frequency detail", we are talking about a 512x512 picture here, it has low and high frequency details (FFT speaking) like most photos.
"Good for edges detection" doesn't mean anything. Like, is the image good for edge detection or the algorithm is good at detecting edges ? What does "subjective edges" even mean ? Does it mean hard to spot ?
That looks like technical reasons but it just noise. They literally grab a playboy magazine and decided it was well enough (and indeed, it wasn't that bad, yes). Still not professional. The message is "We have playboy magazines at work and we are proud of it".
Try out running different edge detection algorithms on that image and you will see that there is a lot of disagreement amongst them in the feathering region. Exploring what the differences are, and how the algorithms lead to those differences helps build intuition about the range of things we might call an "edge", and which algorithm is appropriate for a particular task at hand.
No I think the social context is inappropriate. However I do not think possessing or liking such a picture is perverted. I also do not thinking a cropped version of the picture which has no sexual content is inappropriate.
One of the current top 100 posts relates to western religion. It’s easy to avoid if uninterested. I enjoy that every now and then we have an ancient history, archeology, theology, literature, futurism or etc. post make the front page.
If you wanted to pay for direct air capture of CO2 to directly "undo" your climate effect of driving, the cost would currently be about $6 per gallon. Price comes from [1], found [2] looking for a second opinion on current direct air capture cost.
Direct air capture is just not feasible at a world scale.
And the whole circus around it, manufacturing (and extracting the natural resources for that) of all the machinery for it, clearing land to place it (and all the NIMBY circus), all the energy generation for it, the transmission lines, the maintenance, the burying of the captured carbon. It's all going to lead to lots of pollution and CO2 emissions even if the things are powered by 100% green energy.
It's just a pipe dream of the people looking for a quick fix so we can continue doing what we've been doing.
But we'll just need so hellish many of them to make a dent in global CO2 levels in time to prevent the worst effects of climate change. It's just impossible.
The only way to really fix things is not emitting the stuff in the first place but most people prefer putting their fingers in their ears.
What are some non-subjective reasons to use Euro alternatives? It reminds me of startup founders having to choose between the big expensive service or their buddy’s startup that intends to serve the same use case.
Nicolas Guillou, a French judge at the International Criminal Court, discusses in an interview with Le Monde the consequences of US sanctions imposed on him and eight other judges and prosecutors at the court. The sanctions were introduced after the court issued an arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
The concrete consequences of the sanctions extend far beyond a travel ban to the US. "The sanctions affect all aspects of my daily life. They prohibit all US individuals or legal entities, all persons or companies, including their foreign subsidiaries, from providing me with services", Guillou explains.
All his accounts with US companies such as Amazon, Airbnb, PayPal, and others have been closed. "For example, I booked a hotel in France through Expedia, and a few hours later, the company sent an email canceling the reservation citing the sanctions. In practice, you can no longer shop online because you don't know if the packaging your product comes in is American. Being under sanctions is like being sent back to the 1990s", he says.
"Overnight, you find yourself without a bank card, and these companies have an almost complete monopoly, at least in Europe. US companies are actively involved in intimidating sanctioned individuals – in this case, the judges and prosecutors who administer justice in contemporary armed conflicts", he notes.
He emphasizes that sanctions can last for more than a decade or even longer.
I think you’re missing the point of my question. I’m not saying that story isn’t distressing and a good reason to use alternatives, but I’m asking about whether you can convince individuals and individual businesses that these alternatives are more cost effective or capable than the software they’re replacing.
To me, a very non-subjective reason is that the money I'm paying for these services will go to people and companies that share the same values and the taxes on the said money will be used for our common defense instead of being used to attack us.
If you're European and reading the news at any point in the last year+, you understand how critical a weakness being dependent on US companies for your IT infra is.
There are some things that are difficult to avoid, like CPUs and GPUs, but software is much more doable.
Please don’t assume I’m not up to date on the news. But is there a tangible risk vector to European consumers of open source, commercial American software. I’m genuinely asking about incentives for the individual or individual business. That’s a more difficult question to answer than asking why shouldn’t Europe as a whole pursue this.
I answered above, but answering here as well in case it's buried.
> But is there a tangible risk vector to European consumers of open source, commercial American software.
Yes. If you're a European sanctioned by the US, it's illegal for American companies to provide you service. That means no Amazon, PayPal, Expedia, Visa, etc.
European companies operate under stricter privacy laws. GDPR is applicable world wide but has serious teeth and enforcement within Europe. Small US companies with no presence in Europe can effectively ignore it. However if an American were to choose a European service this benefit is effectively passed on to them. They can view what data any company has on them or ask them to delete it.
I can appreciate some don't care about their data especially in this world of people pouring their lives in to social media but some people do care.
And a second non-subjective and very important reason is that at any moment the US government might decide that the data we entrusted their corporations with is no longer ours and we need to part with it. It will be used for AI training. Also, this is because we didn't say thank you or something like that...
That’s really not a good comparison. Many of the listed services and companies have been well established for a long time, in some cases for decades, and aren’t small businesses.
reply