It is relevant, though. I have 1.2 Gbps down with a 2 TB monthly cap. I've never hit the monthly cap even once, but by your standard I have "1.2 Gbps down for 3 hours, 42 minutes".
But that doesn't change the reality that it matters to me that a 20 GB video that a friend took at my wedding downloads in just 2 minutes rather than the ~30 minutes it would take if I had a 100 Mbps connection.
I do think it's vastly superior to preferential treatment for some traffic, which seems to be the most popular alternative. The one caveat is that ISPs need to be forced to be transparent about this. Often, with cell providers, it's "Unlimited 5G" advertised, with a tiny asterisk pointing to even tinier disclaimer text at the bottom explaining that they throttle your rates once you hit a (fairly low) cutoff. That type of misleading marketing undercuts the fairness of the offer.
I endorse the view that everyone should use an ad blocker, but for what it's worth I keep seeing this techcrunch article and the original advice offered by the FBI [1] is actually much more limited.
> Use an ad blocking extension when performing internet searches. Most internet browsers allow a user to add extensions, including extensions that block advertisements. These ad blockers can be turned on and off within a browser to permit advertisements on certain websites while blocking advertisements on others.
So the specific recommendation is that you turn on an ad blocker while performing searches. Why are they so concerned about searches? It's because of a specific form of fraud, where someone purchases an ad pretending to be the business you're searching for, but actually takes you "to a webpage that looks identical to the impersonated business’s official webpage" - that is, a phishing scam.
That's way more limited than the "FBI recommends ad blocker" statement would lead you to believe. From the FBI's point of view, pitching a bullshit supplement in an ad (what you're talking about) is an entirely legitimate business practice, and selling supplements is legal in the US so long as you don't make certain medical claims or imply FDA approval.
I borrowed the phone of someone who is older to watch a facebook video in the app. In the middle of the video there was a video ad with sound playing, an amber alert for sound and a warning to click the link. The next ad after that one was also a warning that there was a virus and you needed to click the link
In the age of A.I. blocking that kind of content should be easier than shooting fish in a bucket and the false positives should all be things the platform would be better off without.
The promise is especially dangerous when a huge fraction of traffic doesn't use Encrypted Client Hello, [1] so the domain name is sent in the clear with the initial request to the server.
A while back I wrote a quick proof-of-concept that parses packet data from sniffglue [2] and ran it on my very low powered router to log all source IP address + hostname headers. It didn't even use a measurable amount of CPU, and I didn't bother to implement it efficiently, either.
I think it's safe to assume that anyone in a position to MITM you, including your ISP, could easily be logging this traffic if they want to.
IMO the denoising looks rather unnatural and emphasizes the remaining artifacts, especially color fringe around details. Personally I'd leave that turned off. Also, with respect to the demosaic step, I wonder if it's possible to implement a version of RCD [1] for improved resolution without the artifacts that seem to result from the current process.
Yeah I actually have it disabled by default since it makes the horizontal stripes more obvious and it's also extremely slow. Also, I found that my vertical stripe correction doesn't work in all cases and sometimes introduces more stripes. Lots more work to do.
As for RCD demosaicing, that's my next step. The color fringing is due to the naive linear interpolation for the red and blue channels. But, with the RCD strategy, if we consider that the green channel has full coverage of the image, we could use it as a guide to make interpolation better.
When you do the demosaicing, and perhaps other steps, did you ever consider declaring the x-positions, spline parameters, ... as latent variables to estimate?
Consider a color histogram, then the logo (showing color oscillations) would have a wider spread and lower peaked histogram versus a correctly mapped (just the few colors plus or minus some noise) which would show a very thin but strong peak in colorspace. A a high-variance color occupation has higher entropy compared to a low-variance strongly centered peak (or multipeak) distribution.
So it seems colorspace entropy could be a strong term in a loss function for optimization (using RMAD).
Best phone I've ever owned and it's not close. Every phone since then has been a compromise, to the point that (in a sunk cost fallacy kind of way) I've just quit caring about phones and just buy whatever the cheapest available unlocked device is. I run them into the ground (way past the end-of-service date) because I know the next one is going to be worse.
The Nexus 4 was a nice phone but I thought the battery life was bad and it also ran hot.
My Moto-X was truly next level. It was oled and could do always on display that didn't need to power the blacks pixels on the screen. It was the first phone to do this.
It has voice recognition for unlocking (getting info that you couldn't when the phone was locked). First to do this too since I believe it uses dedicated hardware at the time.
It also knew when I was driving to unlock the phone for voice commands also.
It was small.
> Mark Rober YouTube of a Tesla plowing into a road-runner style fake tunnel
I understand the argument for augmenting your self-driving systems with LIDAR. What I don't really understand is what videos like this tell us. The comparison case for a "road-runner style fake tunnel" isn't LIDAR, it's humans, right? And while I'm sure there are cases where a human driver would spot the fake tunnel and stop in time, that is not at all a reasonable assumption. The question isn't "can a Tesla save your life when someone booby traps a road?", it's "is a Tesla any worse than you at spotting booby trapped roads?", and moreover, "how does a Tesla perform on the 99.999999% of roads that aren't booby trapped?"
Tesla‘s insistence on not using Lidar while other companies deem it necessary for save auto-pilot creates the need for Tesla to demonstrate that their approach is equally as save for both drivers and ie pedestrians. They haven’t done that, arguably the data shows the contrary. This generates the impression that Tesla skimps on security and if they skimp in one area, they’ll likely skimp in others. Stuff like the Rober video strengthens these impressions. It’s a public perception issue and Tesla has done nothing (and maybe isn’t able to do anything) to dispel this notion.
> What I don't really understand is what videos like this tell us.
A lot of people here might intuitively understand “does not have lidar” means “can be deceived with a visual illusion.” The value of a video like that is to paint a picture for people who don’t intuitively understand it. And for everyone, there’s an emotional reaction seeing it plow through a giant wall that resonates in ways an intellectual understanding might not.
Great communication speaks to both our “fast” and “slow” brains. His video did a great job IMHO.
> Is a Tesla any worse than you at spotting booby trapped roads
That would've been been the case if all laws, opinions and purchasing decisions were made by everyone acting rationally. Even if self driving cars are safer than human drivers, it just takes a few crashes to damage their reputation. It has to be much, much safer than humans for mass adoption. Ideally also safer than the competition, if you're comparing specific companies.
But that doesn't change the reality that it matters to me that a 20 GB video that a friend took at my wedding downloads in just 2 minutes rather than the ~30 minutes it would take if I had a 100 Mbps connection.
reply