They have been “upgrading” old videos to shorts for more than a year. As far as I know it once started with videos with a runtime of at most 30 seconds.
At some point that was increased to 3 minutes.
I think they do this to square and portrait videos, maybe the check is as simple as “height >= width and duration <= 3 minutes”?
https://www.facebook.com/groups/Nachtfotografie/posts/264063...
Here is the original photo description in German.
See also my other comment in this thread.
But the tl;dr is that this was a stack of 153 four-second exposures with some gaps in the timelime when the camera took its time to save between exposures.
My time to shine! I've spent yesterday morning to track the photo down and answer this question.
The APOD description is lacking.
Yes, this was an exaggerated stack of 153 four-second exposures (the rejection map of the satellite trails was added on top of the image), and the gaps happened when the camera took its time to save between two exposures.
I think the question was: Who gets the payout?
The bet is: There will be a ceasefire.
There was a ceasefire, but it was allegedly broken almost immediately after. So does that count as ceasefire or not? There are arguments for both sides, so you could also say it's a tie and neither party gets the cut and the bets will be refunded.
You can just read the rules for that particular prediction on Polymarket yourself. In this case according to the rules it just comes down to whether or not there is an official ceasefire by a particular time. It does not say anything about what happens if the ceasefire is broken after that time so in that case it doesn't actually matter that it was broken.
Usually the market have rules that define the bet more concretely than just "there will be a ceasefire", and resolutions can be disputed where they will be arbitrated by the market operator. For this particular market you can see that here (https://polymarket.com/event/us-x-iran-ceasefire-by), but I'll paste the current text too:
This market will resolve to “Yes” if there is an official ceasefire agreement, defined as a publicly announced and mutually agreed halt in direct military engagement, between the United States and Iran by the listed date, 11:59 PM ET.
For the purposes of this market, an “official ceasefire agreement” requires clear public confirmation from both the United States government and the government of Iran that they have agreed to halt military hostilities against one another, or for an official ceasefire agreement to be otherwise confirmed to have been reached by an overwhelming consensus of media reporting.
If the agreement is officially reached before the resolution date, this market will resolve to “Yes,” regardless of whether the ceasefire officially takes effect after the resolution date.
Any form of informal understanding, backchannel communication, de-escalation without an announced agreement, or unilateral pause in hostilities will not be considered an official ceasefire. Humanitarian pauses, limited operational pauses, or temporary tactical stand-downs will not count toward the resolution of this market.
A broader peace deal, normalization agreement, or political framework will qualify only if it includes a publicly announced and mutually agreed halt in military engagement between the United States and Iran, effective on a specified date, or otherwise confirmed by an overwhelming consensus of credible reporting. Agreements that outline future negotiations or de-escalation measures without an explicit, dated commitment to stop fighting will not qualify.
This market’s resolution will be based on official statements from the United States government and the government of Iran. However, an overwhelming consensus of credible media reporting confirming that an official ceasefire agreement has been reached will suffice.
So the real answer is, "whoever the market operator chooses".
This seems to involve there being an agreement in place, but not necessarily in effect or even followed, so the possibility of it having already been violated seems to be irrelevant
They put a lot more thought into the terms than the Trump administration did, that's for sure.
Still: does the combination of a deranged Truth Social posting, an obviously-pasted tweet from the Pakistani government, and a 10-point list of debatable provenance count as "clear public confirmation?"
I guess so, sort of, maybe? Fortunately I don't have a 7-figure wager at stake.
So the biggest gains so far are on Windows 11 Pro of (x86_64) ~20%? Is that because Windows was bad as a baseline (promethius)? It doesn't seem like the x86_64/Linux has improved as dramatically ~5% (ripley). I'm just surprised OS has that much of an effect that can be attributed to JIT vs other OS issues.
It's hard to say whether it's Windows related since the two x86_64 machines don't just run different OSes, they also have different processors, from different manufacturers. I don't know whether an AMD Ryzen 5 3600X versus Intel i5-8400 have dramatically different features, but unlike a generic static binary for x86_64, a JIT could in principle exploit features specific to a given manufacturer.
To the community it was unhackable, until very recently.
It's security measures held up so long that it appeared to be unshakable. There were no obvious flaws.
In hindsight it was hackable, but keep in mind how long it took. This console has long been obsoleted.
A couple of years ago the bot situation in casual Team Fortress 2 was so bad that it wasn't uncommon to land in a game where the majority of at least one of the teams was a group of cooperating bots. In those matches you have the possibility to start a kick-vote on your team mates, and those bots would immediately vote “no” if you tried to vote on any of them and because they were the majority of the team these votes always failed. And if these batch were in your enemy team all you could do was to ask the remaining, hopefully real, players on the enemy team to try to kick them.
It was especially annoying when you tried to play certain game modes these bots weren't programmed to handle, they had no idea of the objective and the match would stall indefinitely, forcing you to queue for a different match.
And if I remember correctly these bots were pretty much headshotting everything they got in sight. Something the server can easily detect.
But VAC for example acts intentionally slow, so cheaters don't get immediate feedback.
Out of curiosity I did a quick internet search and a couple of months ago a new wave of bots has emerged. Those bots also join as majority group but never fully join the game, they simply take up slots in a team, preventing others from joining. Makes you wonder why the server isn't timing them out.
"This audio is embedded from SoundCloud and requires cookies to function. To view this content, please enable analytics and marketing cookies using the cookies opt-in at the bottom of your screen." - lame!
On my old phone (Nokia 8) the random header image takes a while to process and afterwards the content pops up. On my Pixel 8 it's basically instant. Both times tested in Firefox.
reply