You have to put the risks into context with upsides. Dentists serve a verifiable and vast positive. Can you equate that to sharing personal information?
IMO at least not generally, as a generic statement.
I saw a short do on the moon land selling once. They're not actually selling moon land. IIRC international agreement is nobody can own any.
They sell certificates. And they have to disclose that in the fine print or sth. Still, people buy it for fun/novelty, or for the off-chance it'll mean something.
So the person who took a map of the moon and sells certificates on his distribution of their own map splitting gets all of that money.
I pointed out it does more. You replied claiming "Itβs literally not." which is simply factually wrong.
Are you saying nobody should point that out? On this discussion platform?
You could have just left it there. If you have that much of a problem with the word thesis maybe you're the one who shouldn't take things so literally. If you have a problem with how this went, maybe you should not make false statements or let it go earlier.
I don't think there's a need to cover everything at all.
That is too broad of a question for a too narrow of an answer. You can answer with broad statements and generalized estimations, but I don't think they really answer the question.
Encoding video balances three things (extensible by two more):
visual quality / equivalence
size (stream/file size)
encoding time
decoding performance
decoding feature set (compatibility)
The codec you use also has a high impact on compression ratio opportunities and capabilities. AV1, HEVC, AVC? 10-bit?
If we define that we do not care about encoding time, so we will use the very slow preset and use all codec features available, compression ratio and quality falloff still depends a lot on what you actually encode.
Is it a cartoon with flat surfaces and mostly linear and partial linear or transformative movement? That can be compressed very well through differentials and transformation (movement).
Is it a high-grain cartoon or movie? Fine, noisy details are hard to compress, they require more information.
Does it have a lot of movement? A lot of vast movements and cuts? Less to keep and differentiate data with, so less efficient.
I suspect in higher resolutions the gaps between different visual data compression ratio differs more - because a difference is elevated through higher resolution/more data.
That being said, I don't have or use 4K stuff, so I can't even check for some rough numbers and visual content to size differences.
There is no "this much is very good enough for 4K movies" because the reasonable minimum very much depends on what the movie contains.
The dialogues are not primarily about cookie consent but consent handling personal data. With that in mind, my primary concern is not giving that consent unnecessarily. I'm not interested in any personalized tracking when they could do enough usage statistic without consent and without sharing personal data with other parties. (That's why I won't use browser extensions that simply accept everything with the primary purpose of the consent dialogs not showing up.)
Consent-O-Matic is a browser extension that will decline any consent as far as possible.
It doesn't work on every website but that's better than auto-accepting - because I don't want to give consent.
Sometimes, when the barrier is not too high, I use decline all or open choices and save (verifying defaults are off). Depends on what it is though; often times it's not worth it to me to invest just to read their content. (Especially when it's regurgitated from other sources.)
If I can't use a website without consenting to personalized tracking I leave.
Another alternative is using alternate frontends to websites/services or the web archive.
My general view is that any service they could want to provide would be able to be served without consent requests. Ads can be served without personalized tracking (and can still be contextual to content). Visitor and usage tracking/stats can be done in a way without sharing that information to third parties and without individual user tracking. Legitimate interest and handling data to service (according to terms/contract) do not need consent. So really, there is no need for any consent.
/edit: I will be trying out ublock origin's hiding and reading up on Firefox automatic rejection mentioned in other comments. I expect them to behave better than the Consent-O-Matic delay of it going through all settings.
Is it original? That depends on the context. What do you ask about, in what context? Where is it placed? Which AI? How was it trained? How does it replicate?
If someone generates an image, it is original in that narrow context - between them and the AI.
Is the AI producing originals, original interpretations, original replications, or only transforming other content? I don't think you can make a general statement on that. It's too broad, unspecific of a question.
I'd rather not have to create an account on every individual's instance to report bugs or contribute.
GitHub is low barrier to me - where I can easily contribute. Because I'm already there, actively. Everything else is medium to high barrier to contribute.
That's a UI thing. Lemmy UI does no such thing. So there's no user-fix.
You could hack it in through code injection or a contribution to the Lemmy project though, or create a feature request.
Reddit loaded a post within-page. Lemmy loads a new page for the post specifically. A back navigation would not be too much effort. Changing to a in-page load would go against Lemmy's current UI approach.
They complied to the law they had to? Is this any different from other hosters?