loobkoob

I dislike reddit as much as the next scorned ex-redditor, but I can't really blame them here, regardless of what state reddit is in. if things are going downhill, obviously selling while they can makes sense. And if things are looking good, why not sell now anyway and have some actual money to spend, rather than just holding onto the Monopoly money in case it's worth more later? It's still more than enough money for them to be able to live comfortably for the rest of their lives.

Do remember that teachers generally work far, far longer each day than just 9-5. Their paid hours often don't give them time for lesson planning and marking.

Base 12 being the best is probably why AI keeps trying to give people six digits per hand.

Yep. Rishi Sunak's trying to make homeless people and smelly people illegal; I'm sure disabled people will be next (especially ones with wheelchairs/mobility scooters or "unsightly" disabilities).

That's part of it - they don't want to lose their investment. The other part is that if they do stop propping up Israel, they know another country like Russia or China will happily fill the void and reap all the benefits of the influence in the region. The US could cut ties and not be involved at all but it's not likely it would change much, unfortunately; Israel would just continue with new backers and the US would be in a worse position.

Not that that justifies the war and all the weapon sales on the US' part, of course. But I think, with that information, it's easy to see why there's some nuance to it, and why the US isn't keen to sever ties or be too harsh a critic.

I wouldn't spoil my ballot personally unless I felt every party right now was actively bad. I think there are a few things you should consider:

Some of the parties aren't necessarily the same, policy-wise or values-wise, as they were in the past. They might have the same name as they did ten years ago, but that doesn't mean everything else about them is frozen in time. Parties evolve, and you should judge them as they are now and the direction they're heading in rather than holding vendettas against them for things that aren't representative of how they are now. This is particularly important when parties have new leadership and direction - Labour, in particular, feels like quite a different party to how it was in 2019. Is it better? In some ways yes, in other ways no, I think. But whether you think it's better or not, I think it's distinct enough, and tried to distance itself enough from what it perceived as issues it had in 2019, that holding it accountable still doesn't achieve much. I don't think it's fair to blame Ed Davey's Lib Dems for Nick Clegg's coalition either (although I do think Clegg did a reasonable job of moderating the Tories during that time - things got so much worse once the Tories got full power).

I also think it's important to think of every election as a stepping stone to the future, rather than hoping for perfection to happen overnight. Taking the Labour party as an example, because they're the biggest rivals to the Tories on a national level: do I think things will be perfect if Labour get power? No. They don't necessarily represent my views on some issues, and I actively disagree with them on others. In another voting system, they probably wouldn't be my first choice. But I also think that if Labour gets in, things will move in a better direction. If I think about where I'd like things to be in ten or twenty years, Labour winning this election is probably what ensures the best (or at least most realistic) chance of getting there.

Don't let "perfect" be the enemy of "good". None of the options are perfect as far as I'm concerned. But Labour, Lib Dems, Greens and SNP are all good compared to the Tories, and doing what you can to help the one that gives the best chance of keeping the Tories out in your constituency is going to move things in a good direction. I think that having the chance to actually get rid of the Tories is not the time for apathy, also. I'd hate to see the Tories win again because the left gets complacent or apathetic, or starts splitting the vote because Starmer's Labour isn't perfect. Because do you know what else isn't perfect? Another five fucking years of Tory government. It looks like they're on their way out, but let's not fumble it at the finish line.

Get these right-wing ghouls out of power, and then write to your MP telling them how you'd like to see things change. Because chances are it'll achieve more than spoiling your ballot. Spoiling your ballot expresses that you're angry but it doesn't tell anyone why and it doesn't do anything to bring about change.

I’m pretty sure I know what it’s about.

Female, powerful, encourages folks to vote.

It's The Guardian so I don't think it's rooted in misogyny or her trying to change the power structure. It's likely just because she's one of the most famous people on the planet, and probably the most recognisable person on this list.

This is absolutely true. But also, Gillian Anderson is even more attractive now than she was when X-Files started - that woman has aged like fine wine! Which makes it a doubly stupid thing for the executives to be saying.

I agree that keeping the original versions is important, even if it's just in a vault somewhere.

And people should have choices over whether they want a version that’s just the high quality scan only, or whether they want the AI upscale version.

It would certainly be nice for people to have that choice, but I guess it's up to the creator(s) whether they want to offer that choice. I agree it sucks for consumers to not be able to (legally) access older versions any more, but I also think it's fair enough for artists to no longer sell their works if that's what they want.

I'd agree that just taking the raw output from an AI and putting it out without any changes probably isn't going to go well. But I don't think there's any harm in a human using it as a tool - much like you using "fuzzy select" in Photoshop doesn't have any effect on someone's judgement/appreciation of your end result. Because ultimately, to the audience, the result is the important thing, not the process. 99% of people aren't going to care how it was done, just that they like how it looks.

I also see no point in "re"storing art to a higher quality or resolution than it originally was. That seems like wasted effort which could have been directed toward a sequel.

I don't see it this way, personally. I've definitely seen films where dated special effects or other technical aspects can break my immersion. I'm not someone who'll refuse to watch old films, but it doesn't necessarily mean I don't appreciate things being updated to meet more modern technical standards (ideally the old versions will be preserved, though) if the original artistic vision can be upheld (or even executed on even better than at the time).

As for directing that effort towards a sequel, I think there are plenty of reasons why they might not want to. Maybe they don't have any further stories they want to tell with the characters or setting. Maybe the actors don't want to be involved. Maybe they have an idea but can't get a good script going. Maybe they can't get financing. A couple of people going through upscaling/restoring the film is very different from creating a new film!

I'm not Canadian and I don't know the details of the situation, so excuse me if I'm wrong on this, but I think MP pay is a complex issue. It's easy to say "they get paid way more than the average person, of course they don't need a pay rise" but I think it's important to find a balance between that and paying enough that becoming an MP is an appealing option for intelligent, driven people. If they have a choice between an median salary as an MP and 15x the pay in the private sector, the most brilliant people are going to be drawn towards the private sector purely for financial reasons.

It's also important that they're given enough financial security that there's no risk of their finances being used as leverage against them. Some politicians will always just be corrupt and open to bribery or "lobbying", of course, but you don't want politicians that don't have their own money from other sources being put in compromised positions because of their finances. And you don't want politicians looking for other sources of income rather than focusing on their primary job.

Like I said, I don't know the details. Maybe Canada has already found a good balance - where it's already appealing to the best and brightest, and where their no risk of financial issues for MPs - and MP pay rises would be unnecessary. I just thought it was worth mentioning the fact that there can be some nuance to the situation!

I don't think AI assistance is inherently bad. The issue is when they just call it a day without checking it over and making their own adjustments afterwards.

We've seen plenty of terrible AI upscaling, but I'm sure there's also upscaling and restoration that's been done with AI assistance where no-one's even noticed the fact that AI was used because it was used well.