Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | more arandomreactdev's commentslogin

So they’re putting it on sale now but still won’t sell it in many countries?

E.g Australia and New Zealand are still having to buy them from unauthorized resellers.


> that would save copy/pasting repeated variable names into tests, logs, etc

This is all it takes for me to get value out of my subscription. It's saving me time by anticipating my next test / block of code based on what I've previously written, and that saved time really adds up.

Sure it's not "Jesus take the wheel" level AI yet, but time is money, and so is my sanity.


You could always check out AnyType: https://anytype.io/

Open-Source, E2E encrypted, offline first, syncs to all your devices via IPFS so no centralized server, etc.

No usernames or email addresses either.


Is that really open source?

I can't find it's source code on GitHub.


Ah, good point, sorry, it's just released in Public Beta this month, and opening the source code is Coming Soon™

https://blog.anytype.io/our-open-philosophy/


Seems that they will take the proprietary source available approach instead.

I don't think that is the same thing as "open source".

https://community.anytype.io/t/which-license-would-anytype-c...


No it's definitely going to be proper open-source: https://community.anytype.io/t/sprint-review-58-59-60/9754?u...


Turns out they picked a source-available license.

https://github.com/anyproto/anytype-ts/blob/main/LICENSE.md


You can use their first party tool called Import-Export: https://proton.me/support/export-emails-import-export-app


Here’s the Product Announcement blog post from March: https://workspace.google.com/blog/product-announcements/gene...


That’s not how Face ID works. Face ID uses geometric data to map your face.

It doesn’t use photos.


I know that. And I also know I unlocked a gen 1 Face ID phone instantly with a picture. Can't explain it.


Why would they make it cheaper when they can make even more profit by not having to pay a voice actor?


If they make it better for the reader, they can potentially raise the price. If they can make it cheaper to produce, they can potentially increase their profit without raising the price.

Usually on balance this falls somewhere in between -- more value for less money for the consumer, and more profit on each marginal unit of production for the producer, which is how technology progresses across most consumer goods.


Because it would be extremely easy to produce it cheaper or record it independently.

This opens up for non-signed authors to release audio books.


Yes, but they're not going to pass on costs from not using a voice actor. They're just going to charge what they normally would have, and not worry about having to give so and so a cut.


Sure, and then we'll get more audiobook options, as it becomes economically viable to make more niche stuff into audiobooks.


Niche stuff has always been economically viable. Niche stuff also tends to get publisher support. Realistically these days the only reason why books don't have an audiobook format is due to not wanting to support Amazon/Apple, or because they just don't want it. Voice actors literally are not expensive for audiobooks. You can absolutely afford one if your tiny $9 book hits more than 200 copies.

Unless you're talking about illegal niche, in which fair but I highly doubt stores are going to accept those. All generation helps with is content that will be free.


I think you’re underestimating how much work goes into hiring and producing something. Making it more self-service will go a long way toward making it more accessible to small creators. And my impression is that many books don’t sell 200 copies.


Get a text copy of the book and then pass it through the tool yourself, right? Who cares how much the publisher wants.



https://webkit.org/blog-files/color-gamut/

Look at the second example ( red images) and click the Display P3 option.

Do you see the symbol inside? No? Well then your display / monitor isn’t capable of showing a colour range higher than sRGB.

HDR is similar in respect to brightness and contrast.

If your device supports HDR, then there’s more steps in the brightness scale that your monitor can display.


Is higher granularity all HDR is, then? Other commenters mention that the HDR brightness max is more than what the SDR brightness max is defined as, which seems odd to me. It's as if you're crippling the display for SDR permanently.


Rec.709 actually defines a peak luma of 100 nits. sRGB has it defined as 80 nits. These numbers are really only for mastering, but as you push further from the standard you start to see artifacts, namely banding in gradients.

HDR standards require higher bit depth and define higher peak brightness. In addition, and this is probably technically the toughest bit, they define dynamic metadata formats which define tone mapping as the content changes [0].

One thing you may be missing about the particular effect we see on this website is that it disappears as you turn your device brightness up. So you can still get that brightness with SDR content.

[0]: https://www.avforums.com/articles/what-is-4k-hdr-dynamic-met...


Ideal HDR goes up to 10000 nits or higher. It would be ridiculous to put SDR white anywhere near that level.

And there is no need to cripple anything. Brightness adjustment can/should let you put SDR white all the way up to the max full-screen brightness. If a manufacturer cripples that it's not HDR's fault.

But it's also important to note that "max full-screen brightness" is often a lot less than maximum spot brightness.


There are websites that host games under X kilobytes, and they’re typically built using very clever tricks and techniques that you can learn from.

None of the sites in this 1kB club even attempt anything noteworthy.

For example, one of them just says “persons name, web hacker”. Wowee.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: