Yeah I suspect they know they can never block everything but if they can block 98% of "casual users" they've probably reached their goal. They will just put out propaganda that the other 2% technically apt people who get around it are conspiracy nuts, western civ sympathizers, traitors to mother russia, etc.
Counterpoint: this YouTube rant by an animation person called Noodle is a pretty good overview of why frame interpolation sucks. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KRb_qV9P4g
Basically, low FPS can be a stylistic choice, and making up new frames at playback time often completely butchers some of the nuances present in good animation.
If you are a good director you can make the most of that low budget. Look at the first episodes of Scum's wish (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt6197170/) if you want a good example.
Animation is the worst use case for motion interpolation because the frames are individually drawn and timed by the animators to achieve a particular look and feel.
I'd never heard of it growing up in the era when that's all there was. I don't know if it's rare, but it's only in the last decade or so I've heard people complaining about it.
We don’t perceive all types of screens in the same way. Film projectors and CRTs display parts of the frame, only part of the time. TFT and IPS screens introduce a lot of inertia and blend the frames. Both of these help the motion illusion. OLED on the other hand has the harshest frame transition - it displays the entire area for the entire time and switches frame content almost immediately.
> it displays the entire area for the entire time and switches frame content almost immediately.
I've heard this called the sample-and-hold effect. It looks a bit like a fast slide show, and really stands out in high-contrast, steady motion scenes.
Check out all the other microbe.tv podcasts[0]. They're all deep but not too impossible for someone without a science background. The hosts try to explain things without using too much jargon. They also do some YouTube live streams where they take questions from the chat.
They have two podcasts for microbiology. This Week in Microbiology is similar to TWiV in that they usually cover papers or talk to a researcher about a paper. Matters Microbial doesn't cover papers but has interviews with working microbiologists where they geek out about their research.
They also have a great podcast on immunology with very enthusiastic hosts, one for neuroscience, one for parasitism, and a couple of infectious disease/clinical/public health podcasts.
The great thing about all of them is how infectious the hosts' enthusiasm is.
From the AI industry perspective, I'd call it "deepfake" if it's generated as the original deepfake method did, by taking a real image or video and replacing only the face, and "AI generated" if the whole image was generated.
But perhaps this is a technical distinction that will go away soon, or perhaps has already disappeared in colloquial usage.
While from technical perspective there are multiple quite different methods to create images, I don't think that there is (or should be, or can be) a clear boundary for social and legal purposes.
It's clear that are a bunch of generated fake images with a face that looks like the impersonated victims and a naked body. Does it matter if that face was copy-pasted from an existing photo of that person or manipulated by a skilled artist to look like that person or AI-generated to look that person? And with respect to the impersonated victims, does it matter if the naked body came from a real photo of someone else, or was drawn by a skilled artist, or was generated by AI?
I agree intent remains the same in either case. In this case the intent is desiring to create a nude likeness of an individual using some degree of original material so that the final creation appears indistinguishable from a genuine product.
In terms of law the technical solution used to accomplish the likeness should not be relevant.
Huh my chelesterol got much higher after exercising and eating healthy for about 6 months , it made nonsense to me , I another test and my doctor didn't understand why .
For other health reasons I stopped working out and eventually started eating junk food .
The article basically states that a higher cholesterol (up to a certain point) reduces the hazard ratio. Therefore cutting your cholesterol in half does seem to increase your health risk (assuming your cholesterol was not extremely high).
It was very high and I beleive it's genetic , my mother tried all available statins then moved from pcsk9 inhibitors to inclisiran and now her chelesterol is in check
MSG quickly breaks down into glutamic acid, which is found in a wide variety of traditional savory dishes from around the world. MSG was created as a product because of the discovery of glutamic acid's preexisting role in savory flavor profiles; it's not like when the guy who discovered saccharin accidentally transformed coal tar into something that coincidentally tasted sweet.
