TintedJellyfish's recent activity
-
Comment on Jack Dorsey quits Bluesky board and urges users to stay on Elon Musk's X in ~tech
-
Comment on The tech baron seeking to “ethnically cleanse” San Francisco in ~life
TintedJellyfish Link ParentMaybe I read "job at a tech company in security" wrong, but my impression was that this is less about a literal "job in security", and instead more about job security, as in a guaranteed position...Maybe I read "job at a tech company in security" wrong, but my impression was that this is less about a literal "job in security", and instead more about job security, as in a guaranteed position of sorts. But I also imagined that to be an offer for a pencil pusher type job, simply because that seems about the level of respect they'd offer for their own personal gain.
The phrasing does feel a bit odd, but English is only a second language to me so what do I know.
-
Comment on Which is the lightest (least memory eating) Screen Recorder for Linux Desktops? in ~comp
TintedJellyfish (edited )LinkHonestly in my opinion this is probably less about choosing the right software than you might think. On Linux most screen recording software will be using the same piping under the hood (ffmpeg,...Honestly in my opinion this is probably less about choosing the right software than you might think. On Linux most screen recording software will be using the same piping under the hood (ffmpeg, gstreamer) And while the UI is definitely not about nothing, its much more important that it lets you set your output encoding settings to something with low enough impact.
Frankly speaking, I don't have much specific experience using recording software on low-end hardware. This is mostly going to be advice based in theory, pointing you in the right direction, and hoping it still ends up being useful.
First thing you should do, is find out is if your hardware offers dedicated hardware video encoding. (This link is an article on the Arch Linux wiki, besides package names, it will generally apply to other distributions as well though) Having hardware acceleration means the CPU/GPU has dedicated parts built for video processing, and using them will result in the lowest possible CPU impact.
Personally I have only ever used OBS, so I know it provides a lot of detailed settings for controlling your recording parameters. I also believe if you turn off the video preview, the impact on performance from OBS itself should be decently low.
Either way, should you have access to hardware acceleration, make sure to select an appropriate video encoder (most likely VA-API, or NVENC if you have an nvdia gpu) Sadly, in general hardware accelerated recording results in "worse looking" video at the same output size, and has less user facing options to tweak anything. I think it is for this reason, that OBS only shows this option if you select the "Advanced" output mode, and other software may not show it at all. At this point you should ask, or search what the settings you then have available mean, and what impact they may have.
If you do have to rely on CPU encoding, it might make sense to increase the bitrate which may lower the time spent on reducing the resulting file size. This only makes sense up to a point though, especially if you're not storing the result on an SSD. If the storage can't keep up, Linux will happily use RAM for not-yet written data.
From here on out I can only recommend you play around with resolution, bitrate and encoder quality settings until you find something that doesn't drop frames, keeps up with your disk, and does not impact whatever stuff you actually want to record. For this I can only recommend at least trying OBS, the "Stats" dock can give quite a good insight into what is happening, and where you might want to tweak your settings further.
-
Comment on What have you made using an AI tool? in ~creative
TintedJellyfish Link ParentYou must be serious, but what makes you believe this? Yes, copyright on the internet has a fraught history. Art posted publicly is expected to be shared around. Motivations are mixed, but they...You must be serious, but what makes you believe this?
Capitalism didn't do this, the internet did
Yes, copyright on the internet has a fraught history. Art posted publicly is expected to be shared around. Motivations are mixed, but they don't really matter here. I believe we (the internet, artists) generally agree that attribution on shared art is considered nice. But even if it isn't done, people who are really interested (potential customers) have tools to figure it out for themselves.
This model has worked since the inception of the internet. Yes there are artists who have been more protective. Either way, we never allowed for corporations to do the same, this has always been non-commercial. Until AI we were always able to hold them accountable.I think artists can't claim an expectation to copyright when publishing to the open web
Why do you believe that?
Do you think it would be okay to sell a book borrowed for free from a library because they can just print more? If not, then does the paper and ink make the product non-fungible?
I agree that in a better future we shouldn't need copyright. I would prefer living in a world where I don't have to be producing profits for someone else, by selling a part of my time to be able to live. Copyright or intellectual property can vary wildly between nations, so its role and applicability on the internet is particularly difficult. In general though, it serves to protect both the interests of corporations, and individual creators.
And at is this point, we still need it, at least for the latter.I feel like you didn't read what I said, but maybe I expressed myself poorly.
OpenAI isn't going to subscribe to anyone's Patreon, and neither are the majority of its paying customers.
Therefore we have to make them, whichever way we can. -
Comment on What have you made using an AI tool? in ~creative
TintedJellyfish Link ParentI think using AI for your enjoyment is probably fine. It is unethical to make money from AI products trained on scraped "public" data, or from outputs of such AI. I understand where you're coming...I think using AI for your enjoyment is probably fine. It is unethical to make money from AI products trained on scraped "public" data, or from outputs of such AI.
I understand where you're coming from with that comparison to movie piracy, but the power structure simply does not match. Artists are not mega-corporations, they do not have the resources to go against the makers of AI products (OpenAI, Midjourney, etc.) not to mention the users of these products.
It is more convenient and cheaper to use AI than to commission a bunch of independent artists, and so people choose to pay for AI instead of paying artists. Now those companies that trained the AI probably deserve to make money. But their product wouldn't exist without the hard labour of millions of artists, writers, archivists, etc. And right now none of these people are being compensated for their involvement in these AI products.
In a way I do think people would be a little more fine with it, if these AI products and its outputs were non-commercial, but as it stands they are directly competing with the livelihood of artists.
Many people pay a small price to make piracy more convenient (or safe) instead of paying the artists. The people involved in creating the products for Netflix and co. are currently fighting to get fair pay. Music piracy is mostly dead, but musicians aren't much better off for it, they aren't unionized. Maybe there isn't a real solution for art under capitalism.
Either way, what we have right now does not help allowing the people making art to live. -
Comment on Warner Bros.’ quest to build a better ‘Aquaman’ sequel: Three reshoots, two Batmans and non-stop test screenings in ~movies
TintedJellyfish Link ParentI think I understand that, but I do feel like everything they're producing at the moment feels too big for that. While they are definitely doing quite a bit of experimenting (e.g. Eternals, Black...I think I understand that, but I do feel like everything they're producing at the moment feels too big for that. While they are definitely doing quite a bit of experimenting (e.g. Eternals, Black Panther 2) and it's not all bad, they're still all major big budget movies, which makes them feel shallow and unrewarding. These movies keep setting up what feels like dozens of future plot hooks while sometimes having less than little to show for themselves. I guess I'm mostly just feeling overwhelmed by it.
That last part seems wrong (nowadays?) On my instance, which is running (afaik) plain Mastodon, I can clearly see (and modify) my associated e-mail in the "Account settings" section.