Original scene was far from perfect, but it was somewhat more consistent: a sunny spring day, warm tones, noon, some sun rays casting deep shadows on the face (traditionally the worst time for outdoor portrait photography, hehe).
With "DLSS ON" it's something like an overcast sky; there are some flat shadows on the building in the background but the shadows on the building on the right are still just as sharp as before; the overall tone of the scene became colder; sun rays on clothes disappeared but there still deep shadows on man's face as if the sun was still shining from above, and the tone of his face is basically the same, despite the new color balance.
In the original the man has a large sun shadow (from an off screen object) on the right side of the face. This is gone with DLSS 5, making the face no longer look lit mainly from the left. Only self-shadowing remains. It seems DLSS 5 is working with screen space information only, which means it doesn't know the position of any off-screen lights, which in turn seems to bias it toward an overcast sky look with omnidirectional light and without sharp sun shadows.
So it’s neither "yes" nor "no", but some kind of philosophical note somewhere in-between a "Pop!_OS 24.04 LTS Released" and "CodeWeavers tests their ARM64 compatibility on System76" that isn’t even linked to noticeable on the main page.
I mean Wikipedia hung some huge banners to raise awareness, the German wiki even had a "blackout" because of "Directive 2019/790", there was something similar on Reddit etc. I don't expect them to leave the US market or anything like that, but also I don’t even know what to say, as if everyone has already resigned.
> A "Core Isolation: Memory Integrity" feature of Windows 10+ prevents creating such memory area (leading to BSOD).
> We tried to attestation sign the driver via new EV certificate by MS to fix the driver's limitation, but failed (see #108).
> So for now users have to disable the "Core Isolation: Memory Integrity" feature
Disabling HVCI doesn't sound like a good idea honestly. I mean they abuse kernel memory protection to bypass EV Certificate restrictions leaving the system in a state where another driver can mess with FW's internal structures using the same trick.
It doesn't matter really because nowadays all of them are just a front-ends to Windows Firewall.
Also legitimate software (i.e. firewall/AV) cannot use "oldschool" tricks like system service descriptor table hooks to obtain godlike privileges these days, while malware sometimes can do this by exploiting vulnerabilities, so in such cases it may be an unequal fight.
...and node-ipc has been version-locked[1] to a previous release by vue/cli-shared-utils, perhaps one of the more popular downstream consumers of the package.
Yeah, dead-on. Like "The right to be rude"[0], a year old events when Eric S. Raymond - co-founder of OSI - was kicked off from the OSI mailing list.
(Back then someone suggested adding a "we-don't-like-them" clause to Free licenses which prohibits the use of Free software by "bad people or bad companies" (e.g. the US Migration Service for its policy towards migrants). ESR pointed out a violation of paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Open Source Definition: "No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups", "No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor" in his usual way of communicating and... Well, you know how it's ended up)
People who are against bullying of Richard Stallman exists too! And there are lot of them - quiet developers, incapable of social interaction. We are not reading Twitter 24/7, we are not speakers nor evangelists. We write commit messages, not tweets. We are doing things, not loud manifestos.
And all powers currently is seized by a loud crowd who believe that person should be judged by his words, not his deeds. They believe that "enough words, show me the code" is a meritocracy.
If you fear that your signature in RMS Support letter open letter may have negative consequences for your career, then just write some support words to info@fsf.org and directors@fsf.org, this is fine too!
How bout a person be judged by both their words and their deeds?
Also, this quasi-poetic, we-we-we, silent-majority, US vs THEM, argument comes off as "all developers must support RMS" saber-rattling.
I don't have a twitter (or any social media) and I've been a software engineer long enough that I worry about ageism. I definitely think RMS has been using his celebrity to avoid dealing with a bunch of unchecked personal demons. I also think MM relationship with JE was highly suspect.
All that said, kicking RMS out the FSF was organized publicity move because someone sensed a chink in the armor, not because they cared about MM accusers.
Because we (or this is me only?) were taught that expressing point of view which differs from current "course of the party", while may not be a subject of criminal prosecution (therefore, your freedom of speech is not formally violated), but leads to "deplatforming", you may lose your contracts, your job etc. "Cancel culture" instructs us that instant breakdown of all relations is normal, and many of those who break off relations with you do this not because they disagree with your point of view, but "just in case" to avoid consequences for themself.
Brendan Eich? Eric Steven Raymond? Media personalities like Johnny Depp, Joanne Rowling, James Gunn... All these people didn't break the law, they are not criminals, but they suffered for saying something. This is not "normal"! These cases are well-known and people will now may think twice before saying a word in defense of RMS because they are afraid! This is where "spiral of silence" comes from.
> “He literally used to have a mattress on the floor of his office. He kept the door to his office open, to proudly showcase that mattress and all the implications that went with it. Many female students avoided the corridor with his office for that reason…I was one of the course 6 undergrads who avoided that part of NE43 precisely for that reason. (the mattress was also known to have shirtless people lounging on it…)”
He lived in his office. Maybe that explains the mattress, huh?
Additionally, at some point another anonymous person has sat on RMS' mattress without wearing a shirt. We're setting the bar quite low for what counts as "abuse" here.
> Until around 1998, my office at MIT was also my residence. I was even registered to vote from there.
> I recall being told early in my freshman year “If RMS hits on you, just say ‘I’m a vi user’ even if it’s not true.”
So one person having allegedly told an arguably sexist text editor joke to another person is somehow good enough evidence to punish the third person who is the subject of the joke?
> Richard Stallman told me of his misery and that he’d kill himself if I didn’t go out with him. [...] He was not a man of his word or he’d be long dead.”
Complicated story, and arguably not nice of RMS, but saying that someone is not "a man of [their] word" because they haven't committed suicide is also not nice, in my eyes at least.
Anything more than unverifiable claims from 30 years ago? And even then, how is sleeping on a mattress oppressive? I also sleep on a mattress. I've also asked girls out when I was young, and been declined (once).
That is some twisted mythos regarding RMS. All his online, TV, and keynote appearances have proven him to be a misunderstood and harmless tech expert. What is your experience from speaking to him personally?
Original scene was far from perfect, but it was somewhat more consistent: a sunny spring day, warm tones, noon, some sun rays casting deep shadows on the face (traditionally the worst time for outdoor portrait photography, hehe).
With "DLSS ON" it's something like an overcast sky; there are some flat shadows on the building in the background but the shadows on the building on the right are still just as sharp as before; the overall tone of the scene became colder; sun rays on clothes disappeared but there still deep shadows on man's face as if the sun was still shining from above, and the tone of his face is basically the same, despite the new color balance.