Interesting to see the difference 20 years of improvement in digital cameras have made too. I suspect 2004 was film, but it’s possible early digital.
dave
joined 2 years ago
I haven’t yet watched it either, but I’ll take a punt. It’s very hard to apply the first law to bodies, because we ingest, burn, store, and excrete in very complicated ways. It’s not as simple as calories in vs calories burned.
It annoyed me too for a while but it’s changing. I can’t find a definitive source, but I’ve seen a quote from MW from 2015 which had the original meaning. Now it includes “severely injure”.
I do not like the sound of pickass finger nails. But it could explain the fungus.
Reminds me of when the BBC show Have I Got News For You replaced Roy Hattersley with a tub of lard after he failed to show up. Good times.
It would also still be the speed of light. Always is, unless you specify ‘in a vacuum’ every time.
Anything’s a regex if you’re brave enough.
That’s because the explanation is often a bit disingenuous. There’s practically no difference between “listening locally” and “constantly processing what you’re saying”. The device is constantly processing what you’re saying, simply to recognise the trigger word. That processing just isn’t shared off device until the trigger is detected. That’s the claim by the manufacturers, and so far it’s not been proved wrong (as mentioned elsewhere, plenty of people are trying). It’s hard to prove a negative but so far it seems not enough data is leaving to prove anything suspect.
I would put money on a team of people working for Amazon / Google to extract value from that processed speech data without actually sending that data off device. Things like aggregate conversation topic / sentiment, logging adverts heard on tv / radio for triangulation, etc. None of that would invalidate the “not constantly recording you” claim.
UK just went from announcement to election day in 6 weeks. But then, there wasn’t much point dragging it out any longer, was there Rishi ;)
https://youtu.be/pHp9Cakv2Fg