|
MicrostockGroup Sponsors
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Big Toe
76
« on: July 27, 2023, 11:08 »
One month after the OP, the Adobe Stock genAI collection (tagged; there are more that are not) is over 12 million - 12,004,534
We can celebrate by making a yummy fruit smoothie - although I'm really afraid of this mixer...
The mixer is clearly Borg and in the process of assimilating the kitchen. Resistance is futile!
77
« on: July 24, 2023, 16:30 »
3. The question is what is more unusual and extraordinary?
I would say that the assumption that humans are the pinnacle of intelligence and technical development in the universe / multiverse / the wider reality is just preposterous. I would even say that it is the pinnacle of arrogance. Humans only invented bicycles a few generations ago, and most humans have big problems imagining a "simple" tesseract.
Also, if you watch the videos with Professor Donald Hoffman that I linked above, you will realize that we can only perceive a tiny little bit of reality, and even that little bit is completely distorted. Hoffman showed evidence that evolution hides the reality from us.
If humans were the most advanced beings and there were no other beings capable of visiting the Earth across the whole wider reality, I would say that it is pretty "extraordinary".
You are mixing up two different things here. I think that practically nobody claims that we are the most advanced species in the universe, except perhaps some people who do not believe that intelligent life exists on other planets for religious reasons. Given the number of stars in the universe and that we have discovered a number of solar systems with planets among the limited number of stars close enough for us to detect this, it is very likely that there is large number of planets in the universe where life developed and also very likely that some of them are more advanced than we are. However, whether any of these planets are near enough for the inhabitants to reach Earth is a totally different question. Not nearly every solar system with planets is suitable for life. There needs to be a planet large enough to hold an atmosphere at the right distance to the sun. There probably also needs to be water on the planet. And it needs to have a magnetic field in order to protect it against solar winds. With the current technology, it would take us more than 50.000 years to reach the nearest solar system, Proxima Centauri, which probably does not have a plant with life. Even with far more advanced technology the voyage would very likely take at least a numer of decades, if not centuries. But lets say that by an astonishing conicidence one of the adavanced species live on one of planets in the solar systems near to us, say 10-20 lightyears away and they somehow managed to travel to Earth. I guess it is theoretically possible. But then, according to the non-denialists, they just hang around here for decades (or some people believe even for centuries or millenia) without making formal contact and sometimes get seen by some people and sometimes they lose an aircraft for whatever reason and don't seem to be able to retrieve it before the US government seizes it, inspite of their advanced technology. Sorry, but I am not convinced.
78
« on: July 24, 2023, 05:28 »
Probably all a misunderstanding. For example, if Grush asks anybody whether they think there is evidence for non-human intelligence on earth, any sensible person would answer: "Yes, of course!", probably not realizing that Grush for some reason seems to think that dolphins and chimpanzees are human.
You have posted that gag of yours for the umpteenth time, but it doesn't add anything constructive or interesting to the discussion. Like a broken vinyl record, stuck in a groove.
It's not a gag, even if I sometimes try to bring a little humour to the discussion and it is only the third time i'm bringing it up. And I will continue to do so, as long as they use this absurdly stupid name. How can they expect to be taken seriously, when they are so dismissive of animal intelligence?
79
« on: July 23, 2023, 16:15 »
Double post
80
« on: July 23, 2023, 16:14 »
FOAF kind of hearsay that most often doesn't trace back to any real individual at all. What people believe and how many believe, doesn't make something real.
If Grusch had been told BS, it raises many questions. Grusch is not some YouTube dude with a UFO podcast, he was tasked with this investigation by the Department of Defense. It's no joke, that thing was serious.
Now, if some people with very high clearances had decided to tell him fairy tales as part of his investigation, the obvious question is: WHY?
W-T-F is going on there? Lying to someone in his position, while he is conducting an investigation, is really serious. And if they believed in what they told him, then it's another "W-T-F is going on there?"
Probably all a misunderstanding. For example, if Grush asks anybody whether they think there is evidence for non-human intelligence on earth, any sensible person would answer: "Yes, of course!", probably not realizing that Grush for some reason seems to think that dolphins and chimpanzees are human.
81
« on: July 19, 2023, 14:56 »
That is true. There is certainly non-human intelligence on this planet. I mentioned this before. There are chimpanzees, other great apes, dolphins and to a lesser degree cats and dogs and many other animals. And it is in fact a global phenomenon. Just recently, I detected a cat in my neighbours garden.
Very funny  Consider a career of a stand-up comedian 
Thank you! However, having watched The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel, I know that is not so easy to make a living in that field.
82
« on: July 19, 2023, 14:42 »
Jonathan Grey, a current US intelligence official at the National Air and Space Intelligence Center (Nasic), confirmed the existence of exotic materials to the Debrief.
The non-human intelligence phenomenon is real. We are not alone, Grey said.
Retrievals of this kind are not limited to the United States. This is a global phenomenon, and yet a global solution continues to elude us.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/08/ufo-house-representatives-hearing-investigation
That is true. There is certainly non-human intelligence on this planet. I mentioned this before. There are chimpanzees, other great apes, dolphins and to a lesser degree cats and dogs and many other animals. And it is in fact a global phenomenon. Just recently, I detected a cat in my neighbours garden.
83
« on: July 19, 2023, 14:19 »
If these claims are not true, then some high-ranking US officials are nuts, mentally unstable or whatever.
Yeah, what else is new? Denialism at this stage is nothing else than a religious belief. I don't know if Grusch and others are nuts.
"Adam Frank, a professor of astrophysics at the University of Rochester, published a critique of the Grusch claims on June 22 with Big Think. Frank writes that he does "not find these claims exciting at all" because they are all "just hearsay" where "a guy says he knows a guy who knows another guy who heard from a guy that the government has alien spaceships".[24]" From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Grusch_UFO_whistleblower_claims
84
« on: July 05, 2023, 11:01 »
Now, what could possibly be more lucrative than an infinite amount of money per hour?
You cannot have it both ways. Either you are doing stock photos because it is what you love, without financial considerations and then what does it matter that something else would earn you more money, when it is just a hobby?
Obviously that's absurd. It is a logical tool used to prove that the Jensen hypothesis is flawed.
My point is that Time is never free. Time costs money even when you do something you enjoy.
Time is probably our most expensive resource, and it must be accounted for.
Think about this:
Would you swap your life with Warren Buffet - one of the richest and most respected people in the world?
Or with a person with only 100 USD in her/his pocket?
Buffet is 92. The poor person is 18.
Doesn't your example show the opposite of what you claim? Obviously, there is no equivalency between money and time. Buffet cannot buy himself more time with his money (or only to a limited degree with better healthcare) and the 18 year old person cannot necessarily monetize the years they have ahead of them.
85
« on: July 05, 2023, 09:55 »
Sure thing.
Then my ♾️/hour stands correct, since almost all my photos and videos are made while on vacation, or on trips paid by my company, thus I had zero production costs.
And since I also enjoy keywording, not just shooting and processing, then I also have zero keywording costs.
This makes my hourly rate ♾️/hour
Well, I guess you can see it that way. I would question, though, whether it makes sense for you to calculate an hourly rate at all, since in your case, you seem to be enjoying windfall profits for basically doing nothing, similar to winning the lottery. You would not usually calculate an hourly rate for that either.
Not really, I am not doing "nothing", I am spending TIME on this lucrative hobby. But time is not free. Time is money.
Time may be taken away from doing some even more lucrative business.
Or from learning a new skill than may pay back much more in the future.
Or simply, time is taken away from the family. I am sure that many of us know well how many times our partners were upset with the amount of time we spent on this passion.
Now, what could possibly be more lucrative than an infinite amount of money per hour? You cannot have it both ways. Either you are doing stock photos because it is what you love, without financial considerations and then what does it matter that something else would earn you more money, when it is just a hobby? Or else, you do stock fotografy, or at least parts of it for the money and then you can calculate your earning per hour, either considering all time invested or only the time you would invest anyway, if you would not earn anything, because it is your hobby. Not accounting for ALL the time spent doing this work, while claiming that money is falling from the sky at a rate of $348/hour (only to impress people), because only the keywording time matters, is a fallacy.
Anyway, it will be also interesting to see a tax return from Mr. Jensen, to understand if he truly claimed zero expenses, for this business. I have my doubts here, but even so, what I said above remains a fact: time is money.
Allt hat being said, the $348/hour is a different story. Even if we accept the premises for the calculations, I have some trouble believing the claim that Doug can process and keyword a file in five minutes. But that is a different issue.
86
« on: July 04, 2023, 19:17 »
Sure thing.
Then my ♾️/hour stands correct, since almost all my photos and videos are made while on vacation, or on trips paid by my company, thus I had zero production costs.
And since I also enjoy keywording, not just shooting and processing, then I also have zero keywording costs.
This makes my hourly rate ♾️/hour
Well, I guess you can see it that way. I would question, though, whether it makes sense for you to calculate an hourly rate at all, since in your case, you seem to be enjoying windfall profits for basically doing nothing, similar to winning the lottery. You would not usually calculate an hourly rate for that either.
87
« on: July 04, 2023, 16:56 »
Again, if you agree that Jensen's hourly earnings are correct, then you must also agree that mine are also correct, when I say ♾️/hour.
But Ralf, I think you could do better, if you would remember your Latin, because both claims are absurd.
Sweet dreams!
Dougs calculations can make sense under certain conditions. Let's say you are taking pictures or videos just as a hobby and are just returning from a cruise to Anarctica and Patagonia where you took a lot of great pictures of penguins, albatrosses, orcas, icebergs, mountains and whatnot. Now someone tells you that you can earn money by offering those pictures at agencies on the Internet. Then you can try to calculate whether the money you can earn is worth your time to process, keyword and upload the pictures. You don't have to take into account the time it took to take pictures, because you already have the pictures and you will probably never earn enough to cover the costs of your trip anyway. If you are doing this as a business, you cannot calculate that way, though. Even if you enjoy every aspect of the work, even the keywording. Because the day has only so many hours and even if you enjoy yourself the whole time you need to make a certain amount of money per hour to cover your expanses and the cost of living. Otherwise, you cannot do it as a business, at least not without other sources of money.
88
« on: July 04, 2023, 14:52 »
no scientifically knowledgeable person claims we descended FROM apes -=- instead, evolution shows we descended from a common ancestor 6-9 million years ago, so there's no scientific reason for apes to disappear
That is a little inaccurate. Our most closely related living relative is the genus Pan (chimpanzees and bonobos). Together with them we form the taxon Hominini. The closest relativ of the Hominini is the gorilla and then in turn the orang utan. These species together form the familiy Hominidae (great apes or hominids). Here you can see the relationship: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HomininiSo, biologically speaking, humans are still great apes (a member of the family Hominidae). If you go with the common language usage, where the term great ape only refers to the non human members of that familiy, then you would have to say that we are descendants of great apes. If the last common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees would still be alive today, there can be no doubt that it would be classified as a great ape. Of course that is still no reason why great apes (or apes in general) should not be living today.
89
« on: June 17, 2023, 07:46 »
Unfortunately, this field is full of hoaxes, muppets and disinformation.
Really? I hadn't noticed that. What is interesting, is the switch from the term "extra-terrestrial" to "NHI" (non-human intelligence). This term is used, among others by Nolan, Grusch and Coulthart. And again, it doesn't surprise me...
If you are in search for non-human intelligence, then look no further. Your search is over! There is certainly non-human intelligence on this planet. Chimpanzees and other great apes for example are quite intelligent. They can even learn sign language and other forms of language, although unfortunately they cannot talk, due to anatomcial reasons. Cetaceans are also among the most intelligent animals. Cats and dogs are also intelligent and even some birds like ravens.
90
« on: June 13, 2023, 15:39 »
was searching for some of my ai on AS --- for ai generated with keywords "venice gondola" not only did mine not show up in first few pages (not a big concern here) but the first page & a half were filled with similars most of which had at best only tiny gondolas and none showed venice (more likely amalfi coast)
heres's the search https://tinyurl.com/3z35792b
The results get a lot better when you switch from "Most Recent" to "Relevance" and go to the first page. The reality still beats AI by a fair margin, though.
91
« on: June 11, 2023, 13:51 »
And yet, the building blocks of matter before observation / measurement / interaction have no "substance" and no properties.
That is at best very misleading and at worst completely wrong. We feel the consequences of the properties of the "buildings blocks" of matter, aka Protons, Neutrons and Electrons all the time. For example they all subject to gravitation, so this is a property we feel all the time, unless we are astronauts currently in space. Also all chemical properties of all the chemical compounds that make up our world are a consequence of of the properties of the single atoms and mostly there electron orbitals: "In atomic theory and quantum mechanics, an atomic orbital (/ɒrbədl/) is a function describing the location and wave-like behavior of an electron in an atom.[1] This function can be used to calculate the probability of finding any electron of an atom in any specific region around the atom's nucleus. The term atomic orbital may also refer to the physical region or space where the electron can be calculated to be present, as predicted by the particular mathematical form of the orbital.[2]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_orbitalSo you can only make statistical statement about the electrons whereabout, as far as that question makes sense at all in quantum mechanics. This does not mean that they have no properties, though. Depending on the number of electrons in their hull, elements can be very aggressive or totally inert. Examples for aggreesive elements are chlorine or fluorine. They have an incomplete orbital that needs an extra electron in order to be more stable. So they take it from another elements hat has a surplus of eletrons like sodium. There is also a physicist who has somewhat similar views as B. Kastrup, and the name of his theory is actually similar to your username But TOE stands there for "theory of everything".
https://www.my-big-toe.com
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iofqgV0XIlQ
Now that is indeed a funny coincidence.
92
« on: June 11, 2023, 06:12 »
Bernado Kastrup is a philosopher and not a physicist and therefor cannot to be expected to really understand quantum mechanics.
For what it's worth, Bernardo Kastrup worked at CERN. He literally helped to build technology for the Large Hadron Collider. That was his first job. He built technology for the world's top physicists when he was fresh out of university. I would assume he knows a thing or two about quantum physics. At least, much more than a "regular" philosopher. He only turned to philosophy later in life.
He seems to have worked as a kind of technician there. This does not necessarily mean that he has a deeper understanding of the physics involved. Regarding quantum mechanics, it is possibly that he thinks that he understands it, however, that would mean that he does not understand it, as someone recently made me aware of: " If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you dont understand quantum mechanics." Richard P. Feynman, Nobel Prize in Physics And if he does not think he understands quantum mechanics, then that would raise the questions why he feels he can argue about them with a physicist who has worked in the area.
93
« on: June 11, 2023, 06:04 »
Obviously there are not enough interstellar repair facilities. A similar problem to the lack of EV charging stations in the US.
Yes. Unfortunately Utopia Planitia is not yet in operation.
94
« on: June 08, 2023, 18:14 »
The which-way detection can take place immediatley after the slit, but before the waves had a chance to interfere. After that it is too late to get the which-way information.
What you are suggesting is that generations of quantum physicists, including Nobel Prize winners, simply didn't set up their experiments properly and didn't have a clue what they were doing. Possible, but extremely unlikely.
This is not what I am suggesting. What I am saying is that some popular descriptions about what some of these experiments mean are very inaccurate and misleading.
96
« on: June 08, 2023, 17:21 »
This is complete nonsense. The wave function collapses even when the detector is placed behind the slit, and which-way detection takes place after the particles have already passed through the slits.
The which-way detection can take place immediatley after the slit, but before the waves had a chance to interfere. After that it is too late to get the which-way information. Also in complex setups, such as delayed-choice quantum eraser. There is nothing to "physically influence" the behavior of the particles before the slits. The which-way information can be obtained either by measurement (detection) after the fact or by logical deduction based on events which happen after the particle has gone through the slits. It just doesn't matter how you obtain the information about which way the particle went - if you have got that information - no matter how you got it, then the wave function already collapsed, in the past.
In the delayed-choice quantum eraser the which way information is obtained immediatley after the particles went through the slit. It is just evaluated later. See also the video "The Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser, Debunked" by physicist Sabine Hossenfelder: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQv5CVELG3U
97
« on: June 08, 2023, 15:49 »
The double-slit experiment is probably the most famous experiment in quantum physics. And maybe the most puzzling one in the history of mankind so far.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9tKncAdlHQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txlCvCSefYQ
In a nutshell, the act of observation/measurement of the experiment changes the result. Whatever can happen, does happen - the particle is in multiple places at the same time. Until you try to observe it. Before observation, particles have no defined properties. They are kind of "rendered" only when observed or measured. In other words, the reality is super-weird and super-crazy, until you try to observe what exactly is going on - then it immediately changes and behaves as our intuition would tell us.
There is really nothing all that mysterious about the double slit experiment. According to the concept of waveparticle duality photons, electrons, protons and even atoms can behave in a way that we would describe as wave like and in ways that are more particle like. The heavier an entity is or the more energy it has, the more pronounced is the particle likeness and the less it behaves as a wave. Therefor you can for example use electrons as a wave and can create electron microscopes. You can also perform the double slit experiment with electrons or protons. It is a lot harder to do it with atoms, what is what the first of your videos talks about. The first time this succeeded was only in 1990. But in the end, it matters not, whether we use photons, electrons or atoms. The allegedly mysterious effect the video mentions turns up when performing so called "Which-way" experiments. If we modify the experiment in a way that we can tell, which of the slits a particle went through, the interference pattern vanishes (although it should be noted that there is still the interference pattern you get when a wave goes through a single slit, so the particles still show wave properties). Now how can that be? The answer is really simple. In order to determine which slit a particle went through, you have to modify the experiment in a way that destroys the basis of the double slit experiment. In the experiment with the atoms in the video, using a detector to register all atoms that went through one slit, would consume the atoms and then the atoms (or part of the wave from one atom) going through the other slit have nothing to interfere with. The picture shown in the video where you can just detect an atom "flying by" without intefering with it is pure fantasy. Most often, the "which way" experiment is probably conducted with photons. Then one possibility to find out through which slit a photon went is by polarizing them differently just before they enter the slits. Then the photons that go through one slit swing in a certain direction and the ones that went through the other swing in a 90 degree shifted direction. That way, you can tell, which photons went through which slit. However, the photons now swing in a 90 degree shitfted direction to each other and can no longer interfere with each other and the interference pattern vanished. Well, duh! Some of the widely discussed implications of the double-slit experiment are the Multiverse Theory and Schrdinger's cat, which, theoretically, is both dead and alive at the same time.
Schrdinger's cat experiment is very often misunderstood. No physicist actually thinks that the cat in this thought experiment would be both dead and alive at any time. The cat experiment was a thought experiment proposed by Schrdinger in order to discredit the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics because he claimed that this interpretation would result in the cat being both dead and alive until the box with the cat is openend, which is obviously absurd. This is a misinterpretation of the Copenhagen interpretation, though. As soon as descision at the quantum level has macroscopic consequences, the wave function collapes and the cat is either dead or alive, but not both. Opening the box is just the equivalent to reading the result of an experiment from a display. It does not change the result of the experiment and the results are already determined.
98
« on: June 08, 2023, 10:31 »
In what hypothesis you took a picture this year and you do not know the exact date?
it's easier to describe photos. Just copy paste "Valmeinier, France - Circa 2023" after description and done, instead of wasting time on exact date. Of course there are cases when you want to have exact date, but in most case "circa" is enough.
For some photos, the "circa" may be enough, for others, the buyer may appreciate to know the exact date. Shutterstock probably does not want to waste time making a judgement call on each submitted photo into which category the photo falls, and expect the exact date on photos taking recently. It's not that hard to provide it.
99
« on: June 08, 2023, 06:18 »
Actually, I think you would be quite surprised at how high the approval ratio is at Adobe Stock.
How recent is your information about the approval ratio? It seems like the massive complaints about rejections are mostly very recent. Could you perhaps inquire how the approval ratio was in the last two weeks and compare this with previous values? Also, is the approval ratio perhaps different for different media types (photos, illustrations, ai, video)? An overall high approval rate may then still not mean that there could not be areas where the rejection rate is unusually high.
100
« on: May 26, 2023, 05:35 »
I've never seen a UFO. Keep in mind that my cameras haven't either. My night timelapse cameras, usually one but sometimes two, have recorded nothing. There are people with 24/7 sky watching cameras looking for meteorites. There's a world network of those. No space ships. Astronomers around the world, watching day and night. No space ships.
They all use cloaking devices, so you cannot see them. The cloak is only dropped in the presence of a true believer.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
