oh hella yes i can't wait, MAX IS BACK!

lost records is looking amazing as well though

oh damn. that would have been fun though

William's camera looks like a spectra system (as in, the camera literally called "spectra system", as opposed to the system of cameras called "spectra" collectively -- yeah, polaroid was really frickin dumb with names), but unfortunately those are no longer supported. it's kinda crazy, they died twice, the original polaroid stopped producing film in 2008, and then the impossible project resurrected the format again, got successful enough to even reclaim the polaroid name, only for them to cut production of spectra in particular in 2019, to free up an underutilized production line and prop up their "go" line of cameras (yup, they inherited the bad names too).

the spectra system camera doesn't quite look like the one Max uses throughout the game, dontnod did the changes well (they actually had a perfect recreation of a polaroid 636 in the 2014 demo but they seemed to have got some legal beef with polaroid and debranded all the cameras), but it is quite recognizable. shame that it doesn't work, it was a really cool one. the closest currently functional cameras they got are the impulse and impulse af, and i could wholeheartedly recommend the autofocus variant, it's genuinely one of the best cameras polaroid ever made imo.

the camera Max has in the beginning of the game looks like any old clamshell-design polaroid 600 camera. they actually never produced those in old computer beige, the closest color options are the striking yellow of the job pro, or the 50th anniversary edition sun 660. for general use, i'd recommend any of the ones with the massive gold autofocus dish -- there actually is a perfectly rendered picture of a sun 660 in Chloe's journals in before the storm, so that could be considered quasi-canon, even.

but in a way, the curved 90s design of the 636 close-up and its many rebrands (generally polaroid did that a lot, like way more than you'd expect) could also be considered quasi-canon, because of that 2014 demo.

yup, it was definitely an inspiration to life is strange

likewise! i hope you'll enjoy it here then

and yet you should be allowed in a kfc? double standards smh

counterpoint: quick broen fox is corporatized af while sphinx of black quartz has one hell of a vibe. you're right that the fox is comfy because the cozy zone is the only spot where fun and corpos intersect and this one just so happens to fall into it but keeping it people-centric was never the point.

case in point: the test sentence we use in my native language translates to "floodproof mirror drill" to test out all our weird diacritics. no autumn vibes there, only corpos

they spent 10 figures on openai already. 8 figures for the whole openai team is pennies

the average lemmy user has 3 alts factoid is just statistical error. the average lemmy user has 0 alts. alts georg, who lives on linux.community apparently and has 20,000 alts, is a statistical outlier adn should not be counted

yup, and when in doubt, just do some few-shot prompting

do you have an example of the russian federation getting attacked by a near-peer adversary without the now defunct soviet union defending it?

no, the premium stuff doesn't give you api access. which is total bs, but yeah, it's only for that grey interface. (i'm also quite salty that the playground has no easy to access image inputs but that's beside the point)

you're completely right about self-hosting sd, it's just a matter of prompting. sd workflows tend to get a little more experimental but i guess you could still make chatgpt write a few prompts that are close to correct and just manually rerun if an image failed

you can already api into chatgpt and dall-e 3 as one cohesive service, and make a system in an afternoon's work that reads the article, decides on a thumbnail, and automatically generates one. the whole thing costs like 8 cents per article.

baldur's gate did that and other companies were complaining about the high standard it set

i thought you were referring to pooh as "xitler", lol

at this point i genuinely believe that you're just trolling. some companies like sony and apple absolutely do have this level of bootlickers who constantly move goalposts and try to convince people how they are ackshually right to do their extremely anti-consumer moves. but facebook? give me a break lmao. but even for a troll it's such a stupid hill to die on

i believe we adequately explored why your idea that corporations have the right to coerce people into giving up their data is idiotic. so idk, keep trolling and insert your next goalpost below this line:

you're just hell-bent on missing the point, aren't you?

just stop. your idea that the loss of a facebook account is not a detriment will never stand up in court, nor should it.

And you have a right to object to that.

https://gdpr.eu/article-21-right-to-object/
https://gdpr.eu/Recital-42-Burden-of-proof-and-requirements-for-consent/

Threatening to disable a user's means of communication as retaliation for an objection is antithetical to Article 21 of the GDPR, and goes directly against Recital 42. Removing your facebook page is a detriment. If there is a detriment to not consenting, consent is considered invalid, therefore facebook has no legal basis to process the data of anyone who clicked "use for free" on the prompt in the original post.

Read carefully:

You 👏 cannot 👏 make 👏 personal 👏 data 👏 the 👏 price 👏 of 👏 a 👏 service.

It's literally that simple. This is not about whether the product is essential or not, it never was. It's whether this business practice is legitimate or not. The GDPR clearly believes it's not and it's for a reason.

If you do not need a facebook page to live, why provide it for free at all? Just make people either pay or delete their page. Do not bribe them with free shit to manipulate them into giving up their data. That's all there is to it.

Where exactly is the coercion here? The choices in order to maintain a Facebook account you either pay a fee or let them use your data to advertise to you.

right there. you're a parody of yourself lmao.

a facebook account cannot simultaneously hold enough value that it's worth compromising your privacy for and not hold value so that the threat of taking it away is not coercion. the enemy cannot be both strong and weak at once. the only way to resolve this dichotomy is to posit your privacy itself holds no value and is therefore a fair price to pay for something that also holds no value, but that's just absolutely ridiculous to begin with.

you also had your answers to your questions about which part should be illegal, multiple times. to then ask the same questions again because you "don't see it", playing dumb like that, is just manipulative. why are you so dead set on corporate bootlicking?

she'd totally be the one who tears off the top polarizer layer from a monitor and sticks it into her glasses (like this)