loaExMachina [any]

I am a person online.

  • 10 Posts
  • 59 Comments
Joined 3 years ago
cake
Cake day: April 27th, 2022

help-circle






  • So, this is an add for OpenHarmony (a project by OpenAtom with ties to Huawei), with an clickbait title. All of the critics made about Linux are things we’ve already heard from Windows and OSX, or even FreeBSD users, and I am not convinced by the solution they offer. “Offering native ports” is supposedly their biggest perk, but it is possible to make games run natively on Linux, the existence of Proton just makes it not entirely necessary. None of what they describe really seems that new.



  • This wasn’t a very serious comment, but now I feel like fighting you on this.

    Mammals may have evolved from scaly animals too

    Not directly, early therapsids had naked skin. Some earlier synapsids had scales, but it’s unkown if it was a general thing or something that evolved independently in a few lineages. You gotta go back almost as far as fishes for something that was definitely a mammal ancestor and that we’re sure had scales.

    some mammals still have scale-like structures (pangolin, some rodents)

    Pangolins are scaly tho. As for rodents, only the tail is scaly, so you don’t typically call the whole beast scaly.

    Should we also call furries scalies?

    It’d be strange to apply it to all furries when only a minority of mammals have scales.

    No, hair and feathers are distinct structures from scales.

    They all share a common basis (and with teeth as well), but feathers are arguably closer to reptilian scales:

    • They’re formed of beta-keratin, like the scales of other reptiles and unlike hair which is made of alpha-keratin.

    • Both are attested in dinosaurs, some had both feathers and non-feather scales.

    Basically, feathers are directly modified scales. Hair appeared from scaleless creatures, altho it did use a gene that had been involved in making scales in this scaleless creature’s distant ancestors.

    You could make a point that bird furries could be called “featheries”, which would be more precise and accurate than " scalies". However in absence of this term (which has been proposed several times bug never really enterered general use, “scaly” is more accurate than “furry”.

    Tomato

    Irrelevant.









  • I’ve read a few years ago of AI slop having like an unreadable signature on the bottom right, due to using a lot of data that had signatures there, including many from a same artist. I believe it was a Tweet by RJ Palmer. But what you describe seems more like someone is just putting their name on the slop they generate afterwards, with a simple image processing software.

    Another possibility I find a bit less likely would be that it is like that old phenomenon where the ai tries to generate the signature, but it actually does it correctly because it got better at handling text and enough of the art used is from the same person to make a coherent one.