91–100 of 101 posts
The connection to selfies is really weak. Its just classical conditioning. The stimulus is the food not the selfie taking, and the continued pressing of the selfie button without food is conditioned response.
* More likes -> more food
* Retweets -> better food
* More followers -> larger cage
What's the copyright situation of rat selfies?
I think it's established that photos taken by animals are not copyrightable works, so you can do anything you want with them, at least in the USA.
However, candid nature photographs taken with camera traps are copyrighted, and Wikimedia Commons has tolerated this status since 2011.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camera_trap
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Photos_taken_wit...
The connection to selfies is really weak. Its just classical conditioning. The stimulus is the food not the selfie taking, and the continued pressing of the selfie button without food is conditioned response.
> The connection to selfies is really weak. It's just classical conditioning. Isn't the idea that the compulsion to take a selfie being classical conditioning the very point of the piece?
My killjoy answer is: give the rat two tunnels. The rat can see partway into the tunnel from the entrance. One tunnel has a selfie inside. The other tunnel has a picture of the wall in the background of the selfie. Add more tunnels and check which tunnels the rat prefers.
My artistic answer: give yourself the pleasure of assuming that the rats like the selfies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The connection to selfies is really weak. It's just classical conditioning. Isn't the idea that the compulsion to take a selfie being classical conditioning the very point of the piece?
The rats were conditioned to push the button. Whether the rats were conditioned to take a selfie is unclear. The sugar is an unconditioned stimulus, the rat's pleasure of receiving sugar is an unconditioned response, and pushing the button is a conditioned response. The button is a conditioned stimulus. Is the selfie a conditioned stimulus as well? Melodramatically put, is the selfie more than a pearl cast in front o…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
i can feel 144-200hz. above that i cant tell anymore, but probably pixel response times arent good enough yet on consumer hardware to provide a real test to me. 60hz feels awful to me. side note, i can discern stutters at 144hz + when i take a deep breathe.
Do you actively practice being able to discern high frame rates, or is it a "born with skill?" I often wonder if FPS gamers self select for those who can discern high frame rates, which then drives screen sales. Do you attempt to increase your frame rate perception? Do you find normal movies in the theater difficult to watch because of your "high frame rate?" If I could see gaps in 144 Hz, then it seems (totally imag…
Many people have noted my particularly small head. But my reaction time is average. So time perception and reaction time may not be related.
It was a serious oversight to not have the rats take selfies against a green background.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Surprisingly (or unsurprisingly?) it's not the first time that question has come up. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_disput... Note that this also may have implications for AI-generated work. Here's how, ignoring the many legal theories, it's handled in practice in the US right now: > On 21 August 2014 the United States Copyright Office published an opinion [..] to clarify that "only works creat…
> Here's how, [...] it's handled in practice in the US right now: Forgive my ignorance of the nuances of US copyright enforcement, but in what form is the opinion of the US Copyright Office important? The US joined the Berne Convention in 1989, which includes automatic copyright protection without the need to register anything. And if you believe somebody violated your copyright you take them to court, which also doe…
To us their opinion only matters insofar that they are experts on the matter, but I don't think you are really missing anything. Courts are free to decide otherwise.
I believe the US copyright office's opinions are based on precedent set in court and on their own expert understanding of the relevant laws, so you should not read that as them setting policy, but rather as them explaining and summarizing.
However note that the copyright office runs a small claims tribunal for disputes under $30k. If one chooses to make use of that, their opinion do start to matter a bit more.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you actively practice being able to discern high frame rates, or is it a "born with skill?" I often wonder if FPS gamers self select for those who can discern high frame rates, which then drives screen sales. Do you attempt to increase your frame rate perception? Do you find normal movies in the theater difficult to watch because of your "high frame rate?" If I could see gaps in 144 Hz, then it seems (totally imag…
In the theatre no, but scrolling shots on a fast panel can be particularly bad. There is no smoothing because the pixel response times are fast. I perceive a reverse motion of scrolling shots. If there is a slow scanning shot, say from left to right, after each frame stops, my eyes trick me that the whole image moves back to the left about an 8th of its rightbound motion. Its very mildly annoying, but I still watch t…
Like with colorblindness/synesthesia, I'm constantly surprised by all these different people I talk to who experience everything differently. Would not have guessed it would cause reverse motion scrolling. The eye exams and charts always made it sound like 20/20 at "normal speed" was correct, and the only change from correct was bad. Sounds like y'all just look at something different.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The claim that nobody could discern more than 24 fps is an odd one (and not one I've ever heard), since it's been generally known that's not true even back before 24 fps was chosen as a standard. Originally some (including Edison) wanted to standardise on higher frame rates for better motion. 24fps was basically compromise to balance against the amount of film used, being fairly close to the minimum speed that was co…
Fake knowledge was the most common thing circulating among people back then. People mostly couldn't verify anything.
May I inquire: How do we verify things today that we did not back then?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fake knowledge was the most common thing circulating among people back then. People mostly couldn't verify anything.
> People mostly couldn't verify anything. May I inquire: How do we verify things today that we did not back then?
Approximately nobody had access to anything before it.