They didnt include chatgpt in the comparison chart. That tells a lot
and also left out Nano Banana Pro, which in my opinion is still better in many cases then NB2 ... even on the site arena.ai, it's still best at editing
Nano Banana 2 Lite
211–214 of 214 posts
Re: Nano Banana 2 Lite
#212They didnt include chatgpt in the comparison chart. That tells a lot
and also left out Nano Banana Pro, which in my opinion is still better in many cases then NB2 ... even on the site arena.ai, it's still best at editing
Yeah given Google's order of progression
NB
NB Pro
NB 2
Re: Nano Banana 2 Lite
#213Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean it’s already fraud to do so today… you cannot misrepresent the condition of a property. I think the harm so far has just been wasted time and thus no standing for lawsuits yet.
You can stage a property with furniture. Previously that was done with rental furniture.
Furniture isn't part of the property by default; only if included in the sale. So pics with furniture aren't a problem, unless you say it's included and you don't get what's pictured.
Re: Nano Banana 2 Lite
#214Earlier quoted context omitted.
>so its now up to the victims who have been wronged to bring the violation to the attention of the courts/regulatory bodies responsible for enforcement. lol Have you tried finding a lawyer recently? For anything? >The legal system needs to be made much more accessible, but I'm not sure how that happens or what that looks like. As far as consumer protection goes, the party with greater resources or sophistication (e.g…
I understand your intent, but: > As far as consumer protection goes, the party with greater resources or sophistication (e.g., if you retain counsel against a pro se defendant or plaintiff) should have a higher standard of proof No. Holding parties to different standards of evidence is a horrible idea and would do so much harm to a legal system that is already in many cases failing to function the way it was intended…
>Holding parties to different standards of evidence is a horrible idea
We already do that. Plaintiffs can introduce whatever, and as long as it's plausible, defendants have to directly prove it's a falsehood or otherwise inadmissible (not just that it's plausibly so, perhaps circumstantially). Sewer service is a glaring example.
>In these cases, it would be naive to treat the plaintiffs (who I would argue are proxies for the attorneys) as the parties with fewer resources or sophistication.
You're assuming that I disagree. Pro bono/contingent/discounted hours billed would count towards "greater resources or sophistication", and while I'm sure lawyers would love to argue whether or not that's fair, I think you'd find that the Average Joe would say so. And I'd really like to live in a system which has his needs in mind more than that of Dick C. Eshahl, Esq.