Have you read the article? There’s half a sentence in like the fifth paragraph that might be explaining what it does or might just be making an aside comment. At no point do they say what it is. Just what they’re doing with it.
It’s like they’re talking about farming without explaining what a tractor is.
> Learning about IIIF (generally pronounced “triple-eye-eff”) can be overwhelming at first,
I don’t think that’s our fault, that’s the authors’ fault.
I hate people who talk in circles and then imagine themselves misunderstood geniuses. Just fuckin… read some Feynman already and adjust your attitude.
Below the fold, two pages deep:
> Modern Web browsers understand how to display formats like .jpg and .mp4 at defined sizes, but cannot do much else. The IIIF specifications align with general Web standards that define how all browsers work to enable richer functionality beyond viewing an image or audio/visual files. For images, that means enabling deep zoom, comparison, structure (i.e., for an object such as a book, structure = page order) and annotation. For audio/visual materials, that means being able to deliver complex structures (such as several reels of film that make up a single movie) along with things like captions, transcriptions/translations, annotations, and more.
That’s all I wanted to know. Now I know if I care. Wait, what were we talking about? I’ve got four shelf-feet of unread books and a “read later” bookmark list and a “watch later” YouTube list that is so long you would cry. Do I want to get into this still or work on those?
Don’t bore the reader, or stuff like this ^ will go through their head. ESPECIALLY now that attention spans are getting shorter.
Huh, in all these years I never suspected to find resources about SE in standards bodies.
Would be nice to have more formal training about SE specific procedures instead of products and general project management.
I found the INCOSE Systems Engineering Handbook which seems to be a prolific publication, is it worth studying as an IT SE? Any other recommendations?
Having read several articles and comment threads about the ChatGPT research preview, the general trend seems to criticize its accuracy. I don't see how it even matters.
Traditional internet search engines are biased towards the truth. Search for lies on any given topic and you will find a page telling you about the real truth. Rarely an obvious disclaimer about truthfulness or accuracy of the content.
This language model on the other hand seems doesn't even claim to know the truth. Without asking, it will go out of its way to tell you that it might be wrong for an arsenal of reasons.
With such an ever-present caveat, humility, ChatGPT is what I would call human friendly and what google & co should've been. A search engine acting in the inquirers best interests. Not only sharing knowledge but most importantly - perspective.
I am personally looking forward to a future where this and similar models are readily available to non-technocrats. I imagine using this instead of google for general knowledge would reduce radicalization on any axis and generally broaden empathy.
how would you specify which woman you mean in a same sex couple?
i am personally not in need of this term but think its an especially good fit in this specific context.
context being the defining factor, i would usually not appreciate explicitly reducing a person to their reproductive organs like this but in a discussion about reproduction it actually removes ideology from my point of view.
If it hasn't had a release in 1 week it's obsolete and must be replaced with something that has half the features, breaks its API consistently and releases every 2 days.
And the documentation pages for those chart types read "This chart is still under development. It's not yet included in the latest release"... yet the development has stalled since.
