Farid

Why is the dpad censored?

I’m not criticizing the screens, they are ok and I loved my Pebble Time Steel until the battery swelled and popped off the screen. I’m just saying that calling these e-paper is a deceptive marketing strategy.

From the Verge article:

The first watch that Migicovsky and Core plan to ship is called the Core 2 Duo (not to be confused with the old Intel processor), which Migicovsky says will cost $149 and will ship in July. […] It has the exact same black-and-white e-paper display as the old Pebble 2 (technically a transflective LCD, if you’re curious)

As I mentioned earlier, whether a screen type is considered e-paper is subjective. And in my opinion, reflective LCD isn’t a type of e-paper. You may disagree, but it’s not “categorically” wrong.

Quote is from Wikipedia. You can see it’s the case for both models here:

• Pebble
• Pebble Time

Besides, I own a Pebble Time watch and can tell you, it doesn’t perform like a typical e-paper. It has the bad viewing angles of LCD and screen goes blank when power is lost.

The watch featured a 32-millimetre (1.26 in) 144 × 168 pixel black and white memory LCD using an ultra low-power “transflective LCD”

The problem is that e-paper is a category of displays, and some companies label reflective LCDs as “e-paper”. Which is subjective (and I personally heavily disagree with that categorization, cause then LCD clocks and Gameboys have “e-paper” displays, too).

But in the comment I responded to it was said Pebble has “eink” display, which is categorically wrong, as that is a very specific proprietary technology, which is e-paper in traditional sense, like the ones in Kindles.

IIRC, it has a reflective LCD, not epaper display.

Thanks, good to know.

Technically, sideloading is possible already, but you need a developer account, you’re limited to 3 sideloaded apps at a time, and you have to renew them every week.

So the more difficult way already exists.

Doesn’t make my comment not true.

And I don’t filter or block anything or anyone. Rawdogging Lemmy, the way God intended.

Lemmy, this is the 7th day in a row you’ve shown “Tesla sales down in Europe” news in Top.

I was confused about the amount of upvotes, until I saw this was on .ml

Woah, Eevee Jolteon is PD-compliant? Nice! I wrongly assumed it can only do AC.

Not necessarily bitter. Just not sweet.

Pff, millions? How about 3 billions!

Technically, it’s not about the display technology, but instead about the signal/tuner. More specifically if it’s analog or digital. Some modern TVs still have analog or hybrid tuners for backwards compatibility and regions that still use analog, so they can display static. For instance, in Ukraine we finished the switch to digital TV only a couple of years ago. If your TV had no digital tuner (as was the case for many) you had to buy a DAC box. Retirees/pensioners got them for free, sponsored by the government.

I’ll have you know, that I have it on good authority (from the ever rational and totally not an echo chamber Hexbear) that the invasion is actually very successful and Russia is winning. By a lot!

I’m not redefining anything, I’m just pointing out that intelligence is not as narrow as most people assume, it’s a broad term that encompasses various gradations. It doesn’t need to be complex or human-like to qualify as intelligence.

A single if statement arguably isn’t intelligence, sure, but how many if statements is? Because at some point you can write a complex enough sequence of if statements that will exhibit intelligence. As I was saying in my other comments, where do we draw this line in the sand? If we use the definition from the link, which is:

The highest faculty of the mind, capacity for comprehending general truths.

Then 99% of animal species would not qualify as intelligent.

You may rightfully argue that term AI is too broad and that we could narrow it down to mean specifically “human-like” AI, but the truth is, that at this point, in computer science AI already refers to a wide range of systems, from basic decision-making algorithms to complex models like GPTs or neural networks.

My whole point is less about redefining intelligence and more about recognizing its spectrum, both in nature and in machines. But I don’t expect for everybody to agree, even the expert in the fields don’t.

Opponent players in games have been labeled AI for decades, so yeah, software engineers have been producing AI for a while. If a computer can play a game of chess against you, it has intelligence, a very narrowly scoped intelligence, which is artificial, but intelligence nonetheless.

I would put it differently. Sometimes words have two meanings, for example a layman’s understanding of it and a specialist’s understanding of the same word, which might mean something adjacent, but still different. For instance, the word “theory” in everyday language often means a guess or speculation, while in science, a “theory” is a well-substantiated explanation based on evidence.

Similarly, when a cognitive scientist talks about “intelligence”, they might be referring to something quite different from what a layperson understands by the term.