You are forced to see the world through your own biases (including things like having two arms and seeing the visible light spectrum, not just who you vote for).
Many of these biases are common in humans, and humans can exchange ideas.
It can be enlightening to test your biases against real human being to see which ones are valid and which ones are things you've picked up along the way and might not be fruitful to you now.
Because you only see life through your own eyes, you definitionally can't examine yourself in isolation, and you can't know how you are affected by yourself.
I've found exchanging with others fruitful, even when I don't want to and find it repellant.
John Donne said "No man is an island" but other poets and philosophers have said we are essentially alone in this world. I understand the first point, but experience the second, but not fully because I do have a few valued connections with others. There are always exceptions to the general condition. You have a good one too.
> I've found exchanging with others fruitful, even when I don't want to and find it repellant.
Agreed. It's almost like taking bitter medicine for me- I loathe the idea of going to outings and meeting new people, but however tired I am afterwards from masking, some part of me comes away better off for it (assuming I'm not being forced to do it all the time).
Micay owns the whole project. Ownership of the project was not exchanged or divided, part of the explicit terms of the agreement were that Micay would hold the keys and ownership of the project just as they always have.
Thats a characteristic all modern OSs and modern apps have. You need to trust the key holders, always. Some people make their own builds for this reason. Depends on the threat model.
Yeah and seems the only limitation you get is no GPU acceleration with the free tier. I'd give that a spin I like resolve much better than premiere for video and it has AI integration as well
Yeah, I saw the thread on HN the other day, and was genuinely intrigued. But according to the reviews I’ve seen, the workflow is fairly different. I have 0 experience editing video, so picking up a tool with a completely different approach isn’t exactly appealing, but maybe I’m missing something.
I'm biased as I have been editing video (including color, exposition, curves and luts) with Resolve for a while (and have edited pictures in their color editor before because I really like their workflow), but for what it's worth I would give it maybe one (1) hour of trying out yourself, you might be very pleased ( or you're welcome to curse me for wasting an hour of your time).
If you are pleased indeed, you might just put 120$ in your pocket rather than adobe's this year. Who'd say no to that?
Just downloaded it to take it for a spin. First off, it doesn't support Olympus raw files, but, fortunately, I had some DNG lying around, which did work. However, it expects to pick from a list of raw formats. All seem to work, but it's not immediately clear what the difference is.
The settings are a bit daunting at first; some are what you expect in a regular photo editor, and others are... weird for me. Like, what's "lift" and where are my white and black sliders?
Color tools seem to be interesting, but there seem to be multiple places where you select color spaces, and all defaults seem to be video-centric (which I guess isn't unexpected, but it just means you have to know to go hunt for them). There's also a dedicated "color" page, which I think is what all the fuss is about, but if I switch to it, my photo disappears and I'm presented with a video timeline...
I also haven't found any trace of masking, and noise reduction seems to be a paid feature, so in my case the free version wouldn't do...
All in all, I want to like it, especially since it runs on Linux, and will probably continue to check it out from time to time, even though I'd have to convert the raws to dngs beforehand.
I'm fine with using youtubes platform to browse creators and then supporting independently those I watch/want to.
No one demanded anything! I'm not certain that the firehose of "content" that youtube is creating is all that valuable to humanity, and I won't subject myself to ads to support it's existence.
This isn't about you, it's about people who make videos for you.
YouTube's competitive advantage is their ability to pay video makers, not their video playback tech. And to make a competitor that has any kind of traction, this problem needs to be solved in a more reasonable way than "I'll somehow find a way to pay someone maybe".
reply