Sure, but conservation in ray tracing is also a goal that not everyone has and isn’t required for teaching or games or making pretty & even plausible images. There are plenty of situations in both ray tracing and fluid simulation where conservation is not desirable.
Fair use was common law with judicial precedents for a couple hundred years before it became a statutory law in 1976.
Why would fair use law go away? Fair use for the purpose of critique is maybe the best & most favored defense of fair use by the Copyright Office, and ties together necessary copyright exceptions for supporting Free Speech and journalism, among other good reasons. Things also seem to be moving in the opposite direction with recent precedent deeming some AI uses transformative fair use. YouTube has done more that it’s fair share of playing fast and loose with copyrights for a profit, but YouTube, and more broadly Google, depends on fair use for massive portions of their business. I don’t see fair use going anywhere anytime soon.
I never said you shouldn't be able to use it, I only said you should have to share revenue if you use someone else's work. "fair use" and critique would still be a thing.
> Income inequality isn’t the same things as government resources available per person.
Correct. You clearly understand that your citing of averages papers over the poverty rate and conflates the gains of the rich with the plight of the poor.
Louisiana is literally ranked the #1 poorest state in the nation today counting the percent of people who don’t have enough to pay rent or eat properly.
“Government resources available per person” is cold comfort to the over one in four children in Louisiana who are living in poverty. How are those government resources actually being used, and if it ranks so well, why isn’t that reflected in LA’s health and education? “Government resources available per person” includes tax credits for oil and gas…
You’re arguing with a different person than you think you are.
I’m arguing about available resources, not willingness to use them.
If you want to define poor purely by percentage of people who are living below the poverty line instead of median income, average income, gdp per capita or tax revenue, go ahead. But in the context of whether the government has the resources to do something, that’s not a good metric.
And beyond this scope if you look at average or median personal income, the average or median person in Louisiana is not poor, which is the metric I would use if I was going to call a group of people poor.
Okay I see your point; the state has money, even if a significant portion of the population doesn’t. That in itself is a problem. I was arguing, and many others here are arguing that the population of LA is poor, and you’re arguing that the state isn’t poor, and has options (whether or not it uses them). Both points are true - the state has resources, and the population has the greatest poverty in the US. Poverty rate is a valid objective metric of whether a state is “poor”, but it refers to the population and not the state budget, which is also a valid objective metric of whether a state is “poor” or not.
> if you look at average or median personal income, the average or median person in Louisiana is not poor
This is one to be more careful with. Neither the average nor the median inherently tell you anything about the state’s poverty rate, and having a poverty rate that’s the highest in the US and almost twice the national average absolutely supports the viewpoint that LA is relatively poor. When it comes to median household income specifically, the LA Budget Project says “These numbers obscure stark racial disparities” and points out that the median Black income is around half that of White non-Hispanic household income. (Page 9 - https://www.labudget.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/LBP-Cens...)
It might seem like the median $60k household income isn’t poor, but 50% of households are below “ALICE” levels and having to compromise on basic necessities. This doesn’t support your claim that the median resident of LA is not poor. https://www.unitedforalice.org/introducing-ALICE/louisiana
That metric makes Louisiana look relatively better because cost of living is low. For example, 48% of households in New York are below ALICE levels.
It highlights one problem with using percent of people below the federal poverty level as your metric. Median income doesn’t tell the whole story, but neither does percent below the poverty level. $33k goes a lot further in Louisiana than it does in New York.
> Median income doesn’t tell the whole story, but neither does percent below the poverty level.
You’re equivocating. Poverty rate is a much better metric for measuring poverty than median income is.
Louisiana has a higher poverty rate, and a higher child poverty rate, than New York State. New York’s ALICE level seems comparable because New York’s cost of living is so much higher, but it’s actually true that around half the people in New York (and Louisiana, and make other states) are struggling to afford all their basic necessities. Poverty rate isn’t ALICE, poverty rate is high probability of compromising on nutrition.
Come on, be honest, are you willing to live on $16k/year in Louisiana? (Or any state??) I wouldn’t want to, and I bet you don’t either. Are you really going to argue that’s not poor?
> ALICE level seems comparable because New York’s cost of living is so much higher
That’s my point. You’re the one who brought up ALICE as a metric to show how someone making the median income is still poor.
If it applies to Louisiana, it applies to New York as well.
> Louisiana has a higher poverty rate, and a higher child poverty rate, than New York State.
If you adjust for cost of living, New York and Louisiana have the same poverty rate.
> Come on, be honest, are you willing to live on $16k/year in Louisiana? (Or any state??) I wouldn’t want to, and I bet you don’t either. Are you really going to argue that’s not poor?
No but I’d rather live on $16k in Louisiana than New York. I’m not making a value judgement on what constitutes poor or not, I’m saying that if $16k is poor in Louisiana, then $22k is poor in NY.
Incidentally for big chunks of my childhood my family was below the poverty level in the Deep South, and so were many of my friends.
Yes I understand your point and yes I brought up ALICE - as an aside - and I see that was my mistake because you’re using it to dodge the core fact that LA has very high poverty relative to most other states. ALICE levels are a completely different tier of wealth metric than the federal poverty line.
Cost of living is less applicable to the federal poverty line than it is to the ALICE threshold or the median income because the cost of food and several other basic necessities don’t vary geographically as much as the price of housing does. The poverty line of $16k/person is set in part because it’s the line where going below likely means you can’t afford enough food no matter where in the U.S. you live.
> The poverty line of $16k/person is set in part because it’s the line where going below likely means you can’t afford enough food no matter where in the U.S. you live.
That’s not correct at all. The poverty level is 3x the amount of money it took to feed one person a nutritional diet in 1963 and then adjusted for inflation. They picked 3 times because food represented about 1/3 of a poor family’s budget.
Note that they use CPI-U for the adjustment, and food prices haven’t risen as fast as most is the rest of the goods in CPI-U so it’s closer to 4x the amount needed to afford the minimum nutritional diet.
If you look here, you’ll see that the “thrifty food plan” for the most expensive person (male 20-50) comes out to $3,800 a year.
If you just think about it for a minute $16k or $43 a day is a crazy amount for the minimum amount of money to afford food. I don’t spend that much on myself on average and I ‘m making many times more than $16k a year.
Now I can try very hard to come up with the most charitable explanation for what you are saying and assume that you mean that $16k is the number that you need to afford other necessities plus food.
However if that’s what you’re saying then the number 1 other necessity is housing. Which means for an accurate comparison you need to factor in housing price differences.
To your point housing cost is the largest difference between states, but it’s also the largest part of nearly everyone’s budget, even people living on $16k a year, and it’s far from the only difference. Groceries a fair amount between states, and other necessities are somewhere in between.
You can’t just look at a flat number across the US, there’s no way around it.
I mean just look at average rent. It’s more than 2x higher in NY than LA. Even looking at another southern state, GA. Rent is 25% higher there. That’s a huge difference and it absolutely needs to be accounted for if you care about comparing poverty between states.
2- $16k / year / person is not enough in the US to live comfortably, regardless of where you live. Going below that does in fact risk compromising nutrition, and the fact that that is what is actually occurring among the poor is pretty well documented.
3- If you want to use cost of living, then as you point out, NY is not a valid comparison to LA. Compare LA to Nebraska or South Dakota or any of a dozen other states where the cost of living is nearly the same, and you will see exactly what is said all over the internet: LA has a much higher population of poor than other comparable states.
4- The fact that LA’s ranked 32nd for tax revenue and #1 for poverty seems like something to be rightly ashamed of.
We’re tilting at windmills and failing to convince each other, but Louisiana is widely considered to be one of the poorest states in nation, and trying to argue otherwise on HN certainly won’t change the mountain of evidence or the summary at all.
The page you linked to doesn’t discuss how the “poverty threshold” is calculated. It discusses how the poverty threshold is used to measure poverty level.
It does however provide a link 3 paragraphs down that does tell you how the “poverty threshold” is calculated. A direct quote:
“The current official poverty measure was developed in the mid 1960s by Mollie Orshansky, a staff economist at the Social Security Administration. Poverty thresholds were derived from the cost of a minimum food diet multiplied by three to account for other family expenses.”
Can you acknowledge that the risk of comprising nutrition on $16k a year is higher in a state where rent is 2x higher and groceries are 10% more expensive?
Literally every anti-poverty group in the country acknowledges that the failure to update the poverty threshold by region is a terrible failure in the way the United States handles poverty.
If you want to come up with a tortured method that only compares Louisiana to states with 85%+ white populations in order to fit your preconceived regionalist prejudices then have at it.
Let’s rank states by number of homeless people while we’re at it and see if that’s at all useful.
Maybe instead we could look at the percentage of people who can’t afford food, shelter, and basic necessities in their state on their income. As far as I can see the only major downside to doing that compared to other methods is that it doesn’t support the way you think the world ought to work.
You’re still wrong. What you quoted is what they did in 1963, not how they’re setting the poverty threshold today. The same page you pulled the quote from contains a paper that discusses the many changes to the poverty threshold calculation since 1963.
I offered up two states that have comparable cost of living. There are actually around 14 or 15 states that have lower cost of living than Louisiana, and all of them have a lower percentage of people below the federal poverty line than LA.
> Let’s rank states by number of homeless
Seems like another straw man to me. There are more people below the poverty line in Louisiana than there are homeless people in the entire US.
> Maybe instead we could look at the percentage of people who can’t afford food, shelter, and basic necessities in their state on their income.
That’s what ALICE is, we already talked about it, and the ALICE threshold is FAR higher than the federal poverty line in all 50 states.
OH, BTW, guess which state ranks highest on the ALICE poverty list…
> it doesn’t support the way you think the world ought to work.
You have a vivid imagination. I’ve been trying to avoid snark here, and appreciating that you also kept it low as well until now. I will mention that your interpretation of what I said about thresholds was not in any way ‘charitable’ let alone realistic. I would love to see your budget that stays under $43/day without compromising on food. Show it to me and I’ll list a few things you forgot you need that blow your budget. I don’t know how to live on $43/day assuming I don’t pay any rent.
I understand it’s confusing because the papers on the site mingle proposed plans with adopted plans.
Here’s a summary of exactly what happened. If you want to research that yourself I’ll include a link to an overview, but I know what I’m talking about.
1. Start with the 1963 base thresholds developed by Orshansky.
2. Apply the 1969 revision:
-Keep the 1963 nonfarm thresholds as the base.
-Change the inflation adjustment
method from food-plan costs to CPI.
-Change the farm adjustment.
3. Every year thereafter:
-Take the prior threshold and adjust it by the relevant CPI. (Originally CPI-W, then CPI-U after about 1980.)
4. Apply a few technical revisions in 1981:
- Remove farm/nonfarm distinction.
- Remove male-headed/female-headed distinction.
- Expand family-size categories.
That’s it. The numbers are still based on the data from 1963 adjusted for inflation each year. There are differences in that we no longer look at the gender of the head of household and farm families no longer have lower multiple applied.
But the number is just the calculations from 1963 based on a multiple of the amount of food needed carried forward.
Most other countries use a relative benchmark for poverty and most other counties use COL adjustments by region. The US does not. It is stupid that we don’t. And using the resulting measurements from this flawed system is horribly misleading.
As to whether you can live on $43 a day minus rent. Louisiana has expanded Medicaid coverage, so someone making $16k a year will get free healthcare. Assuming a single person with no kids, they’ll also get about $180 a month in snap benefits which covers a little more than half of the $333 usda thrifty food plan. So how about you tell me how this hypothetical person can’t survive on $1,333 a month with rent, healthcare, and half of their food covered? If you can’t imagine being able to survive on that you must living in a very high cost of living area.
> using the resulting measurements from this flawed system is horribly misleading
Then don’t. Use the cost-of-living metric you’ve been arguing for to answer the relevant question here. When accounting for cost of living, you will discover exactly what we already know: Louisiana’s population is the poorest in the nation.
I’m not actually sure which state has the highest percentage of people under a poverty threshold adjusted for COL because to do that math you need a specific poverty breakdown by household size and that’s far more effort than I’m willing to put in.
New York, California, Mississippi, Alabama, New Mexico, West Virginia, and Louisiana all have % below ALICE thresholds between 46 and 50%.
Based on that I think it’s very likely any one of those could have the highest percentage of people under a COL adjusted poverty threshold. Either way they’re so close that’s there’s no meaningful difference.
The real question is why would you use the percent of people under some threshold as your primary factor when deciding to label their entire popular “poor”.
I certainly wouldn’t use COL adjusted poverty rates to say that New York or California is poor, or that the populations of those states are poor.
Let’s say hypothetically that we constructed a rich threshold, say it’s $500k a year COL adjusted. And some hypothetical state was both number one for percentage of people over the rich threshold and number one for percentage of people below the poor threshold, would you say that this population was the poorest in the nation or the richest?
ALICE is adjusted by household size, and cost of living adjusted. Louisiana is the state with the highest percentage of people below ALICE threshold, and the only state that crosses the 50% line. It’s right on their map, so now you know. https://www.unitedforalice.org/national-overview
You can continue to equivocate about other states that are close, it doesn’t really make a relevant difference here. Louisiana has the most poor people by “stupid” absolute percent below the federal level, it has the most poor people by cost-of-living household-size adjusted ALICE level, the third lowest median income, and the third lowest number of billionaires per capita. By multiple objective metrics, including the one you asked for, Louisiana is most definitely poor.
Why are you assuming the rapid increase in LA’s population from 2006 to 2010 did not have a significant portion of temporarily displaced people moving back?
Oh, then you’re of course aware that many many people did in fact return, and that your earlier estimate of the number of people coming to LA after 2005 that hadn’t lived there before was over-estimated.
Have you bothered to check @nekzn’s comment history? Attacking new people here is going to ensure we’re left with only bots. This is one of the reasons why HN has the guidelines that you’re repeatedly breaking. If you do suspect a bot after at least taking the ten seconds to check their comment history, the best thing you can do is not engage.
Looks very cool assuming all the comparisons are correct & fair and there’s no major failure cases. Quick link to the HTML version of the paper to save you a couple of clicks: https://arxiv.org/html/2605.05148v1
Since this is by Apple, I’m certainly curious if this is aimed at becoming the new default format for Apple devices. What kind of effort does it take to do that, beyond getting the paper published?
On the PR summary page, the “speed” column should be labeled “time”. Time is lower-is-better, whereas speed means higher-is-better.
The BD rate column could also use a less cryptic label. (Though maybe the audience is paper reviewers and not me.) The paper itself doesn’t even write out what the BD acronym in “BD rate” stands for, but it seems like it would be fair and accurate and better to call the column maybe something like relative compressed size, and mention the exact metric in the caption — where there’s already an explanation of BD rate.
I’m somewhat confused by, and slightly skeptical TBH, of the device timings. Are they correct & fair? Why is the NN-only portion almost as fast on an iPhone 17 compared to a V100 when the V100 has 4x the FP throughput? Is it comparing apples to apples (ha!), and is the GPU implementation reasonable? The data suggests the GPU implementation is not saturating the GPU.
Also why are there several different GPU models? And why is V100 even used? V100 is four generations old and not even supported anymore.
Bjontegaard Delta-Rate (BD Rate) metric, proposed in 2001 by Gisle Bjontegaard, is a method for calculating the average difference between two rate-distortion (RD) curves.
It is extremely common in codec comparison, along with terms like PSNR, SSIM and VMAF ( which is newer and developed by Netflix so it tends to get explained a bit more )
>’m certainly curious if this is aimed at becoming the new default format for Apple devices.
I certainly hope not. Not unless it is deterministic and much much higher quality.
> I certainly hope not. Not unless it is deterministic and much much higher quality.
You're not comparing fairly. The author is intentionally using low-res images to illustrate how the compression works. You should compare these to, say, a JPEG compression at the same resolution and same bitrate. I think you'll find that this technique is quite an improvement to the compressions you already know and love.
JPEG has the great advantage that all JPEG artifacts look like JPEG artifacts. Newer codecs create artifacts that can be mistaken for part of the original image. That's a heavy price to pay for improved compression efficiency.
> Since this is by Apple, I’m certainly curious if this is aimed at becoming the new default format for Apple devices. What kind of effort does it take to do that, beyond getting the paper published?
It depends on the goals. Apple understands that proprietary media and container formats for media distribution are non-starters (ProRes remains "documented but not open" for authoring workflows), so it's likely that the strategy would be to establish and evolve some final-ish version of PICO via Alliance for Open Media. That path would take 3-5 years.
> And why is V100 even used? V100 is four generations old and not even supported anymore.
It wouldn’t surprise me that due to bureaucratic processes, it’s still somehow the most readily available GPU for Apple researchers despite being almost 10 years old now. I recall even last year seeing V100s used by Microsoft researchers who weren’t working on LLMs.
> I was trying to point out the absurdity of correcting illegal activity by simply eliminating laws.
Isn’t this straw man? Who said anything about eliminating laws or being inconsistent about legal immigration? The top comment was only pointing out that slowing the flow of legal immigration does not fix illegal immigration and probably makes it worse. Some people don’t love immigration or feel we should have lots, despite the benefits, and sometimes those people say contradictory things.
Yes that’s the original spelling & meaning. But using the spellings foobar, foo, bar, and sometimes baz, have been used for decades in programming as examples, temporary names, stand-ins etc. I just assumed that spelling it foo was meant to distance it from the curse word slightly while simultaneously making the pronunciation more clear (i.e. foo not fuh); foo just makes a good nonsense word.
Haha, that’s a great quote. Definitely going to borrow that one. Thanks!
reply