Step 3b: it's a deceptively simple idea that someone else already thought of a while ago, that everyone agreed was a great idea, but actually implementing it is so impractical that no one wants to do it.
I had a thing like this recently, though I'm struggling to remember what it was.
What's worse is when you have an idea, don't have any idea how to pursue it because you're not a professional [career] and don't have experience making whatever it is; and then you see a successful paper or product months or years later about that exact same idea, made by someone who actually knows what they're doing.
It's frustrating yet validating. Frustrating because, "that could have been me", validating because "I thought of the idea before it'd been developed too! I'm so smart."
I should start keeping a list of times when that happens. If I had a nickel for every time it happened, I'd have 2~3 nickels; which isn't a lot but it's weird that it's happened two or three times now.
What's wrong with his shadow? Also, you may have an extremely advanced case of double breast cancer and will need to have them removed. (I didn't even know they could get that big, is this photoshopped?)
I wish I had to click my way through this series' strange world every time I looked at my desktop. No start menu or application bars. No, basically Microsoft Bob but for Linux and cooler.
No, I'm not joking. I believe the main reason why Microsoft Bob failed was because it was being sold to the wrong people. It should have been targeted towards computer enthusiasts, digital artists and whatnot by giving you a scriptable, customizable desktop world with environments that can be created, packaged and shared using programs included with it. Like dioramas that you click around to open programs, check the time, or make the bell on the virtual bicycle ding like it's a kids edutainment game. But no, they wanted it to be Windows for Technophobes and it sucked.
I had a similar thought about AI; that it's more like imagining something than actually drawing it. When you ask a program like stable diffusion to draw something, you're basically asking it to imagine something and then you reach inside its head to pull the image out. I think that if AI was forced to draw the "ol' fashioned way" then it'd be both better and worse. The results would be more "correct" but the actual quality would probably be worse. It'd also take it longer to get to the same level as a professional artist.
There are a ton of shortcuts you can take in the digital world to save time; you're basically a god limited only by your computer's specs. You can do extremely complex things near-instantly. This saves significantly on training time when it comes to AI. An AI forced to learn how to do art the ol' fashioned way would take significantly longer because it can't take the same shortcuts.
Since everyone's having fun dunking on these, I might as well have a go and potentially look like a fool in the process. Note, I will be commenting on the accuracy of the chart and assessing whether the chart is correct, not the myth.
Partially-correct. As someone else said, it's very unlikely for you to restart a heart with a defib; they're meant to stabilize a fibrillating heart (when the heart is beating irregularly and too quickly, like a heart attack). However, if you can get a person's heart to start fibrillating by some other method, like CPR, then it can help stabilize them.
Correct. It does indeed take longer than a couple seconds to knock someone out with chloroform. That said, supposedly plenty of other medical anesthetics that supposedly can put you out really fast.
Misleading. Tracing calls is extremely fast, it's getting the proper authorization that takes time.
Iirc this is technically correct; forensic investigation doesn't actually tell you anything about what happened, only what is present now. The explanation is what you get from the evidence. Seems a bit like saying, "guns don't kill, it's the massive trauma resulting from your body trying to stop a tiny lump of lead that's flying at over 1k meters-per-second that kills you" but okay.
Technically correct, but wrong in practice. This is such a widespread myth that cops will sometimes repeat it. Additionally, the time period can be anywhere between 24~72hrs, depending on the person responding. So if someone tells you to fuck off and wait, call and try again.
Correct. >95% of the time the victim is too busy trying not to drown in order to yell or scream. You need air to scream, and if you're struggling to get air, then screaming isn't something you're doing.
Partially-correct. Aiming with two guns is possible, but significantly harder than shooting one. People try to do something hard like splitting their attention to aim at two targets, and then when they can't do it, they assume that it's impossible. No bitch, that's like an archer giving up because they didn't hit the target the first time. Don't let your dreams be memes, gitgud.
Partially-correct. There are some extremely quiet guns out there, and subsonic ammo helps quiet the gun further (bullets aren't breaking the sound barrier, also lower powder load = smaller explosion). However, it's unlikely you'll get a gun down to a "pew pew pew" like in the spy movies.
Almost completely wrong. Firstly, aim at center mass. Yes, it's thicker, but there's also a lot of air in there and the individual pieces of metal are probably thinner. It'll be easier to hit and less likely for the lock to deflect the bullet (hitting a flat-ish surface vs curved one). Secondly, use something other than a .22 pistol.
Mostly correct. If you have headsets then you probably could, especially if they cover your mouth, but otherwise basically correct.
You see that little lever? You're supposed to hold that down before you pull the pin. Dumbass.
Eh, kinda. Depends on the asteroid belt. Planetary belt? They can absolutely be that dense (though they're unlikely to be all that big). Stellar belt? Probably not, or at least ours isn't that dense. That said, it's a big universe out there and we haven't even come close to visiting our neighboring stellar system, so who knows.
Tbh, some of these myths are so widespread and have such a high risk of causing injury from ignorance (like 5 and 6) that it should be illegal to repeat them in a way that portrays them as factually correct in media. However, based on my current knowledge, that's my rundown on the trues/falses.
C'mon, really? What'd that corner do to you? You made all the corners except the top left identical.
Thankye!
Okey!
Jesus christ Sniff. Let's just jump straight to drowning them, huh?
Is the music made by AI too?
It seems like the big weakness of torrents is that if the front-end goes down, then no one can get new torrents anymore, making the front-end an obvious target due to its centralized nature. However, has anyone considered making an activitypub-powered torrent tracker/download site? Kinda like a hybrid between soulseek and BitTorrent. The sites in the network all get torrent information from each other so you have a billion front-ends. Good luck stopping that if they all sync their databases together.