all 63 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 156 points 1 month ago (17 children)

I see your screenshot of a tweet of a photo of a projection of a screenshot and raise you a screenshot:

  • source
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 50 points 1 month ago (4 children)
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    I'm either going blind or that image definitely degraded 😂

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

    that... is the point of the joke

    edit: ok, i did not realize that. so the image is linked directly from xkcd.com. but here is the cleaner version. is that some randall's meta joke?

    https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/File:digital_data.png

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 month ago* (1 child)

    so...

    As an easter egg, the high-resolution (pixel-doubled) version of the comic is merely the comic resized to 50% and then to 400%, making it an image of poorer quality rather than a higher resolution image as for other comics, demonstrating how repeated image scaling can also introduce artifacts into images. There appears to be another easter egg in which between 21 November 2016 and 10 December 2016 (both Internet Archive pages), the original hi-res image was replaced by the pixel-doubled image. However, the image URL below the comic still links to the hi-res image.

    The img-tag also includes the pixel-doubled version as a srcset-attribute: srcset="//imgs.xkcd.com/comics/digital_data_2x.png 2x" This causes browsers on high-resolution displays (pixel density ratio 2) to show the low-quality version of the image instead of the standard-quality one and leads to people re-visiting the comic on modern displays to experience degradation compared to the remembered version.

    https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/1683

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 35 points 1 month ago (10 children)

    I'll take a screenshot of that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 53 points 1 month ago (5 children)
  • [–] 145 points 1 month ago (7 children)

    I remember when my dad was skeptical that I copied a game from my friend's computer onto ours via floppy disk. "A game is too big nowadays to fit on a floppy," he said. "Just you wait," I said.

    I had copied the shortcut from the desktop.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    A guy I know thought he made a backup of all his family photos on an external hard disk. He only copied the shortcuts.

    He only found out after disposing of the old computer...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 1 month ago* (1 child)

    I remember reading a thread on Swedish computer forum.

    There was a guy who had "compressed" his whole media livrary and saved it to a floppy disk, reinstalled his computer and now wanted to restor the media files....

    Yeah, what he had done was to misunderstand what an MD5 hash was, he thought it was an extremely efficient compression algorithm....

    And this is one of the many reasons I tell people that "an untested backup does not exist"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 75 points 1 month ago (4 children)
  • [–] 23 points 1 month ago

    Wait til this person sees 192.168.1.1

  • source
  • [–] 22 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    The next gen of Claude will just steal your CC info from Chrome and sign you up for an AWS free trial without your consent.

    But hey, at least it'll work, right?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 40 points 1 month ago

    This is pretty impressive. Looks pixel for pixel what I’ve been building for months now.

  • source
  • [–] 17 points 1 month ago

    I'm just sitting here looking at a screenshot of a Twitter post of a photo of a projection of a screenshot of someone else's joke.

  • source
  • [–] 28 points 1 month ago (1 child)
  • [–] 24 points 1 month ago* (6 children)

    The only hope is that this bubble burst so badly and they will lose so much money that for years companies will shit their pants before trying anything new.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 1 month ago (4 children)

    They will not shit their pants... They will simply raise prices for consumers and small business depending on them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    We saw this same joke template shortly after ChatGPT was a thing. Almost exact, but now with Fable. Fake bullshit, though good chance that the original was authentic. The internet sucks now.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 8 points 1 month ago

    AI put the entire internet on my machine!

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago

    it would've been cool if the only type of website AI could do would've been good old GEOCITIES garish monstrocity. that would've justified the existence of AI. But since the only good AI website that doesn't fall apart is minimalist white - why even bother?

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago

    Looks great! Well, good luck!

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago

    So looks like systems guys like me still have a job but the devs are screwed?

  • source
  • [+] -6 points 1 month ago (11 children)
  • [–] 12 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    Only in the sense that it’s being used as a scapegoat for layoffs

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    oh 100% - but also:

    • Stanford HAI’s 2026 AI Index found employment for software developers aged 22–25 fell nearly 20% since 2024, while employment for developers aged 30 and over continued growing. The entry-level ladder is being pulled up, not the whole building.

    https://axis-intelligence.com/ai-job-displacement-statistics/

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 1 month ago (6 children)
  • [–] 14 points 1 month ago (5 children)

    Most jobs lost to AI were not replaced by AI but cut so they could use their salaries to pay for more hardware.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    I'm not sure if this is meant to be a refutation, so apologies if I misinterpreted. But cut jobs to buy hardware sounds to me like jobs lost due to AI, no?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 month ago* (2 children)

    AI isn't replacing those jobs. Those jobs were lost to fund speculation. AI isn't doing their jobs, their former coworkers are doing more work. It's an important distinction. Those salaries are funding things that don't exist yet, so the workers couldn't have been replaced by them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    It feels like a distinction no one is strictly trying to make in this thread, to me. The OP picture says AI has made us unemployed. Commenter at top of chain says it has, and provided a source to show job loss due to AI.

    I mean, I just don't think the people who have lost their jobs due to AI care much if it was because the AI directly replaced them or just made their former coworker more efficient.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

    It matters very much whenever discussing AI, as to whether AI is actually performing the jobs of workers who lost their jobs. There's a very powerful marketing machine at work which is partially responsible for convincing businesses to make these speculative moves. Speculation and a bubble are killing jobs. "AI" is by and large not replacing workers.

  • source
  • parent