Clubberlang to Mildlyinteresting 1 week ago (+9/-0) (web.archive.org)
[ + ]
[ - ] thebearfromstartrack2 1 point 1 week ago (+1/-0)
But the POWER (electricity) is still ON? UNLIKELY to say the LEAST.
That sort of product and service REQUIRES people to operate on a DAILY basis.
[ + ]
[ - ] observation1 1 point 1 week ago (+1/-0)
Neat. He's got a way to superimpose his video on an edited scene that removes the people, after previously walking it, probably 4 or 5 times to ensure a clean backdrop.
Would have saved a lot of movie producers a lot of money if they had this.
One example that comes to mind, the filming of Vanilla Sky with Tom Cruise , they closed down a huge part of New York for a day. Cost a fortune.
[ + ]
[ - ] x0x7 1 point 1 week ago (+1/-0)
Or he just went to the mall in the early morning, filmed outside his apartment when people were at work, and generally filmed a lot and included all segments where he happened to not have people in view for a while, and also pointed his camera away from people.
People tend to face other people. I'm guessing you do because hopefully you're normal. At any given moment if you face any of the other directions there's often not people there. Just because there is often a person within 30 feet of you doesn't mean you don't have angles without people in them.
[ - ] observation1 0 points 1 week ago (+0/-0)
Far too many videos (not mentioned in this link), that clearly exhibit he is going places that are not possible. They are during the day and, even with covid, would have people
[ + ]
[ - ] Nagasaki 0 points 1 week ago (+0/-0)*
It is a modern deep learning approach. Train an algorithm to not only remove people, but fill in the image perfectly with photorealistic fill that matches the scenery. I am nearly certain that this is just some AI researcher having fun. It would be impossible to edit the videos by hand, and there are enough of them that it's unlikely that they went to an empty beach etc.
This is so effective that it must be taking in ~2 minutes of relatively still video and spitting out a short 10 second cleaned video, or maybe it's state of the art and the input is also only 10 seconds.
Agreed. Impressive either way.
Although, editing out the videos by hand may not be as difficult, if there was some aid from the program.
I think it is not as "streamlined" as the final cut makes it appear.
[ + ]
[ - ] obscenity 0 points 1 week ago (+0/-0)
or he's an actual time traveler as occams razor suggests
[ + ]
[ - ] DaijoubuYabai 0 points 1 week ago (+0/-0)
This must be a new definition of "Occam's Razor".
[ + ]
[ - ] Clubberlang [op] 0 points 6 days ago (+0/-0)
Lots of streets in NYC with no one on them
[ + ]
[ - ] _Obrez 1 point 1 week ago (+1/-0)
What a lame hoax, you can see footprints all in the sand. And you know that time where nobody left their houses? Yeah it couldn't be a recording from then.
[ - ] DaijoubuYabai 0 points 1 week ago (+0/-0)*
It's not a hoax, because it's not meant to be believed. It's just a short dystopian sci-fi piece.
It's no more of a hoax than movies such as Soylent Green. It's just a lot more low-budget.
That having been said, I personally don't think that the human race has much of a chance for long-term survival ... although I think that 2027 is way too soon for our final demise.
On the whole, the human race has a very hard time distinguishing facts from fantasies, delusions, and lies, and only a small minority of humans have reasonable critical thinking skills.
We are creating systems which are more and more complicated and more and more dangerous, and which are decreasingly fault tolerant. This means that we need greater and greater application of logic and rational thinking in order to keep these systems from failing.
But given that humanity's thinking abilities are not improving, the chances of dangerous and lethal catastrophes keep increasing.
I give the human race a few hundred years at most, and much less in the worst case.
[ + ]
[ - ] TheViciousMrPim 1 point 1 week ago (+1/-0)
I might agree w you except I doubt total extinction. This round of civilization ending, yeah. 90% of humans gone, I can see that. I don't see total extinction happening though. There will be few of us and scattered around but we'll survive and breed and build up another civ doomed to repeat our stupid.
Actually, I agree with you that it's more likely not to be total extinction, and instead, just a very high percentage of humans being gone.
The folks surviving won't hang on because of any greater genetically-driven intelligence, but just because of dumb luck. So I also agree that the next round is just as likely to fail.
Anyone who brings children into the world and refuses to devote a large amount of time and effort to teach them critical thinking skills and methods for separating facts from lies, knee-jerk emotionalism, and delusion is hastening the demise of most of the human race.