I benchmarked tsrs a few weeks ago. I was testing out tsgo, ts-rust, tsrs, and bun for typechecking on our monorepo. tsrs is definitely awesome, it is very memory efficient when bumping up the number of threads. Not as efficient as bun, but it has incremental checks, which bun does not have.
I was working on something similar, though specifically for grabbing the video output window from Cubase for transport to a web app I run on my ipad on the opposite side of my studio. This looks really well thought out. Super excited to try it.
chompi is based on the daisy platform https://daisy.audio/. I've got a daisy pod that I've been building a my own sampler on lately. The tooling and documentation is a bit janky to get started with, but the platform is pretty cool. They just released some new dev kits as well. I've had a blast building a fully-featured sampler with a 1.5" oled screen and two button, two potentiometers, and one encoder.
I tried to buy new SD cards for my camera. The cards I used to buy at $28 are now $80-120... if you can find them. Another cheaper card I used to buy for $19 is now $46. It's just absolutely insane at this point.
I really don't understand why people are complaining about the AI features. These all mostly seem like solid quality of life enhancements and CGI-like tweaks.
some of these genuinely excite me, like the slate recognition (chore-reduction), clip search (although I'd want to see how reliable it is), and deblur (a typical PITA post fix). anything that makes masking, tracking, and level-matching easier saves hours on hours, but only if they're either reliable or easy to fix what the automation gets wrong (and it'll always get something wrong by the director, no matter how good it is, because telling editors what they did wrong is how directors make money).
the more SFX-end ones like facial aging and face reshaper, or the talent-replacing ones like speech cloning/ADR, feel both too prescriptive for a director to dial in what they aesthetically want, and also not good enough for the final cut. so I struggle to find where they'd be actually useful in a workflow as opposed to being a trap, looking just fine enough at a glance to sneak into a final cut while looking poor when viewed by the audience.
likewise the focal adjustment and upscaling just feel gross. the kinds of things a good cinematographer can already do, and it'll be so so tempting to use tools instead of taking time to do it right in camera because it'll look good enough in the editing bay, but I feel like it'd really stand out as fake in the final cut unless you're targeting like, heavily compressed social ads. the less you use them the better they'll work, which isn't ideal for a marquee feature.
if the blemish remover really does respect continuity it'd be a nice-to-have, but it also feels like another trap to be careless/cheap on things like makeup or lighting at the shoot, at the expense of looking fake in post
I think that's the broader angle that bugs me the most. all of these tools are convenience tools for editors, but in the end they'll really be justifications for directors/producers/studios/agencies to cheap out and do shittier work faster on the shoot. a cheap, shitty shoot covered in AI bandaids is still going to hit an audience like a cheap, shitty shoot.
Artists appreciate and use time saving tools. The AI features in Lightroom, for example, are very well received by photographers (myself included). Automatic subject, background, sky, body part masking, content-aware/generative fill and generative remove are genuinely helpful and time saving.
What tools in this release are "slop generators"? The entire context for the entire discussion here on HN should be "AI tools in the hands of capable professionals", as this is software for professionals, most of which highly appreciate most of the features BMD puts out, including the ones prefixed with "AI".
Sorry, I was unclear. I was referring to wholesale text to image/text to vudeo generation as sloppy generators. That is not what Black Magic or Adobe is building.
Photographers have already delegated their art to pushing buttons on a machine. They are the most receptive to AI tools, but not representative of artists in general.
What are you talking about? I don't know anyone grinding away deep in DaVinci or Flame that wouldn't love AI assistance. If anything, the studio heads will come in and insist it's all done by hand with the same energy they keep people up to 4am changing the color and shape of the eyebrows of the camel on a box of cigarettes just to deal with their neuroticism.
I feel like we've been working in parallel here :) We are using PyAirbyte (hi
aaronsteers) for our users to connect their data sources to our agents. We originally wanted to use the airbyte white-label platform, but the team said that it was being deprecated. I think this really drives home just how crucial it is to have a clear model for accessing your data, and Airbyte has been great at that for quite a while.
Hello, Jared! Small world! Yes, we did deprecate our old PbA (Powered by Airbyte) offering, but in many ways our new Agents and Embedded offering is a more robust and agent-friendly successor to that older offering.
I am happy to hear you are still getting value out of PyAirbyte! If you do try out Airbyte Agents, please let us know how it goes! We are always listening to feedback and would love to hear from you as you explore the new tools and capabilities.
Generally speaking, raw-milk cheeses are much safer to consume than fresh raw dairy milk. However, the dairy in question is a garbage company that has been responsible for numerous outbreaks in the past.
Raw milk is safe to drink too, if it's been kept correctly. I grew up on a dairy farm, and as you might imagine we didn't buy milk from the store when we had our own right there. Never once did I get sick, nor did any of the other farmers we knew doing the same thing. The risk of getting sick is higher, but unless you're not practicing proper hygiene it'll probably be ok.
I am all for requiring raw milk to be prominently disclosed, but banning it entirely is foolishness. Let people make their own choices for the level of risk they are comfortable with; don't make paternalistic decisions for them.
This isn't a binary distinction -- safe vs unsafe. Things you put in your body have a risk profile. The risk profile of raw milk is much higher than pasteurized milk, regardless of how hygienic you think you're being. Cows step in mud, their own feces, the feces of other animals, dirty water, and many other things that can splash up and onto (and into) their udders, contaminating their milk with pathogens.
Letting people make their own choices always has its limits, regardless of what people say (rather casually on the Internet). When nearly all health systems in the world work through the healthy subsidizing the unhealthy, we should be attempting to limit preventable illness.
In any case, I don't think there's any country or state that bans drinking raw milk. If you're on a farm and you want to drink your own milk, go ahead. Just don't claim it's safe enough to sell, because it really isn't.
When we say "safe" it's a regulatory statement about _certainty_ not about any given person's activity. We know pasteurized milk is safe because the process produces a high probability of a safe product.
When we don't do that, it's called raw. From there, we don't need to investigate anything else, whether it's 1 in 100, 1 in 10, or whatever. We know that because it's unprocessed, it's unsafe.
It's always curious when people bring anecdotes to a discussion like this as if what their family did with raw milk is perfectly emulated everywhere.
Same thing happened with surgery in the early century: doctors wouldn't wash their hands because they had some base assumptions about what caused diesease.
In the end, countering these anecdotes rarely work.
reply