- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
lostinbr
| Favorite team: | LSU  |
| Location: | Baton Rouge, LA |
| Biography: | |
| Interests: | |
| Occupation: | |
| Number of Posts: | 12822 |
| Registered on: | 10/15/2017 |
| Online Status: | Not Online |
Recent Posts
Message
It’s a double-edged sword.
On one hand, it keeps threads from devolving into flame wars (or at the very least, keeps you from having to read the flame wars). It also highlights genuinely helpful/thoughtful responses. I think the Reddit format works pretty well for DIY/educational topics.
On the other hand, it encourages groupthink and creates echo-chambers as you said. The Reddit format does not work as well for controversial or political topics.
On one hand, it keeps threads from devolving into flame wars (or at the very least, keeps you from having to read the flame wars). It also highlights genuinely helpful/thoughtful responses. I think the Reddit format works pretty well for DIY/educational topics.
On the other hand, it encourages groupthink and creates echo-chambers as you said. The Reddit format does not work as well for controversial or political topics.
0
re: Axiom spacesuit development delays could push Artemis program back by 3+ years
Posted by lostinbr on 4/20/26 at 9:45 pm to ATrillionaire
quote:
But there was already a commerical market for rockets. NASA could look at real designs and make informed contracting decisions.
Not in the US though, at least not really. You technically had ULA doing private launches on Delta IV / Atlas V rockets, but I’m not sure that really counts.
SpaceX hadn’t even been to orbit yet when they received their first COTS contract from NASA. They had performed one (failed) test of Falcon 1, and Falcon 9 was in its infancy. NASA took a chance on them.
quote:
There was no market for spacesuits and none in development. Any company bidding for the contract was, at no fault of their own, selling a dream.
Axiom’s goal has been to build a private space station. And they certainly aren’t the only company invested in private, manned space flight. Seems like EVA suits are a requirement to make that feasible.
I’ll concede that the lunar EVA suits (as opposed to the new ISS suits) are a bit of a different animal, though.
re: Axiom spacesuit development delays could push Artemis program back by 3+ years
Posted by lostinbr on 4/20/26 at 8:59 pm to The Pirate King
quote:
This comes after just a week ago Axiom claimed they'd be ready to test next year.
So just to be clear, from what I’m reading it doesn’t sound like Axiom has said anything about being delayed until 2031. It sounds like the NASA OIG is saying the suits could be delayed until 2031 if the development schedule experiences similar slippage to other “recent space flight programs.”
It also seems like the OIG doesn’t like NASA’s strategy of contracting this stuff out instead of developing it in-house, but that’s the same contracting strategy that brought us Falcon 9 and will bring us Falcon Heavy / Starship.. so :dunno:
quote:
There were originally two suit contracts and one company dropped out...no competition, no incentive to build the suit faster.
The OIG report notes that:
quote:
NASA's original schedules to demonstrate the lunar and microgravity spacesuits in 2025 and 2026, respectively, were overly optimistic and ultimately proved unachievable, as evidenced by delays of at least a year and a half for both spacesuits.
They are saying that neither company could meet the original schedule. Now they’re predicting that it will slip another 3 years based largely on the delays with SLS and Boeing’s Commercial Crew (Starliner) vehicle. That seems a little silly to me.
quote:
cool, when the other schools release it, lsu can too. until then frick off
You realize it’s possible to think this stuff should not be exempt from disclosure, without wanting LSU to be the only school disclosing it…right?
As I’ve said, this is not just an LSU issue. It’s playing out all over the country. More generally, I think this entire landscape of individual state legislatures tweaking their laws to make their football teams more competitive is just.. fricking dumb, to be honest. Maybe “disappointing” is a better word.
If your real stance is “I don’t want LSU to be the only one disclosing it” then sure, I agree. But I’m not gonna act like it’s crazy to think this stuff should be public record.
quote:
literally why do you need to know each individual players amount? so you can come on here and bitch?
I don’t need to know how much individual players get paid, any more than I need to know how much Brian Kelly’s buyout is.
I certainly don’t need it more than I need to know how much assistant beach volleyball coach Catherine Leak gets paid ($65k according to the contract on LSU’s website). But her contract is considered public record while a rev share agreement with a starting QB isn’t? Does that really make sense?
But even if *I* don’t personally *need* to know the details, that doesn’t mean they should be exempt from public records disclosure. Here’s a hypothetical: if Austin Ausberry had a $1MM rev share deal, wouldn’t you want that to come to light? I don’t think anything like that is happening, but that doesn’t mean it will never happen.
Bigger picture, there’s a lot of public interest in how these deals are being structured. I’m much more interested in the terms of the rev share agreements (such as payback clauses etc.) than I am in how much individual players get paid. But those details are also being treated as confidential.
I don’t even feel that strongly about it. I just think some of the arguments being made against disclosure in this thread are a bit silly.
quote:
then file a FOIA against ULL, LA Tech, ULM if you want to know so bad
but you can lick LSU's nut sack because frick you and you wanting to know because all you are trying to do is frick LSU.
Do y’all really think LSU is the only school that’s received public records requests related to revenue sharing? It’s happening all over the country. LSU wasn’t even the first school to get sued over refusing to disclose rev share details. Hell they weren’t even the first school in the SEC to get sued for non-disclosure. And you can bet they won’t be the last, either.
quote:
if they are getting direct funding then the public has a direct right to know where every dollar went
“Every dollar” meaning just the $16.5 million/year in direct institutional support or the entire $46 million athletic budget? Do they get to say “we spent this $16.5 million on xyz” and hide everything else?
quote:
for coach contracts, we should only have the right to know what the part being paid with state dollars is imo.
The part paid with “state dollars” comes directly from the athletic department’s budget. How is that any different than player contracts?
I just think the whole “it’s not public money so it’s nobody’s business” argument has a lot of holes. For one, the athletic department is an auxiliary enterprise of the university. Yes, it’s self-funded. But it’s still part of the university. It’s historically contributed funding back to the academic side. Other universities historically take funding from the academic side. They’re two sides of the same coin. The fact that LSU’s athletic department is self-funded should certainly give them deference to spend their money how they see fit, but I don’t think it means they should be immune to scrutiny.
It seems obvious to me that the public (and especially the season ticket holders who represent the majority of revenue between ticket prices, seat fees, etc.) have a legitimate interest in how much LSU pays Brian Kelly or Lane Kiffin. But because those contracts are all public record, you also have staff members whose much smaller contracts are public record as well. Like Sawyer Jordan, who makes (checks notes) $200k/year. I don’t really see why a player making more than that should be exempt.
quote:
LSU uses zero public funds to pay the athletes and no you nor the journalist have any right to know what the starting QB is being paid vs the starting left guard. im sorry we dont.
You could say the same thing about coaching or administrator contracts. Why do we have any “right” to know what Lane Kiffin is being paid?
On the other hand, ULL’s athletic department has received an average of $16.5 million per year of direct institutional support (read: university money) over the past 3 years. Does the same logic apply to their athletic department / revenue sharing?
re: Louisiana lawmakers advance bill to shield how athletic departments spend public money
Posted by lostinbr on 4/16/26 at 9:30 am to SouthEndzoneTiger
quote:
If LSU has to divulge exactly how our shared revenue is divided, and other states do not have to do this, it will put LSU at a competitive disadvantage.
That’s the logic behind pretty much all of the state-level legal issues around NIL, eligibility, etc. nowadays. State laws being written/rewritten for competitive advantage, state AG’s filing lawsuits against the NCAA over disputes… I get it, but I also hate it. Where does it end?
That’s a somewhat rhetorical question - it’s pretty clear to me that it ends with collective bargaining. But this current model where everyone is working to change their own rules for competitive advantage is just.. shitty, IMO.
re: Entergy needs seven new power plants for the META Data Centers
Posted by lostinbr on 4/16/26 at 8:10 am to Roy Curado
quote:
Do your own research and deep dive into these deals and stop taking propaganda headlines at face value.
:lol:
The only details you can research are the ones being publicly disclosed by Entergy (or Meta), selectively, to try to paint the deal in the best possible light.
Call me crazy, but I don’t think we should accept “source: trust me bro” from Entergy when we are talking about a 50% increase in statewide generation capacity.
re: Entergy needs seven new power plants for the META Data Centers
Posted by lostinbr on 4/16/26 at 8:02 am to BilltheTiger
quote:
Unless they negotiated a bad deal and are charging less than the cost to produce it should not affect the residential rate at all.
False.
What you should have said is “unless Entergy’s deal with Meta recoups less than the return they are guaranteed as a regulated utility, it should not affect the residential rate at all.” Which is a much lower bar, that you’d have to be a bit naive to disregard.
Basically any “discount” Meta receives as part of this deal will wind up being passed on to other rate payers. And that’s the thing - if there weren’t a discount, why would the contract details be hidden behind an NDA?
Entergy’s entire existing generation capacity in Louisiana is something like 24 GW. They are looking to add another 10 GW in relation to this project. For a company that makes a guaranteed return on capital projects, that’s a windfall regardless of who pays for it. They have a major incentive to get this done, so you can bet they will pull out every PR tool in their bag to do so. They will leverage every relationship, whether on the PSC, in the legislature, the media, or wherever. They will continue to tell everyone how this is going to make life better for everyone.
But you know what they won’t do? Release the actual details of the contract.
re: If there was a mirror 100 light years away in space and I had a very powerful microscope..
Posted by lostinbr on 4/16/26 at 7:41 am to Stealth Matrix
quote:
We may not be able to travel physically in time, but maybe we can view the past with mirrors.
Only if you got lucky enough to find a naturally occurring mirror that happened to be aligned such that it reflected light from Earth’s exact past position to its exact future position.
If you built a new mirror, say some sort of spacecraft, and launched it, then the absolute best case scenario would be that someone in the future sees Earth in the state that it was in when you launched the mirror. You could never see anything further back than that, because your mirror can’t travel away from Earth faster than light.
It would effectively be the same thing as launching a spacecraft with a camera pointed at Earth, and having it constantly transmit images back to us. Assuming the transmitter is powerful enough, you’ll eventually see images of the “past” but they will still be images from after you launched the camera.
re: Company makes AI covers of a girl's music, copyright strikes original singer
Posted by lostinbr on 4/13/26 at 12:17 pm to DarthRebel
quote:
The solution should be making it harder for the music companies to make claims. Their greed is out of control and impacting many content creators. Youtube should not blanket let them create claims against fair use and place the burden 100% on content creators. Record labels should be forced to show proof of their claim.
I agree in principle, but it’s not just a YouTube problem. It’s a DMCA problem.
The DMCA gives web hosts immunity from infringement claims provided they aren’t aware of the infringing content. So if someone sends Google a DMCA claim and they don’t act on it, they open themselves up to liability for copyright infringement.
For the host, the potential consequences of ignoring a valid claim are much greater than the consequences of a bogus takedown. The copyright trolls no this, and they gave virtually no consequences for issuing false infringement notices.
I think solving the problem would probably require some sort of legislative (or at minimum regulatory) action. Again I don’t know the exact solution but I don’t think it’s something that can be fixed by YouTube/Google in a vacuum.
re: Company makes AI covers of a girl's music, copyright strikes original singer
Posted by lostinbr on 4/13/26 at 9:58 am to DarthRebel
quote:
All I know is youtube's copyright claims should be shut down, it is abused too much.
Think about it from YouTube’s perspective though. Would you rather deal with pissed off content creators (who already agreed to your TOS anyway) or deal with DMCA lawsuits from the RIAA, MPAA, etc?
It’s shitty because a single false takedown hurts an individual content creator way more than a single missed case of infringement hurts the copyright owner. At the same time, I can understand why YouTube would err on the side of takedowns from a risk perspective.
I don’t know what the solution is.
quote:
Read this, it is worse than you think
LINK
There are several things going on here, but the root of this is more a problem with YouTube copyright enforcement than AI.
YouTube’s copyright enforcement process is pretty one-sided (in favor of the party claiming infringement). There’s a pretty strict “3 strike” system and content creators who appeal claims can wind up having their entire channel de-monetized if they lose appeals - even though it’s possible to lose an appeal without ever getting a chance to communicate with a real person.
Gamer’s Nexus did a video detailing their experience with YouTube copyright enforcement when they were in a fight with Bloomberg over fair use claims: YouTube link
There’s even a process by which someone claiming ownership of a copyright can leave a video up but simply take over the monetization of that video. This has led to a business model for so-called “copyright troll” companies who search for possible infringement on behalf of copyright owners.
It’s probably a tough spot for YouTube. I would guess that their perceived liability (under the platform’s T&C’s) to content creators for incorrectly striking a video is considerably less than their perceived liability (under the DMCA) to copyright owners for incorrectly leaving a video up.
I don’t think it’s entire clear how much role (if any) AI actually played in this specific YouTube takedown, based on the article you linked. As the article and others in this thread have pointed out, the songs themselves were public domain. Someone managed to file a claim for the actual performance, as if to say that the account uploading the videos (her account) didn’t actually own those specific videos.
It seems like the AI issue in this case is a separate problem - someone made AI copies of her YouTube videos and uploaded them to Spotify. That, in itself, is a systemic problem for the music industry right now. But I doubt the company filing the copyright claim had anything to do with that part. More likely that the same user who created the AI copies effectively tried to steal the performer’s musical identity and used the copyright enforcement company as a means to that end.
re: Louisiana QR code for inspection sticker proposal
Posted by lostinbr on 4/9/26 at 10:22 am to Disco Ball
quote:
It's your own personal QR code and when scanned by any LEO it will show them a copy of your DL along with validating the vehicles registration, proof of insurance etc...
It will also alert the LEO of any outstanding warrants completely eliminating the need to radio dispatch for said info unless it's discovered that you aren't the registered owner of the vehicle
Can’t the LEO already check all of this info from your license plate, before he gets out of his car?
Wouldn’t you want to know whether someone has outstanding warrants before standing there next to his window to scan his QR code?
Let’s be honest here.. this is about money.
quote:
In just the past two games, Stanny, Serna and Binks have all sustained unplanned injuries
As opposed to planned injuries? :lol:
re: These moon photos from Artemis are impressive
Posted by lostinbr on 4/8/26 at 12:42 pm to nicholastiger
Who the frick would start a thread about impressive moon photos, without actually posting any of the photos?
Oh. Carry on.
quote:
by nicholastiger
Oh. Carry on.
re: This must be a record: dude raked in *278 million* dollars via fraudulent Medicaid billing
Posted by lostinbr on 4/8/26 at 7:36 am to RohanGonzales
quote:
Where is your link?
Not the poster you’re responding to, but it’s not hard to find. It was in the 90’s. His company (he was the CEO) paid the largest (at the time) medicare fraud settlement in history. The company was convicted of multiple felonies, and now he’s a US Senator.
Then there’s Philip Esformes, who was accused of $1.3 billion in Medicare fraud and convicted in 2019. His 20 year prison sentence was commuted a year later.
The case in OP is fricked up, but nowhere near a record when it comes to Medicare fraud.
quote:
You haven’t KSP’d till you’ve had to make a rescue mission to get Jeb off of the Mun.
You haven’t really KSP’d until you’ve:
1. Accidentally stranded a Kerbal in orbit, then
2. Thought for a brief moment about what it would take to rescue them, then
3. Changed the ship type from “capsule” to “space station,” then
4. Left them in space for the rest of the game.
Other acceptable answers include:
- Spending 3 hours building a monstrosity of a probe only to launch it, return to the KSC, then realize you forgot to install an antenna and/or batteries when it’s time for the next maneuver.
- Spending 3 hours building a monstrosity of a crew vehicle, finally getting the damned thing to orbit, rendezvousing in orbit of another planet, then realizing your docking port is on backwards.
- Spending 30 minutes walking back to your spaceship because you got carried away and wrecked your Mun rover.
- Attaching boosters to your boosters.
But yeah.. I don’t think there’s any better way to learn how orbital mechanics actually work than playing KSP. I’d love to know the percentage of actual rocket scientists who have played it.. I bet it’s shockingly high. :lol:
re: TV hardware
Posted by lostinbr on 4/5/26 at 8:37 pm to Happygilmore
quote:
if the scene is vibrant colors it’s perfectly fine, but if the scenes are dark, or not a lot of light it isn’t very clear at all, and you can see the rings of color changes like the contrast is way off or something
Sounds like you’re talking about color banding. Are you noticing this on streaming content? Because color banding in dim scenes is a fairly common compression artifact with streaming content.
I’m a little surprised folks are just telling you to buy a new TV without asking questions. :lol: Ideally it would help to know your full hardware setup e.g. TV model, specific content causing the problem, type of source (are you using a built-in app, external streaming box, etc.), and how it is hooked up. Would also be good to test and see if you notice any issues with high bit rate source material like a Blu-ray, if possible.
My suspicion is that it’s something like Netflix in which case it could be anything from a bandwidth problem, to a TV settings problem, to a simple matter of bad content.
ETA: I see you listed the TV model and mentioned you’re using a Fire Stick. I would start by putting the TV in filmmaker mode (don’t recall if that’s exactly what Samsung calls it, but it’s the mode that turns off a lot of the extra processing) and try to see if you can see the problem on non-streamed content.
Unbelievable performance from Bide today. Holy shite. First pitch off the top of the scoreboard. :bow:
Popular
53
