Ahhhh this makes me so happy. My brother and I, like many, were so obsessed with all the LucasArts adventures, so naturally I mailed them in my idea. I also got a letter back. IIRC it wasn't from a lawyer, but it was definitely a soft "no." There's a chance I still have that letter somewhere.
Man, I am not a "good old days" kind of person but the 80s (well, late 80s early 90s) really were a different time.
What was the reason? Anything beyond concerns over ownership of the ideas, characters, etc. (which I presume is the boilerplate legalese)? Did they even admit to reading your letter?
In elementary school, a couple friends and I sketched out an entire game's worth of ideas for Mega Man bosses and mailed them to Capcom (this would have been 1990 or so). I remember how thick the envelope was.
I recall their response being very human, warm and encouraging, but it also included all of our original sketches, with a very direct (but kid-understandable) statement that they were obligated to return the originals to make it very clear that they were not kept and thus could not possibly be understood to be "inspiration" for anything that might be in a future game.
Funnily enough - they do actually take fan submissions for bosses - https://megaman.fandom.com/wiki/Boss_character_contest - but you’d need to do it during the development time, and probably mail into Capcom JP. Bad luck, there.
This was a very common thing media companies dealt with and still deal with. There are too many legal risks in even reading the idea. SOP is to send back the envelope sealed and with a canned response explaining that they don't accept pitches from the public.
I can't remember what the topic was, but I remember hearing a story about a company that was soliciting ideas from the public for maybe a joke book or maybe tv show plots. They got into a lot of legal hot water once they found out that the ideas weren't original and people were actually just taking them from other sources.
If anyone else knows what I am talking about, I'd like to know the name of the company.
they have to open the envelope to see what's inside - they get mail that is not ideas and they have to open it.
But I assume the people who get the mail are trained to see if the envelope contains ideas to stop reading and return the mail with the canned lawyer response.
Yeah, it was about the ownership of the characters that was at-issue IIRC. From memory, they said they couldn't use the characters because I made the suggestion.
When I visited the Warner Bros studios, they had a huge pile of paper in a corner, representing all the unsolicited ideas they receive.
They told us they took care to not even read the manuscripts. I don't remember if they return them unopened or destroy them, but otherwise if the ideas from the manuscript end up in one of their productions, they open themselves to legal trouble. It may happen even if it is a coincidence, so they don't want to take any chance.
Yeah, movies are kind of weird like that. If I steal your idea for a novel (but not your words), you can call me out as an asshole but you don’t have any legal recourse, but if the same thing happens with a movie, apparently it is possible to sue and actually win significant damages.
FYI, in many (most?) legal systems, you can sue anyone, for anything. To win the damages, you'll have to convince a judge or jury of said damages (or present a strong enough case to settle out of court).
Probably this, but despite that people keep trying - e.g. Reddit's gaming forums are full of "I made a concept for xyz!".
I mean it can work; especially for smaller studios, community members and modders are often hired to work on the game itself (I'm sure Bethesda has a lot of that, the modding community is basically free onboarding / training, but also Factorio's Space Age was mainly inspired and executed by the developer of the Space Exploration mod).
I tried using it, but I don't understand what it wants me to do! It says scroll, but when I do it just zooms in. Which is the same as clicking? I tried scrolling to the left but that just moved me to where I am now.
Love the idea, but strange UX.
Edit: tried it again and I think the problem is that there's no feedback during scrolling during transition screens. When I scroll, I expect it to scroll with me, not go on its own path. So by the time it's possible to scroll again, I already tried everything and gave up. Made more confusing by the instructional text disappearing between transitions. Give a little bit more feedback during those transitions and I think the problem goes away.
Scroll used for discrete steps (especially when the transitions are animated) is very frustrating and confusing. Would be much easier to use this if you had to tap (mobile) or press a key (desktop) to initiate a transition.
I have some lists [1] I use to hide YouTube's constant recommendations of things I've already watched.
They also hide previously watched music videos, which may be a downside.
Not a blocklist, but for anyone who wants this, Control Panel for Twitter [1] can hide most things you'd want to hide on Twitter. The latest version adds a way to keep using the Dim dark mode variant theme they recently removed.
The idea that someone is a snob because they dislike generic looking artworks is a hilarious indicator of how far aesthetic discussion and standards have fallen. The word used to mean someone that looks down upon the popular arts in favor of more traditional/expensive/sophisticated art.
Now apparently it means having any standards or metrics of evaluation, period. Either you think everything is equal aesthetically, or you’re a snob.
Thankfully this kind of empty opinion isn’t convincing many people these days.
I’m not “shaming someone’s work,” I said 1) they look like generic graphics, and 2) I primarily said someone isn’t a snob for disliking them, which is what the OP comment claimed.
Even then, analyzing a piece of art work is called art criticism. It’s not exactly a new thing, nor is it some kind of personal attack.
But as I said above, the quality of aesthetic discussion has fallen so much that expressing any critical opinion, no matter how minor, is some kind of shaming attack that indicates I have a personal problem or I’m a snob. Which is a totally insane way to view the world.
Snobbery is a spectrum. You might not perceive your words as snobbery, but I do. We just have a different opinion of where you fall on that snobbery line.
Ooh, totally. Many years ago I was doing some analysis of parking ticket data using gnuplot and had it output a chart png per-street. Not great, but worked well to get to the next step of that project of sorting the directory by file size. The most dynamic streets were the largest files by far.
Another way I've used image compression to identify cops that cover their body cameras while recording -- the filesize to length ratio reflects not much activity going on.
This reporting was made possible because it's surprisingly easy to export recording start/stop time, file size, duration, notes, cop badge and model name from the underlying system with a couple clicks (this is true for any agency that uses axon: https://my.axon.com/s/article/Justice-Exporting-search-resul...). I threw that info into postgres, made a materialized view with a column that gets the filesize:duration ratio and filtered for videos with a certain ratio. I never did anything with it besides that article I posted before.
Here's an observable about the BWC analysis that went into the reporting (disclaimer: the observable is mid-iteration that never received a followup. the analysis itself is separate from the reporting): https://observablehq.com/d/9f09764dbbdfc4b5
For my workflows, layout extraction has been so inconsistent that I've stopped attempting to use it. It's simpler to just throw everything into postgis and run intersection checks on size-normalized pages.
My documents have one or two-column layouts, often inconsistently across pages or even within a page (which tripped older layout detection methods). Most models seem to understand that well enough so they are good enough for my use case.
Documents that come from FOIA. So, some scanned, some not. Lots of forms and lots of hand writing to add info that the form format doesn't recognize. Lots of repeated documents, but lots of one-off documents that have high signal.
I like to use textual anchors for things like, "line starts with" or "line ends with" or "file ends with" and combining that with levenshtein distance with some normalization stuff (combining adjacent strings in various patterns to account for OCR wonkiness). Turns into building lists of anchors that can be built off of. Of all the things I've tried, including things like image hashing and such, it's been the most effective generalized "tool".
But also, I hold the strong philosophy that it's important to actually read the documents that are being scanned. In that way, OCR tends to be more of a procedural step than anything.
Tesseract v4 when it was released was exceptionally good and blew everything out of the water. Have used it to OCR millions of pages. Tbh, I miss the simplicity of tesseract.
The new models are similarly better compared to tesseract v4. But what I'll say is that don't expect new models to be a panacea for your OCR problems. The edge case problems that you might be trying to solve (like, identifying anchor points, or identifying shared field names across documents) are still pretty much all problematic still. So you should still expect things like random spaces or unexpected characters to jam up your jams.
Also some newer models tend to hallucinate incredibly aggressively. If you've ever seen an LLM get stuck in an infinite, think of that.
I used Tesseract v3 back in the day in combination with some custom layout parsing code. It ended up working quite well. When looking at many of the models coming out today the lack of accuracy scares me.
And I'm getting tired of these comments that normalize the awfulness of the past. We can be pragmatic in recognizing that "our guys" also did bad things. Less bad than awful is still bad. If we choose not to recognize our own foibles then we just fall down our old patterns of "it's someone else's problem".
Because otherwise, better than what we have now is an abysmal target and we should aim for better.
> We can be pragmatic in recognizing that "our guys" also did bad things
What do you mean "our guys" ? I don't have guys. I consider myself a libertarian, was both sidesing up until June of 2020, and had never voted for a major party in a national election until 2020 when I voted for Biden - which I view as me getting older and more conservative - aka valuing our societal institutions and values after seeing how much Trump openly trashed them instead of showing an ounce of leadership during Covid.
Even with this perspective, I still think it is foolish to write off the current administration as if it's just another iteration of back and forth corruption rather than a shameless wholesale kicking over of the apple cart.
Care to elaborate on your point then? Reading what you have written, I do agree with the abstract thrust of where you're coming from.
But I have also observed that the destructionists appeal to similar lofty ideas to justify what is currently going on - eg accelerationism.
(I also don't know what difference "tongue in cheek" makes. I've never looked at the government and thought anything like "these people represent me and work for my interest". I know a lot of people seemingly have, but that's not me. But I did look at the Biden administration, which I voted for, and think "this is the stable predictable evil I (and the rest of American society) already know how to cope with".)
Well, for background, my background is in investigative journalism with a focus on policing, technology, and transparency. I've been the plaintiff in a bit over 10 FOIA lawsuits and have three ongoing suits now. "Our guys" was more meant to be a hand waived ideal of what each in-person thinks their out-person is.
My point can be read as a recognition that ratcheting happens within the boring minutia and work is rarely done to recover from those ratchetings. Things like continuation of prosecution policies, legislation changes, staff changes, etc. There's a very strong tendency to consider those sorts of ratcheting effects as "just how things are" rather than recognizing that no, it hasn't always been that way.
Like, progressive politicians love to talk a big game about transparency, but when it comes down to it, they themselves contribute to systemic transparency failures. See Chicago's past two mayors' campaign transparency promises. Both have done a complete 180 on those promises and use never-losing lawyers to enforce that sort of thing. Chicago's mayor's office once asked me to do analysis of parking tickets' effects on poor folk... then a few months later accused my wanting a data dictionary of the parking tickets system so that I could modify the parking ticket system's data. That led to bad case law at the IL supreme court.
It's shit like that. The small-but-not-really-small things.
Maybe I’m mis-interpreting what you mean, but without a notification when a message is sent, what would you correlate a message-received notification with?
Feel like that opened something in me..
reply