Is it possible to collect actual observations to confirm or deny the results of this modeling? A key part of any well formed scientific hypothesis is that it can be validated or disproved by real world experimentation or observation (falsifiable). Where will that data come from in this case? Computer models are an important part of science, but if they can't be validated against data, what's the point?
It seems quite falsifiable. We Just need to visit or image several hundred tidally locked planets in the habitable zone.
Also, theory and models still have value in the absence of experimental data. They can inform your decisions on what experiments to run! They can also inform your decision on how to behave in the absence of data and validated models.
(I'm a dev on the project.) We have another background-removal service, ClippingMagic.com, that is built around an editor to let you fix the errors in the automatic result. You may want to give it a try for your mineral photos.
(I'm a dev.) Not everyone has macOS, and running a DL model in your browser is not exactly mainstream. Which is why segment leader remove.bg gets an estimated 35M in monthly organic traffic. Also, we believe our results are significantly better than those offered by the open-source models we've seen.
(I'm a dev on the project.) It is free while in beta. We've not implemented pricing yet, as we are a small team and just shipped the latest version of the model.
(I'm a dev on the project.) We have no plans to jack up prices. We see the whole market moving to low-margin cost+ pricing and we want to lead rather than follow. If we raised prices later, we'd only expose ourselves to being disrupted in the way that we are hoping to disrupt right now. Low margin plays are all about operational efficiencies, so that we can turn a profit at price points that other providers cannot. That is our laser focus, which is why our processing time is so quick.
Clipping Magic is a totally different product. It is editor-based with a bunch of post-clip effects and features. The editor allows you to fix errors in a way that a single-shot DL-based solution simply does not. We don't actually see the services as competing with each other, since DL-based solutions have taken over the portion of the market where 80-95% success rate and some errors are ok, so long as it is fast and cheap.
(I'm a dev on the project.) The privacy policy is an old and generic one that we use across a bunch of sites. It should be updated. Our retention policy on this site is as stated on the front page FAQ. After five days, the records are deleted.
(I'm a dev on the project.) We've not decided on the exact term of the credits, but they will be long-lasting, so you can pay $5 for 250 images and use that over the course of a few years. We'd make them non-expiring, but that creates an unbounded liability.
Thanks. I appreciate unexpiring credits and think that’s a super reasonable price.
Again, thanks for your work. I don’t want to criticize and am glad you built this. I just like to voice this opinion in case it helps, in any small way, to increase the odds of more local software.
Something like that seems eminently reasonable. Low dollar amount for enough uses that I don't need to think too much every time I press the execute button. Reasonable expiration window. No subscription which I generally prefer. (Though I'd note that Photoshop is getting very close to doing this sort of thing and a Photoshop + Lightroom subscription is actually pretty reasonable--$20/mo--if you use them a lot. That's the sort of price point that a lot of standalone generative AI tools are going to be up against.)
Generally things with "Lifetime Guarantee" means "Lifetime of the company" or even "Lifetime of the specified product line/family/version" if you look at the fine print.
In the third paragraph, the author writes that COVID was probably "cooked up in the kitchen of nature", and links to an article to support that assertion. But the linked-to article does not make that point. In the comments section of the article, a commenter pointed this out, and the author replied to that specific comment with an answer that did not address the issue but expressed the author's personal opinion on the matter, and has not updated the article to be more clear.
* However, one agency believes it is likely that SARS-CoV-2 leaked from a laboratory that handled coronaviruses.
* But, according to four elements of the Intelligence Community and the National Intelligence Council, natural exposure to an animal with the virus was the most likely cause of the outbreak.
"""
is the exact opposite of "probably natural origin" (in an article headlined "US intelligence rules out biological weapon origin" even!) is such a tortured reading of the text it has snapped in two: the interpretation is a limp, bloody, stump being dragged along by wild horses of motivated reasoning, while the text just sits there and stares in disbelief at the hole where its actual message used to be.
> But the linked-to article says the exact opposite, that COVID was probably a lab leak.
No, it does not. The article lists the opinions and results of several different organizations, and some of them think a lab-leak is possible OR even likely. But most think it was natural. That article is just very awful and disconnected written. Probably generated by some AI?
