HTMLTableElement.prototype.rows actually just returns a HTMLCollection, so same as document.forms, or document.getElementsByClassName. HTMLCollection implements Symbol.iterator as you would expect.
This is very disappointing. I bought Affinity because I thought a "pay once, own the software" was a business model worth supporting. In fact, people loved to point to Affinity's transactional model to contrast it with Adobe's subscription model.
Now it will become freeware, and by "freeware" I mean "nagware" because it will keep telling you about pro/AI features that you don't have access to.
Just like on Windows you don't own the system, on this "freeware" you don't own the software. You're a renter, a freeloader. So you can't complain about the ads. But you WANTED to just buy the thing so you wouldn't have to deal with ads. That option is now off the table.
Imagine if you bought a boat and you can't just enter every room of the boat, because the boat comes with a bouncer that stands in front of a certain door and he won't let you enter. That's what it feels like. Not only the boat isn't yours, it is also not a welcoming place to be. It will always feel like you're an outsider being conditionally allowed on someone's software instead of just being a guy using a thing you own.
I don't know. On some days I feel I just don't like software anymore.
Imagine that you have an a spreadsheet that dates from the beginning of the universe to its end. It contains two columns: the date, and how many days it has been since the universe was born. That's very big spreadsheet with lots of data in it. If you plot it, it creates a seemingly infinite diagonal line.
But it can be "abstracted" as Y=X. And that's what ML does.
I don't think it's the same thing because an abstraction is still tangible. For example, "rectangle" is an abstraction for all sorts of actual rectangular shapes you can find in practice. We have a way to define what a rectangle is and to identify one.
A neural network doesn't have any actual conceptual backing for what it is doing. It's pure math. There are no abstracted properties beyond the fact that by coincidence the weights make a curve fit certain points of data.
If there was truly a conceptual backing for these "abstractions" then multiple models trained on the same data should have very similar weights as there aren't multiple ways to define the same concepts, but I doubt that this happens in practice. Instead the weights are just randomly adjusted until they fit the points of data without any respect given to whether there is any sort of cohesion. It's just math.
That's like saying multiple programs compiled by different compilers from the same sources should have very similar binaries. You're looking in the wrong place! Similarities are to be expected in the structure of the latent space, not in model weights.
Well, the comment I was replying to cited ease of installation, so I did, too.
> Linux shoots itself in the foot just because Windows has two feet
This is exactly the opinion that everyone who is not accustomed to all of the GNOME nonsense gets after using GNOME. And GNOME fans are far too used to things to even hear that it is imperfect.
To me it's sad that Linux never became a good desktop OS, Windows just became worse and worse until it became worse than Linux :(
When I upgraded to 7 I tried Linux and I simply hated that I had to deal with the terminal and install strange third-party programs from strange forums to get anything working. Then I had to upgrade to 11 and I had to run strange terminal programs to install it without without creating a Microsoft account, and everyone recommends using some third-party Windows power tools to fix what Microsoft did to Windows. I could not believe it. IT IS THE SAME THING!
Now I'm using Linux, and I don't like it, but least it isn't spyware.
Do you mean with the levels filter that Krita has, with the curves filter that Krita has, with the color balance filer that Krita has, with the slope, offset, power filter that Krita has, or with the hue/saturation/luma or red chroma/blue chroma/luma adjustment filter that Krita has?[1]
They are all available as non-destructive filter layers, by the way, and Krita users had access to this way before GIMP 3.0 was released with non-destructive filters.
> Do you mean with the levels filter that Krita has, with the curves filter that Krita has, with the color balance filer that Krita has, with the slope, offset, power filter that Krita has, or with the hue/saturation/luma or red chroma/blue chroma/luma adjustment filter that Krita has?
Honestly, I did not know that these existed in Krita (when I used Krita, I did not find them).
However, I still stubbornly maintain that I answered the question sufficiently, which used the qualifier "with a better UI".
Taking a leaf out of my wife's book "Even when I'm wrong, I'm right!* :-)
password: 46,628,605
your password: 609
good password: 22
long password: 2
secure password: 317
safe password: 29
bad password: 86
this password sucks: 1
i hate this website: 16
username: 83,569
my username: 4
your username: 1
let me login: 0
admin: 41,072,830
abcdef: 873,564
abcdef1: 147,103
abcdef!: 4,109
abcdef1!: 1,401
123456: 179,863,340
hunter2: 50,474
correct horse battery staple: 384
Correct Horse Battery Staple: 19
to be or not to be: 709
all your base are belong to us: 1
reply