CGI = Computer Generated Image….this includes computer altered and purely computer generated images, and includes still and moving images. Perhaps it’s not an industry term anymore, it’s still an English term/phrase I used properly according to every reference I can find.

I’ve offered multiple citations backing that up.

Can you offer any backing up your contention that there’s really no such thing as cgi? Since CG only counts for 3d computer generated objects, what do YOU call computer altered images like aged actors and lighting effects (Blade Runner) on photos/film etc? Can you offer a citation to back you up? The dictionary calls that CGI.

It may be silly to call it that, but not as silly as this argument.
Remember, the CGI tag was there to indicate this was not some attempt to fool people into believing it was real, as you originally accused. So was FX. They both served their purpose, although they had to be pointed out.
Remember, you also wanted to quibble over whether this was “art” as if your liking it or it taking a substantial amount of work to create was the measure.
Now you want to quibble over a lay term that was ONLY intended as an obvious clue that this was altered.

Why?

I’ve explained multiple times why I posted it. If you still don’t know why, you have a comprehension problem, because I was quite clear. I thought it was pretty.

I think you just wanted to gripe.

BTW, bro didn’t take the job at Lucas, and regretted it immediately. He was running a few egghead stores at the time and thought his future was in computer sales. He still works with computers, has been building them since the 70’s (Apple 2) and runs his own server farm and is his own ISP. He stopped making computer art a while ago.

"CGI can alter the color and intensity of light, changing the appearance of an actor’s face or body in a shot."

this means building a digi double of an actor's face or body, match moving/rotomating it, relighting it with scene lights, then a shit ton of work in comp. NOT a colour correct or a shitty filter. it's a huge amount of work.

Don't be so sure. Due to the incredible amounts of views/money these videos generate, I had/have always been skeptical of the legitimacy of them. The below video had exposed at least one of these channels builds https://youtu.be/YCyLWhPnq1M

(edit) a quick google estimated $3000-5000 for a million views. This video at 114 million views would come in at between $340,000-570,000. Seems like it would be a lucrative business to be in.

I don't believe this was ever about taking Ukraine with the Russian military. I believe this is about destroying Ukraine and squeezing Europe's energy-dependent balls until the EU cracks under the economic pressure caused by the sanctions. This is already happening with Germany whimpering to Daddy Vladdy for all that precious, precious oil and gas. "Oh, we gave Zelensky a billion euros!"; yeah, and you gave Putin 25x that in oil/gas purchases.

The mealy-mouthing and dissembling has already begun, most shamefully from the New York Times, who is calling for Ukraine to make "hard choices". "This isn't capitulation" -- fuck you NYT, yes it is.

I had honest hopes that the western powers would show some spine and resolve, but as soon at their economies started to feel a little pain, the number of fucks given for Ukrainian lives went to zero. Russian is going to rape and murder its way from Odessa to the Belarus border until the western powers figure out some way to make it all Zelensky's fault or force him to cede massive amounts of Ukrainian territory before any real economic pain felt.

The worst part is that Finland and Sweden are going to be granted NATO membership, but Ukraine still is denied. Why are these two the hills NATO is willing to die on and Ukraine not? If NATO isn't willing to risk nuclear war over Ukraine, what happens when the tip of a single Russian boot touches Finnish soil? What happens when Finland then calls for Article 5 and the rest of NATO suddenly realizes shit just got real? What happens when it's time to shit or get off the pot; put up or shut up? Either NATO charges into the teeth of a potential nuclear war, or NATO is shown to be a paper tiger. If someone sees a middle ground, I'm interested in hearing it.

(Incidentally, NATO's Article 5 is pretty porous. A-5 doesn't say every NATO nation commits whatever forces are deemed necessary by the whole to defend against an aggressor. Instead, it says that in the event of A-5 coming into play, each member will take "such action as [the member state] deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area."

Notice the whole 'each member' and 'deems necessary'? Yeah, to quote a popular movie 'I don't think this mutual defense pact means what you think it does'.)

Rich people do pay their fair share. Its called tax code. They did not write the code our Leaders did.
So don't bitch at rich people, bitch at our leaders

According to the latest IRS data for 2018— the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid $616 billion in income taxes. That amounts to 40 percent of all income taxes paid, the highest share since 1980..

Just proves republicans also have stupid people who do not think .

Worse yet is that there are leaders who believe this false narrative also. They are themselves rich.. If they are so moved into paying their fair share why don't they just write a check to the IRS.

Better yet is to quit spending money on shit we don't need with money we don't have.

I hope this monument to opulence fails miserably and the developers lose their shirts.
There’s no way they won’t damage or destroy that reef.
The first big storm is going to destroy much of the sand island.
But, 10% are special protection zones! Won’t matter, they can’t survive if huge amounts of the non protected reef are destroyed.

Not to mention sea level rise will put it underwater quickly, it’s barely above current sea level in the plans.

Look at Mexico, dozens of comparatively tiny resorts not even on the reefs, but on land, and that reef is not 10% what it was in the mid 80’s. Building ON the reef is guaranteed to destroy it, as is tourism.

I hate when companies are allowed to build on natural wonders to exploit the beauty, they invariably destroy that beauty within decades. That entire reef/coastline should be off limits to construction so the two desert properties have an attraction. When the reefs die from sun tan lotion poisoning, bleaching, sand displacement, accidents with supply ships, the first major fuel spill, etc, that place will be a $5 billion waste, abandoned to the desert.

Remember the “islands of the world” project in Dubai? This sounds even less thought out than they were, more ecologically disastrous, needing more infrastructure to be built, requiring ships to bring fuel as there’s no nearby port to run pipelines from (guaranteeing oil spills). All for what? So billionaires can get off their yachts for a while in luxury?

Wiki-Significant changes in the maritime environment [of Dubai]. As a result of the dredging and redepositing of sand for the construction of the islands, the typically crystalline waters of the Persian Gulf at Dubai have become severely clouded with silt. Construction activity is damaging the marine habitat, burying coral reefs, oyster beds and subterranean fields of sea grass, threatening local marine species as well as other species dependent on them for food. Oyster beds have been covered in as much as two inches of sediment, while above the water, beaches are eroding with the disruption of natural currents.

That was a $12 billion project to exploit the pristine coast and beautiful waters that no longer exist, the islands themselves are sinking and eroding, most were evacuated or never used at all, the water is now mud colored, the reefs are gone. An unmitigated disaster. This sounds extremely similar.

Oppose this and similar projects.

What’s he mean “young people”? I’m 50, I’ve felt that way since 1990 because I pay attention. We are addicts, addicts use until they die, they don’t quit because their health suffers.

At 3 degrees some developing countries won’t be able to feed their population!?! WTF?! That was the case before any climate changes, dummy. It’s bad now. It will be apocalyptic relatively soon…like decades, not centuries.

WILL cause trillions in damage!?….guess again, already happened. It WILL cause tens of trillions in damage per year, eventually outpacing global gdp.

What scientists are he counting when he says “most agree” we won’t see this kind of future? Certainly not climate scientists, they agree it’s happening, and none see it even slowing, much less getting better. From what I saw, they just went on strike because they’re sick of being ignored.

Leveled off, eh? Look at your own graph to see that China’s coal consumption went up by 5000 twh equivalents since 2010, and is insanely massive…it went up by more than the US used at its highest levels (in his timeline). But he calls that “leveled off”. Who is this guy? He’s insane or lying through his teeth.

Solar and wind have been better than coal economically for decades, but we haven’t switched over, have we?

Where does he get his statistics, because every time I see real numbers we’ve only slowed our increased emissions by 4%, we have not actually reduced them….like saying Obama reduced the military budget because he didn’t increase it as much as previous administrations. It’s asinine.

India isn’t building trillions in solar, they’re building fossil fuel power plants and hydro electric, also disastrous for the environment….and useless after their glaciers fail.

The CO2 in the atmosphere will be there for 300-1000 years, carbon capture is a ridiculous pipe dream that completely ignores the scope of the problem. Methalhydrate is already destabilized, and it’s 25 times as potent as CO2. The total global amount of methane carbon bound up in these hydrate deposits is in the order of 1000 to 5000 gigatonnes – i.e. about 100 to 500 times more carbon than is released annually into the atmosphere by the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil and gas). It’s melting now faster every day, and will surpass human carbon emissions.

None of his “requirements” are happening. What we need is less people….like 90% less.

Progress is being made, minor progress in small amounts on tiny scales…so are increases in emissions but on massive scales and unfathomable amounts….emissions that needed to be at zero decades ago to save civilization as we know it. Climate refugees exist today in huge numbers, think how difficult 1 million Syrians were for Europe to absorb, now multiply by 2000 or more when all equatorial nations become uninhabitable. Where will we grow food with refugees covering every bit of land? Get real.

He admits that stopping warming below 1.5 degrees is impossible, and 3 degrees before 2021 likely (many say by 2050). Did he forget that 1.5 degrees warming is where we lose control and feedback loops make our emissions moot?

Do you even science, dude?

He gave me zero hope, because I know most of his pie in the sky “hope” is utterly ridiculous and runs contrary to reality and human nature. I wanted some good news, I got pablum.
Booo Kurzgesagt. Try being honest and not ignoring the facts, please. BOOOOO!

That's hard to prove. And actually the end result would be the opposite. His recent tour's sold out. He's (rightfully) benefitting from the incident financially because he took the high road. Sue for the physical damage, sure, but whatever the amount a judge & jury would award him, it'd be just a drop in a bucket from Smith. Probably end up settled out of court. But I would most definitely take all the money from Smith. Then give it to charity to rub it in.

100% agree. The reaction was more disturbing than the assault.
Haddish reverting to the mindset of the early 80’s to say Chris was calling Jada a lesbian, tacitly excusing Will’s physical attack, Jesus fucking Christ could you do more mental gymnastics!? Remember that little known independent film, Black Panther? Were those bald, fit women thought of as lesbians, or strong warrior women? WTF?!
Also, if she was right, is being called lesbian really an insult to Haddish in 2022? I don’t see it as insulting.

I think Will should see prison/jail time. He should be sentenced to the absolute maximum allowed by law, he, with every advantage and privilege possible, brutally assaulted a 57 year old man with a sucker punch/slap from Muhammad Ali (lest you forget Will’s size and training at throwing punches)...not just in public, but on an international broadcast. Then I think Chris should sue for $500 million for damage to his international reputation and career. It has to be an amount that hurts, not a few weeks work worth of pay.

Does anyone think Will’s bare minimum late apology is sincere, or that he deserves less punishment because of who he is, how much money he has, or because he eventually “apologized”?

Would he think so if Chris had slapped the shit out of Jada in public, then cursed her out during her performance?! (Don’t get all sexist, the size and power difference are similar.).
That should be the measure of damage IMO. If someone did the exact same thing to his loved one, what would Will think is an appropriate punishment? Guaranteed a fine and stern talking to wouldn’t satisfy, so it shouldn’t be on the table.

Ok, that makes some sense.

Maybe, maybe not. It could carry armor penetrating explosives…shaped charges don’t have to be huge. They just need to shoot a stream of super heated metal through the armor into the explosive storage area or fuel tank, not a huge amount of it. It wouldn’t penetrate a modern tank’s front armor.

Also, Russian tanks don’t have AC, so usually travel with all their hatches open. Put this through a hatch, dead tank crew if not dead tank.

It would be great for 95% of that convoy outside Kyiv.

Edit: I wonder what a few dozen hitting all at once from different directions could do.

So the latest rumour is that by the village of Ljubimovka a group of local gypsies stole a Russian tank.

Now my personal reason to want to believe this story. Back when I was doing my then compulsory army service our country was still housing thousands of Russian troops which had come 20 years earlier in 1968 to keep the peace or something (temporarily). I was stationed at a maintenance and storage unit (managed the kitchen). Our unit oversaw the infrastructure of part of the local training grounds where Russian troops regularly trained. One of the main activities, besides facilitating the sale of military diesel fuel was to remove stranded vehicles the Russians simply left behind broken or overturned in ditches. Breaking them up and selling for recycling was pretty lucrative - our labor was free, trucks and cranes were military equipment (also free), tanks contain a surprising amount of copper and aluminum, steel armor is heavy. I dont think Russians count either their troops or their tanks.

When you cancel a project, you don’t lose the money, you just don’t spend it. Really?!

I’m guessing you think I’m “urban” (racist code in the US btw, might wanna go with “city folk”). You would have guessed wrong. The nearest town to me is Eureka, 25k people 25 miles away.

You just don’t understand money if you insist canceling a billion dollar project is the same as losing the same amount of money. Edit: that’s only true if it’s canceled after it’s completed.
I’m using the figures Auto manufacturers gave as their lost production value, not including the collateral damage temporarily closing those plants cost the communities and both up and down supply chains.

Funny, you don’t include hospitals, which the truckers also reportedly blocked.

Protests can be permitted. If you’re disrupting someone else’s or public property without a permit, expect arrest for trespassing/breaching the peace at least.

Odd, if that’s really your position, why would you defend the truckers rights to blockade a city of worksites, job sites, and trade routes…reasons be damned?!?

I’m of the opinion that protests designed to disrupt the lives of people completely uninvolved in your cause always hurt your cause and make you look selfish. I tend to not defend self centered tantrums. I do not put pipeline protests in that category, permanent contamination of watersheds effects everyone, and almost everyone buys oil.

I read it, nowhere did it give an estimate of what those protests cost, and it indicated there were multiple other routes for the oil to travel so didn’t even disrupt oil transportation completely, much less ALL commerce.
And it was about pipelines crossing their (or protected) land it seems, a far cry from the truckers. Yes, the validity and severity of your cause matters, just like the damage you do and to whom.

Billions worth of goods stuck temporarily…but no actual estimated cost for their delay, this cost billions in lost production and salaries that won’t be recovered.

That protest was targeted against the offending entity, not the populace. I have no issue with natives blockading their own land and preserves that feed those reservations against permanent destruction for some private profits. That’s a far cry from the truckers blockading the main border crossing for industry and tourism because they’re afraid to get a poke.

The numbers I saw were special. Hundreds of millions-billions lost (your billions in goods delayed doesn’t have a price tag). That was before the bridge was reopened. These protesters weren’t satisfied with that damage and continued to close your capitol with ever shifting demands. Since regular measures had failed, I support emergency measures, seizure, even forfeiture after trial, of any funds or tools used.

Perhaps they became only as localized (but certainly not as targeted, and localized in a city not the unpopulated country), but they had already done exponentially more damage and showed no sign of end or even demands.

Let’s ignore someone personally supporting a grass roots movement outside their country and control, please. I find it a red herring totally unconnected to how he governs.

Yes, some Floyd protests were more violent than the truckers, some weren’t, remember how they were all violently smashed, tear gassed, rubber bullets galore, run through with police trucks, unmarked vans pulling up and grabbing people crossing the streets, unmarked vans driving through towns full of police shooting tear gas at any moving body, etc? Don’t pretend the response is similar.
Also, the Floyd protests lasted a weekend in most cases (occupy Portland really wasn’t about Floyd) and went elsewhere the next march. They weren’t closing down one area for weeks intent on staying. Most lasted hours and were peaceful until police became violent, despite right wing media’s fear-mongering.

I think you’re stretching, putting on blinders, and doing insane mental gymnastics to pretend you believe that. From the actual damage caused, the idiotic reasoning behind it (quickly abandoned), the extremely uncanadianness of the self centered far right rally masquerading as protest, the international damage, the foreign involvement from planning to funding, these are unique “protests” in numerous ways.

Their idiotic beliefs are only one of many distinctions I’ve pointed out, and as I mentioned only color public opinion and the amount of patience they’re given by the public, not how the government treats them. It’s not at all honest for you to pretend that’s the entirety of my position…it’s very Bob of you, and has lost some of my respect.

Pipelines crossing sovereign territory or preserves = bad so blockading those areas to force pipeline movement = good….oil companies didn’t truck the oil out, they increased shipments from other areas by rail. Read the article you linked.

Native cultures and governments are different. Pretending an elected board for a reservation works for the people is naive in the extreme. Read about politics on reservations, who funds the people that get elected in most cases, what happens to opposing candidates…saying the board signed off while so many showed up to fight against it seems a bit at odds, no? Like maybe the board members were bribed, had ties with the oil industry, or other conflicts….just maybe?

And again, those protests didn’t cost a fraction what the truckers did from my research. Delaying delivery of a billion in goods isn’t the same as costing a billion in losses. Neither is delaying or cancelling a billion dollar project. Be adult please….don’t make such specious arguments ….please. They don’t slip by, and they make me think you are being disingenuous.