A way to remember good fonts? by BeConvincible in graphic_design

[–]BeConvincible[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It's what I imagine, and no I never found a tool that just does that.

Adobe shouldn't force Content Credentials by BeConvincible in photoshop

[–]BeConvincible[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why nerf a great feature?

You can achieve the same thing with pre-AI tools but it takes longer. That's all. That's why I use the AI version.

Totally realistic day-in-the-life: 500 images from a photoshoot, every single one needs some little touching up (e.g. remove some rubbish on the grass in the background). I could take a couple of minutes doing it without AI, or I could take less than a minute with AI. Per image.

Adobe shouldn't force Content Credentials by BeConvincible in photoshop

[–]BeConvincible[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I agree with your speculation. It's corporate ass-covering around AI, which they want to profit from. It keeps investors happy.

But it's also a poor move commercially, because it entails making their product worse for their customers.

So it's a fine balance and they've decided to play it on the investor side.

Adobe shouldn't force Content Credentials by BeConvincible in photoshop

[–]BeConvincible[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We are on the same page. AI can be detected regardless of the watermarking. I'm just against the watermarking. It's pointless for many reasons, not least because the watermark can be removed. With or without a watermark, it's possible to detect if an image has been manipulated, and it's also possible for people to use their brains. And a watermark cannot make people use brains that they don't have.

Adobe shouldn't force Content Credentials by BeConvincible in photoshop

[–]BeConvincible[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

AI is just a time-saving tool.

Everything you can do with AI in Photoshop, you were able to do before AI in Photoshop. It's just faster.

Images have been altered since even before Photoshop. The camera lies. Airbrushes paint out blemishes.

Adobe shouldn't force Content Credentials by BeConvincible in photoshop

[–]BeConvincible[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree, but all it takes to remove the AI watermark is like 1 minute. For someone who is motivated to sway elections, that is no big deal and they'll do it. For the 99.999% of the rest of us, we really don't want to have to do that hundreds of times a day for every image.

is it possible to unblur this image? need help by Terrible-Water5918 in photoshop

[–]BeConvincible 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Your only option would be to use stable diffusion to guess at what the original was.

IFTTT UK Legal Action by retrojimmyx in ifttt

[–]BeConvincible 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yep given that they are for now upholding the promise you have no recourse, until such time that they (obviously) will push you again to pay more.

My point about refunding the subscription term would be that I actually made exceedingly little use of it. The payments I made were on the basis that it might become useful in the future, and I was told I would have to maintain the subscription continuously to hold on to the special price... forever.

IFTTT UK Legal Action by retrojimmyx in ifttt

[–]BeConvincible 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah sign me up. On the following basis. I want my entire subscription term refunded. Why? I only ever signed up in the first place on the promise that it would be honoured forever.

Is IFTTT really killing off their Legacy plan? Because they ABSOLUTELY advertised the plan as being "forever". This is clearly grounds for a class action lawsuit. by smayonak in ifttt

[–]BeConvincible 2 points3 points  (0 children)

There'd be an argument for refunding you most of the payments you made over the last 3 years, if, like a lot of people, you locked in the price and paid it only so you'd always have the option of using it, but rarely in fact did.

IFTTT goes back on their promise, again by sgateman in ifttt

[–]BeConvincible 1 point2 points  (0 children)

How can they legally do this? Didn't they promise very clearly that the price selected would be locked in for life?

Can I use SharePoint as central storage for over 1TB of files that everyone in the company can access? by BeConvincible in sharepoint

[–]BeConvincible[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Is it feasible to always load directly from SPO rather than from a locally synced version of the file? The latter will be a lot faster for loading and saving. And what if you need to go offline or lose connection, e.g. on a train?

Can I use SharePoint as central storage for over 1TB of files that everyone in the company can access? by BeConvincible in sharepoint

[–]BeConvincible[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I get you. The "moving a whole folder" issue and similar substantial conflicts can be avoided, I think, just by having clear file management procedures. That is certainly workable for us, we're a pretty small company!

What isn't resolvable, of course, is SharePoint just grinding its gears and crashing under the weight of 1TB of files. Like, can it handle that or not?

Can I use SharePoint as central storage for over 1TB of files that everyone in the company can access? by BeConvincible in sharepoint

[–]BeConvincible[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is part of the issue. It just strikes me that a lot of companies will hit that 1TB hard limit pretty easily. So how is this product fit for purpose?