Way to fall-off from being the one source of news everyone in "Anglo" countries in the Third-World used to turn to (and love and respect... however biased the news may have been).
Edit: am trying to access from US, I see a paywall. Good to hear from comments that other countries don't see a paywall.
> US-based visitors to BBC.com will now have to pay $49.99 (£36) a year or $8.99 (£6.50) a month for access to most BBC News stories and features, and to stream the BBC News channel.
Only the US traffic has a paywall, there's none if you visit it from somewhere else. Understandable to charge people who don't pay for it with their taxes in my opinion, especially if you delivery videos and other expensive content for free without ads.
Most of these cuts happened under the previous government, including where they restricted how revenue from BBC World Service can be recycled into its local broadcasting. You'd almost think the Conservatives were trying to get rid of it.
There are another two hundred-odd countries who also do not pay for it with their taxes. The BBC has apparently not seen fit to paywall them. This is a very confusing and inconsistent move.
The other countries most likely don't make up such a big chunk of visits / costs.
FWIW: There's many news sources in the US (Usually regional news papers etc.) that just throw a forbidden or 402 status code right away at anyone not using a US IP.
Huh, viewing from India here - no paywall. BBC can be biased, but it is very useful to know what the British state media thinks. This article is neutral reporting with barely any "analyst opinion" flavor.
Just for clarity: the BBC is not "state media," it's a public broadcaster. This is an important distinction as the UK Government cannot determine its agenda or directly influence its funding.
The BBC will regularly criticise the government, especially when it's a Labour government.
> UK Government cannot determine its agenda or directly influence its funding.
> The BBC will regularly criticise the government
The funding is set for a 10 year cycle, beyond the scope of any individual government specifically to protect the BBC from editorial interference by the government. That’s why it’s a publicly funded broadcaster, not “state media.”
The onus is now on you and the OP to prove your claim that the BBC is state media.
When I say state media I mean media that exists as a part of the state. Like when it's funded by the state or the state has some other kind of influence over it.
Your definition conflicts with UNESCO’s definition. By your reasoning, private US media outlets would have qualify as “State Media” because they kowtow to the Trump government - “some other kind of influence”. This is patently nonsense, so your definition is incorrect.
UNESCO using a definition that doesn't account for fascist corporatism and other means vy which nominally private entities can serve as arms of the state doesn't make that definition universally correct, it just makes it UNESCO’s definition.
The very first sentence misses the point. (It might be a literal translation. Perhaps. But that's not the essence.) I couldn't go (pun intended) beyond the first sentence. There are much more "essential" translations out there.
So sad that nobody thought it important to ELI5 whatever on earth "gaussian splatting" means, and how it's different than regular splatting (if there's such a thing), or regular video. To me the video looks like the figures have slightly rounder edges, that's all.
Say you have a photo, but you want to be able to explore it in 3d so you put it into fortnite but when you move you can't see behind objects because the photo never "saw" behind object.
So you decide to take lots and lots of photos at every single angle possible, but you need a way to link these all together, so you decide that each Centrepoint of the image is a "gaussian". These splat everywhere.
Now you have taken all of these photos and you can now explore the image in fortnite because you took thousands of images of every possible view!
But what if you didn't want to just look at the frozen image in a landscape in fortnite, instead you wanted to use a man dancing in your new upcoming YouTube video called helicopter.
If you isolate this person (let's say taking all these photos on a green screen) you now have a 3d like recording model, you can reshoot and "scene" on-top of something else (like a 3d diarama like in your video!)
Like Trump, I too am a (albeit, small-time) real estate guy. Ownership gives me tingles that renting could never give me. You rent a place for 30 years, diligently pay rent, and in the end you own nothing? Pshaw.
I get it, but the world doesn't run on hard power, it runs on soft power.
The US could simply invade Greenland if it actually refuses to let them stay there, or if an adversary tries to take it over.
That's why I'm so appalled. There is no such imminent threat which would force such a transaction to take place.
Subtle deals like the one I was talking about won't fly as justifications to take action against the US by Russia/China, nor will it up tensions unlike this drama.
- it's okay when Side A goes after Assange (a journalist) for possessing classified material. Also, Side A encourages journalists in certain countries to do exactly what Assange did.
- it's not okay when Side B goes after journalists aligned with Side A
Way to fall-off from being the one source of news everyone in "Anglo" countries in the Third-World used to turn to (and love and respect... however biased the news may have been).
Edit: am trying to access from US, I see a paywall. Good to hear from comments that other countries don't see a paywall.
reply