![]() ![]() I have been looking for the “best” workflow on Mac with the option to change over to Win if circumstances push me to do so. That’s the theory now let’s see the reality. Best of luck in whatever you choose.Īnother photography workflow anomaly for personal use on a MacĪ perfectly streamlined workflow can help photographers to minimize the amount of time spent in front of the computer while maximize the cataloguing job done. I think if you plan on using it just for cataloging the software looks very promising. And, I agree it was hard to find information about how to use Photo Supreme 4. It is not ideal but it works and is quick. As for how I manage my image via cataloging I basically use a file system approach and then use Lyn for Mac for organizing and find images. It was awkward compared to other PP programs. I found the workflow and the way it handled PP clunky to me. I'm surprised the lack of tutorials and documentation for the product. It's the workflow part that's most important to me - I'm hoping to figure it out. ![]() Or are you saying the interaction with a processing piece of software is clunky? Just so I understand you are saying you did not like the post processing capabilities of the software? PP? I thought the point was to you something like dxo or Capture One to do the processing and for photo Supreme to be a catalog, tagging and organizing product. It's cataloging features are impressive though. ![]() It is not a bad program, has lots of features and am sure it might work for others, just not me. The workflow did not work for me in Photo Supreme. I found the PP tools a little clunky and not that responsive on my Mac. In the end, I removed it from my computer as it did not meet criteria I like in a PP software. Our test would still protect tech companies from a wide range of liability, but also incentivize those companies to monitor and mitigate the ways that their platforms encourage, facilitate, or exacerbate online harms.I recently downloaded a trail version of Photo Supreme 4 and tried it out for several days. Rather than assume that a tech company is immune when a claim involves user content, EPIC argued that courts should instead ask whether a plaintiff’s claim could be brought against the user that created the content-or whether there was some proportion of harm that could only be ascribed to a tech company. Google, arguing that Section 230 does not permit tech companies to automatically escape liability whenever user content is involved. While these examples involve user content, tech companies play a role in mitigating or exacerbating harm in each case.ĮPIC filed an amicus brief in Gonzalez v. For example, an online platform’s advertising algorithms can discriminate against users of color and its content moderations algorithms can silence Black users while permitting hate speech and child sexual abuse material to remain. However, the Court’s decision to focus narrowly on the Anti-Terrorism Act in both cases ignores a variety of other ways that tech companies and their algorithms can facilitate harm. Without a plausible claim under the Act, the Supreme Court no longer had reason to decide whether Section 230 immunizes tech companies from liability for harms caused or facilitated by their recommendation algorithms.īy deciding both Gonzalez and Taamneh based on the feasibility of each plaintiff’s claims under the Anti-Terrorism Act rather than on Section 230 immunity grounds, the Supreme Court showed that tech companies can survive-and even win-cases without resorting to overbroad interpretations of Section 230. Taamneh-the Court found that the families of ISIS attack victims failed to allege that either tech company had knowingly assisted the terrorist group under the Anti-Terrorism Act. In a pair of decisions released today- Gonzalez v. The Supreme Court has declined to address whether Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a law that encourages tech companies to moderate content on their platforms, immunizes companies like Google and Twitter from lawsuits alleging that their recommendation algorithms promoted terrorist activity.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |