“Falsehood flies, and truth comes limping after it, so that when men come to be undeceived, it is too late; the jest is over, and the tale hath had its effect: […] like a physician, who hath found out an infallible medicine, after the patient is dead.” —Jonathan Swift

  • 85 Posts
  • 482 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: July 25th, 2024

help-circle
  • TheTechnician27@lemmy.worldtoComic Strips@lemmy.worldSorted
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 minute ago

    Giving credit to the original author – which I understand you did in the post body – is advertising only in the most benign sense. It is not intrusive; it is not misleading; it is not manipulative; it is not malicious; it is not meaningfully harmful in any way.

    I understand hating watermarks. But this isn’t someone slapping an iFunny or whatever bullshit brand onto an image completely unearned like a barnacle; the artist created a work for you to have for free (as in beer, and given memes, mostly as in freedom too), and the only thing they’re asking is that you preserve this small bit of credit. No, it’s not charity, but – speaking as someone who spends most of my free time gladly plugging away at volunteer work nobody will ever materially compensate me for – whoooo cares?

    In an Internet awash with faceless, generic slop that nobody and everybody created at the same time, an artist’s watermark is one of the few ways people can attach an identity to their work. You definitely realize that removing credit from the image and transferring it to the post body isn’t identical – else you wouldn’t do it. Yet you’re still advertising for them, just in an intentionally kneecapped way that profits a known-malignant, multibillion-dollar corporation. What you’re doing as a substitute is somehow worse – transferring part of the advertisement to RDDT (136.18).

    No rational way of looking at this makes sense.








    • Argumentative essay full of genericisms (edit: they don’t even say what the restrictions are despite calling them “these restrictions”, which is ludicrous for an essay of this length). Please read this blog post if you haven’t; the arguments are excruciatingly generic, and the wording is robotic and soulless.
    • Brand-new account posting for a brand-new blog website (claiming authorship for it, so I believe it’s them because nobody’s ever heard of this site).
    • No credited author.
    • AI-generated thumbnails (I loved my Lakebird Buf computer in the 90s).
    • Frequent blog posts from one person on an ostensibly unmonetized site with similar article formats:
      • The Long Road to CachyOS: Why I Finally Quit the Microsoft Ecosystem (29 March)
      • From Betamax to Bare Metal: The Origin of The Unknown Universe (30 March)
      • From WordPress Overwhelm to Publii Simplicity: Setting Up My Son’s First Blog (31 March)
      • This represents 3/5 of the articles so far.
    • Uses em-dashes constantly through articles (fine, I use en-dashes a ton) but then, despite flawless grammar everywhere, suddenly switches from “blah — blah” in the articles to “blah—blah” here. Both are grammatically correct, but for someone to suddenly switch after sticking to one would be weird; it’s hard to explain to someone who doesn’t use them, but using the first near-exclusively shows a clear preference to the point the second would likely look and feel weird to write. If you write with perfect or effectively perfect grammar (even here, so it’s not just blog proofreading), you would notice.

    Not related to the LLM thing: “I don’t use social media, as it conflicts with my FOSS and privacy principles.” but then linking a Mastodon account on the website, having a “Share this post” bar with Facebook, Twitter, Whatsapp, and Bluesky, and posting this here is chef’s kiss.






  • TheTechnician27@lemmy.worldtoComic Strips@lemmy.worldClassic Jerry
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    120
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago
    • Directly referencing “furry porn” ✅
    • Saying “porn” ❌
    • Saying “p*rn” ✅

    I don’t care how long this infantile fad goes on for; anyone who does this is fucking pathetic. Either talk about furry porn or don’t, you sniveling coward; it’s your fucking comic. Any “censor” that can OCR the word “porn” will know what “furry p*rn” means; this isn’t even groveling self-preservation.




  • I was skeptical because this is a picture with minimal context:

    • What does the rest of the room look like?
    • What time was this taken at?
    • Who was the speaker, if any at the time?

    So on. For context, the Daily Mirror is a dubiously trustworthy British tabloid. I think this screenshot is lousy evidence for CPAC’s attendance. I watched the Mirror’s video too, and it was still a bit hard to gauge the context.

    However, I found probably a better representation of this from NPR, whose thumbnail image for CPAC 2026 shows Greg Abbott actively speaking (the event was in Dallas), yet huge swaths of the relatively small conference room are empty.

    (Edit: The article also notes that Trump skipped CPAC this year.)


  • Ooooh my god, it’s so bad. Here’s the case view from the Supreme Court of Florida. Their findings are in a PDF under “Findings & Recommendation”.

    On July 28, 2025, Judge Jordan presided over a plea hearing in a felony battery case involving a 33-year-old black female defendant. This was a negotiated plea where the defendant and state agreed that the defendant would complete 30 hours of community service. While discussing possible sanctions with the defendant and her great-uncle (who is also black) who was present at the plea hearing, Judge Jordan inquired:

    THE COURT: Sure. [great-uncle] do you own any land where I could have her work it for 30 hours?

    [GREAT-UNCLE]: (Laughing)

    THE COURT: All my family’s farming. They’d love me out there. You ever—You ever chopped cotton before? You know what that is? You take a hoe and you knock out the weeds. That’ll—That’ll straighten you up real quick doing that stuff.[1]

    All right. Well, no pulling weeds for your great-uncle then. So, let’s move on.

    [1] Judge Jordan explained to the panel that he comes from a farming background where he spent summers in his youth working his relatives [I can’t believe I get to sic the fucking Florida Supreme Court] farm fields in Texas.

    Upon questioning by the Panel, Judge Jordan acknowledged that this was the first and only time he has ever inquired whether a person appearing before him had ever “chopped cotton.” Judge Jordan also acknowledged that his questions and comments in this instance were ill-considered. In particular, Judge Jordan acknowledges that he failed to consider how his comments, as a judge considering whether to order a black defendant to “work the land,” immediately followed by a reference to “chopping cotton,” could have been interpreted (and indeed were interpreted) as inappropriate, especially in light of the historically demeaning stereotype associating black people with picking cotton.

    There were other incidents outlined in the report, but this is the one the headline is referring to.



  • That’s a good point, although I have no idea if that actually matters since you IIRC have to affirmatively consent under the GDPR. I try not to add more browser extensions than I strictly need to (and try to only use very popular ones) to try to have some small defense against fingerprinting (even though that’s rough to avoid these days).

    Browser extensions like Consent-O-Matic also grant yet another piece of software access to nearly every aspect of my digital life – facilitated mainly through the browser – although it being under the MIT License, recommended by Mozilla, and developed by researchers at Aarhaus’ CAVI offset that risk a lot.

    As long as uBO blocks them, that’s good enough for me.


  • Deliciousness is always necessary. You think you’re going to spark change when that neo-Nazi gets a little milkshake in their mouth and doesn’t taste sweet, creamy, ice-cold goodness with a hint of pistachio – transporting them back to the tin roof sundae their parents got them from Ronnie’s to make their boo-boo all better after soccer practice? I don’t think so. Slacktivism like that won’t get you anywhere.


  • You didn’t elaborate, so I’ll do it for you.

    Just Egg tested on rats for mung bean protein isolate, their main ingredient. The testing isn’t ongoing. While they didn’t have to per se (put a pin in that) for FDA approval, other countries like Canada have booted similar products for not using animal testing. And the FDA doesn’t technically require it, but GRAS gives you the options to 1) test on animals or 2) do something else to convince them (they never specify what this is, and from what I’ve heard, with no concrete steps, you’re effectively railroaded into animal testing). This is the same thing Impossible gets so much flak for (with people ironically suggesting switching to Beyond, who didn’t test on animals™ but who use real beef during ongoing taste tests). Impossible tried no-testing and got rejected by the FDA, and we’ll never know if Just Egg did too.

    In the case of Field Roast in Canada, they chose to reformulate with other ingredients that had already been tested on animals before and thus met Canada’s requirements (not introducing new animal testing, but uhhhhhhh). Even if you ignore the previous animal testing because the company wasn’t the one to commit the original sin, it seems clear e.g. with Simply Eggless (which uses lupin beans rather than mung) that you want some kind of bean if you want a homogeneous, mass-market scrambled egg substitute. This was the core ingredient of Just Egg’s product. I’d argue – alongside e.g hard-boiled egg substitutes – such a product is essential to pulling consumers away from the egg industry and making plant-based dieting more convenient for the average person (and in a world where the average person cares much less than you and I, convenience is synonymous with viability).

    PETA – who I’m not listing as a generic appeal to authority to supersede this discussion but as an organization I expect to hold companies to high standards – listed Just Egg as their 2025 company of the year. They note that as of 2025, 500 million eggs’ worth of Just Egg had been sold, which almost certainly wouldn’t have been possible if Just Egg had created some inferior substitute with existing animal-tested products.

    You can cite “The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas” if you want (even then, it’s not perpetual suffering), but it seems like the animal testing was functionally if not strictly necessary, one-time, and opened up mung bean protein isolate for everyone. While Just Egg is practicable to avoid as a product, it’s totally dwarfed in the amount of animal exploitation and suffering created by other common, definitely vegan products (O(1)) is a hell of a drug).


    TL;DR: I blame organizations like the FDA, not Just Egg (plus I made some other points idk).