Oh, okay, that’s interesting and a bit odd but benign. As for who it is, it’s from the American sitcom Married… with Children. I agree it doesn’t look like genAI given the base image since it’s just a cutout of a ski mask and a bandana pasted atop and then… man, I don’t understand the eyes and mouth thing, but I have to say it seems deliberate given the base image had a serviceable mouth and eyes. By the standard that art should elicit an emotional response, it succeeds; it leaves an impression, and I don’t even mean that in a disparaging way.

I’m pretty sure the foundations of it are elsewhere than “They stopped making citations.”

My perspective is that it’s complicated – not a singular foundation, but a major component in a disastrous feedback loop. Lemmy’s news comms, for example, require a (usually quality or quality-enough) source, yet there are constantly comments that aren’t just wrong in that they lacked additional outside context, misread part of the article, maybe stopped midway through, think the article is wrong, just have some overriding bias, etc., but that they read the headline, said “fuck it, we ball”, and wrote 300 words that are totally disproven by the first 100 words of the article; sources clearly aren’t a panacea.

A decade of editing Wikipedia, I think – not remotely some prestigious, exclusive, disciplined experience – has given me a unique perspective on sourcing that’s very divorced from the general public’s (which at best is usually “yeah, that’s a good thing to do because it’s a good thing to do”) but also somewhat divergent from traditionally citation-heavy fields like academia because of both the target audience and inherently near-zero-trust environment. It’s really weird, and the scare quotes around “traumatized” were kind of poking fun at my own experience. Ten years ago, I felt like citations were a tertiary concern that you tacked on at the end out of obligation if someone forced you to; nowadays, for a litany of reasons, sourcing to me is at least coequal with the contents of a work. I don’t think I’d be so ardent about it if I hadn’t undergone such a huge change.*

It’s hard sometimes to keep that passion in, so I try to let it shine through in the form of setting what I think is a positive example (or sometimes taking research way the fuck overboard in a way that’s probably an unrealistic example). However, in the case of the OP – for whom I don’t think “mainly one comm” holds any water given everything on the threadiverse shows up on ‘All’ – I don’t just hope they do better, but I outright expect them to if they’re going to be shoveling dozens of political propaganda leaflets onto the threadiverse’s front page every day. Regardless of their beliefs, this isn’t some casual “uwu I just want to share my politics” couple posts a day on a toilet break thing; this is a dedicated, months-long, obsessive propaganda effort with hundreds upon hundreds of posts. I wasn’t just being smarmy in my earlier comment about them having more time to include a source upon finding out they don’t make these. The fact that they’re not even creating these themselves makes it simultaneously more imperative they include a source (because I’mma be honest, chief, I don’t think they’re actually verifying almost any of this shit even for themselves) and even less onerous than it already minimally was.

* I always have to recognize that this is partly because it is much easier for me now to find and cite sources because I’m so much more practiced than I was. I keep that at the front of my mind when I see others’ work and think it’s undercited.

Normally I’d agree and wouldn’t bitch about it elsewhere if someone were just posting, say, an interesting, innocuous history/science/etc. fact. I routinely try to supplement sourcing on posts where it seems lacking (helps me learn too; it’s mostly not altruistic), and in the rare event I criticize sourcing on those kinds of posts, I like to think it’s pretty tepid unless it’s blatantly egregious like “posting a Discord link to a news community”. I still think they should post it pre-emptively/give some context,* but I won’t begrudge them for not grasping an importance you kind of have to be “traumatized” into internalizing.

In the case of the OP, I know they’re “memes” and that makes it sound innocent, but what they post to Lemmy is a flood of ancom (ansoc?) propaganda – over 30 (not counting normal posts) in the last 24 hours, just as a sanity check that this isn’t a cognitive bias seeing more than there are. I align with OP ideologically in a lot of ways, and that won’t stop me from holding them to the same standard I’d hold any other propagandist to (which, again, is 90% of the reason they’re here). This kind of widespread, coddling, “just memes bro” treatment of digital propaganda leaflets is actively unraveling society; when used by the far-right, in the US alone, “just memes” got Trump elected twice and completely rotted whatever crumbs were left of Republicans’ brains. The profound intellectual laziness that this kind of junk food propaganda perpetuates is terrifying to me, and it even seems like the OP is themself a victim of that.

Sourcing isn’t just a crutch for the incurious and a shortcut for the curious; it establishes a standard whereby the incurious learn to appreciate sourcing – because they can easily access it if they may not know how, call out the OP if they’re wrong instead of blindly accepting, adopt good practices in their own posts, and expect others to do the same. It has a legitimate healing effect in the nigh-apocalyptic media literacy crisis we’re all living through. By contrast, not including sourcing in your barrage of political propaganda has a serious harmful effect on that standard – namely, normalizing a subconscious assumption that taking propaganda at face value as long as you agree with it is totally cool and not horrifically, societally dangeorus.

Like I know this sounds dramatic, but also *gestures broadly at the world on fire right now*

* (or slow down the pace of their posts if it’s that much of a burden; people vastly underestimate how important verifiability/the ability to dig deeper is, and you [general “you”; you have overall good practices] don’t have to spew an avalanche of posts if you can’t maintain quality)

but isn’t this ideology partially responsible for the situation we’re in now?

Welcome to the intent of the propaganda mills creating the easily digested, easily disseminated slop that gets spammed to this community repeatedly and uncritically.

sigh

bapanada

What’s up with his eyes, and why is she wearing a bandana over hers?

The motors make a surprising amount of noise when operating, so LG designed the phone to play a musical chime to hide the sound.

💀

You know what? Fuck off. You don’t know this cop; you don’t know that there’s not a black man handcuffed under that table having the life extinguished from him while the cop plans how best to beat his children when he gets home.

And so what if he isn’t extrajudicially murdering a black man in that image? You don’t know how many died by his hand that day before he sat down on his lunch break. Are cops not humans who deserve breaks now? “Defund the police” because they stopped for a few minutes to have a bite? They’re just supposed to be perfect?

You leftist loonies make me sick. #backtheblue

Oh, wow, that’s a real fucky optical illusion. I saw him holding a couple pieces of paper (like a speech script) sideways, but it also looks exactly like he’s writing on an invisible podium.

Edit: Wait, you meant the kid scribbling onto the stand. What the absolute fuck. lmao

This poor child later starved to death during the Great Leap Forward because they couldn’t get their daily biomass of krill, and you’re making fun of them. Disgusting.

Excellent. Even more time left over to share the source of the information – that you know before posting the meme because why else would you post the meme unless you know it’s true?

Or triplets in January and one in November, or one in January and triplets in November (but it was definitely these two months). She’s crazy – capable of anything.

Bumblebees are pretty gentle, and whereas I used to be extremely scared of bees (and especially bumblebees because of their size), I find them adorable to observe up-close now that I’ve gotten over my fear.

However, the question I would ask regarding petting is: why? When I pet a household dog or a cat, it’s ideally because I think it comforts them, and at worst (if they’re mildly annoyed and I don’t realize), it’s never going to harm them.

For the bee, though, it’s probably strictly uncomfortable for them to have a being 50,000 times their size come up and start putting pressure on them. (Bumblebees can distinguish noxious stimuli, but they do still respond somewhat to regular tactile stimulation; see p.3.)

Their wings and legs are fragile, and it’s not like they can’t be accidentally provoked into stinging you. If they’re just minding their own business, it’s really best to leave them alone, because at best you’re annoying/not comforting them, and at worst you’re physically harming them.

TL;DR: Bumblebees are really cool, but just treat them like you’d treat other wild animals that don’t want to be touched; that you can get so close to them and watch is already a blessing.

Has anyone proven that subway tomatoes, lettuce, etc. are actually nutritionally worse than supermarket equivalents?

If you’re looking toward iceberg lettuce for any kind of nutritional value (which teeeechnically it has) to the extent you’d be worried about a comparison between Subway and grocery, god help you, and I hope either the famine or your sea voyage is over soon.

Here’s the OP’s source (or it might’ve been a proxy like an Al Jazeera piece about this journal article) since crafting AI slop for an immediate, cheap emotional response took precedence over just sharing the source of information so people can actually learn about the horrors they’re alleging to be deeply concerned about.

Can, but it’s a highly sophisticated attack that hasn’t been reported in the wild. This is Ars Technica’s article that I suspect is higher-quality than TechSpot’s (but TechSpot discusses at least one point Ars doesn’t; it isn’t superfluous.)

Not sure if this is a tangent from Xanax or not, but Xanax (alprazolam) is not an antidepressant (just sometimes used off-label as one). It is a benzodiazepine used in the treatment of e.g. panic disorder. A 2012 Cochrane review remarked that the only studies they could find regarding its efficacy for depression were “heterogeneous, of poor quality and only addressed short‐term effects”. Long-term use of benzodiazepines (discouraged) is even believed to lead to depression. Depression and anxiety are often comorbid, and helping one can affect the other; the 2012 review didn’t really understand the mechanism that Xanax was working through. If you’re talking about getting off it, benzos are associated with high risk of both physical and psychological dependency.

Rambling aside, getting off of Xanax compared to getting off common antidepressants like SSRIs and tricyclics is a totally different ballgame.*

* The Cochrane review found withdrawals were less common in Xanax, but they note (given the notably poor evidence): “these findings should be interpreted with caution, given the dependency properties of benzodiazepines.”

That is Marc Brown from ABC 7 Los Angeles, and this old forum thread discusses it a bit. The links are dead, but they mention a Marque Clark, who was arrested for a crime committed in August 2006. So it’s plausibly (but not confirmed) real. Digging through newspapers, it looks like Clark was arrested c. September 20, 2006, assuming he was the one in the sketch.

Nah, @Zorcron@lemmy.zip had basically already answered it; I just decided to follow up.

Big Bird does establish when meeting Mr. Rogers that he likes foot races.