tyler
@tyler@programming.dev
- Comment on What would be ancient ways to properly store vitamin C? 22 hours ago:
Yeah. Fruit…
- Comment on Bird Calls 2 days ago:
Correct, it also could have been a call for a predator approaching. In other words, life or death.
- Comment on Why is land/sky so cleanly split between mammals/birds? 1 week ago:
There’s a lot of good answers here but there’s some missing things as well.
To start with, there was a separate category of flying dinosaur, those with ‘fingers’. They could climb trees, grasp things, etc. They were large and heavy. The heaviness was due to the increased weight that these joints added, including in their legs. When disaster struck, the lighter dinosaurs (descendants of today’s Aves) were able to escape the disaster due to reduced energy usage, snapper energy requirements, etc. The heavier ones were not.
Second, there are a lot of categories that birds fall into. Like others have said, birds in isolation eventually revert to flightlessness. It’s advantageous.
I’m not sure why you think mammals/birds are the dividing line either. There are many animals that “fly” that aren’t birds (bugs, bats), and there are many mammals that aren’t on land as well (whales, bats, etc).
I feel like your question is maybe more a question of “why are mammals so dominant” which probably comes down to many differences in avian biology, adaptations that explicitly make life easier in the sky vs land. Better usage of oxygen, ability to lay eggs out of reach of predators, explicit bone structure for flying. Flightless birds have lost many of these things. Mammals have other adaptations that make life easier for them on land. Trying to cross this boundary usually results in disaster for the evolutionary line and so it doesn’t happen.
- Comment on YSK that Gerrymandering allows politicians to choose their own voters. In many countries, it's illegal. Gerrymandering is common in the United States 1 week ago:
not in proportional representation… If half the people are rural and half are urban and vote for different people then 50% of the representatives represent each side, no matter how the land is divided.
- Comment on GitHub CEO delivers stark message to developers: Embrace AI or get out. 1 week ago:
Company I worked at went through 5 CTOs in 4 years. 5.
- Comment on Florida sues some of the biggest porn platforms, accusing them of not complying with the state's age verification law 1 week ago:
Well that’s a really bad example you gave because gun laws explicitly cover that exact case federally. This is more like book banning. Books are banned in your state, not mine, you come and buy them here and take them back there.
- Comment on hygiene 1 week ago:
Wait are you suggesting I put a crumb tray under my chair or that my chair already has a crumb tray and I never noticed?
- Comment on Australia to ban under-16s from YouTube 2 weeks ago:
You’re the one redefining history dude. Even another person in this comment section is telling you how it never meant that to start with. You linked an article from a business school that literally makes up history. Your “source” calls the General Motors blog “social media”.
- Comment on Australia to ban under-16s from YouTube 2 weeks ago:
The dictionary definitions are rewriting history based on a word that hadn’t even been coined yet. They created a definition which retroactively lumped nearly the entire internet under that term. It’s incorrect and unhelpful to do so.
Exactly. The ‘academic’ source that roguetrick (not who you replied to) supplied that apparently ‘37 thousand citations’ are using, was written in 2009 and states that Usenet was a social networking site. Just a complete rewrite of history. Notably that ‘academic’ source was from a business school.
As someone who was around and heavily involved in tech during the bbs days, then walled garden services, then internet forums, THEN social networking and media, I agree not with you but with the prior comment.
Thank you for understanding my point of view. This is complete rewriting of history by (mostly) news corporations that serve only to make people mad. And ‘social media’ became an easy buzzword to refer to anything that had something wrong with it. This got very bad in the past 5-10 years (time passes weird now).
However, given that language changes and us old geeks don’t make the rules, “social media” now indeed includes the entire internet. I can’t argue with the dictionary, but I can explain the reasoning behind my disagreement with the term. I think that’s the same the last person was saying.
you can argue with the dictionary, that’s what I’m doing here. A term that refers to everything under the sun is a meaningless word, especially when it’s weaponized against its citizens, exactly like the UK is doing with ‘social media’ currently, by having it literally encapsulate every website out there, but making citizens think that it doesn’t. The only way you convince the dictionary to change is by telling people that social media doesn’t mean forums. That social media doesn’t mean YouTube. That social media doesn’t mean Wikipedia. (I have some other words I’d like to argue as well, but they’re completely unrelated to this thread).
So that’s what I’m doing here. Telling people that including these things in this all encompassing meaningless word not only devalues the word, but makes it so that politicians can fuck us over anytime they want by using the ‘social media’ boogeyman, and then firewalling Wikipedia, or anandtech.com, or fordf150ownersforum.com, etc.etc.etc.
- Comment on Australia to ban under-16s from YouTube 2 weeks ago:
nah I’ve never ‘gathered a misunderstanding’ of it. Somewhere in the past 5 years, everyone and their mom has started referring to idiotic things as being social media, like roguetrick claiming that Wikipedia is social media (they even provided an ‘academic’ source (from a school of business mind you)).
Social media must be a subset of social networking because the literally concept of a ‘social’ website implies networking. So if all you’re adding to the social element is ‘media’ (rather than just text, like Twitter), then it is by definition a subset. If you see ‘adding’ media as expanding the category, rather than restricting the set of social networking sites to only those with sharing of media, then sure I could see how you think that social networking sites must be a subset of the media sites, since they don’t have media. But I see it as a subset of sites that allow for connections and follows of other users, which would make it a subset in the direction I stated.
From your post history, you’re not generally this obtuse, dying on this hill is frankly silly with the mountain of evidence against you.
I honestly do not care what ‘mountain of evidence’ there is. Some things people are just frankly idiots about and it doesn’t matter what the actual justification for it is, in the current world it’s dumb to continue calling it that. I can give two other examples if you would like, where the majority of people in any given region might refer to something as but it makes no sense from any logical, political, social, ethical, moral, legal, etc. standpoint. The only reason being historical (or etymological), which frankly is a dumb reason, especially in this day and age. We should use words so that they communicate something.
If ‘social media’ refers to anything that exists on the internet (which by the arguments I’ve seen so far, it would literally include 99.99% of websites out there) then it’s a pointless, meaningless word that serves only for politicians to use as a battering ram to remove civil liberties and personal freedoms from citizens. Instead of a law stating “You are now required to verify your ID on every website on the internet” they instead can state “You are now required to verify your ID on social media sites” and then that suddenly includes Wikipedia, World of Warcraft, a website bookmarking service called Delicious, and the General Motors blog site (all of these according to roguetrick’s ‘academic’ source of what social media is)! What is the point of the word if it refers to anything and everything under the sun…
- Comment on Australia to ban under-16s from YouTube 2 weeks ago:
hahaha omg. you literally provide a source stating that Wikipedia is social media! fuck off, you really have no clue how dumb that is do you? what is the point of the word if literally every website on the internet is grouped in it. Like I said, just call it a website then.
Jesus Christ, since you’ve never heard it obviously it must not exist.
Nah I just wanted you to provide a shit source so I could mock it (thanks for providing a shit source so I could mock it).
fyi: number of citations has nothing to do with how credible it is. It often can be used to refute a paper, especially if it’s making such an insane claim as “wikipedia is social media”
- Comment on Australia to ban under-16s from YouTube 2 weeks ago:
It has always been the case. Please provide a few sources for your claim of “academic and long accepted meaning of social media” because as far as I’ve seen the only places calling these things social media are you and news sites. And I’ve literally never even heard a news corp call fucking Wordpress “social media” because that’s so meaningless even they aren’t dumb enough to do that.
- Comment on Australia to ban under-16s from YouTube 2 weeks ago:
Social media is a subset of social networking. Twitter -> social networking. It’s not social media. Anyone claiming that fucking Wordpress or LiveJournal is social media is out of their goddamn mind. Just because you’re talking to someone in a comment section doesn’t mean it’s a social networking site and it sure as hell doesn’t mean it’s social media.
Social media -> a social networking site where the majority of users are sharing media. Example: Flickr. A literal social networking site built around all users sharing their photos. YouTube -> not social media, barely a percentage point of users are commenting much less making their own videos. It’s more akin to a TV station than any sort of social site, and this is readily apparent when you actually compare it to TV show websites!
Social media was never a broad Web 2.0 term, how old are you!? It literally referred to sites like MySpace where you friended others and put fucking MEDIA on your goddamn profile page! It has never once included anything like LJ or WP and that’s such a backwards rewriting of history it’s pretty apparent you’re just saying shit to make it match up with the definition you have in your mind.
- Comment on Australia to ban under-16s from YouTube 2 weeks ago:
I honestly do not give one shit what merriam Webster says, nor any dictionary. It’s an idiotic way to describe what amounts to almost every website on the Internet. That definition includes personal blogs and news websites for fucks sake. You might as well just say “website” because that’s just as descriptive.
Merriam-Webster added that as a definition because that’s how people started referring to everything they did or didn’t like. It’s not because it’s the actual definition or even a good definition.
- Comment on Australia to ban under-16s from YouTube 2 weeks ago:
This law will just make the problem worse. It says that <16 won’t be able to have accounts. Not being logged into YouTube means you get the worst algorithm imaginable.
- Comment on Australia to ban under-16s from YouTube 2 weeks ago:
None of those are social media. God I fucking hate how we’ve somehow gotten to the place where anywhere with people on the internet talking to each other are always defined as “social media”. A comment section or a forum aren’t fucking social media. They’re comment sections, or forums. Reddit is a forum. Lemmy is a forum. Slashdot is a forum.
Calling all those things social media just makes the term completely meaningless.
- Comment on Anker is no longer selling 3D printers 2 weeks ago:
yeah it’s true, but anker has been having a lot of recalls lately. And when the product costs 1/5 the price on aliexpress/baba then it might be worth it for some things.
- Comment on I highlighted the VPN part so that everyone knows to not use them 2 weeks ago:
I very much doubt it has anything to do with being a citizen. The law would apply to the company making the statements itself.
- Comment on I highlighted the VPN part so that everyone knows to not use them 2 weeks ago:
You didn’t read the second sentence of that quote.
- Comment on Anker is no longer selling 3D printers 2 weeks ago:
I learned the other day that anker just rebrands/white-labels alibaba level products.
- Comment on I highlighted the VPN part so that everyone knows to not use them 2 weeks ago:
www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1k81lj8nvpo
According to Ofcom, platforms must not host, share or permit content encouraging use of VPNs to get around age checks. The government told the BBC under the Online Safety Act, it will be illegal for platforms to do this.
Ofcom is the regulator so I’m guessing they read the law a little more closely than you.
- Comment on "Bringing your games to other platforms is how you’re going to win" - Circana 2 weeks ago:
Uhhhhh. Yeah, yeah they are. lol. Like, what a weird thing to claim.
- Comment on I highlighted the VPN part so that everyone knows to not use them 2 weeks ago:
Not who you’re responding to but techlinked called out that it’s illegal as well and showed the legislation text in their video. But if you’re not implementing the ID check in the first place then mentioning vpns doesn’t matter at all. I can’t even get your link to load.
- Comment on "Bringing your games to other platforms is how you’re going to win" - Circana 2 weeks ago:
I’m not talking about being able to run on those other hardware. I’m talking about Nintendo devs literally being able to write code for that other hardware. You expand to numerous platforms you get more bugs. You need more devs. You need devs that know more platforms. It has nothing to do with Nintendo gimmicks. It has to do with building for more platforms just by default being more buggy (which is exactly what happens).
- Comment on "Bringing your games to other platforms is how you’re going to win" - Circana 2 weeks ago:
Nintendo’s exclusives likely wouldn’t work as well on other consoles or would show significant bugs or problems. Their games are purpose built for their hardware.
- Comment on YSK Billionaire Rupert Murdoch owns Sky News, The New York Post, The Sun, The Times,Fox News and the Wall Street Journal. He is the most powerful businessman in the West 3 weeks ago:
Owns more than just that. Owns the entire Dow Jones as well, which explains a lot.
- Comment on Nintendo touts high employee retention rate after loss of Microsoft jobs rocks Xbox Game Studios 3 weeks ago:
Your numbers are so far off as to be meaningless. If the real numbers are half that, and you compare to their competitors, then it’s an entirely different story. The numbers you provide are completely integral to your argument, and your numbers being so wrong means you’re just complaining about nothing.
- Comment on Do you still remember? 4 weeks ago:
To anyone reading this, generate a password for your security answer and stick it in your password manager. It’s safer than trying to remember a fake security answer and much safer than using a real security answer.
- Comment on Bring them back!!! 4 weeks ago:
It is 100% capitalism’s fault. Those scientists are doing a job because we live in a society that necessitates having one to meet our basic needs.
absolutely not…
Your take is grade-school level simplistic that just assumes they simply have to be bad people instead of understanding the complexities of systemic forces that dictate our society.
no. My take is that if you remove capitalism, can the bad science still occur? Is it possible at all for it to occur? Yes. Since the scientists are the ones doing the science. It’s not business doing the science, it’s not capitalists doing the science. It’s the scientists doing the science.
And they don’t have to be bad people at all. They just have to not think about the consequences of their actions. Inattentive, ignorant, unable to think more than a few minutes into the future. None of these things make them bad people. But it does make them bad scientists. And it does make the science bad.
Please, for the love of God, learn to look beyond the surface of something and learn why things are the way they are instead of just assuming nonsense.
holy shit, you’re the one not looking beyond the surface of something. Capitalism is always the boogie man for people like you. Like for fucks sake dude, scientists can be bad. Science can be bad! We literally have bad scientists in the white house right now claiming all sorts of shit that is going to get people killed! And it has nothing to do with capitalism. RFK Jr literally believes the bullshit he says, and it’s because of bad science, not because he’s being paid to say it.
Think about Jurassic Park like this: if those scientists were given those tools and told to build a park and told they weren’t going to be paid for it, but all the tools they needed would be given to them, could the park be built? Now ask the exact same question but replace scientists with “capitalist”: “if capitalists were given science tools and told to build a park and told they weren’t going to be paid for it, but all the tools they needed would be given to them, could the park be built.”
The answer is incredibly clear. Without the scientists, the park would never be built. It doesn’t matter how much money exists on the planet. It doesn’t matter if it’s capitalism, communism, anarchism, whatever-fucking-system, the park isn’t being built without the bad science. It doesn’t matter how many other employees you put on that island, the park isn’t getting built without the bad science.
- Comment on Bring them back!!! 4 weeks ago:
That’s just a dumb way to act like those scientists don’t have a will of their own. Those scientists have ethics (or a lack thereof). They have their own will. They are not forced to work on the project that has no scientific outcome. They’re either working on it because they’re bad scientists, because they’re evil, or because they think it’s cool. All of which is bad science. It’s not capitalism’s fault. It’s unethical scientists.