lmmarsano
@lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com
- Comment on European Commission preparing token gesture for angry gamers and game developers 1 day ago:
- healthcare: lives & health at stake
- agriculture: environment & health at stake
- video games: ?
one of these is not like the others
sorry, bruh: on a scale from critically important to idgaf, this ain’t ranking
- Comment on European Commission preparing token gesture for angry gamers and game developers 1 day ago:
Nope, and the suckers who did can suck big, fat ones.
- Comment on Tesseract is shutting down 1 day ago:
(especially) the demographic thereof
Yeah, fuck the demographic. Still beats reddit nonsense.
- Comment on Elon Musk’s Grok Is Calling for a New Holocaust | The chatbot is also praising Hitler and attacking users with Jewish-sounding names. 3 days ago:
basic physics too hard
basically
- Comment on Elon Musk’s Grok Is Calling for a New Holocaust | The chatbot is also praising Hitler and attacking users with Jewish-sounding names. 4 days ago:
How do you control the course of a failing rocket?
The fact remains that a physical potential is present in what is technically a missile of significant weight carrying enough explosive substance to escape orbit that is entirely absent from words. The difference between non-0 and 0 possibility of death.
- Comment on Elon Musk’s Grok Is Calling for a New Holocaust | The chatbot is also praising Hitler and attacking users with Jewish-sounding names. 5 days ago:
reading comprehension: none
- Comment on Elon Musk’s Grok Is Calling for a New Holocaust | The chatbot is also praising Hitler and attacking users with Jewish-sounding names. 5 days ago:
Musk himself seems to abhor guardrails generally—except in cases where guardrails help him personally—preferring to hurriedly ship products, rapid unscheduled disassemblies be damned. That may be fine for an uncrewed rocket, but X has hundreds of millions of users aboard.
- Grok: writes embarrassing words.
- Rockets: can weigh hundreds of metric tons, carry explosive chemicals, can crash into populated areas resulting in loss of life.
In this discourse, anyone else find a broken sense of proportion & consequences at stake?
- Comment on King forgot his crown 6 days ago:
- image of text: there’s this cool alternative called text that doesn’t break the web or accessibility. linking to source & quoting text makes an altogether better web for everyone.
- dictionary definition: not an official, legal definition.
- Comment on Does people doing things that upset others also upset you? 1 week ago:
Bans are rarely justified. Strong emotions aren’t a good reason to ban much. If there are minimally invasive alternatives, and we can let others be, that’s typically better.
Emotions aren’t a good reason for anything, really. I prefer to understand & make sense of feelings before I allow myself to indulge them in myself or others.
Judgement of right & wrong can operate on reason, and it’s better that it does.
- Comment on Does people doing things that upset others also upset you? 1 week ago:
No, not in general: too much unjustified outrage & idiocy in the world over unreasonable shit. Karens, bigots, culture warriors, pearl clutchers.
There are also legitimate differences in the world, and we need to respect rights to dissent & differ.
They need to be justifiably upset. Only then is it understandable. However, getting upset over it is not generally a good move: it may lead to poor decisions. Better to stay collected, acknowledge the problem, apply fair judgement to correct the matter.
- Comment on THIS describes too many people today 1 week ago:
lemmy?
- Comment on In 6 hours it will be illegal to say "I support Palestine Action" in the UK, with a sentence of up to 14 years in prison. 1 week ago:
Acts dangerous to human life don’t require actual casualties: if people need to leave to avoid death or injury, then that’s an act dangerous to human life.
- Comment on In 6 hours it will be illegal to say "I support Palestine Action" in the UK, with a sentence of up to 14 years in prison. 1 week ago:
I see: that technically could.
- Comment on In 6 hours it will be illegal to say "I support Palestine Action" in the UK, with a sentence of up to 14 years in prison. 1 week ago:
creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public
I don’t know: it’s possible. If legal definitions & case law (which I don’t know enough about) don’t settle their meaning, then they could mean anything. A lawyer could clarify.
- Comment on In 6 hours it will be illegal to say "I support Palestine Action" in the UK, with a sentence of up to 14 years in prison. 1 week ago:
They are not being charged because they protested, they’re being charged for breaking in and damaging a lot of military equipment. I think it’s a bit far to call them terrorists, but you can sort of see the government’s point, if you squint.
Out of curiosity, I looked up the US Federal definition of terrorism
definition
> 5. the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that- > 1. involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; > 2. appear to be intended- > 1. to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; > 2. to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or > 3. to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and > 3. occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States
The element danger to human life is missing, so it wouldn’t fit their definition.
However, the UK legal definition
definition
> 1. In this Act “terrorism” means the use or threat of action where— > 1. the action falls within subsection (2), > 1. the use or threat is designed to influence the government [or an international governmental organisation][^F1] or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and > 1. the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious [, racial][^F2] or ideological cause. > 1. Action falls within this subsection if it— > 1. involves serious violence against a person, > 1. involves serious damage to property, > 1. endangers a person’s life, other than that of the person committing the action, > 1. creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or > 1. is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system. > 1. The use or threat of action falling within subsection (2) which involves the use of firearms or explosives is terrorism whether or not subsection (1)(2) is satisfied. > 1. In this section— > 1. “action” includes action outside the United Kingdom, > 1. a reference to any person or to property is a reference to any person, or to property, wherever situated, > 1. a reference to the public includes a reference to the public of a country other than the United Kingdom, and > 1. “the government” means the government of the United Kingdom, of a Part of the United Kingdom or of a country other than the United Kingdom. > 1. In this Act a reference to action taken for the purposes of terrorism includes a reference to action taken for the benefit of a proscribed organisation.
is wild: no danger to human life required, merely serious damage to property suffices!
[^F1]: Words in s. 1(1)(2) inserted (13.4.2006) by Terrorism Act 2006 (c. 11), s. 34; S.I. 2006/1013, art. 2 [^F2]: Words in s. 1(1)(3) inserted (16.2.2009) by Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 (c. 28), ss. 75(1)(2)(a), 100(5) (with s. 101(2)); S.I. 2009/58, art. 2(a)
- Comment on I am looking to broaden my youtube channels that I follow. What female channel are you following? 1 week ago:
Language policing of this sort is a red flag indicative of an ignorant, contentious trendhopper picking a fight over conventional English usage.
It’s conventional usage:
we can check the dictionary
> # female > noun > > 1. > 1. a female person : a woman or a girl > 2. an individual of the sex that is typically capable of bearing young or producing eggs > 2. a pistillate plant > # male > noun > > 1. > 1. a male person : a man or a boy > 2. an individual of the sex that is typically capable of producing small, usually motile gametes (such as sperm or spermatozoa) which fertilize the eggs of a female > 2. a plant having stamens but no pistils
or plainly observe unsolicited speech productions
- here on lemmy or in the news such as where a mother refers to her daughters as females
“What if I would have been armed,” she said. “You’re breaking in. What am I supposed to think? My initial thought was we were being robbed—that my daughters, being females, were being kidnapped. You have guns pointed in our faces. Can you just reprogram yourself and see us as humans, as women? A little bit of mercy. […]"
- in singles communities, personals, classifieds, marketplaces offer abundant instances
- in book titles & passages containing the word females or males, especially feminist or gender studies literature.
What good cause is advanced by treating nouns female & male as toxic, dirty words?
This kind of language policing is misguided & exhausting, and we need to police that.
- here on lemmy or in the news such as where a mother refers to her daughters as females
- Comment on Having the ability to lie and manipulate with no remorse will get you much further in this world than having morals and being correct 1 week ago:
Or goodness is its own reward?
- Comment on School legend 1 week ago:
More like present day recognizer of dat ass.
- Comment on School legend 1 week ago:
This is what happens when you let children watch the Tate brothers.
Or hear the kid out: dat ass. 😎
- Comment on Ted Cruz's plan to punish states that regulate AI shot down in 99-1 vote 1 week ago:
If you killed Ted Cruz on the floor of the Senate, and the trial was in the Senate, nobody would convict you.
―Lindsey Graham
- Comment on Facts and minds 1 week ago:
Winning a public debate
Never claimed “winning” mattered. Only that we can show facts don’t support a fool’s conclusion (ie, “show they’re a fool”). Whether others care to recognize that or let themselves get misled by invalid rhetoric is up to them: some have better discernment than others. We’re just offering people opportunities when they’re ready not to suck as hard. Humans still gonna human.
- Comment on Facts and minds 1 week ago:
Changing someone’s mind in a public debate isn’t necessary to show everyone they’re a fool. That’s usually enough.
Whether they ever get sick of being a fool is entirely up to them. If they’re wise & mature, they will & maybe even admit it. Some people never do & it’s mostly their problem at that point.
- Comment on A.I. Is Starting to Wear Down Democracy | Content generated by artificial intelligence has become a factor in elections around the world. Most of it is bad, misleading voters & discrediting elections 2 weeks ago:
Maybe people need to learn to not suck as bad, check their sources, ask questions like how do I know this is true?
Basic shit we should have learned long before we reach adulthood? 🤷
- Comment on You know which voice to use. We all know which voice to use. 2 weeks ago:
Unless someone watched Borat or recognizes some Dune character (I haven’t & don’t), this context is shit, so I can’t?
- Comment on You know which voice to use. We all know which voice to use. 2 weeks ago:
Someone explain this bullshit?
- Comment on (☞ﾟヮﾟ)☞ 3 weeks ago:
You had me pondering…yes, quotation dash: it is a thing in English, just less common!
Please disregard what I wrote before: you had it almost correct, but use em dashes
—as you suggested before. Some OSes offer nice character pickers for less common punctuation: for example, Windows summons it with WindowsKey+.. Apologies. - Comment on (☞ﾟヮﾟ)☞ 3 weeks ago:
It’s not realistic for all users to follow semantics
Not realistic for users to write lists the normal way that doesn’t look wrong? I don’t know guys
-first -second -third
looks obviously bad whereas
- first - second - third
looks right. Then you see the rendered result in preview.
I don’t think this is asking much.
If you weren’t trying to write a list, though, then I don’t know what you were doing & I doubt a chat bot will either: could you link to an example of what you were trying to do? For all you know, I’m a chat bot not figuring out your intent. No technology is about to fix PEBKAC.
I think the bottom line is if you write lists normally, then everything else including accessibility will turn out right without you needing to understand the intricacies.
- Comment on Seriously, it was all the rage back when I joined my first instance. 3 weeks ago:
clever
You use that word…
- Comment on (☞ﾟヮﾟ)☞ 3 weeks ago:
Good question: for basic accessibility, structure should be conveyed, which adds
when technologies support programmatic relationships, it is strongly encouraged that information and relationships be programmatically determined
The web supports programmatic relationships through correct markup, so the technique using semantic elements to mark up structure applies, specifically by using ol, ul and dl for lists or groups of links or the markdown equivalent.
If you want to experience this yourself, then put on a blindfold, use a screenreader & compare your “list” to mine.
- Comment on (☞ﾟヮﾟ)☞ 3 weeks ago:
So breaking accessibility for the heck of it? How forward-thinking.