jsomae

joined 3 months ago
[–] [email protected] 1 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

It would need to be at least 120:100 right

[–] [email protected] 1 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

What's level 3?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 21 hours ago

He had me until the very last part of that quote.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 days ago

Ok then it's a more easy to use GIMP.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (3 children)

Yeah I mean it's just a more easy to use Photoshop basically.

I agree people need to understand better the privacy risks of social media.

When you put out photos of yourself on the internet you should expect anyone to find them and do whatever they want to them.

Expect, yeah I guess. Doesn't mean we should tolerate it. I expect murder to happen on a daily basis. People editing images of me on their own devices and keeping that to themself, that's their business. But if they edit photos of me and proliferate, I think it becomes my business. Fortunately, there are no photos of me on the internet.

Edit: I basically agree with you regarding text content. I'm not sure why I feel different about images of me. Maybe because it's a fingerprint. I don't mind so much people editing pictures I post that don't include my face. Hmm.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 2 days ago (4 children)

Yeah, they could have applied a logarithm or something.

[–] [email protected] 34 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I'd prefer to see downloads per country per capita.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 2 days ago (5 children)

This sounds like a cool idea because it is a novel approach, and it appeals to my general heuristic of the inevitability of technology and freedom. However, I don't think it's actually a good idea. People are entitled privacy, on this I hope we agree -- and I believe this is because of something more fundamental: people are entitled dignity. If you think we'll reach a point in this lifetime where it will be too commonplace to be a threat to someone's dignity, I just don't agree.

Not saying the solution is to ban the technology though.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 days ago (2 children)

I found around 150 hours in I was suddenly able to break free from the curse. Don't install mods.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago

All good. Yeah I think morality is not really something religion helps with.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago (2 children)

I'm not sure how that relates to what I said. Morality ≠ mortality.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 4 days ago (4 children)

It is very difficult to accept mortality if you don't believe in an afterlife. Religion brings comfort, and comfort improves mental health (at the cost of some delusion).

 

In a poll on hexbear (see link), it was observed that there are very few cis women on Lemmy. I think this is the intersection of several problems:

  • engagement of women on Reddit was always low
  • fewer women in computer science
  • I'm hesitant to recommend anything fediversy to people who don't tinker with computers like I do and thus might need a more handholdy UX.

I gather that transgender people tend to be more into CS, though I don't see why that explains entirely such an astonishing presence of the transgender community on Hexbear.

Anyway, I just thought I'd open the floor to brainstorming.

19
submitted 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
 

The fool jingled miserably across the floor

(Art by canisbeans. Text exerpt from Wyrd Sisters by Terry Pratchett.)

 

Safety tips:

  • Only use special eclipse glasses; regular sunglasses aren't safe
  • Wait for 100% totality before taking off your eclipse glasses. (If you don't have eclipse glasses, wait for totality before looking at all)
  • Have a timer prepared on your phone set to the duration of the eclipse at your location, so you know when to put your glasses back on.
  • When the sun is mostly (but not fully) eclipsed, it will likely not feel painful to look at it, but it will still damage your eyes permanently.
view more: next ›