Because accessibility is DEI.

/s

No, it’s that bad actor who showed up in a single Game of thrones episode.

Out of stock

Point and shoot and mirrorless camera are trending again. People realized that it is not about the technical quality of the image, but the experience of actually taking a picture. Cameras don’t have algorithmically tailored infinite content scrolling, and that alone is a plus for a lot of people.

At the same time, dedicated cameras still blow phones out of the water the moment you try to see the pictures in anything larger than a 6" screen. People are also starting to explore the fact that taking 5 thousand pictures that you are never going to see, share or enjoy again is dumb. Instead creating dedicated spaces and ocassions where fewer, higher quality, more sentimental value pictures can be appreciated. Phone’s are woefully inadequate for that purpose, the shadows are always a mess, values are compressed -even when they are shooting fake RAW- and now a lot of fine detail is AI generated. Which looks awful when shown even on the most modest TV screen.

EDIT: Not to mention that phone taken photos look awful when printed. With physical media making a come back, people want better quality images to print and share.

DRM has existed since the DVD era. I think there were even several attempts with VHS before that.

Yeah, let’s forget the 4 decades of terror where everyone lived at the edge under the threat of inminent apocalyptical destruction. Kids had to do nuclear incident drills and we almost had a Doom’s day, twice.

But it’s OK, then the 1% became anti nuclear anyways in order to hold back the transition to fossil free renewables for another two decades. So you can say it was all a 1,5° net positive.

Sure, everything costs effort and money. But not $400 per image download like what some commercial sites want to charge.

There’s two comments mentioning AI, and people happily and cordially correcting them. What the fuck are you on about?

You are the only angst comment here, calling people stupid.

I use it too, but there’s always something that rubs me the wrong way about the developer. Every reply I’ve read from them is either sarcasm, snark or rude dismissal.

The best interview ever.

There’s a whole futures market for this and many other prime matter. Companies, including retailers, buy stocks ahead of time. That’s the original meaning of a stock. The company then fulfills orders as the stocks become due or they get renegotiated for a later date. This is a crucial source of financing for these industries. As they get the cash influx by selling promises of future productivity.

I skim them all. The options I wrote are soft parodies of what each said. There’s a ton of problems with this model of governance, but I’m no voting member, so my opinion has no impact.

That said, it makes it so a single posture has to be voted on in its entirety, which is dumb (as some legislative bodies of the world have proven). As a result, nuance is erased alongside with any sense of ideological vision or compromise, and instead it promotes vagueness in every action and glacial institutions that break slowly break apart.

The very person who wrote the proposal that won reacted to winning with:

I regret the loss of contributors (which would have happened with either option winnign [sic]). It is just too early to take a final decision on the mater [sic]. Let’s revisit this in two years or so, and let this mess of a GR be a warning for our future selves.

The proposal was designed to win time without having to take any real stance while taking the smallest loss of contributors in the process. And thus it was written as the most milketoast nothing burger. When an infinite set of possibilities exists that actually do address real concerns like climate impact, social impacts, copyright and legal problems related to generated code, etc. in relation to the principles and overall values of the project. Instead, they are deferring the practicalities to pull request’s bickering.

But again, I’m not a voting member or contributor. So my opinion is null. I still think the way the process is designed and conducted is stupid and prone to cause the eventual failure of debian via governance collapse.

Do you guys remember PhysX? You needed a whole ass dedicated card for it. NVIDIA has been looking for these outs for a looooooong time.

Gee, I don’t know. Let’s see if that has been said anywhere, shall we?

Sponsorships tell a similar story: men typically get $50,000 annually, while women make about $15,000.

Where does the money come from?

Organisations like FIVB have standardised payouts at major tournaments, but league salaries and endorsement deals remain uneven. Differences will persist until sponsors and broadcasters invest equally.

Why would that this sponsor and broadcaster pay differently?

One of the most significant problems female athletes face has nothing to do with the sport itself. It’s how they’re shown in the media. Far too often, the focus is on their appearance rather than on what they can do. In volleyball, that means more talk about kit choices or body image than actual skill or game stats. It’s frustrating when talent gets pushed aside for appearance.

Would you look at that statement? Maybe there are things beyond the surface level that influence people’s decision making at a structural level?

Over the years, coverage has been overly sexualised, which hasn’t helped. That said, social media has started to shift things.

What Women’s Volleyball Tells Us About Equality in Sport

But what the hell do I know. I’m just a sociologist during his coffee break pondering about how invisible things like social constructs alter individual beliefs and decision making. I’ll go back to work, bye.

The Debian vote was so stupid:

Option A: Psychotic breakdown
Option B: Ethical impracticality
Option C: Political extremism
Option D: Two contradictory things at once
Option E: Something that doesn't prevent the other options but packaged with something nasty and unpalatable
Option F: Sensible but ultimately vague and action-less common place neutrality.
Option G: Nuclear option
Option H: Do nothing

It was such a brain dead exercise in futility. It was designed for the winner from the start.

Nussbaun’s comment on the result is hilariously dull:

On a very personal note, I regret that the winning option does not acknowledge all the legitimate concerns around AI: environmental impact, copyright and licensing uncertainty, the health of Free Software communities, and the strain of aggressive scraping on the open web.

The GR results give us raw numbers about our opinion, and a direction, but we have a lot of work ahead of us to act as a community and understand how we can continue to accommodate the very large minority that would have preferred to ban or discourage AI.

Lucas

¹ obligatory disclosure: the script used is AI-generated

Yeah, the option that doesn’t say anything won. Who knew?…wait yes, mathematicians, they knew. The most important part of a survey is choosing the options carefully.

So, if he dies of poisoning from eating the incorrect plant, Gemini goes to prison? Jim Google is on trial? What is the actual angle here?

Great, none of the articles mention the issue of sponsorship or the gender aspect of bias in sports regulations.

By the way, it’s not cool to link without reading the articles.

Last month, bikini-wearing athletes again made headlines when the European Handball Federation fined Noway’s beach handball team for wearing shorts rather than the required two-piece bathing suits.

There are still problems with the lack of choice, why?

Ultimately, the 2016 FIVB uniform guide actually offers more options for women than it does for men […] who are stuck with a tank top and shorts as their only style choice.

Wouldn’t it be interesting to try to understand why this is this way?

“There are also certain times of the month that wearing a bikini isn’t always such a comfortable option, especially when you’re on TV.”

Interesting testimony. Should we actually ask a follow up question to the person who said this to hear her opinion about why being on TV is a factor…Nope, too late, narrative is done, article is over.

Like, seriously, I’m not talking about infantilizing women or restraining options. Quite the opposite. I’m talking about turning your damn brain on and actually look at the world with curiosity beyond the common places of thought terminating memes, cliches and manufactured narratives. It’s not hard as long as you are focused on actually having healthy discussions instead of being obsessed with being right on the internet (the worst kind of right).

Yes, they are adults. Stop talking about them like they don’t exist, or like they are a single homogeneous lump of objects.

It is entirely possible to discuss sociological concepts and political issues without insulting or infantilizing the people who are involved. Screaming “infantilizing” like a parrot is not an argument.

Which begs the question. If the most efficient equipment to use is a full suit (remembering here the snark skin controversy), why are men not allowed to wear it, but women are.

It is absolutely arbitrary and based on historical gender biases. But that is too complex for some idiots to digest.

No, why would you do that? It is extremely rude to comment on a person’s body unprompted. They get to choose whatever they want to wear. That doesn’t erase the reality of social pressures or its relevance when discussing genre politics.