TheTechnician27
@TheTechnician27@lemmy.world
- Comment on Political Views 1 day ago:
I do have to. Doing otherwise robs you of a chance to someday gradually expose yourself to and appreciate these creatures. Or it at least needlessly ruins someone’s mood.
- Comment on Political Views 1 day ago:
Pseudoscorpions are absolute little goofs, I agree. I’m not sure if that offsets how weird and creepy they are. It’s like I’m giggling and profoundly worried I’m seeing an alien at the same time.
- Comment on Political Views 1 day ago:
“Think of it less like a hierarchy and more like a web.”
- Comment on Political Views 1 day ago:
Be thankful they chose Aranae instead of other arachnid orders.
don't open; tailless whip-scorpion inside
- Comment on claw 5 days ago:
A lot of decapods exhibit heterochely (the claws are formally “chelae” and the legs (“pereopods”) that bear them “chelipeds”). In some taxa, handedness isn’t even consistent within the same species.
There’s a popular focus on heterochely arising because of different food types, but there are nuances. For example, this is often quite different between males and females.
In addition to just being different in size (allometrically), they’re often also different morphologically (in shape). For example, for crabs who prey on bivalves, one claw may be more suited to crushing while the other is more suited to handling, rapid movement, cutting, etc. So it’s not just about how big they are as described in the OP.
There’s often also a major element of sexual selection (Mr. Krabs wasn’t lying), and other major uses of claws depending on species are competition (getting into fights) and burrowing.
Etc.
- Comment on Title of your s*x tape 6 days ago:
OP, you can say “sex”. Your parents aren’t going to put you in time-out.
- Comment on Ice cream 1 week ago:
Häagen-Dogs
- Comment on Who's got the morbs? 1 week ago:
- Comment on No low balling 2 weeks ago:
I saw the word “pickup” and had a brain fart. Yup, you’re right. I’m 99% sure anyway that their pickup trucks in 2006 would’ve been Dodge RAMs.
- Comment on No low balling 2 weeks ago:
The joke is that this is The Onion parodying an obituary, where you remember someone’s life and the people close to them. So instead of saying “he leaves behind [family member(s)]”, they turn it into a Craigslist-style ad for his pickup truck.
- Comment on WrestleMania was running wild on you 2 weeks ago:
most of the money on things that are Wikipedia
Assuming you meant “aren’t Wikipedia”, there are a few aspects to this.
- These are the Wikimedia Foundation’s 2024 financial statements.
- You can see how it’s organized here.
- Here’s a table of salaries. CEO Katherine Maher’s salary is about $790,000, which is very average for this role. Other salaries look average as well.
- I permanently hide donation drive banners in my preferences and so can’t speak to how they’ve been lately (read: last 8-ish years). I remember them being terrible. Genuinely hated them.
- Wikimedia is a lot bigger than just the English Wikipedia; it’s a movement, and one that’s been highly successful in a way it couldn’t have been just through volunteer work. For example, I heavily encourage you to check out Wikipedia’s sister projects sometime. Not all of them are created equal, but Wiktionary for example to me is the best single dictionary in the world. I wish many of these received similar levels of appreciation to Wikipedia. And far from being tacked-on side projects, most of these factor into a coherent ecosystem in their own way.
- The WMF’s legal team in my eyes especially has been phenomenal. The movement I volunteer so many hours for would be heavily fractured and probably dead in the water if it weren’t for them.
- On top of obvious things like developing MediaWiki, I actively want the WMF to be doing outreach through programs like grants. If the WMF just sits by and coasts on hosting costs and maybe MediaWiki bug fixes, it will die. Figuring out how to make editing more inviting, more accessible, and more efficient is crucial not just to keeping Wikipedia alive but its sister projects and even to improving other non-WMF wikis.
In summary, I don’t like the banners but have seen zero issue with how they handle finances. The money donated that’s used beyond maintaining a skeleton crew and keeping the lights on is profoundly useful to me as an editor and directly helps me write the articles that the people donating expect their money to go to.
- Comment on WrestleMania was running wild on you 2 weeks ago:
Some of it’s going to be down to a major news org like the BBC being much more careful to make sure he’s really dead. With Wikipedia, that’s a fuck-up, but almost anyone can make it, and it can easily be undone. With the BBC, that kind of fuck-up would haunt them for years. I’ve also read that Sky News may have been the first to confirm his death. Looking at that edit, the editor didn’t mention a source; they just "was"d him. Bad practice by Wikipedia’s standards but worked out in the end.
I think it’s a point of pride that we can be so up-to-date, but as a tertiary source, we rely on the credibility of secondary sources like the BBC to have any semblance of usability and order. I think we’re running different races, and we couldn’t run ours if they didn’t run theirs.
- Comment on WrestleMania was running wild on you 2 weeks ago:
I don’t have a specific favorite singular edit. If I did, it’d have to be the time I nominated ‘David Joyner (business executive)’ for deletion shortly after the killing of Brian Thompson. Whereas I could’ve waited for things to cool down, I didn’t want to politick. This circulated around BlueSky, well-meaning people who didn’t understand how we handle article inclusion brigaded the discussion, and some moron writing for Gizmodo accused me personally of being a paid CVS shill conspiring to hide Joyner’s name (despite the fact that Joyner’s name was proudly displayed on CVS’ website as the first result in a search engine). The situation was just so stupid.
Favorite series of edits? Definitely the time in 2021 I started a good article review for the article ‘Marjorie Taylor Greene’ and it got so out-of-hand that I ended up overhauling the entire thing because I kept finding problems (well outside the scope of a GA review). I thought it was really good by the time I was done, and it was really satisfying reading an article where MTG bitched at some local rally about her Wikipedia article – a sign I’d done something right.
These two examples aren’t representative of my edits at all.
- Comment on WrestleMania was running wild on you 2 weeks ago:
I’m going to refer you to Wikipedia’s newspaper The Signpost, but if there’s jargon in there that makes no sense, I can clarify. The TL;DR is that the skin Vector (2022) (an update from Vector (2010)) made the interface more flexible to stuff like this, logged-out users could now have preferences, and Wikipedia’s design was all over the place after 20 years of largely decentralized development.
- Comment on WrestleMania was running wild on you 2 weeks ago:
Sometimes you’d think so. It’s actually more delayed than you’d think; major celebrities are often several minutes between major article publication and edit, when theoretically you could speedrun that kind of edit with a source in about two minutes from time of reading the article.
You might’ve seen this, but the editor who changed Henry Kissinger to “was” became such a social media phenomenon that day that her talk page was flooded with “congratulations”. An administrator (being responsible, tbf) had to step in and remove gravedancing, my own included.
Shame this kind of edit isn’t consistent or “Was%” would be a really fun speedrun.
- Comment on WrestleMania was running wild on you 2 weeks ago:
If anyone deserves credit for saving the comm, it’d be @Sunshine@lemmy.ca. She doesn’t post there anymore owing to disagreements with
.world(now posting in other vegan comms), but for a long time, she was the beating heart of /c/vegan. - Comment on WrestleMania was running wild on you 2 weeks ago:
They’re based on edit count and not something meant to be taken seriously. I don’t get any money.
- Comment on WrestleMania was running wild on you 2 weeks ago:
Wikipedia senior here to answer your dumbest Wikipedia-related questions.
- Comment on Toxic community 2 weeks ago:
- Comment on Everybody gets one [choose wisely] 2 weeks ago:
Props for finding one that isn’t generated.
SpongeBob fish pointing and saying “that’s what we’ve been waiting for”
- Comment on Toxic community 2 weeks ago:
Imagine how fucking slimy you’d have to be to say being or becoming pregnant ~85% of the time isn’t “constantly pregnant”
- Comment on Everybody gets one [choose wisely] 2 weeks ago:
A GPT that doesn’t destroy the climate by creating digital pollution?
- Comment on Itch.io apologise for "frustration and confusion" after delisting thousands of NSFW projects 2 weeks ago:
rather than reading an article talking about it
Good as a supplement, but the RPS article gives context itch.io is too much of a cowardly little bitch to include like: “Collective Shout describe themselves as a “grassroots campaigns movement against the objectification of women and the sexualisation of girls”, but are associated with outspokenly homophobic and anti-abortion Christian conservative groups, according to a now-deleted Vice article.”
- Comment on Toxic community 2 weeks ago:
Don’t tell me you’re going to “um ackshually” this because “muh voluntary waiting period0*”. A cow pregnancy lasts approximately 40 weeks. A traditional target for a “calving cycle” (from insemination to insemination) is 52 weeks, and new research shows that a VWP of 50 days is more profitable, bringing this VWP to about 7 weeks rather than 12. That’s either pregnant or attempting artificial insemination for 45 out of 52 weeks, and you know what? I’d say @okwhateverdude@lemmy.world’s comment holds.
Commie, I know you’re chronically a shameless, lying fuck about a specific study because it’s devastating to your case, but can you at least stick to lies that people might believe if you say it with enough absolute, unearned confidence? Imagine how fucking slimy you’d have to be to say being pregnant ~86.5% of the time (with the recovery period calculated to be as ruthlessly minimal as possible) isn’t “constantly pregnant”.
* the VWP is the time after birth but before attempting rebreeding
- Comment on You don’t see articles like this about moms with three two jobs who still manage to take care of their kids. 2 weeks ago:
Maybe I can start building up savings if I work overtime by zoning out of movies and thinking about stocking the grocery store for half an hour…
- Comment on Toxic community 2 weeks ago:
What the fuck are you talking about, and why is this garbage upvoted? Prolactin can affect milk yield. But “they are not pregnant” is absolutely categorical horseshit. You’ve either bought a lie or are lying. Look at that paper and see the disgusting, brutal efficiency with which the dairy industry researches how best to precisely rape and forcibly impregnate cows for dairy production so they can eke out fractions of a cent on each gallon sold.
“Soy will give you boobs.” “Prolactin without pregnancy can drive commercial milk production.” I’ll bet transfems wish they could live in this universe of bizarre misconceptions about an omnivorous lifestyle.
- Comment on Toxic community 2 weeks ago:
brb renaming /c/vegan to /c/milkracists
- Comment on Must be lvl 11 genius 2 weeks ago:
Heheheh, squirm all you want, plebian worms of the 199th percentile and below, knowing you’ll never see the hippo. Now if you’ll excuse me I have to go accept my 52nd PhD in hippopotamology from Cornellvard.
- Comment on Anon's grandpa does his own research 4 weeks ago:
- Comment on It's just loss. 4 weeks ago:
I’m going to go brutally murder and deep-fry my dog just to cancel out whatever grass you ate today, you foolish vegoon! something something lions something desert island grumble grumble muh canines
