TheTechnician27
@TheTechnician27@lemmy.world
- Submitted 23 hours ago to [deleted] | 1 comment
- Comment on photopea.com now locks out users blocking ads 1 week ago:
I didn’t “think I got you”; I was leading into something: what was it about Photopea prior to this that made them fundamentally different from Digikam, Slackware, and discuss.tchncs? I’ve donated to Lemmy too and various other FOSS projects, so I authentically appreciate that your donations strengthened that interconnected ecosystem.
You clearly got plenty of use out of them, indicating how integral this apparently was into your workflow. You don’t show any indication you had problems with the Photopea maintainer’s actions or attitude before this. Was it the fact that Photopea isn’t FOSS? I’d agree it’s a huge difference, but at the same time, they’re basically free as in beer, and you weren’t just idly not paying them; you were actively using their finite resources. Wouldn’t you agree that, even if you don’t want to give money to proprietary software (assuming again that’s the reason), they at least deserve to break even? If so, you could’ve just whitelisted them on uBO. But I also resent digital advertising for ethical reasons and because it’s a vector for malware, so I’d understand not wanting to turn off uBO and not wanting to give €5/month in compensation. But then it looks like, despite being plenty familiar with the FOSS ecosystem, you never gave it a fair shake. You just called GIMP icky and didn’t do the bare minimum level of searching that’d tell you ImageMagick exists for batch edits.
So realistically, it sounds like you were never going to support the Photopea maintainer regardless of what they did or how they acted, and now that they’ve cut you off from using their service for free, you’re acting like this is some kind of principled stance rather than being a lazy, entitled cheapskate.
- Comment on photopea.com now locks out users blocking ads 1 week ago:
I am not financially supporting developers who act like this.
Are you financially supporting literally any developers at all? You made it clear you were not paying for a Photopea subscription and were using uBO, so there’s not a carrot or a stick here for the maintainer of Photopea (I guess there’s a very tiny carrot for losing you as a user in that you’re not using their resources). I mean that as a genuine question, by the way:
- What software that you use have you paid for and/or donated to?
- Was it because you had to, or because you felt strongly that they deserved compensation for their work?
- Did you ever at any point stop giving said software maintainer money when you felt they were no longer acting in a way that comports with your standards?
- Comment on photopea.com now locks out users blocking ads 1 week ago:
I don’t really understand why you’re using ad-supported proprietary software that you’ve never paid a dime for (or given a dime to, since you use uBO), claiming that you don’t use GIMP or Krita instead because the former “is terrible” and the latter isn’t meant for cropping (a trivial, fundamental feature of the software), and then acting entitled to use the Photopea author’s own personal work with zero compensation. So you have free alternatives, refuse to do even the bare minimum to learn how to use them, and then go full “you took my only food; now I’m gonna starve” when Photopea’s author stops you from using their own site for free that they run and maintain at their own expense.
If anything, you seem ignorant and entitled, and I say that from the perspective of someone who resents digital advertising and proprietary software.
- Comment on photopea.com now locks out users blocking ads 1 week ago:
It’s 100% grammatically correct, for what it’s worth. If it helps, swap the two comma-separated components: “Turn them off, please.”
- Comment on And the pre-peeled containers for 4x the price are a ripoff 2 weeks ago:
No, pomegranates are actually very healthy. They’re rich in polyphenols (a class of antioxidant), fiber, and a variety of micronutrients, and they have a low glycemic index.
- Comment on And the pre-peeled containers for 4x the price are a ripoff 2 weeks ago:
“And just beat the devil out of it.”
- Submitted 2 weeks ago to [deleted] | 32 comments
- Comment on oh cool 2 weeks ago:
Juno was mad, he knew he’d been had…
- Comment on Why didn't he just call on his powers to stop the bullet? 4 weeks ago:
Here’s what a 7.62x63 (“.30-06”) does to level III armor (think basic rifle protection, the kind that would actually stop the round that hit Kirk). This particular one is a large, very conspicuous plate of steel 8.5 mm thick and weighing 4 kg. You don’t just slot this in under your shirt and look inconspicuous.
And it would have to have been hard armor, i.e. a rigid plate. Soft armor 1) wouldn’t have stopped that round (that’d be more like a step down to level IIIA on the high end) and 2) would’ve embedded the round rather than ricocheting it.
- Comment on Why didn't he just call on his powers to stop the bullet? 4 weeks ago:
Firstly, the burden of proof says it’s their job to demonstrate that Kirk was wearing a bulletproof vest in the first place (let alone that the bullet struck him in it first), not yours to debunk it. We’ve really lost sight of how important this is in recent years.
- There’s zero evidence Kirk was wearing body armor whatsoever.
- I don’t think we’ve ever seen evidence of Kirk wearing body armor to debates elsewhere.
- A bullet would’ve left at minimum a noticeable mark on Kirk’s clothing.
- Neither journalists nor investigators mention anything about this even though there’s zero compelling reason for them not to and, for journalists, incentives to do so.
- The rounds were 7.62x63 mm fired from a bolt-action rifle.
- If that round strikes body armor, in order for it to stop (let alone ricochet rather than embed), the armor needs to be so thick that you cannot hide it under clothing. The armor would’ve been readily visible to everybody in attendance. Armor Kirk realistically could’ve been wearing would be a non-factor.
- Even if this magically happened, the improbably fucked-up physics required for a bullet to bounce from the torso into the cartoid artery seem vanishingly unlikely at best and implausible at worst.
While much of this just shows extreme unlikelihood, the thickness of the alleged body armor is impossible to reconcile with the round and the weapon it was fired from.
- Comment on Why didn't he just call on his powers to stop the bullet? 4 weeks ago:
He was not. This has already been categorically debunked over and over again by people who know literally the first thing about ballistics.
- Comment on Me and Boost 4 weeks ago:
“We’ve taken X into not just the second but the third dimension! XYZ is the new town square of the metaverse!” —Elon “illegal immigrant” Musk
- Comment on Anon eats Italian 1 month ago:
This isn’t necessarily true. Italian meatballs are usually small, but polpette alla Napoletana are often on the larger side. You just need to be discerning.
- Comment on Llama 1 month ago:
Killer whale.
- Submitted 1 month ago to [deleted] | 0 comments
- Comment on Call me... 1 month ago:
Funnily enough, that Unidan copypasta is 100% correct. I don’t know why, for as long-winded as it is, though, he doesn’t use use more taxonomic names to make it precise: jackdaws are in genus Coloeus, and crows and ravens are in genus Corvus, both under family Corvidae. The apes are the primate superfamily Hominoidea, which Homo sapiens sits under. There, Unidan; that’s all you had to say.
- Comment on Call me... 1 month ago:
For those who might be confused, “daddy longlegs” colloquially refers to two totally separate things. Spiders are of the order Araneae under class Arachnida (they’re arachnids; go figure).
“Daddy longlegs” often refers to cellar spiders, the family Pholcidae within the spiders. However, “daddy longlegs” also refers to another order of arachnids altogether called Opiliones, also known as harvestmen. So if this doesn’t look like the daddy longlegs you know, that’s why; they’re not a “different type” of the cellar spider you’re familiar with.
- Comment on Good for plants 1 month ago:
I only give my plants real country music.
- Comment on YOU HAVE NO POWER HERE 1 month ago:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cephalopod_eye
(At a glance, this article needs some touching up and hasn’t been meaningfully contributed to in some years.)
- Comment on sentence 1 month ago:
- Successful murder does more actual harm, and thus if you weigh not just intent but actual harm, you get a more severe punishment (think, for example, of felony murder, where the perpetrators don’t necessarily intend to kill anyone but someone does die as a result of them committing a felony).
- Treating murder more harshly than attempted murder gives someone attempting murder a practical incentive not to follow through.
- Comment on You don't know me! 1 month ago:
If you put it under a compatible license (CC BY-SA or less restrictive), we on Wikipedia also pull from iNaturalist for images to add to Wikimedia Commons. It helps a surprising amount.
- Comment on Bird ban 2 months ago:
Fair point. Bird law in this country is not governed by reason.
- Comment on Bird ban 2 months ago:
While feeding a bird by encasing it in food may seem ethical at first blush, the reality is that bread is junk food for birds – providing energy but minimal nutritional value. Hence this user was kicked from the group.
- Comment on Political Views 2 months 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 2 months 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 2 months ago:
“Think of it less like a hierarchy and more like a web.”
- Comment on Political Views 2 months ago:
Be thankful they chose Aranae instead of other arachnid orders.
don't open; tailless whip-scorpion inside
- Comment on claw 2 months 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 2 months ago:
OP, you can say “sex”. Your parents aren’t going to put you in time-out.
