@not_IO@lemmy.blahaj.zone When I saw the "Industrial Revolution" label next to the vertical increase in global temperatures, I couldn't help but recall of some text written in 1995 by a certain former math teacher, and how right he was about the Industrial Revolution's consequences...

@TherapyGary@lemmy.blahaj.zone !asklemmy@lemmy.world
The questionnaire is missing a third option: it depends/sometimes.

While I comment on Lemmy threads aware of the community's name (it's right there, near where I clicked to access the thread), I rarely go to the sidebar in order to know more about the given community.

This is exacerbated by how there are many homonym communities across different instances (e.g. Ask Lemmy, memes, Technology, etc), some of which even use a similar avatar/icon.

But there are times and situations where I double-check the rules before commenting something that I perceive as potentially controversial.

So, it's neither "no" nor "yes": "it depends".

@TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world @Fleur_@aussie.zone I'm 30 and this is deep (to quote the meme)

@DreamAccountant@lemmy.world @bytesonbike@discuss.online

It's a dangerous generalization, stating that "{all} religions want to control your life".

I'm somewhat Lilithian-Luciferian with many syncretic influences such as Thelemite and Hermetic concepts, and the very core values represented by Lilith and Lucifer are "do what thou wilt". Also, my belief neither chains me nor others, especially because I don't follow a religion or a religious group (and, well, having any dogmas wouldn't match the non-conformist, rebellious and anarchist values imbued by Them).

So, before conflating Abrahamic dogmas with the broad terms "religion" and "faith", be aware of how there are a plethora of different religions and belief systems around the world: some religions want to chain everybody, others want to break the chains.

@PaintedSnail@lemmy.world Yeah, I'm aware, my reply was an attempt to "Monty-Pythonize" the degree of absurdity from the questions 😆

@mkwt@lemmy.world @Blujayooo@lemmy.world

TIL I'm possibly partially (if not entirely) illiterate.

Starting with the first question, "Draw a line a_round_ the number or letter of this sentence.", which can be ELI5'd as follows:

The main object is the number or letter of this sentence, which is the number or letter signaling the sentence, which is "1", which is a number, so it's the number of this sentence, "1". This is fine.

The action being required is to "Draw a line around" the object, so, I must draw a line.

However, a line implies a straight line, while around implies a circle (which is round), so it must be a circle.

However, what's around a circle isn't called a line, it's a circumference. And a circumference is made of infinitesimally small segments so small that they're essentially an arc. And an arc is a segment insofar it effectively connects two points in a cartesian space with two dimensions or more... And a segment is essentially a finite range of a line, which is infinite...

The original question asks for a line, which is infinite. However, any physical object is finite insofar it has a limited, finite area, so a line couldn't be drawn: what can be drawn is a segment whose length is less or equal to the largest diagonal of the said physical object, which is a rectangular paper, so drawing a line would be impossible, only segments comprising a circumference.

However, a physically-drawn segment can't be infinitesimal insofar the thickness of the drawing tool would exceed the infinitesimality from an infinitesimal segment. It wouldn't be a circumference, but a polygon with many sides.

So I must draw a polygon with enough sides to closely represent a circumference, composed by the smallest possible segments, which are finite lines.

However, the question asks for a line, and the English preposition a implies a single unit of something... but the said something can be a set (e.g. a flock, which implies many birds)... but line isn't a set...

However, too many howevers.

So, if I decide to draw a circumference centered at the object (the number 1), as in circle the number, maybe it won't be the line originally expected.

I could draw a box instead, which would technically be around it, and would be made of lines (four lines, to be exact). But, again, a line isn't the same as lines, let alone four lines.

I could draw a single line, but it wouldn't be around.

Maybe I could reinterpret the space. I could bend the paper and glue two opposing edges of it, so any segment would behave as a line, because the drawable space is now bent and both tips of the segment would meet seamlessly.

But the line wouldn't be around the object, so the paper must be bent in a way that turns it into a cone whose tip is centered on the object, so a segment would become a line effectively around the object...

However, I got no glue.

/jk

@misk@sopuli.xyz @Skavau@piefed.social

As a sidenote, I remember that UK has an odd and ancient "law" stating something in the lines "The Crown must not be offended" (i.e. being anti-monarchy and advocating for the end of monarchy, even without any violent language/means but a pacific defense of anti-monarchy). I couldn't find it, nor I can remember the exact phrasing, but such a "law" threatens prison time for those who "dare" to "offend" the crowniness of UK Crown. Also, I'm not sure to what extent this law is applied in practice.

Even though I'm Brazilian (so the UK supposedly "have no power over here", and I say it with the Gandalf's voice), I see these international situations with some worry: there are needed laws (such as laws against noise pollution) and there are laws whose reach ends up going way too far from their "seemingly well-intentioned" puritan scope (such as the aforementioned laws).

If countries are capable of passing draconian laws against their own citizens, don't expect that those same countries couldn't go further to impose these laws beyond their own lawns, especially in times of interconnectedness.

And Fediverse platforms from everywhere around the entire globe end up being caught in the crossfire, due to that same interconnectedness.

In the end of the day, the world is increasingly bleaker, as the history is being repeated (maxims "One thing people can learn from history books is that people can't learn from history books", and "history doesn't just repeat, it rhymes").

@Ephera@lemmy.ml @dating1999@lemmy.ca

site:domain.tld does work, as an and x constraint. I often use it.
It seems to me like the OP's specific and (not x) usage of site:domain.tld is the reason why it isn't working. While the negation prefix (-) does work for tokens/words (e.g. mercury -freddie), it's probably transforming site into a token not to be included in the results (i.e. "any results that don't contain the word "site") which, disconnected from the rest of the sentence (:quora.com), turns the latter into part of what the results should include, so the query ends up being something like:

Filter all the indexed Web results where its contents don't include the word "site", possibly do include "quora.com", possibly do include "Molten", possibly do include "boron", possibly do include "oxide", possibly do include "attacks", possibly do include "silicates"

The negation prefix has a similar effect to that of positive (+) prefix (e.g. "mercury +periodic +table") as it turns the word into a required condition (must be present for "+", must be absent for "-") rather than an optional condition (i.e a search for "mercury periodic table", without quotes, will contain pages with all three words in any order, pages with just two of the three words (such as "mercury periodic" in any order) and pages with only one of the three words (such as "mercury" which would include pages talking about the singer, and pages talking about the planet and pages talking about the Roman deity), ranked by "relevance").

As Quora pages do include "quora.com" somewhere within the page body, the first results will be from Quora because it's part of the parsed condition (which is to optionally include "quora.com" as part of the result while discarding results containing the verbatim word "site").

@P4ulin_Kbana@lemmy.eco.br
Quanto ao Gemini

Até há usos práticos, como enfoque em hospedagem text-only, além do uso de certificados criados no próprio browser para identificar uma sessão (sim, existem client certs para HTTPS, mas é uma função meio "obscura" nos browsers). Já cheguei experimentar server-side em Gemini, e o uso de client certs é bastante acessível tanto para o código no server-side quanto para o cliente/usuário, com os navegadores tendo a funcionalidade à vista.

O Gemini tenta resgatar o HTTP/0.9, quando era só GET e não havia scripting (código arbitrário rodando no cliente), somente markup (HTML). Não concordo totalmente com o que a galera diz mas, dizem que o scripting é a raíz do problema da Web moderna pois permitiu execução de códigos arbitrários pelo cliente, hoje em dia praticamente de forma não-consentida (apenas com a possibilidade de desligar totalmente o JS, o que quebra a maioria dos sites de hoje em dia).

Particularmente não tenho problemas com scripting, até porque gosto bastante do JS, foi minha primeira linguagem de programação e até hoje utilizo (embora recentemente tenho paquerado o Ruby), mas consigo até certo ponto entender esses fundamentos por trás do propósito do Gemini. Mas é praticamente uma reinvenção da roda, então entendo seu lado também.

Quanto a algoritmos

Fomos acostumados com FB e afins, que só são eficientes pois são invasivos. No Fediverso, até existem o que poderiam ser chamados de algoritmos de recomendação ("trending", por exemplo), mas de tão não-invasivos (e sem "compra de promoção do conteúdo"), realmente não dão "engajamento" que costuma ocorrer naquelas redes.

Na realidade, as diferentes plataformas do fediverso atuam diferentemente pra agregar conteúdos: o Lemmy agrega por instância -> comunidade -> thread, hierarquia que leva a um meio-caminho já andado pra achar um conteúdo de interesse (ex.: Lemmy.eco.br é voltado ao Brasil e onde mais se espera encontrar brasileiros; c/musica agrega listas de músicas, enquanto c/tiodopave agrega piadas: isso é um ponto de partida pra localizar conteúdo).

Quanto à nostalgia

As coisas mudam e, sim, é importante que ocorram mudanças. No entanto, as mudanças que têm ocorrido na Web infelizmente têm sido mais avarias que melhorias: Web Integrity e fim do MV2 focados em acabar com adblockers, mais e mais recursos sendo agregados (Bluetooth, porta serial, etc) que tornam os Standards tão complicados que fazem centrar tudo em Google/Apple/Mozilla (projetos como Ladybird e Servo ainda têm muito arroz-e-feijão pra comer pra chegar ao nível de suporte do Chromium/WebKit/Gecko).

A nostalgia, nesse sentido, não é meramente uma saudade de um passado longínquo, mas sobretudo a necessidade de "restaurar um backup" para que progressos melhores possam ser propostos/feitos sem influência de acionistas, porque às vezes é necessário "recomeçar" um projeto inteiro partindo das primeiras versões legadas ao invés do esforço hercúleo da refatoração.

@Valmond@lemmy.world !asklemmy@lemmy.world

It's worth mentioning about PeerTube, which is both an alternative for YouTube and other video platforms, as well as a proper platform for uploading videos on Fediverse. Sometimes I see Lemmy threads/comments embedding PeerTube videos and these videos work pretty fine.

@DradoTheHobbit@lemmy.eco.br !batepapo@lemmy.eco.br

Descobri o fediverso ano passado. O Lemmy é, das plataformas do fediverso, a que mais interajo. Não há uma instância específica porque — e aqui está a magia do fediverso — as instâncias se comunicam, inclusive plataformas distintas. Eu mesmo, estou interagindo nesse tópico do Lemmy através de uma plataforma que não o Lemmy (Sharkey).

Ao meu ver, o fediverso (bem como o Geminispace, uma Web sob protocolo textual similar ao Gopher) são os últimos espaços onde conseguimos resgatar, até certo ponto, aquela Web dos tempos do Orkut, Bate-papo UOL, Yahoo Respostas e afins.

Mas aqui vai um desabafo pessoal, e um ponto a se pensar com relação às interações online: tenho notado uma tendência na Internet no geral, desde que esta passou a fazer parte da minha realidade nos anos 2000. É que, cada vez mais, interações como essa aqui, onde você e eu estamos fazendo uso humano de textos não-curtos, estão... raras.

Dois pontos levam a isso: existência das reações rápidas (curtidas, descurtidas, reações via emojis) e existência de algoritmos que hoje conseguem gerar textos tão "convincentes" que levam à dúvida quanto à agência humana por trás de qualquer texto online.

No primeiro ponto, é por vezes frustrante para uma pessoa (como eu) acostumada em escrever textos longos e profundos receber um "jóia" e não um texto igualmente profundo. Quero dizer, reações são úteis principalmente àquilo que não pede resposta textual (exemplo: "De nada" após um "Obrigado"), mas sempre que possível tento responder em texto, positiva ou negativamente (i.e. diante de uma discordância).

No segundo ponto, e aqui cito um blog da gringa que li, "os textos online se tornaram cheaper", as LLMs estão meio que "desvalorizando" textos longos como esse. Pra piorar a situação, sou neurodivergente, então meus textos, que trafegam de forma desinibida e espontânea por várias áreas do saber, são quase que indistinguíveis de um texto gerado por LLM. Já fui muitas vezes acusado de ser uma LLM, e isso também acaba sendo frustrante.

Esses dois pontos me fazem, vez em quando, do nada decidir por apagar o que produzi, diante de uma frustração ontológica e epistemológica com o retorno que aquilo (não) produziu (além, claro, de uma "depressão" de longa data onde vira e mexe me pego lembrando e/ou encarando os profundos olhos delineados da Escuridão do Abismo).

Mesmo assim, acabo por permanecer, diante de como o fediverso é um Terceiro Lugar onde a interação humana ainda ocorre sem influência de algoritmos de recomendação ou interesses escusos de acionistas. Ao meu ver, vale a pena, sim, voltar ao fediverso.

@Davriellelouna@lemmy.world

In another Brazilian city I personally know, Jundiaí - SP, some restaurants built some kind of "deck" (made of wood planks) on the side of the street. I tried to embed a photo from one of these (this is my first attempt on sending images to Lemmy using Calckey so I'm not sure if the image will work).

These "decks" were permanently installed, including electrical wiring running from the establishment to the "deck" lights. I don't even know how the city hall authorized this, considering how the region (Campinas Microregion, Jundiaí Urban Agglomeration and Greater São Paulo, all of them in growing process of conurbation) is highly car-centric (yeah, there's a growing public infrastructure including trains and bicycle lanes, and Jundiaí, specifically, is pretty walkable, but many things still seem to revolve around vehicles around there).

On the one hand, this theoretically frees up the sidewalk for pedestrians. On the other hand, it depends on the restaurant respecting pedestrians by keeping the sidewalk clear, and I don't know to what extent these restaurants do this. But this concept of flatbed truck bar isn't too far from that of these restaurants in Jundiaí.