pull down to refresh
@Arceris
115,589 sats stacked
31 sats \ 0 replies \ @Arceris 28 Oct \ on: Is it true that … hangovers get worse as we age? HealthAndFitness
Yes and no. For me I’ve basically eliminated them, but that’s due to planning. Always take mega doses of b vitamins & tons of water, basically no hangover.
Also, when I do drink it’s much higher quality stuff than when I was in my 20s, and all neat whiskey now. So no sugars, and less low-quality alcohol (contains esters & fusel alcohols in higher concentrations) which make it worse.
One comment and an amplification.
First, the amplification:
Yes, the ultimate job, and measure of success, is to construct a beautiful image. The fundamental thing to learn is your eye. I personally take very few photos these days as I have been finding it hard to be inspired.
For me, it's not so much "make boring shit look beautiful" as it is to draw out the hidden or latent beauty that we all take for granted. In reality nothing is truly boring, as boredom is entirely in the mind of the observer. Anything and everything contains a vast amount of interest, if expressed properly -- it is our job to make that expression,
Now the comment:
Gear and settings are important, settings much more than gear. I learned photography in the 1990s on film, with 1970s and 1960s equipment. My favorite piece of kit was a 6x6 Yashikamat twin lens reflex. My main camera these days is still a Nikon D700 from 2008 (chosen only because as an FX sensor, all my 1970s Nikon glass works with it). Gear helps, but only so far.
You need to know how all the settings work together to get the image you see in your head. You need to know your gear and how those settings interact with your kit to make it work. Does your prime have a chromatic aberration? Does your zoom get a bit soft in the middle range? Can your telephoto hold focus, or is there a little slop in it?
But the settings used are not relevant beyond that particular photo. What settings I used will not be the settings you may use. Some people believe that they can glean something from the raw settings - and you can, but not as much as you may want. Beyond the camera, the angle of the photo, time of day, weather, state of mind, all have interacted and conspired to generate the image. The settings in the camera are the last elements of the image prior to capture.
That said: as someone trained on black & white film (and hand developing), if you're not shooting in manual, you're doing it wrong. ;)
Darthcoin is a collection of letters. Such collection a mere denotation referring to what appears to be a singular individual, yet possessing a hierarchy of connotations (in the Russellian sense).
"In many ways, the experiences we heard about sound like a modern update to an age-old dynamic: a significant other falling under the influence of a questionable new friend, social group, or other interloper who drives a wedge between partners in a previously secure relationship."
This happened to me over 20 years ago (the traditional dynamic, of course). Even the traditional dynamic can occur fast, and can be devastating. Destroyed a five year relationship only a few months before our wedding in a matter of 2 months, with no obvious warnings on my end.
I can only imagine how insane adding LLMs to this will be.
I linked to that site because it was the first that I found with that quote from Lummis. There are others. But the rest of that article is crap.
Regarding the Bondi situation, she did cite one statute, then proceeded to totally misconstrue it. But whatever, I'm willing to agree that that's a one off and related to being improperly prepared for that stand up. She has walked it back. But in other contexts she has supported red flag laws & other significant 2A restrictions, so my sense is that her gut instinct was her real feelings, and the walking it back is contrived.
The above link, btw, is to FIRE, where I was a 1A and 4A civil liberties attorney for a time (about 10 years ago now).
I have yet to see anything out there that comes close to incitement under Brandenburg, except for maybe the texts & chats directly with the assassin. And those aren’t at issue.
But I have seen a sitting Senator, long a 1A and free speech champion, express doubt about it.
“Under normal times, in normal circumstances, I tend to think that the First Amendment should always be sort of the ultimate right. And that there should be almost no checks and balances on it. I don’t feel that way anymore,” Lummis added.
I agree that all is not lost, as many on the right are still willing to hold people to account on this, but for the first time in years, I’ve had to had discussions about 1A with my normie IRL friends (they’re mostly with me on the right) when they start trying to justify more invasive responses, “because the left did it to us.”
70 sats \ 1 reply \ @Arceris 19 Sep \ parent \ on: What do you think about section 230? Politics_And_Law
Agreed, IP law is an entirely separate issue. I generally like the writings of Steven Kinsella. I went to law school to do patent & general IP law, so it has been a longstanding feeling of dissonance that I generally dislike IP law (though I am much more negative toward copyright law than patent, and generally more accepting of TM than either of the others).
167 sats \ 15 replies \ @Arceris 19 Sep \ parent \ on: What do you think about section 230? Politics_And_Law
-
Nostr relays are likely protected now by Sec. 230.
-
Yes, that is correct - and was what my last point was referencing. Sec. 230 allows for moderation (internal censorship), but basically protects against liability for those moderation choices (external censorship). It does become somewhat murky when the moderation becomes so heavy as to look like publication control.
-
1A should be enough, and it may be enough (for now) to protect against state-imposed sanctions. It is not enough to protect against frivolous private actors. Also, I worry about the social consensus on 1A, the left has been antagonistic against it for some time (at least a decade in the recent incarnation). The right had been willing to protect it, then Charlie Kirk got assassinated and now the right is questioning the boundaries of 1A. This is an extremely bad situation.
Basically, Sec. 230 is like an anti-censorship filter. It makes external censorship harder, because you can't use the easy tools to change the calculus of the platforms. Removing Sec. 230 is like upping the OP_RETURN size for liability.
I voted close account immediately, however I think that is contingent on having an alternative. Of course I have bitcoin, but I am not in a situation where I can survive without fiat rails for many transactions.
This is a silly argument. I mean, I guess that makes me a bad actor. I'm a miner with a few dozen PH, so I absolutely have benefitted more than 1 sat by the spam. Doesn't mean I support it.
It is critical to ensuring the maximal reach of free speech. It's not just criminal liability, but groundless defamation and other claims that would see them as just another deep pocket without the immunity.
Issues with the platforms using it as a political hammer to enforce their own proclivities notwithstanding, the market can address that (and, over time, has done so).
- "My life has become a single, ongoing revelation that I haven't been cynical enough." - Chrisjen Aravasala, Babylon's Ashes (The Expanse, #6), James S.A. Corey.
- "Well... heh, heh... You're NOT going to like this." - Skippy, Spec Ops (Expeditionary Force #2), Craig Alanson.
- "Everyone says forgiveness is a lovely idea, until they have something to forgive." - Mere Christianity, CS Lewis.