[…] never any red meat at all.

Why not?

“We haven’t reached zero yet, and the only acceptable number of deaths and injuries on our roads is zero,” said Lucy Maloney, a Vancouver city councillor. […] ^[1]

This is an interesting quote to me. I appreciate the aspirations, but I wonder if it may be better (ie more transparent, more honest) to take a more, in my opinion, realistic position. IMO, it is mentally healthier (though, perhaps not politically healthier 😜) for one to be realistic in their goals, and I think the same extends to governments. In the context of road safety, I think it’s fair to assume that the risk of bodily harm and injury will never be “zero”. By all means, one should do their best to lower the risk the best that they can, but I think that should be done with set realistic goals, rather than a potentially infinitely unattainable finish line.

[…] It’s important for it to be public, otherwise bad actors can far too easily destroy the entire platform. […]

Okay, but, again, why does it need to be public? What use is there for the IP to be publicly visible to anyone except the moderators/admins? What can an average user do with that information in the context of editing/improving the content on Wikipedia?

[…] Or more horrifically, this.

I’m not sure that’s a “benefit”…

Banning bad actors ip’s. […]

Wouldn’t that only be relevant for an admin/moderator? Why does it need to be publicly viewable?

How so? Wouldn’t that only be relevant for the admin/moderator? I’m specifically wondering why it’s publicly viewable.

Chromium? More like copium. /j

What bother’s me about these sorts of posts is they don’t give people a consumption goal. Blindly telling everyone to consume less isn’t exactly fair. Say, for example, there’s person A who consumes 1 unit of red meat per month, and person B who consumes 100 units of red meat per month. If you say to everyone “consume 1 unit of red meat less per month”, well, now person A consumes 0 units of red meat per month, and person B consumes 99 units of red meat per month. Is that fair? Say, you tell everyone “halve your consumption of red meat per month”, well, now person A consumes 0.5 units of red meat per month, and person B consumes 50 units of red meat per month. Is that fair? Now, say, you tell everyone “you should try to eat at most 2 units of meat per month”, well now person A may happily stay at 1 unit knowing that they’re already below the target maximum, they may choose to decrease of their own accord, or they may feel validated to increase to 2 units of red meat per month, and person B will feel pressured to dramatically, and (importantly, imo) proportionally, reduce their consumption. Blindly saying that everyone should reduce their consumption in such an even manner disproportionately imparts blame, as there are likely those who are much more in need of reduction than others. It may even be that a very small minority of very large consumers are responsible for the majority of the overall consumption, so the “average” person may not even need to change their diet much, if at all, in order to meet a target maximum.

[…] Second thing is getting a capture card that records the resulting 1080p och 720p output from the ADC. I got a relatively cheap one which then plugs into the pc with usb-a. […]

I want to capture interlaced — not progressive ^[2][1]. I don’t want any deinterlacing done by the capture card ^[3].

[…] First thing to do is to convert the analogue signal to hdmi. […]

Why? What’s wrong with directly capturing composite? I have yet to come across an HDMI capture card that doesn’t process the signal in some way (eg no upscaling, no deinterlacing). I’m doing this for archival purposes so I want the signal as unadulterated as possible. This also includes these sorts of transformations you mention:

[…] After that i setup a scene with the capture card as source and transform the output using obs to get the resolution, size and format i want. […]

[…] Whatever signal you are receiving in obs wont need deinterlacing, unless the capture device is bad at its job. […]

As I mentioned in my post, I have deinterlacing disabled. I don’t want to deinterlace.

[…] There’s a couple other things that look out of place to me: […]

Another one that I noticed is that the shadow of the phones cord doesn’t appear to line up with the actual phone cord (the shadow appears curved, whereas the cord appears straight):

Window reflection (?) spanning the window to the table

I think that might be from the OS and someone just took a screenshot?

Ah, yeah, I think your right! Good catch 😊

[…] I feel like this image was at least partially AI generated, probably specifically prompted to be in her style (maybe they trained a LoRA to make it match better). I don’t get why the only video they shared of them doing any shading/line-work is of some shading that isn’t even in the final piece. […]

My current theory is that they used the AI to generate the outlines of everything, then they colored it in after. The video actually is mildly concerning to me, as I fear that they’re using it to mislead people into thinking that they actually did the line work by hand. I of course am not accusing them of this, as all I have is conjecture, but It’s concerning to me nonetheless.

[…] I’ve found the artist’s post of this image on Instagram […]

Fantastic work! Much appreciated.

Also, why is the blue telephone cord stretching away from the telephone? Is the cord for a different telephone not shown in the art, and the telephone in the art just happens to have its handset on the ground or outside the frame?

I have a strong suspicion that the art was generated, so that may explain some, err, inconsistencies:

• The phone cradle doesn’t actually have a spot for the handset to sit

  

• Somehow the floor changes its height up the wall

  

• The bottom right corner of this cabinet appears to be missing

  

• Window reflection (?) spanning the window to the table ^[1]

  

• And yeah, the phone isn’t even connected to the base, or, if the handset is connected to another phone base, then the phone base in view doesn’t even have a handset

  

[Tesseract is] a Photon fork.

TIL that Tesseract is a Photon Fork. Would you know, by chance, at what point in Photon’s development it was forked to form Tesseract, and what the rationale was?

That’s pretty neat!

You’re welcome! 😊

IDK if they’re “Fediverse specific”, but I love SSTF’s (@setsneedtofeed@lemmy.world) art.