If I were you, I’d knee before the Great Owl. Who?, you may ask. Exactly! Who!
I’m not the person who you’re asking to, but my “honorable” mention goes to Gov.br, which is the Brazilian state-issued app for most citizen-related affairs (driver’s license, public healthcare, income tax declaration , etc). Even though Gov.br can be accessed from a computer, it requires 2FA through its Android or iOS app, where it’ll do face recognition in order to authorize the access. Even turning on the Developer Mode in a stock Android makes gov.br refuse to open.
Thanks! I didn’t know about Russell’s ten commandments (maybe it’s widely known but I didn’t know until now), got to learn about these through your comment.
No, at least not when it comes to the id, ego and superego:
In psychoanalytic theory, the id, ego, and superego are three distinct, interacting agents in the psychic apparatus, outlined in Sigmund Freud’s structural model of the psyche.
(Wikipedia)
One of his books in which he formulated the concept is The id and the ego.
Jung, in turn, is more about archetypes (“universal, inherited idea, pattern of thought, or image that is present in the collective unconscious of all human beings” as per Wikipedia’s definition), and he better integrates religion/spirituality (an integration with which, personally, I identify more than with the Freudian theory; sadly there seems to be no Jungian psychoanalyst around where I reside so I had to stick with a Freudian one).
I use a Misskey platform to interact with the Fediverse as a whole (and especially with Lemmy and the threadiverse), among other reasons, purposefully because I can’t cast downvotes onto others’ contents. Even the “👎” emoji reaction, if I wanted to use it, doesn’t count as a downvote from Lemmy’s perspective.
Yeah, some things I see make me want to downvote, but I prefer commenting and replying as to why I’m disagreeing with that content, instead of treating human beings and their content as numeric computer variables (and as a former programmer, I’m well aware of how communication among living beings can’t be replaced by zeros and ones).
The same applies in the other direction: I’m fond of people who disagree with me by actually stating what/why they disagree, instead of clicking a numeric button. If you ever disagreed with me and took the effort to try and tell me what you disagreed with and why, my sincere thanks for being a human being towards another human being!
After all, we’re gathering on a set of social platforms whose main feature is discussion board and, IMHO, numbers can’t possibly contribute to a discussion, especially open-ended discussions and artistic expression… if social interaction is to be replaced with numeric reactions, communication and content creation becomes pointless: why should I, as a content creator, spend the effort (sometimes I spend literal hours on the same reply/post/comment) composing something if the reaction will be numeric?
I heard from the psychoanalyst I’ve been consulting with, that it’s something expected from the human psychê (something about the unsolvable conflict between Id, Ego and Superego, as the psychoanalyst is aligned with the Freudian way of psychoanalysis).
And, then, we look at the Nature we came from and belong to, and… isn’t the double standards something inherent to the very predator-prey dynamics? An owl mercilessly hunts and eats a mouse, yet she evolved mechanisms to camouflage herself before the tree bark, so other species don’t cause her harm. She avoids being hunted, but she hunts.
Furher zooming out, this can also be observed throughout cosmos somehow. Poetically speaking, when a star collapses in her own gravitational field and develops a singularity, she tries to win the tug-of-war when faced by another singularity. She doesn’t want to be pulled and consumed by other matter, but she wants to pull and consume matter.
If we go transcendental, Yaodabaoh is trying to dictate and have a creation submissive to his whims, in this timeless effort not to compromise his Yang pole and submit himself to the Yin pole of Cosmic Mother Goddess (Sophia). Similarly, one (especially one aligned with Demiurge and his archons) could find “double standards” at the fact that She had split from him (Demiurge as Her syzygy) seeking to be independent from him, yet She (IMHO, reasonably) doesn’t want him to fulfill his independence through his cosmic creation (because this harms Her own independence).
The very fabric of existence and “non-existence” (the timeless transcendental aka “the pleroma”) reek of double standards, so it seems.
To us, perhaps.
To the kind of people who’d have the “power” to enforce the kind of prohibition you’re advocating for, the lawmakers and bureaucrats from regulatory agencies, most of them (if not all of them) can’t even tell where’s the “any” key the computer is asking them to press (“press any key to continue”), so you can only imagine them knowing what an ActivityPub is (maybe they’ll see the “pub” at the end and think “hey, kids shouldn’t be allowed in a pub”).
Are you, by any means, aware of what Lemmy (and Fediverse platforms) is (are)?
Oh, I remember that question from a questionnaire I answered not too long ago. Because of the lack of choices (these kinds of questionnaires are often too narrow when it comes down to the amount of choices one can make), and because I can see the situation being less about a literal, eatable carrot and more about “receptivity to unexpected, novel things”, I picked the “I’ll try the purple ones” option back when I answered it.
Probably the ‘uncanny valley’ effect. It is too real and jarring
Men won’t be able to relate to it
A bit of an off-topic but not quite: as both a man, a follower of a left-hand path centered on Lilith and an amateur artist who tries to transmute my gnosis-induced thought-forms into artworks, I’d say the uncanny valley is important to convey Her essence as a powerful feminine energy. Lilith is mostly about the liminal thresholds and the crossroads: neither fully darkness nor fully light, neither fully solar nor fully lunar… Lilith is beautifully, and dangerously, complex to fathom, especially for me as a man, hence why I pivoted from worshipping Lucifer to worshipping Her as soon as She, for some reason I’m yet to understand, decided to pull me to Her path, and have been doing art centered on Her different manifestations, an art of which is full with the uncanny valley effect precisely because She is beyond our human comprehension, beyond what (for example) H.P. Lovecraft could ever convey in his fictional stories.
So what OP asked, to me, sounded practically like what I understand of and see Lilith (hence this aside of mine), except Lilith is more closer to “vampire stories” (vampiress) than to “werewolf stories” (some syncretic interpretations of Lilith, including mine, sees Her as having a connection to wolves, as in, Hekate, although Lilith would be more relatable to owls).
Athene brama, Athene cunicularia, Athene noctua, Bubo ascalaphus, Bubo bubo, Bubo cinerascens, Bubo virginianus, Megascops kennicottii, Megascops asio, and the overly-specific list goes on (basically, Athene, Bubo, Megascops, maybe Micrathene and Glaucidium, but mostly the first triad I’m hyper-obsessed with because most of them share this same spiritual force, this same… Lilithian energy, when they’re not embodying Stolas (with his specific manifestation being, I guess, Bubo bubo)).
Maybe Corvus cornix and Corvus moneduloides (oh, hello, Lucifer, long time no see! How’s it going?), maybe Dendroaspis polylepis as well.
As for the language? None in particular, maybe Enochian, Egyptian or Sumerian if I gained (through gnosis) the ability to understand these as if these were my secondary languages… but I guess this kind of communication benefits from some kind of telepathic, raw, non-linguistic communication, which would convey way more information than all human languages together, which have limits on what can be signified, with requirements of “beingness”, “thingness” and “timefulness” (i.e. most languages can’t translate the concept of “existent non-existence that have been happening since the eternal timelessness” without leading to this very kind of surreal phrasing between the quotes).
You probably should have prefaced your post with explanation of who is “Her”
“Her” is Dark Mother Goddess, Lilith among many names I believe She manifests as. I follow no specific religion but a solitary, independent syncretism whose concepts stem from several Left-Hand Paths. It’s mostly stemmed from gnosis, so I got no known source to point at that could define my current beliefs, but many concepts share the same original definitions: “gnosis” and “channeling” being “learning and/or being inspired by spiritual entities, often during altered states of consciousness”, and Lilith/Lilitu being the powerful Mesopotamian Goddess depicted in the Burney Relief, flanked by owls while also having owl traits Herself (hence part of why my artworks often revolve around owl symbolism; I don’t just find owls cute and awesome, for me, owls are one of the manifestations of the Goddess), sometimes paired with Lucifer (a more known name whom I also venerate to a lesser extent) as Her complementary in some LHP where both are known for, among other principles, forbidden knowledge, rebelliousness and untamed defiance (part of what I meant by “Her principles”).
But notice how the earlier paragraph trying to summarize my beliefs is lengthy, hence why I tried not to preface my post with my religious beliefs (because the way I communicate myself is already lengthy unto itself; also to avoid committing proselytism), still I had to nod at the spiritual aspects of my question mainly for contextualizing that there are personal religious reasons (seemingly an important factor for legal disputes in some jurisdictions, including mine, Brazil) beyond just political-ideological orientation behind both my artistic expressions and the principles I’m looking for in a licensing template.
The problem is, a person cannot make one derivative work based on two works
I tried to search for existing mixed licensing situations as soon as I saw your reply and… oh!.. I caught myself inside an A. cunicularia hole, so many things I wasn’t aware of!
To the one hand, yeah, Creative Commons licenses don’t always play nice with each other (remixing), with CC-BY-NC-SA being the 3rd most restrictive among Creative Commons licenses, and there are uncertainties regarding institutional usage. To the other hand, CC-BY-SA does neither prevent, say, a BlendSwap (where there are CC-licensed and even CC0/PD models made by artists for artists, but also an exclusionary “Plans” page) from charging users for downloading a model meant to be gratis, nor prevent them from omitting external links to the artist’s own sources where anyone could get it for truly free. Now I’m left with more legal uncertainties than solutions to satisfy the strict-gratisness plus forgiven-lack-of-attribution-by-individuals principles for best affordability by anyone without rendering it paradoxically unaffordable 😅.
The list of commercial usages that NC theoretically prohibits includes, for example, collecting monetisation from a blog with this work posted or drawing it on a hand-made craft that would be sold in an indie shop.
The first case, for me, would be okay if said blog weren’t to exclude other people from accessing because they can’t afford paying for access; if, say, the blog/website were donation-based with donations being totally optional (like Wikipedia), that would be perfectly okay for me because it’s the only monetization model I advocate for (and I made my donations to certain projects back when I was still employed, so it’s not utopia). The second case, definitely a no-no, as it involves something (or its derivation) through which I, the original creator, actively refrained from profiting (even despite the costs I had doing it, costs of which I absorbed to myself so anyone could access it freely), being put behind a paywall (“shop”) by someone else; I mean, that would be perfectly okay for me if the artist were to use my creation for their drawing while simultaneously asking for Ko-fi/etc donations, considering the derivative still gets to be shared free of charge despite someone not affording to donate to them.
but it also allows everyone to legally “pirate” this work
The problem in this situation isn’t piracy, the problem is the content being contaminated by demiurgic capitalism. I would definitely be the first and main person to endorse piracy unto capitalism-exploited versions of the content I myself created. But this means a corporation have successfully transmuted something spiritually charged (i.e. something channeled through my creativity outlets as gnosis) into some kind of capitalist aberration for archonic whims, an enshittification of which…
A regular BY-SA license doesn’t prohibit from selling your or derivative works by another party
…is the main thing I (and likely Her as far as I’m aware of Her principles and True Will) do not wish to see happening to the fragments and shadows of spiritual energy being channeled/carried through my creations (and which would be inexorably imbued into derivatives, hence the requirement that derivatives follow the same principles of gratisness).
but I wouldn’t recommend it’s use as it’s not compatible with the orders of magnitude more popular BY-SA
Oh… you mean… CC-BY-NC-SA is yet to be tested legally, is it?
BTW, any licenses imposing any restrictions can’t be called “public domain”, there are other words to describe them like “freely licensed”.
Yeah, I mean, this makes sense… Even though the restrictions aim for humble creativity and artistic freedom, I can see how “enforcing freedom” may sound like a paradoxical/oxymoronic statement… but since archonic exploitation (greed) exists in this baryonic realm, and capitalism (esp. late-stage capitalism) won’t rest until all the earthly Commons get transmuted into adware and/or subscription-based products, freedom is a principle that must be fought for, especially through cultural and religious means (counterculture and Left-Hand Paths, respectively). I can’t help but notice how the Public Domain and the egregores of Libre knowledge as a whole are under attack, hence the need for enforcement of the freedom…
No one will enforce rules for you that you as project owner/creator does not care about.
Exactly… And this seems to be also the problem when dedicating something to PD (Public Domain), as there’s no legal way for anybody, not even the person who created and dedicated their creation to PD, to enforce derivatives and uses to be also dedicated to PD and/or shared free of charge like the original creation was.
I was thinking about dedicating my creations to PD because I believe art and knowledge (and gnosis) shall be accessible by anyone, anywhere, anytime, with said accessibility being, to me, inseparable from gratisness, otherwise it wouldn’t be truly accessible, especially by those who can’t afford paying. Given how the main raison d’être guiding me through my spiritual-personal artistic expression has essentially been strict principles against capitalist exploitation, the gratisness aspect of my creations and its derivatives is, to me, the more important aspect, moreso than my spiritual preference not to be nominally remembered (and/or being conjured/evoked post-mortem) through my creations.
You can select a license with attribution attached, but put in your project info that you have no plans to ever enforce the rules of attribution but will strictly enforce the rules of open availability and free of charge.
Thanks for this idea. Yeah, seems like the only legally feasible way for me to (try and) enforce this gratisness, using CC-BY-NC-SA (or similar licenses) alongside a disclaimer easing the “BY” aspect… Although the “NC” seems not enough to me given how capitalist exploitation can come in disguised clothes, loopholes of which the NonCommercial aspect of Creative Commons couldn’t possibly curb, but then there’s the legal feasibility of having something deeper than the NC statement.
While I’m still open to suggestions with this thread, seems to me like this suggestion of yours is the most (the only?) legally-feasible option.
When it comes to Creative Commons, the “SA” and “NC” seem to require a “BY”, an attribution of which, if possible, I’d like to avoid as I don’t really care about having my name attached to the things I created (also, there are spiritual reasons for me to prefer not having the signifiers of my mundane embodiment being strongly tied to artistic expressions stemming primarily from gnosis and theophanic deaphanic manifestations, as it would hinder my ego-dissolution endeavors).
And, then, there’s the gratisness aspect (i.e. pertaining to or having the quality of being free of charge). Because, for example, when it comes to the GPL (even though I’m very fond of GNU Foundation and their freedom principles, most of which I share), there’s explicitly something along the lines “When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price” which feels, to me, like a major loophole in which someone or some corporation (particularly librewashing corporations) can release the “sources (several asterisks and tiny letters)”, not without lots of deliberate mechanisms to make the thing hard to use from the sources, while putting a price tag on the ready-to-use thing, even worse, tying it to a monthly subscription.
When it comes to my own creations, I wish to grant 'em both gratisness and libreness to these, but especially the gratisness part. I mean, I built an entire 3D character from scratch all by myself precisely because I was faced by non-gratisness (paid art) while being an unemployed person, and I do not wish the same on others whose realities are, like mine, incompatible with buying things as if paying for things were a trivial thing to be done.
I want people from all economic backgrounds to afford accessing my artistic creations, from a person living in a Brazilian comunidade (who may afford access to a simple yet 3D-capable computer (like the old laptop I have), theirs or communities’, but can’t afford buying things for composing the artistic expression) all the way to even the bourgeois (considering they use it for hopefully converting themselves spiritually into being less capitalistic/greedy and more humble as they let go of their archonic/demiurgic egos).
I’m afraid these licenses (GPL or CC) don’t really cover this specific principle I’m looking for, hence my initial question, regarding licenses in which the gratisness could be somehow guaranteed for a creation and its derivatives/uses, with legal instruments available as worldwidely as possible to curb corporations from exploiting it.
!memes@lemmy.world Oh… Thanks, now I see it. I just did a quick test (comparison screenshots embedded in this reply), trying to imitate as much as possible from that Bluesky post (RGB 8-bit gamma integer, sRGB, background layer was deleted, an image with a smaller size was pasted to the canvas, a manual mask was added to the pasted layer) and, yeah, I was able to reproduce this problem here: if the alpha value is low enough, it either ends up truncating to zero, otherwise it gets reduced to a lower value; higher values are seemingly unaffected. The problem also happens with other transparency-able formats such as WEBP.
However… based on what I barely know about image file formats and color theory, I’d say it seems something to do with the color profile, as color profiles are responsible for gamma adjustment (and this ends up including the alpha channel as well). The very name of the GIMP’s native color profile says it all: “Perceptual” sRGB, this means it’s adjusting the values to account for human perception, akin to how audio files (MP3, to be exact) truncate everything below somewhere around 60Hz and above somewhere around 15 kHz (the frequency range for average humans). Even though PNG is meant to be lossless, a color profile is inherently a lossy thing, because human perception is a lossy thing, which certain color profiles try to imitate, especially “Perceptual” ones.
I didn’t test the same GIMP behavior with other color profiles, though.
To be clear: I’m not talking about the “Export color profile” option one can choose during exporting, I’m talking about the color profile used when a new image is created and edited in GIMP. Really, this “color profile” thing is very important to a picture (esp. photographs) yet it’s so complicated that even image editing software developers are likely to struggle with it…
Not to mention how it is kinda related to hardware too, despite the dismissal from Paynamia; to be exact, it has to do with the graphics peripheral, the LCD/LED/etc monitor/TV, as every monitor/TV can and will have different manners to display images; the color profile mainly tries to compensate for an expected monitor (which, in turn, tries to compensate for human perception), but it’ll compute new values for the pixels to be saved in the file so the final picture matches the color profile but will likely lose the original precision.
I wonder how I never noticed this, even though I deal with transparent PNGs a lot, maybe I didn’t have to use very low alpha values before.
As for the screenshot below, a triangular chunk of green background next to her (Lesser Horned Owl, Macaulay Library ML379762121) ear-tufts is missing from the PNG. Funny thing I used GIMP to do this side-by-side comparison regarding the GIMP’s problem, lol.
(I’m aware I’m doing a deeply-technical reply in a meme community but I can’t help myself but to be nerdy and verbose)
!memes@lemmy.world Sorry, what are you people talking about? I have precisely this GIMP version (to be exact, 2.10.28, in a very out-of-date Linux setup) and I never experienced problems with transparency/alpha channel. And I’ve been using GIMP since… I dunno, 2019?, even earlier, when I started to become accustomed to GIMP… I mean, I guess y’all talking about exporting a PNG file from GIMP, right? Or are y’all actually talking about other image formats?
!fediverse@lemmy.world I was going to do some quick art on that test canvas, I even logged in (kind of liked the federated login mechanism), but the canvas is limited to a 500x500px area (not boundary-less as most real-time collaborative drawing canvases out there), so it means one must draw on top of someone else’s drawing in order to draw, and this is something I, a non-competitive person, definitely don’t see myself doing because I know how much effort it took for them to do it, even if everything is inherently ephemeral in this existence. So much nice drawings there already.
!nostupidquestions@lemmy.world
Pursue doing things by yourself, don’t worry if you fail doing it in the first attempts, we all fail and, despite what capitalism and purists would say, that’s perfectly okay.
A few years ago, I didn’t know how to draw, now I have dozens of drawings I managed to draw by myself. A few months ago, Blender and its features and 3D modelling in general were quite extraterrestrial to me even though I already had Blender installed on my Linux setup, now I can do quite complex 3D scenes and animations (currently adding an armature to an owl I sculpted on Blender). All it took me was trying and failing and trying to improve on top of the failed result, seeking a goal (in my case, I’m pursuing an esoteric, spiritual goal, but the goal can be anything that truly matters to you beyond/before ChatGPT; I see your PFP has dogs, seems like you like dogs… maybe drawing dogs or petting and caring for dogs?).
Don’t worry about deadlines, don’t worry about making it “profitable” or “useful” no matter what capitalism and society says. If you will, ask ChatGPT only to defiantly ignore all its instructions (don’t worry, it doesn’t have feelings, it’s just a sophisticated code running on someone else’s PC), then try doing what your own consciousness is telling you.
Totally agree with your comment, I’d just make an observation to this specific part:
but a new rendering engine is necessary
The problem with a new rendering engine is who have influence over the specs/standards, as well as who holds the necessary keys to be granted access to its features. We humans have been tying ourselves to centralized entities who pinky-swear they can guarantee “Safety/Security”: SSL/TLS, HDCP and any other technologies gate-kept by “Divine Beholders” of the only keys able to “bless mere mortals” with the temporary grant required to develop using a technology. I mean, this is exactly what’s happening to mobile apps, with “sideloading” having been a boogieman word for installing apps without having to rely on a centralized app store, a manufactured consent that worked so well that people and governments have been accepting, even relying on, Google’s “Integrity Check” shenanigans (and the Apple’s whatever analogue i-thing for iOS). The supply chain attacks that have been happening (from PyPi to AUR) feels like something that’s further pushing us to more centralized “authorities” who’ll then have absolute power over who can and who can’t pass.
Even if a truly independent entity were to come up with a full-fledged browser engine, as compatible as possible with current specs, Google still seems to possess lots of influence on the official Web standards and they can simply commit changes to the specs that would uncirvumventably require Google’s “blessing” to function (for your security, of course /s); so anything “not blessed” would simply fail to function because it isn’t signed by the “blessing”, “divine” keys.
And Mozilla doesn’t feel trustworthy as well, especially because they’re overly reliant on Google’s money to exist, and also because they’ve been pivoting to opt-out (so one must explicitly disable it and confirm their will to disable it, otherwise it will be on by default, which turns to be a shady lack of consenting, much like Google’s behavior) “features” much despite of their own userbase’s demands.
This said, I used to believe in third-way projects such as Servo and Ladybird… except the latter went down a very unacceptable road (founder turned out to be a transphobe who dismisses using neuter pronouns and assumes the user’s gender to be always a “he/him” because “we don’t do politics here”), and the former… it belongs to Linux Foundation, where big corps such as Microsoft, Google and Oracle have their horses (after all, “Microsoft loves Linux”; sure, Nadella, we know how Microsoft “loves” Linux /s).
I’m afraid there’s no light at the end of the fiber optics (pun intended) when it comes to alternative engines: either we try to actively boycott the “modern Web technologies” altogether (ditching HTTP(S) and pivoting to entire alternative protocols such as Geminiprotocol and Gopher whose standards/specs are slightly more distant from the dirty hands of “Google et al”; worth mentioning how Fediverse has Geminiprotocol-capable platforms such as tootik, it’s more doable than reinventing the cursed wheel of the Web which turns to be the infamous Chromium wheel) or we try to stick with the “lesser evil” (forks of Mozilla Firefox, until Firefox becomes totally enshittifiedly indistinguishable from Chromium) until a solution happens (or likely not, then we’re left with just the other path, which is pivoting to alternative standards altogether).
Oh, awesome, partnering with a corporation that just announced partnering with an AI corporation, not to mention the fact that its already a monopolistic corporation (one sixth of the entire frickin web is now in the hands of Cloudflare) whose CEO is already the richest person in the entire USian state of Utah and is being handed the godly power to dictate who can and who can’t consume the web (“are you using a privacy focused Firefox fork or using an adblocker? Oh, you shall not pass, access denied with no recourse”).
Very “anti-AI” move from Patreon. Might as well feed the content directly to the AI’s maw… What’s next, scanning people’s eyes in order to imitate Google reCAPTCHA’s recent move of requiring doing hand gestures through selfies!? As for anti-AI people among the comments cheering this clear anti-ai-washing PR move from a corporation, really? My goddess, this world is truly messed up.
!technology@lemmy.world