barsoap @ barsoap @lemm.ee

Posts

32

Comments

4,490

Joined

2 yr. ago

Makes sense -- punctuation is ultimately about signalling pauses and inflection in speech; you can get rather creative if, and only if! so desired.

If you want a really advanced build system there's shake, which can deal with things like building things that generates dependency information for things that build things. In a nutshell: It's strictly more powerful than make because (a single invocation of) make operates on a fixed dependency graph while shake can discover dependencies as it goes.

Mostly though you should use whatever comes with the language you're using, and if you're doing something simple use make. That includes "link a multi-language project where the components are generated by language-specific systems". It notably doesn't include multi-stage compiler builds. GHC switched from recursive make, which is a bad idea, to non-recursive make, which was... arcane, but at least you didn't have to make clean to get a correct build, to shake. Here's the build system it's a whole project to itself.

Speaking of Sacha Baron Cohen, here's Ali G's take on feminism.

Twenty years ago, the media that kids had available for consumption was age rated.

It was, still is, was ten years before, and trust me that didn't stop me one bit.

What's different then and now is the degree of choice people employ in their media consumption. It's not like there was no Nazi propaganda on the net in 1990, it's that who the fuck seeks that stuff out. The feeds that were choice-free were, yes, sanitised (TV, radio, though if you stayed of long enough TV would show rather interesting things), but also numerous. Like at least seven TV channels over the air, and plenty of radio stations (though most played shoddy music). Imagine having seven tiktok feeds you can't fast-forward but switch in between. On current algorithmic platforms, you skip something, get shown the next thing, algorithm learns about you, about how to draw its hooks specifically into you. Back in the days, you couldn't skip, switched away, and if there was only uninteresting stuff on the other channels you switched off. Internet? Age of web rings, search barely even existed. Anyone remember altavista?

I roamed the library, inhaled multiple series of books whole-sale, but in between, there was always this magic moment: Browsing. Looking at things, shaking them a bit, see if they're actually interesting. Great availability of things, yes, but also limited time, and preferences, so you got picky.

That's the skill that's getting lost: People are outsourcing their consumption choices to algorithms. Worse, ones who care about nothing but retention, how can they keep you hooked so you watch more ads.

...which btw ties back into youth protection. Ratings etc. exist but the general consensus in youth psychology is that as soon as youth seeks something out by themselves, they're ready to consume it. Ratings are there so that kids don't stumble across things inadvertently, not so that they are completely unable to consume it. A hoop to jump through, maybe some secrecy, all that is a proper framework, "they think it's not for me, I think otherwise", puts the mind in the right inquisitive-but-cautious frame. That, however, presumes a choice algorithm that's running in your head, and not in the cloud.

And meanwhile, "media literacy" is understood as "spotting fake information". BS. Any information will become true to anyone if you allow it to be fed to you without getting your own agency involved. The question is less "are kids able to sniff out BS" -- they by and large are. The question is whether they have the power to say "I choose not to continue down this path", whether they have trained that muscle. Because without that no amount of skill in spotting bullshit will save you.

Yep the resting face is not a good judge of character, the active one is much more telling, and in Vance's case it's "self-righteousness without contentedness to back it up". You can't be discontent with yourself and at the same time think yourself to be the pinnacle of insight, at least not without a hefty dose of neurosis, that is.

Tate’s motivational and fitness content

Speaking of, let me present to you the anti-Tate

With regards to AI?. None tbh.

TBH, that might be enough. Stuff like SDXL runs on 4G cards (the trick is using ComfyUI, like 5-10s/it), smaller LLMs reportedly too (haven't tried, not interested). And the reason I'm eyeing a 9070 XT isn't AI it's finally upgrading my GPU, still would be a massive fucking boost for AI workloads.

In this case it's easy: There's multiple places where the cross-hatching doesn't make sense stroke-wise. The stippling is weird and overdone, can you imagine a human moving their pen like that? Why spend like 99% of the work on what's, thematically, negative space? ...that's because the AI has trouble understanding that cross-hatching is lines, and that dithering isn't stippling, it confuses an art style with scans of photographs printed in newspapers.

A human also wouldn't have gotten the shape of the arch and even more so pyramid wrong.

GTFO here with "soulless" that's the AI critique equivalent of "I can tell by the pixels". Of course this shit doesn't have soul it's, thematically, a fucking technical drawing. Sibs be saying "Plato was an AI, here, his drawing of the solids, they lack soul". You ever seen a dodecahedron with soul?

You'll be hard-pressed to find a German restaurant without a good choice of vegetarian options and at least some vegan ones. Germany is about 2% vegan, 10% ovo-lacto-vegetarian, and 55% flexitarian. That's 67% of the population having an active look at those choices and you'd be very out of place with "if there's no meat it's not food" comments. You just insulted a huge number of quite cherished traditional dishes.

Go on, go, go to Swabia and say that Käsespätzle are not food. I'm waiting. They'll probably lock you into a madhouse.

It is absolutely true that people drink piss in Berlin, it's not called Heineken but Berliner Kindl though.

Takes a vegan to take a general statement and make it about their pet issue. I thought you guy were forbidden to have pets? Whatever happened to that?

Tell the waiter "I'm vegan, what can you recommend", be served oilve oil brioche and a nice, round, black coffee. With a slight sweetness and aroma to it, chosen to specifically to complement that of the brioche. It could have been so nice, everyone could have been happy, you could have not been a philistine.

Most of the lactose-intolerant population isn't asking for lattes for the simple reason that their cuisine doesn't use dairy at all.

Also FWIW Italy is quite lactose-intolerant. It's why you hear things like "no cappuccino after noon" and stuff, many Italians don't vibe well with more than one of those things.

"Deny accommodating for common dietary preference", how? Have your coffee black, there, completely lactose-free. If you ask for a latte, don't be surprised when you get milk. If you don't want milk, don't order a latte. Do you know what "latte" translates to?

France is intolerant towards people who, instead of having something brilliant that they can have, would rather have a bad imitation of something that they can't have. You're not getting judged or discriminated against for being lactose intolerant, you're getting judged for being béotien and not discriminated against, but educated. By being served better food than what you ordered.

That or they just plainly don't have it on the menu.

In Italian, 'peperoni' are bell peppers -- not necessarily bulbous or large, but definitely with zero to negligible heat. Chillis are 'peperoncino'.

But this isn't about changing a definition, it's about expanding recognition to a previously mischaracterised portion of the population.

If racoons were at one point considered to be cats but now we know they're actually much closer related to bears than anything else, are we changing the definition of "cat" and "bear"?

Would it baffle you to know I might consider this “critique” to be art where the image itself is not? I leave that as an exercise to the reader.

Not in the slightest. Also, how kind of you.

Do I just take your word for it that these critics have nothing to say?

Nah I'm just not into the high-falutin' stuff myself. At least not in the "write an essay to accompany the work" way. Part of the craft of art, for me, is to actually express stuff in the artwork, and not as a combination of artwork+essay. I very much rather leave the thing open to interpretation, see what happens. That's entering a dialogue with whoever the audience may be instead of preaching from the pulpit, it's horizontal, not hierarchical, it does not privilege the perception of the author over that of the audience.

Their sole motivation is salvaging gen AI’s reputation.

Yes and no? My actual stance on gen AI is simple: It's pretty much like photography. Tons of slop photographs and AI gens exist because it's so accessible, doesn't mean you cannot create art using it. Like with photography, using gen AI you have to deal with its limitations: You can't control the weather, you can't control how the AI will interpret certain things. It's limitations you have to work within, work around, with photography more physical, with AI you're putting your lens into a very weird conceptual kind of space. In either case, as an artist, you're making lots of choices, turn lots of knobs, to increase your odds but ultimately still rely on chance and throw away tons of shots which aren't quite right. It's quite a different process than drawing which is why I think so much of the critique comes from... painters. That was the case back in the days when photography was new, and it's the same now, modulo people now using graphics tablets of which I have one connected to my PC mind you just make this clear even if I can't draw for shit I'm not half-bad at sculpting. I wouldn't really dream of doing something serious with gen AI that doesn't have at least a depth map as input, there's just not enough control without that kind of thing.

I'm not talking about reinterpretation, I'm talking about faithful recreation. Archaeologists do that kind of thing, and it's valuable, why not art historians?

And judging by your reaction my suggestion indeed is the right kind of transgression to recreate the thing.

If you want it a bit more pedestrian, just in case you happen to be a museum director: Ask the janitor to go into a hardware store, and buy a urinal they like. Then tell them to write "The real Duchamp" on it, and position it on a pedestal. Attach a standard museum plaque, crediting the work to the janitor.

With some time passed, I actually have the high-brow answer you so desire:

The talking glass, which might only be spotted on a second take as the human mind first glances over the inconsistency, focussed on reading the text, challenges us to emphasise with Excel's own problems deriving meaning from the input it's given. Just as we mislooked, assumed context, so does Excel assume context, and January 17th.

barsoap is reaching for the stars here to justify something they know is bullshit.

That's where flowers grow that's why it's beautiful. You may dismiss it, others might quote Bob Ross and call it a happy accident, yet others might jerk off to it, talking about Jung, how the human behind the generation, in their chuckle, might not have been aware of the context of what they were producing, but channelled the collective unconsciousness' understanding of it and then wax on about the chuckle as the self-portrait, archetype, of hunches.

If you think that's BS then you should read some of the explanations that come with modern academic works of art. As in the stuff you're producing when you study art. I'm fucking holding back here, they seem to be grading by unintelligibility and length of the justification.

Is that BS? I am quite sympathetic to that notion. But that doesn't challenge its status as art.

Being profoundly offensive is the only way to do the work justice. To actually recreate it is not to recreate the original form, but the reaction it caused. The very point of the work includes that any urinal is just as good as any other, so why the pretence that this particular shape, the "R. Mutt" signature, has significance?

Looking at the replicas is like praying to ashes. I'm talking about passing on the fire.