gila @ gila @lemm.ee

Posts

0

Comments

354

Joined

2 yr. ago

Same issue, merger buyouts. e.g. Safeway into Woolies in Aus, Progressive into FAL into Woolies in NZ. (not to mention FS NI was just created 2 years ago via the merger of FS Auckland and FS Wellington, and now is merging with FS SI). Nothing short of stopping merger buyouts creating monopolies in essential services will stop this problem, and I have no confidence it'll happen anytime soon. The fines they cop will be less than the revenue generated by increasing margin 1%, so it'll forever be on that edge where you're just not quite ripped off enough to let yourself and your kids go hungry

If you pirated the album, presumably it is free of any DRM. In this case the most that itunes could infer is that you didn't buy it from the itunes store, which isn't the same thing as inferring that you pirated it. So it's safe to assume whatever you're experiencing isn't an antipiracy measure, but either a bug or some issue with the album rip you downloaded. Without knowing the source I'd lean toward the latter, because lossy transcodes, bad rips and bad tags are commonplace in many places where pirated music is available.

This disables a small subset of notifications you might get using Win10/11 that are tips about using Win10/11. It absolutely does not 'banish ads from notifications'. You will still get ads in the notification center almost as frequently after performing this action, including from Microsoft, including about Windows.

After voicing my specific problems with the question (effectively answering it in the way it was designed to be answered in the process), I was rebuffed by the teacher because this protest was not in the form of a written answer on the sheet. They were dead set on me writing the specific non-answer they thought of and marking anything else incorrect, regardless of whether understanding of probability was demonstrated. I, like most of my classmates, contrived some nonsense answer such as "the cutouts for the number markings on each side slightly imbalance the dice", and was marked wrong.

It's a slightly different use case, I default to Losslesscut and switch to Shotcut when I need a vfilter or if I'm just generally willing to concede to making a lossy cut.

Shotcut is way more flexible but I can make a quick clip in Losslesscut with probably 1/3 the number of user effort/inputs. Let alone trying to remember every ffmpeg parameter under the sun just to get consistent usable output

That's what I've always assumed it does since back when quicktime player barely even ran on my PC yet for timeline operations it was significantly more responsive than WMP/MPC.

For Losslesscut I just get around this by encoding my input from source using keyint=n:scenecut=0 in ffmpeg where n is a manually set keyframe interval.

So e.g. if my expected cut occurs on a frame that occurs at t+10 seconds of footage, n can be the same as the fps and then there'll always be a keyframe exactly at timestamp 00:00:01, 00:00:02 and so on. I can then open it in losslesscut and easily snap to the frame I want and make the cut losslessly.

Yeah the first encode generally means a lossy transcode by the time I get to my final video but being realistic that'd be a part of my workflow either way and this way it's less

The respondent in the actual post, their assumption is that the metaphor would demonstrate the answer to the proposed question, which for many readers it did. It didn't for thatguy, and this is explained by the following respondents in the meme as being a result of thatguy's existing biases. The reality is that all readers came to whatever conclusion they did based primarily on their existing biases, like for an example a bias toward memes which equally represent big and small boobs. Because there is no complete literal interpretation of the parable as it is written.

If it were a matter of the shared social goal & responsibility of general comprehension between reader & writer (& other readers), there are a few clues which should have suggested to thatguy that both sizes being equal was the intent. There was some missed responsibility on the part of the writer to ensure clarity there too. Of course, no one is perfect and that's why most people just subjectively fill in whatever gaps exist, usually subconsciously. But that's not reading comprehension. The fcat you are albe to raed tihs sntenece and udnrsetnad it is not raednig cmoerpehrnison, any more than when I misspeak to you and you understand what I meant. That's just science. Neurology and free association. A concept fully divorced from reading comprehension. Maybe people want a better term for it now and thought 'reading comprehension' made sense, but it's already taken and means something else.

In reading comprehension, it doesn't matter how confusing or not the parable is, or whether the reader truly understands the writer's perspective once they've finished the text. All that matters is the reality of the text. If it is a text, there is some literary convention in it. Objectively you can understand it or not, and reading comprehension is a way to measure this.

The context I was referring to is the assumed purpose of the Great Philosopher's use of the metaphor & the assumed scope of the comparison between bills and coins to be of their representative money denomination only. You have acknowledged in your explanation that both are equally valuable despite their differences in their mass, but this same qualification is not included in the OP and that's the source of the confusion. After the difference is mentioned in their penultimate question, the word 'but' is used as a soft indication of an ultimate answer converse to the previous answer, coins, which have greater mass. In the text and subtext, the use of this word is the first and only indication whatsoever of the Great Philosopher's implication and answer. But with this info alone it still is still equally possible that the Great Philosopher's point is that both $30 of bills and coins are of equal value and therefore, both big and small boobs are of equal value; or that bills subjectively have greater value as a result of their lower mass and therefore that small boobs are greater in value than big boobs.

This is not further clarified in the text. You can use your relevant formative experiences to figure out the intended point, probably more than 50% of the time. But if you posted this on a small boob enthusiast forum, everyone there would understand this meme to be justifying their enthusiasm about small boobs.

I used the word lieu incorrectly. The respondent has recognised the same subtext that is present and that you had recognised but they did not understand in spite of this, because it does not indicate what you're suggesting

Your interpretation of the subtext in the OP is predicated on context which does not appear in the text. Answering a question with a metaphor implies that the metaphor will demonstrate an answer to the question; nothing more. It does absolutely nothing AT ALL to suggest it is an invalid question; you've just made that up. The respondent being analysed has in fact recognised this subtext equally and their resulting lack of understanding has happened in spite of this.

In my math class example although the test question was a written question, I received it in person in math class in middle school in rural Australia during late 90s from a teacher and as a part of a syllabus I was familiar with. These are just some examples of the contextual clues which in combination with the text formed the subtext or the basis for my interpretation of it. There are other circumstances I've not mentioned because they are irrelevant to the point I was using the example to make, and it's none of anyone's business. That said, it is just plain ridiculous to argue about the subtext of a question paraphrased in recollection after decades as if my original comment has somehow given you a more accurate read on the experience I lived.

I am familiar with the concept of subtext, thanks. I think you've mistaken that what is incumbent upon you here is to demonstrate what subtext has been contained within the text as you put it, in either the OP or my example, that was missed.

I mean in the case of my old school memory I think you'll just have to indulge my recollection that there was none (in fact, that all subtext in that situation related to being in math class etc purposefully indicated that it was a genuine math question, by the teacher's design). But in the OP greentext parable, literally some text presented devoid of context, which actually is relevant in that it establishes that there is a closed loop of literary conventions in that text which can be analysed or 'comprehended' - what is the subtext?

Are they playing on console? A lot of those times the problems just aren't equally represented, like when Wild Hearts came out and ended up with Mixed reception although buying on console I simply didn't have the performance problems and enjoyed the game as a unique take on MH gameplay

The fast pace certainly comes from console subscriptions and trying to eke out as much value from Game Pass or PS+ Extra, on both the consumer and publisher sides. If I'm regularly paying for it, I'm gonna keep looking for new value in it, and conversely MS and Sony will look to keep adding value to it at a consistent rate. It's simply far too much income to not throw everything at the wall to prevent it stagnating

Sorry, I'm sure you're just being facetious and have already realised this, but I'll go ahead and sign off by pointing out the obvious that speech as a medium of information is inextricably linked to concepts such as tone, manner, body language. You can't just make shit up like "spoken text" and pretend written and verbal communication aren't fundamentally different concepts, gimme a break dude

I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't let you use a concept you don't understand as the basis for your opinion

I think you're perhaps mistaking a very broad and loose concept of comprehension generally for the concept of reading comprehension in the way it's used in the meme and my example, where it is has a defined meaning which indeed limits the scope of the concept to comprehension of things that are read. While perhaps not explicitly wrong for other purposes, for purposes of this conversation reading comprehension is the ability to read, process and understand text.

Beep boop. Human's central point is that two unalike things are actually the same thing. Does not compute

That's not what I meant. What I'm saying is that when someone is verbally saying something to you but means something else, that has nothing to do with reading comprehension. Literally neither of you are reading at all in that scenario as you put it. Can you explain what it has to do with reading other than being broadly related to communicating information?

If they were writing to you instead, and there was some characteristic about what they wrote which could function as a piece of information you could use to comprehend additional information and make deductions about what they wrote beyond the literal words on the page, then it would be related to reading comprehension. But that's not the case here, neither with the OP nor my example

Yeah, I'm struggling. That's a list of general concepts in literature, which isn't synonymous with a concept in reading comprehension like you're using it. I've also re-examined but can't see where any of these listed concepts appear in either the OP or the example I gave. It seems you're just trying to catch me out by pointing to an exception in a metaphor I gave to demonstrate my point rather than engaging with the point at all

Reading comprehension is the ability to read text, process it and understand its meaning. If your point is about processing and understanding information that isn't present in the text, it isn't about reading comprehension. And in neither of the examined cases is anything present in the text where reading comprehension could serve to fill the gap in the respondent's external understanding.

I'm not saying it isn't a problem that the person in the meme didn't comprehend what was going on, or that I was right for my childhood response to a math question. I'm saying that someone going on to use the OP as a basis to go on to make a point about e.g. younger generations being less literate is notably wrong for several reasons.

They're wrong because it isn't to do with reading comprehension. They're wrong when you consider that the same point is made by every older generation about every younger generation for the past few centuries despite a continued uptrend in global literacy. And it's ironic that they're wrong making a point about poor reading comprehension as a result of failing to comprehend that the person building a strawman out of the initial meme respondent is talking out of their ass. Poor comprehension is a potential reading of the comment in question, but the person talking about them seeking to reinforce their bias jumped to that conclusion in bad faith, and now y'all in this thread are substantiating that without properly examining whether there's actually basis for that particular reading of their comment at all. And that my friend, is a failure of your reading comprehension. A deference to petty bickering under an illusion of being grounded in logic and literacy, arrived at via mental gymnastics

Damn, my ego from 20-something years ago is shattered. Anyway please, tell me more about how a key part of reading comprehension is actually comprehension of non-textual information ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡° )

For sure, I'm more pushing back on using this example as a basis to go on to make a point about reading comprehension. It's quite ironic that the issue isn't really about reading comprehension, don't you think?