lunarul @ lunarul @lemmy.world

Posts

2

Comments

555

Joined

2 yr. ago

And vim/emacs are rated just as difficult as a programming language

The image shows a moire effect captured on camera, but also produces another moire effect on top at certain zoom levels

So really no excuse when the vogons come

I just looked up the other day how to take care of the venus flytrap my son insisted we buy. It said it needs poor soil, do not fertilize it, and that they get their nutrients from their prey (and should be fed if kept indoors).

everything would be art so nothing would be art

A lot of artists share that thought

Anyone can take a photo, sure but making art via photography is incredibly complex.

I think that's exactly the point. Anyone can use AI, but that doesn't make then all artists. But there is a place for AI in art, like many other tools. Same as for other tools, jusy knowing how to use them doesn't make you an artist. Just look at all the bad Photoshop stuff everywhere. Does that mean that using Photoshop makes you a talentless hack? Or just that a lot of hacks use it to pretend they're artists? Same for AI.

I never use my mouse at all in vim

I rushed to just grab that codeblock from Wikipedia. But the selection of which characters are considered emoji is not arbitrary. The Unicode Consortium (their Unicode Emoji Standard and Research Working Group to be exact) publishes those list and guidelines on how they should be rendered. I believe the most recent version of the standard is Emoji 15.1.

Edit: I realized I'm going off track here by just reacting to comments and forgetting my initial point. The difference I was initially alluding to is in selection criteria. The emoji. for assigning a character a Unicode codepoint is very different from the criteria for creating a new emoji. Bitcoin has a unique symbol and there is a real need to use that symbol in written material. Having a unicode character for it solves that problem, and indeed one was added. The Emoji working group has other selection criteria (which is why you have emoji for eggplant and flying money, and other things that are not otherwise characters. So the fact that a certain character exists, despite its very limited use, has no bearing on whether something else should have an emoji to represent it.

There's no ambiguity. Emoji are characters in the emoticons code block (U+1F600..U+1F64F). Emoji are indeed a subset of characters, but anything outside that block is not an emoji.

Edit: jumped the gun on that definition, just took the code block from Wikipedia. But there is no ambiguity on which character is an emoji and which is not. The Unicode Consortium publishes lists of emoji and guidelines on how they should be rendered.

I don't disagree with the overall comment, but there's a difference between character and emoji. ⅌ got a character, but so did ₿ already.

Compared to what it takes to become a policeman in the US, it's definitely a higher level of training. Hard to find a direct US equivalent.

Gendarmerie is part of the military, higher than police. And he was a sergeant. He's part of both the national team and the national army team.

She looks cool af in that pic, I can't take the comparison as a roast.

I remember one of my dad's co-workers asking my dad to bring me to his place so I can walk him through Dizzy as he wrote everything down.

Growing up with games that had no save options and no walk-throughs, we're the OG gamers.

I remember playing the original Lemmings and SimCity without a mouse.

a UI library like jQuery

Um.. what?

So many warning signs he just ignores. Worst was when she directly told him her shoes were too slippery.

As an avid hiker who can't wait to introduce my kids to more difficult hikes when they grow up, I'll always remember this story before deciding to ignore any warnings.

You know whoever made that is carrying it around with them just to make that joke when someone asks for a lighter.

I use the wayback machine a lot. The actual archive less often, but I've definitely used it to look up things that are otherwise hard to find.