Off-and-on trying out an account over at @[email protected] due to scraping bots bogging down lemmy.today to the point of near-unusability.
What controller from the 1980s looked anything like the Steam Controller?
I mean, the Sega Genesis controller was mostly black and had face buttons and a D-pad and was around in the late 1980s, but that’s about as close as I can think of, and that’a not much by way of similarity.
Just loss of access to Web sites alone is pretty problematic in 2025, not even getting to open source packages.
If I lost access to Web search engines and Wikipedia, I’d lose a lot of important tools.
Ironically, software might be one of the less-problematic areas, as I have (probably out of date) local git repositories of a lot of software. But I don’t have local Wikipedia or local documentatation on a host of things. Maybe in 2025, local LLMs could act as a limited stopgap for some Web searching stuff.
is a pain in the ass
is dependent on 3rd parties
Well, one of the two, at any rate.
Unless there’s a technology tie-in that I’m not seeing here, you might do better at [email protected].
A predominantly-white interior decor and clothing motif. Makes the room brighter.
I’d think that it’d be possible to do that less obtrusively. I mean, the “infinite scroll” model just loads content when hitting the bottom if the page. I inagine that a webpage could phone home once someone hits a given point in the page (and probably does).
The Billboard chart in question is behind a paywall.
Someone on a Reddit discussion on the same song pointed out that it could be bypassed with:
https://open.bolha.tools/ and plugging in the Billboard URL https://www.billboard.com/charts/country-digital-song-sales/
That being said, while I can see the chart, I don’t see any numbers, so I’m assuming that they must be coming from somewhere else, though I don’t have any reason to doubt them; it sounds like tasteofcountry.com is reputable.
That article does point out that there are a substantial number of Spotify users listening to the song, though if I remember, there was some past discussion about how various people had tried trying to game Spotify’s recommendation system to try to get more people listening to their songs, so maybe someone could just be leveraging that hard?
kagis
I’m not sure if this is what I’m remembering. I wasn’t super-interested at the time, but I thought that it was talking about how some artists had been gaming the system to be more-frequently-recommended, whereas this is talking about Spotify apparently taking money to increase recommendations.
EDIT: I can’t find any news story that seems to fit what I thought I remember reading. I do see a LinkedIn page talking about tactics to attack Spotify’s recommendation algorithm:
So I imagine that there are probably people out there working hard to game it, though I suppose that that’s probably something of a given.
is AI going play the Grand Ole Opry?
Virtual bands playing human-composed and -recorded music predate present music from generative AI, and they’ve done performances.
I imagine at some point, probably someone will pair virtual bands with AI-generated music, and do performances of it, if they haven’t already.
I believe that he’s joking.
I’m not really familiar with Spotify, but at leadt for me — I don’t have a Spotify account — it only plays the first bit.
I think that this is the same song, but on YouTube Music.
Sure, but they did.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disumbrationism
Disumbrationism was a hoax masquerading as an art movement that was launched in 1924 by Paul Jordan-Smith, a novelist, Latin scholar, and authority on Robert Burton from Los Angeles, California.
Annoyed at the cold reception his wife Sarah Bixby Smith’s realistic still lifes had received from an art exhibition jury, Jordan-Smith sought revenge by styling himself as “Pavel Jerdanowitch” (Cyrillic: Па́вел Жердaнович), a variation on his own name. Never having picked up a paint brush in his life, he then painted Yes, we have no bananas, a blurry, badly painted picture of a Pacific islander woman holding a banana over her head, having just killed a man and putting his skull on a stick. In 1925, Smith entered the banana picture under a new title of Exaltation in New York’s “Exhibition” of the Independents at the Waldorf-Astoria. He made a suitably dark and brooding photograph of himself as Jerdanowitch, and submitted the work to the same group of critics as representative of the new school “Disumbrationism”. He explained Exaltation as a symbol of “breaking the shackles of womanhood”.[1] To his amusement, if not to his surprise, the Disumbrationist daub won praise from the critics who had belittled his wife’s realistic painting.
More Disumbrationist paintings followed: a composition of zig-zag lines and eyeballs he called Illumination; a garish picture of a black woman doing laundry that he called Aspiration, and which a critic praised as “a delightful jumble of Gauguin, Pop Hart and Negro minstrelsy, with a lot of Jerdanowitch individuality”;[2]: 111 Gination, an ugly, lopsided portrait; and a painting named Adoration, of a woman worshipping an immense phallic idol, which was exhibited in 1927.
https://hoaxes.org/archive/permalink/the_disumbrationist_school_of_art/
Jordan-Smith did too, though, and his work doesn’t qualify. I think that one has to both do and maintain a straight face for the rest of one’s life.
deleted by creator
Welcome to the modern day. Everything is stupid, and intentionally designed for you to have a bad time.
To be fair, if you go back to the pre-Internet era, the OED was pretty expensive in print. Your library might have had a copy, but most people wouldn’t.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_English_Dictionary
In 1933, the title The Oxford English Dictionary fully replaced the former name in all occurrences in its reprinting as 12 volumes with a one-volume supplement. More supplements came over the years until 1989, when the second edition was published, comprising 21,728 pages in 20 volumes.[1] Since 2000, compilation of a third edition of the dictionary has been underway, approximately half of which was complete by 2018.[1]
Most people don’t have a 20 volume dictionary floating around the house.
When I was growing up, our house used the Random House Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary.
Random House Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary is a large American dictionary, first published in 1966 as The Random House Dictionary of the English Language: The Unabridged Edition. Edited by Editor-in-chief Jess Stein, it contained 315,000 entries in 2256 pages, as well as 2400 illustrations.
That’s pretty beefy for a single book, but it’s a far smaller and less-costly dictionary than the OED.
Various libraries near me might have had an OED, but I don’t think I ever used it there, either.
My guess is that if you were gonna have a big set of reference books, you’d probably be more likely to have an encyclopedia set, maybe get Encyclopedia Britannica, not the Oxford English Dictionary.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopædia_Britannica
The Encyclopædia Britannica (Latin for ‘British Encyclopaedia’) is a general-knowledge English-language encyclopaedia. It has been published since 1768, and after several ownership changes is currently owned by Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. The 2010 version of the 15th edition, which spans 32 volumes and 32,640 pages, was the last printed edition.[1] Since 2016, it has been published exclusively as an online encyclopaedia at the website Britannica.com.
We used the somewhat-smaller World Book Encyclopedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Book_Encyclopedia
The World Book Encyclopedia is an American encyclopedia.[1] World Book was first published in 1917. Since 1925, a new edition of the encyclopedia has been published annually.[1] Although published online in digital form for a number of years, World Book is currently the only American encyclopedia which also still provides a print edition.[2] The encyclopedia is designed to cover major areas of knowledge uniformly, but it shows particular strength in scientific, technical, historical and medical subjects.[3]
World Book, Inc. is based in Chicago, Illinois.[1] According to the company, the latest edition, World Book Encyclopedia 2024, contains more than 14,000 pages distributed along 22 volumes and also contains over 25,000 photographs.[4]
As of 2022, the only official sales outlet for the World Book Encyclopedia is the company’s website; the official list price is $1,199.
I think that the idea of a large, expensive, many-volume print home reference work is probably fading into the past with the Internet, but it used to really be something of a norm.
The OED in print today costs $1,215, and you can still get the thing. So that’s pretty comparable to the pre-Internet past.
They also sell online subscriptions for $100/year. I think that most people with a home set likely didn’t bother to replace their encyclopedia or dictionary and just let it get out of date, so they probably didn’t get an OED set and replace it every 12 years (well, discount the cost of financing there) so online access would cost more…but it’s probably not wildly worse.
$100/year is definitely not worth it for me for OED access, but, then, neither is the print edition, and that’s been the long-run norm for what someone would get if they wanted the OED.
Honestly…considers I don’t think that I actually even have a print dictionary. I used to have a little vest-pocket dictionary that was floating around somewhere, but not a standard bookshelf reference. Just too many freely-available online ones. If I bought one, I probably would not buy the OED.
I do think that the paywall will make the OED less-relevant relative to other dictionaries.
But I don’t think that the world is worse off now than it was when one had to go buy a large print book (or a 20-volume set of books, if that’s how you swung) and then go haul it off the bookshelf when you wanted to reference it.
Merriam-Webster isn’t paywalled.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/
Looks like there’s a new definitive standard for the English language!
I don’t know if I’d call baking bread a huge financial win, but it does let you experiment with styles that you like, whereas store-bought bread, even at a store with a lot of selection, is only gonna have so many options. I like throwing poppy seeds and extra vital wheat gluten (more chewy/stretchy) and olive oil into my bread.
And fresh yeast bread just out of the oven smells really good.
I virtually never did it when I had to knead bread by hand — it’s not just that the kneading is a lot of work, but it makes a mess — but I do make use of a bread machine, and that reduced the effort involved enough for me to do it on a semi-regular basis, though come to think of it, I haven’t made any loaves in a while.
I assumed it was set in the United States until the main character went to London.
I’d assume that London was a city on the Thames bridged by Blackfriars Bridge in the UK.
But you never know, because it might be that London was a city on the Thames bridged by Blackfriars Bridge in Canada.
I don’t know if (a) it’s real and (b) it’ll be like the original Steam Controller, but if so, the point is that it’s the most-viable mouse alternative that you can have in a gamepad form factor.
If a game can be played with a traditional gamepad, then sure, there are a bunch of good options. But not all games are like that.
The original was useful for someone who wants to play a mouse-based game on the couch.
Fallout 5. Kenshi 2.
Another key missing fact is the supremacy clause of the constitution, which says that federal laws are presumed to overrule state laws when they conflict. This is why a lot of ‘blue’ states had terrible abortion laws still on the books when Dobbs happened, because they were nullified by the Roe v Wade ruling in the 70s and they never got around to actually removing the defunct laws.
That doesn’t relate to the supremacy clause. There wasn’t a federal law involved; that ruling was that the state law was unconstitutional, not in conflict with a federal law.
For the great bulk of legislation, there is no potential for state-federal overlap, since generally either the federal legislature can write law or the state legislature can, not both; that’s why you have the enumerated powers clause.
In the limited areas where both federal and state governments can legislate, then federal law does take precedence.
Now, you could argue that maybe there’s some Constitutional authority that permits the federal government to do so.
kagis
It looks like the CRS has a document up on this point:
https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/LSB10787
They list three potential routes of relevance that would permit a federal law relating to abortion to be passed:
One is that there might be a dormant Commerce Clause argument (the federal government has authority over interstate trade) Their take is that while it’s possible that the Commerce Clause might permit regulation of some provision of abortion-related services across state lines (like an abortion clinic doing business across state lines), it most-likely doesn’t cover abortion legality in general.
The second is that Congress might be able to use the power of the purse — basically, to withhold or extend funds to coerce the states to pass laws at the state level that they want. This was done at one point in the past to force states to raise their drinking age if they wanted highway funds. This can’t be a general “just make states do whatever you want” club, because otherwise you don’t have a federal system. There hasn’t been much case law on this, so the precise line drawn isn’t terribly clear. At one point, the Supreme Court permitted use of it to deny interstate highway funding to states that didn’t raise their drinking age (with the idea that teens would be drunk-driving on the interstate). The other major ruling was on the ACA individual coverage mandate, where the Supreme Court shot down its use. I think that it’s probably a pretty good bet that one couldn’t use it to across-the-board restrict state abortion law, though it might be possible to specifically provide federal funds for abortions (though right now, federal law runs the other way and has a restriction on use of federal funds for abortions).
The third area they cover is that they maybe, despite the fact that SCOTUS ruled in Dobbs that there’s no general right to abortion in the Constitution, there might still be some sort of argument that the Fourteenth Amendment could in some way affect some peripheral area.
But, in general, the federal government can’t just say “I don’t like state law, so I’ll pass federal law in the same area.”
I’d think that you could set them to whatever in Steam Input, if you’re playing a Steam game.
https://steamcommunity.com/app/1675200/discussions/0/597397396010388899/
I believe that you can have per-game settings, so just enable them for that one game you want.