Off-and-on trying out an account over at @tal@oleo.cafe due to scraping bots bogging down lemmy.today to the point of near-unusability.

  • 276 Posts
  • 8.56K Comments
Joined 3 years ago
cake
Cake day: October 4th, 2023

help-circle


  • It appears that most people don’t care about spending $100 on a video game.

    I’m fine with spending $100 on a video game. I mean, said video game needs to provide reasonable value, but the amount of time I play a game varies way more than game price, is the dominant factor.

    I didn’t really like what I played of GTA 5 and probably won’t play this one, but for the right game, sure. If I could get a game I like similar to Oxygen Not Included, which I’ve played for many, many hours, I’d do $100 happily.

    pre-orders

    Now that I will agree with being a problem.









  • In the global financial crisis, in at least California, which is a non-recourse mortgage state — that is, if someone defaults on a mortgage, the lender can only go after the property — a number of people discovered that if they refinanced, the new mortgage was recourse, and a lender could go after other assets and wages to cover the default. For people who bought into the top of a bubble, then walked away from the house after prices dropped and they were underwater, had negative equity, this was a major issue.

    Those rules were later changed, but I would be careful to understand the implications of refinancing a mortgage in your particular jurisdiction, as they may be non-obvious and substantial.



  • I think, from past reading, that some of the shift to white — well, or at least light colors — may have been with the intention of making interiors brighter. Like, more reflected light, so for a given amount of light from windows or from lamps, the room is better lit.

    Like, I remember a lot of 1970s-era stuff looking dark and shadowed. Dark wood paneling and often darker furniture. If you look at photos of house interiors that people took, a lot were also kinda dark. The 1960 and 1970 shots from the above article aren’t dark, but those are gonna be professionally-taken pieces, might have light diffusers or whatever set up for the shot. If you have light colored stuff all over, the light bounces around more, get more diffuse lighting.

    You can do even better if you do things like have mirrored walls, but that’s fragile and can be obnoxious.

    So it might have been a shift based on functionality to try to get more and more-diffuse lighting, and white just happened to be the most-reflective color.

    Today we can do energy-efficient diffuse lighting with things like LED strips. If wanting more diffuse light is the dominant factor causing a shift towards white, I wonder if extensive use of that might reduce the desire for light colors. Though…that doesn’t help where one is relying on sunlight during the day.

    There are passive devices that can gather sunlight. I remember that sailing ships used to use these glass things that were flush with the deck but had a sort of crystal shape to pipe more light down to the top deck. That wasn’t a lot of light — ship interiors were dark — but maybe we could use some combination of that and other stuff.

    searches

    Apparently I’m thinking of a deck prism.

    According to Wikipedia, something analogous was used in buildings, but electric lighting kind of killed it off.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prism_lighting

    Prism lighting is the use of prisms to improve the distribution of light in a space. It is usually used to distribute daylight, and is a form of anidolic lighting.

    Prism lighting was popular from its introduction in the 1890s through to the 1930s, when cheap electric lights became commonplace and prism lighting became unfashionable. While mass production of prism lighting systems ended around 1940,[1] the 2010s have seen a revival using new materials.[2]


  • tal@lemmy.todaytoComic Strips@lemmy.worldThe glory days
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 days ago

    On one hand, I think that it’s fair to point out, and an interesting point.

    But…on the other hand, I also think that generally when people say “we did X”, they’re often including people who aren’t their direct ancestors. And the degree to which they do that is context-dependent. Though they probably aren’t going back anything like 20 million years, either, in any kind of common context.

    What’s our closest living relative?

    searches

    Looks like chimpanzees and bonobos, and our last common ancestor was maybe 5–13 million years back.

    I guess we would include 'em in “we” if someone was saying “we left the oceans”. But they aren’t gonna make the in-group for “we won that sports game last night”.




  • tal@lemmy.todaytoWikipedia@lemmy.worldPepper&Carrot
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    3 days ago

    searches

    He apparently does some of their art, so probably whatever you have in mind was from him.

    https://framasoft.org/en/credits/

    The colour illustrations are painted by David Revoy and are licensed under Creative Commons By 4.0.

    The comic characters drawn by Simon « Gee » Giraudot are licensed Creative Commons By-SA 2.0.

    The penguins who walk around the site come to us from L.L. de Mars and are under Art Libre license.

    The logo is a realization of AyM under license Creative Commons By-SA 4.0 It is inspired by the mascot initially created by L.L. de Mars.


  • We might have a habit of being curious and seeing things and patterns that aren’t really there. And it’s frustrating to watch it misfire.

    But…maybe it’s worth it to come up with silly ideas on a fair number of occasions if that same tendency sometimes leads us to make valid discoveries that we wouldn’t otherwise have made. Sometimes even people who have wrong ideas run over important things.

    There was this guy once who disregarded well-established (and correct) geophysical science with some cockamamie theory that he thought would make him rich. He tried to sell a bunch of people on funding his ideas, who mostly turned him down. Eventually, he managed to get funds and set out to prove his ideas. That experiment would have been suicidal for him — because his ideas were totally wrong, making the experiment lethal — if not for the great good fortune of, during the course of this experiment, making a (very important) real discovery that saved his life. He then tried — not very successfully — to claim that his new discovery actually showed that his ideas were correct.

    He was a dreamer, and a bit of a nut, and he was wrong. His name was Christopher Columbus, and he had convinced himself that the circumference of the world was much smaller than was actually the case, and that if there was nothing but ocean to the west of Europe, one could safely reach Asia in a single trip of the sort that ships of the time could make. Instead, he discovered the New World.

    There were a lot of other people who went looking down other weird rabbit holes with other weird ideas. They usually didn’t come up with anything worthwhile.

    But…that discovery was worth a whole lot of poking around blind alleys.

    So, hey, maybe a human tendency towards a bit of being a crank and running down crazy ideas is worthwhile, if it’s the price we pay to occasionally come up with something really amazing down a weird rabbit hole.



  • I have not seen that particular cartoon.

    However, a common criticism is that there are only a handful of Garfield cartoon “templates” with some bits swapped out, and I have seen plenty of Garfield cartoons in approximately this format: three panels, Garfield is bored, John is emotional, Garfield is bored.

    goes back to look at the first year of Garfield

    Okay, apparently it predates Garfield, as there was a predecessor strip, Jon:

    https://garfield.fandom.com/wiki/Jon,_1976_comic_strips

    Jon comic #7, February 19, 1976:

    EDIT: Jon #1 looked familiar. It looks like a lot of the first year of Garfield was recycled Jon cartoons too. For example, here’s Jon #1:

    And here’s Garfield #1: