Nice, great job =)

Haha yeah.

Honestly though, while I'd certainly look through my photos when I was bored on the train (having no Internet on phones then of course) that was never the intent of how I expected those photos to be viewed.

I'd regularly transfer all the photos to my PC and that's what I considered the "real" way to look at them, and email them from there to other people.

Cared about:

• Camera quality
• Audio playback (Can it do MP3 ringtones?)
• Looks and size (more important than anything else!)

Didn't care about:

• Screen resolution
• Processor specs
• Onboard memory (because the assumption was all those photos and videos were going on an SD card)

If you cover up the bottom part of the jaw, the face looks like a long-nosed rodent with a toothy overbite, just being very chill looking out the window.

Kinda cute actually.

But nice yawn too XD

Interesting :) And yes, for me it also became easy to switch once I was aware of the truth of what I was looking at.

If you look directly at the can you can see it as white, but if you look elsewhere and the can is only in your peripheral vision it seems to always be interpreted as red.

Oh, absolutely. My line to the court was rather dramatised for effect :)

What you'd really argue is that since your penis size is not public knowledge, then no matter whether your actual penis is big or small, the writer's description has no bearing on the ability of the public to recognise the person being defamed as clearly you. Therefore, the accuracy or inaccuracy of the size described in writing can be simply dismissed as immaterial, with no need to inspect your pants for the truth.

Not only those points, but there's another obvious reason it couldn't work, too.

For any libel case to be successful, the key premise is clearly to show "This person described in writing is obviously meant to be me"

Unless you are someone whose penis size is public knowledge, then describing it as big or small doesn't contradict other identifying details because nobody knows how big it really is.

So you can safely say "I actually have an enormous penis, your honour, but the defendant, the writer, was likely unaware of this"

Yes, but the cost is different in relative terms.

Let's imagine you buy a small car for $30,000 and your partner buys an SUV for $60,000. You drive them both for 200k miles, and then at that point they both have a big engine problem and need $10k of work each to fix.

At that point, spending $10k to keep the SUV going seems perhaps reasonable, because it is 1/6th of the SUVs price.

Spending 10k on the car is less reasonable because it's a whole THIRD of the car's purchase price! Makes much more sense to scrap it and put that money towards a brand-new car.

Therefore, people will be more likely to keep expensive vehicles for longer, scrap cheaper ones sooner, and this skews the data.

Of course, I'm not saying the vehicles in the chart are all just expensive and not reliable. Toyota Landcruser there at #1 is legendarily indestructible, for good reason. But there are other factors involved beyond pure reliability which will skew the stats.

His content is really good. A lot of his audience is still people from the old days who basically grew up watching ethoslab, and his style as a creator has changed a little too as he's grown up with them.

He's definitely still a youtuber whose uploads I look out for. Very comfortable content that makes me feel super chill.

There are lots of reasons why governments might desire to get rid of physical currency.

1. Crime - Physical money is the option of choice for criminals as it allows them to make off-record transactions so their activities are hard to trace

2. Tax - When otherwise legal business is conducted in cash, it's possible for business income or employee pay to be undeclared or underreported, meaning the government is losing out on tax revenue. This is huge, and the gov really wants their slice of that cash.

3. Manufacturing and distribution - A minor point, but it is expensive to make physical currency, as well as to keep improving it to prevent forgeries and such. Getting rid of physical currency removes this problem.

I'm sure there are other reasons but those are what came to mind.

Despite these factors, any move to a fully cashless society is controversial, because not everyone is in a position where being fully digital is feasible. It has the worst effects on those who are already marginalised and disadvantaged in society, like the homeless, who may not even be able to open a bank account.

So I think it will be quite a long time until it might happen.

It's a nightmare that we live in a world where this bullshit even exists.

No, but his neighbours do.

There's a few that would make good girls' names when you think about it.

Ricotta

Fontina

Mozzarella (she goes by Ella, to her friends)

Yes - by most definitions. It's powered by user-generated content and is based on interaction between users through engagement with that content, which is voted and scored.

There is a difference which I personally feel makes reddit less harmful than other social media, however, which is the algorithm - or lack of it.

In most social media, the algorithm exists to continually serve people the exact content they engage with in a constant feed, which is IMO the most socially damaging part of social media because it creates endless doomscrolling, toxic echo chambers, promotion of sponsored content, and a whole raft of psychological problems in users.

The Lemmy homefeed is more organic, and scrolling through 'all' you see content genuinely from everywhere, in a less curated way based on upvotes, not individual algorithmic tailoring. And that's maybe not as "engaging" but it's far less damaging.

an 'amburger

It's good practice to run the deployment pipeline on a different server from the application host(s) so that the deployment instances can be kept private, unlike the public app hosts, and therefore can be better protected from external bad actors. It is also good practice because this separation of concerns means the deployment pipeline survives even if the app servers need to be torn down and reprovisioned.

Of course you will need some kind of agent running on the app servers to be able to receive the files, but that might be as simple as an SSH session for file transfer.

Yes, exactly that.

Sure, but having a hands-off pipeline for it which runs automatically is where the value is at.

Means that there's predictability and control in what is being done, and once the pipeline is built it's as easy as a single button press to release.

How many times when doing it manually have you been like "Oh shit, I just FTPd the WRONG STUFF up to production!" - I know I have. Or even worse you do that and don't notice you did it.

Automation takes a lot of the risk out.

I'm sure there's nothing wrong with the program at all =)

Modern webapp deployment approach is typically to have an automated continuous build and deployment pipeline triggered from source control, which deploys into a staging environment for testing, and then promotes the same precise tested artifacts to production. Probably all in the cloud too.

Compared to that, manually FTPing the files up to the server seems ridiculously antiquated, to the extent that newbies in the biz can't even believe we ever did it that way. But it's genuinely what we were all doing not so long ago.

I see the sculptor was flattering, and portayed him as in his younger and less chubby days.