What it actually looks like: https://fonts.google.com/specimen/B612
There is a PDF and a PNG in the docs/ folder (https://github.com/polarsys/b612/tree/master/docs), too.
Readit Newsasciimo commented on Airbus B612 Cockpit Font github.com/polarsys/b612... · Posted by u/Bogdanp
asciimo commented on 9 years of Apple text editor solo dev papereditor.app/dev... · Posted by u/pimterry
Cmd+f, "vim", Cmd+w
Update: jokes aside, this is a great read. Adding vim keybindings would violate the principles of this project.
The YouTube API has `list`, `setModerationStatus`, and `markAsSpam` endoints. Could a service automatically moderate comments using its own heuristics?
I believe one of the difficult parts of these bot posts is:
- there isn't a lot of $$$ in squashing them, since it lowers engagement numbers (engagement inflated by bots is still engagement)
- the cost of hammering down on a real user is high in terms of PR, moreso than the cost of letting a bot continue running
- no one's making them and they have no real competitors in this space, so what does it matter? where are YouTube's customers gonna go?
Yet YouTube will shut down entire channels if there's a whiff of copyright infringement.
To continue a bit more, I have really tried to figure out if there is any way to deal with email spam that doesn't either ban anyone but incredibly trusted servers (And even then it fails horribly), or doesn't put some sort of cost on people sending emails (either time, effort or monetary.)
I would rather have email be free and open, but I see the issues that arise from bad actors in that environment who have no real cost to abusing it and have major potential for gain if they are successful.
That being said, the easiest answer, in my head, would be to make it so that sending email to people in an unsolicited fashion has some cost. Yet, even that is problematic, because I want some people to send me unsolicited email from time to time....
Charge an inbox entry fee. https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20181023-people-pay-20-...
Some digging shows that tweet is totally misinformed. He seems to think that because niftygateway's json response returns an internet-facing url, that the underlying NFT must also be referencing an internet-facing url (as opposed to an IPFS url/hash). This is incorrect. The URL he's seeing in the API response is simply a IPFS proxy service offered by the NFT website. If you extract the identifier of the NFT from the url he linked[1] and plug it to etherscan[2], then scroll down to "trumpVictoryIPFSHash", you can see that the NFT is actually referencing the IPFS hash directly, and not the internet facing url. You can confirm this by plugging that value into an IFPS gateway[3]
[1] https://niftygateway.com/itemdetail/primary/0x12f28e2106ce8f...
[2] https://etherscan.io/address/0x12f28e2106ce8fd8464885b80ea86...
[3] https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmTu6rr8o8CwbWDf2AbP13gdLFQKbqk1xaHZhFm...
TIL that NFT would have been different if Trump had won.
The funny part is the image itself isn't even on the blockchain, it's centrally hosted somewhere. The token is just a pointer. You can ruin it by having the actual content taken down, wherever it is.
The Interplanetary File System is a decentralized solution.
https://docs.ipfs.io/how-to/mint-nfts-with-ipfs/#mint-an-nft...
Thanks for supplying the fact-check I was looking for. I think I've been seeing headlines about this "discovery" for over a decade, always presented as if it's a promising new technique but obviously there must be some reason it hasn't caught on by now.
"I can keep eating steak because Science is about to solve that problem..."
A common misconception which I frequently see when this topic arises is the failure to distinguish carbon cycles and one-way carbon emission.
You exhale carbon dioxide. However, this carbon dioxide comes from the carbon in the food you eat, and the food you eat obtained it from the atmosphere. Thus, it's a cycle. As a system (ignoring food transportation, deforestation, etc.) it's effectively carbon neutral.
By contrast, when we dig up oil and burn it, there is no cycle. It's a one way street.
Methane production from cattle is slightly more complicated instance of a carbon cycle. The cows produce methane, which is a more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. However, it degrades in the atmosphere into C02. Since this C02 was obtained from the food the cattle ate, this is another cycle.
Since the methane released from cattle is continually degrading, it does not accumulate. The total amount of bovine methane resident in the atmosphere is ultimately a function of herd size, or perhaps more accurately quantity of feed consumed.
You may be surprised to learn that cattle herd size has remained relatively stable over time. Additionally our planet was once host to wild ruminants like Buffalo which no longer exist in large numbers. As a result I would be very surprised to learn that bovine methane production is completely out of historical context.
As a result I see this as a topic which generally serves to distract from the root cause and real problem associated with climate change - fossil fuel usage.
> You may be surprised to learn that cattle herd size has remained relatively stable over time.
Absolutely surprised. Do you have science to back up this claim? ... That goes back more more than a couple decades?
asciimo commented on A 10-second video clip sold for $6.6M reuters.com/article/retai... · Posted by u/Brajeshwar
They aren't using the word "fungible" correctly. These aren't non-fungible objects. They are fungible objects with a DRM scheme attached to them. It is a very good DRM scheme, authenticated via blockchain, but nevertheless is not fundamentally different than any other. The art can be easily copied, making the copies fungible. This is like paying millions for a the one "legitimate" steam key to a game that everyone else is playing for free. I want to meet these people. I have some bridges I need to offload.
DRM isn't a good analogy, because no one is prohibited from experiencing most NFTs. You can't legally watch a DRM protected movie or listen to a DRM protected audio file if you didn't buy the privilege. But you can look at NFT GIFs, JPGs, movies all you want without paying a penny.
Though the DRM analogy may work in applications that interact with NFTs. For example, games with unique items. The application would limit the full experience of a tokenized object to the owner alone. For example, only n00b5lay3r may equip the Golden Sword of Evisceration, because it's in their wallet.