I use firefox with javascript mostly off (UMatrix) but when I turned it on for fonts.googleapis.com the site and sliders all seem to worke. then I turned it on for gstatic.com fonts.gstatic.com , and not sure if that changed anything else. I'm on linux desktop

Cameras and Lenses and photography has been such a fascinating and open and do-it-yourself tinkering medium for well over a century: when are we going to get to be able to play around with what's inside iPhone, Samsung, and Pixel cameras?

(maybe we already can, I'm simply asking)

> ̶P̶i̶c̶t̶u̶r̶e̶s̶ ̶h̶a̶v̶e̶ Art has always been a meaningful part of the human experience. From the first cave drawings, to sketches and paintings, to modern photography, we’ve mastered the art of recording what we ̶s̶e̶e̶ think and feel.

Your "correction" does not make sense. "Pictures" and "art" are overlapping categories but neither is a subset of the other. Pictures in and of themselves are plenty fascinating to humans, without bringing art into the equation.

it is your critique that does not make sense. I was not applying any hierarchy or subsetting whatsoever. Inseparable unity would be closer to the point.

I was making the point that the cave painters believed everything including rocks and trees were deeply invested with spiritual power, and they didn't draw a cave painting without investing it with spiritual ideas. Even if one of their goals was to capture an accurate image of some animals, and indicate when in the lunar or solar cycle they were expected to calve, when they went hunting for one a part of the goal would be cut out its heart and eat it raw because of the power contained within, and give thanks to the great mother. Inseparable.

even though I am not spiritual at all, I find your worldview too barren to explain human endeavor.

I still don't know what your comment has to do with the article at hand. If you want to branch the conversation to animism and spirituality, I guess that's fine (although rather far-fetched and arguably off-topic) but you should probably do it in a way that actually offers some insight.

i was replying to someone else's comment, their comment was to the article. I was not replying to the article.

> I was making the point that the cave painters believed everything including rocks and trees were deeply invested with spiritual power, and they didn't draw a cave painting without investing it with spiritual ideas.

Nonsense. We don’t know what prehistoric cave painters believed.

> when they went hunting for one a part of the goal would be cut out its heart and eat it raw because of the power contained within

Do you have a pointer to the cave paintings that show hunting animals at certain times in the lunar cycles and eating their hearts raw to harvest this power? Because this sounds made up.

Also this says nothing about art.

>Nonsense. We don’t know what prehistoric cave painters believed.

you need to study a bit more history, psychology, anthropology, etc., you have absolutely no reason to believe they thought anything different than we do today and what today's hunter gatherers believe. the evidence is on my side. If you have counter evidence, offer it.

>Also this says nothing about art.

I said something about art, whereas till I said it, art was void in the conversation which I think is a glaring mistake which is why I said it. If you have something to say about art, say it, otherwise you don't have a dog in this fight.

> you have absolutely no reason to believe they thought anything different than we do today

People don’t believe this today. What are you talking about? Do you think most people today are hunting animals to eat their raw hearts to gain their power at certain times of the month?

> If you have counter evidence, offer it.

I’m not the one claiming deep insight into the beliefs of prehistoric peoples. Burden of proof is on you.

> I said something about art

You really didn’t. You said nothing meaningful about art except to substitute it for the word picture. And then the rest of your replies have also had nothing to do with art.

I think that I shall never see a poem lovely as a tree. -- Joyce Kilmer

if you are moving a folder of files within a partition (hey, this was your idea) then you don't care how many or how big they are. only if you move them to a different partition would you care, but in that case as you hover over the other partition, you'd want the folder to become helium or hydrogen light, so you would need to exert more force to get it to touch down in the folder. oh the humanity!

banning corporate ownership of other companies would dramatically decrease the value of companies that people own. it would be much more difficult to sell your company. you might have built a successful company over the course of your life, and your children don't want to run it. Other companies in the same business but perhaps not in the same regious are good candidates to buy it. There are far fewer individuals with the assets to purchase a successful company.

should other companies wish to buy your company, they could still buy all the assets of your company, but not the company itself.

>It really highlights that modern photography is just signal processing with better marketing

your perception of the world is just signal processing that's susceptible to marketing

>we intentionally limit ourselves to a single "file", and can work with a raw block device or partition, without file system involvement

those features all go together as one thing. and it's the unix way of accessing block devices (and their interchangeability with streams from the client software perspective)

you're right, it's not the file system.

>Which brings us to the question: what is this guy going to do with (presumably) the kernel source?

it doesn't bring us to the question, but the answer to the question is, run a diff between the software that has this guys life in its hands, and the version it was derived from, to see if they inserted back doors, stray pointers, etc.

i don't see how either of those cases applies to the FSF and GNU's attitude on library linking; in neither case were they creating a combined derivative work.

if I make an ai driven viewscreen that you can stick your paperback book into and it gives you a better reading experience of the book, your paperback book is still in there and you can take it out. My viewscreen may not work without the book, but it hasn't merged/modified the book with anything.

I guess I would say that you've illustrated the problem precisely. Dynamically linking to a GPL library in your program clearly does not combine your program with the library: the library's still there, you can see the .so/.ddl file sitting separately on your computer, it hasn't been merged with your program and your program didn't modify it. Yet the FSF still claims it's a combined derivative work.

Am I misunderstanding something about the analogy?