antonim

joined 1 year ago
[–] antonim@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

I mean all of that is true, but, speaking as someone from Croatia - we don't follow safety standards and regulations here anyway even with native workers, the quality of the bridge would definitely not be any better had Croats built it, and I doubt there even is the adequate workforce and know-how within Croatia that would be needed for such a massive and complex job. I would unironically expect the deadlines to be breached by several years had the job been given to a local company. We also aren't a rich country by European standards, so the price was probably a crucial factor.

In case you're worrying about general Chinese influence on Croatian politics, that's not really a problem, our govt is strongly pro-EU (for better and for worse), as well as much of the population.

[–] antonim@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 4 days ago (2 children)

What the hell is "sus" about that?

[–] antonim@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 6 days ago

Wasn't that just recently?

 

Serbian edition from 1920.

Source: http://svevid.locloudhosting.net/items/show/1840

[–] antonim@lemmy.dbzer0.com 29 points 1 week ago (2 children)

The actual article seems quite positive about her art. Why that title was written to sound so dismissive, I do not really understand, it's not at all in line with the content. If her art was thought to be so irrelevant, it wouldn't merit an article in the first place. Maybe it was meant to be positive by conveying her non-academic background and "natural", intuitive approach to painting (I think that naïve/outsider art was already gaining some positive interest at the time).

It's interesting that the article was written by a woman too.

[–] antonim@lemmy.dbzer0.com 62 points 1 week ago

Hmm, "1200-600 CE"?

https://samblog.seattleartmuseum.org/2018/08/whale-effigy-charm/

Looks like it should be 1200-1600 CE (or AD).

[–] antonim@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 week ago

That might depend on where you live, but generally no, I think.

[–] antonim@lemmy.dbzer0.com -2 points 1 week ago

As I notice this comment is satirical, unlike the (currently) 49 plebeian downvoters, I feel my massive genius brain undulating and pressing upon my skull.

[–] antonim@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 week ago

(Sorry for the late response.) Well it depends a lot on the site. Since I focus on books and scholarly articles, the ideal way is to find the URL of the original PDF. The website might show you just individual pages as images, but it might hide the link to the PDF somewhere in the code. Alternatively, you might just obtain all the URLs of the individual page images, put them all into a download manager, and later bundle them all into a new PDF. (When you open the "inspect element" window, you just have to figure out which part of the code is meant to display the pages/images to you.) Sometimes the PDFs and page images can be found in your browser cache, as I mention in the OP. There's quite some variety among the different sites, but with even the most rudimentary knowledge of web design you should be able to figure out most of them.

If need help with ripping something in particular, DM me and I'll give it a try.

[–] antonim@lemmy.dbzer0.com 15 points 2 weeks ago

I never said I follow the law, I'm just wondering what the law says ;)

[–] antonim@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

Honestly much of your reply is confusing me and doesn't seem to be relevant to my questions. This is what I think is crucial:

Just because a file is cached on your device does not mean you are the legal owner of that content forever.

What does being "the legal owner forever" actually entail, either with regards to a physical book or its scan? And what does that mean regarding what I can legally do with the cached file on my computer?

 

Quite frequently I come across scanned books that are viewable for free online. For example, the publisher put them there (such as preview chapters), a library (old books from their collection that are in public domain), etc. Since I like hoarding data, and the online viewers that are used to present the book to me might not be very practical, I frequently try to download the books one way or another. This requires toying with the "inspect element" tool and various other methods of getting the images/PDF. Now, all that I access is what is, well, accessible; I don't hack into the servers or something. But - the stuff is meant to be hidden from the normal user. Does that act of hiding the material, no matter how primitive and easily circumvented, mean that I'm not allowed to access it at all?

I suppose ripping a public domain book is no big deal, but would books under copyright fare differently?

Mainly I'm asking out of curiosity, I don't expect the police to come visit me for ripping a 16th century dictionary.

Note: I live in EU, but I'd be curious to hear how this is treated elsewhere too.

Edit: I also remembered a funny trick I noticed on one site - it allows viewing PDFs on their website, but not downloading, unless you pay for the PDF. But when you load the page, even without paying, the PDF is already downloaded onto your computer and can be found in the browser cache. Is it legal to simply save the file that is already on your computer?

 
[–] antonim@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Apparently the French stress the syllables equally, not just the second so it’s a minor difference.

According to what I've read, they do stress the final syllable of the phrase (including multiple words). To foreign ears, this is simplified into always stressing the final syllable.

I absolutely don't trust videos such as the one you link because they're frequently made by non-natives. I've personally seen a number of them using obvious non-native (English) pronunciation. Also, I'd say that particular recording has equal prominence on both syllables. But I wouldn't take it to be representative of French either way.

https://youtu.be/__bLxInvVsM - this should be better

1
rule (lemmy.dbzer0.com)
 
 
 
18
submitted 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) by antonim@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/opensource@lemmy.ml
 

(I don't know where else to post, maybe someone here can help, and Neocities is open source...)

I want to create a site on Neocities. I fill out the signup form, solve the captcha, but when I click the "Create My Site" button, nothing happens. I click it again, and after a delay it starts loading something, but then just says "The captcha was not valid, please try again."

This happens regardless of the browser, machine or IP address I'm using.

Does anyone have any idea what might be the problem, and hopefully how to solve it? Is it just me or does anyone else have the same issue? I've sent an email to the admins two days ago, but still have gotten no reply, and I can find no info on this elsewhere online.

EDIT (20-8-2024): It's working now, probably they fixed it, woo! :D

 

Ne vidi se iz naslova, ali u pitanju je intervju u kojem se daje nešto konkretniji pogled na to kako su nastali i što bi se trebalo raditi na famoznim rodnim studijima.

 

Tko god se, makar marginalno, zainteresirao za područje koje Mirjana Kasapović naziva postjugoslavenskim studijama, neće ovdje pronaći ništa posebno zanimljivo. Nižu se odavno poznati, izlizani akcenti kritike postjugoslavenske optike. Za autoricu, postjugoslavenski pristup svodi se na „ideološku i političku mitologizaciju Jugoslavije“ i „čuvanje sjećanja na bivšu jugoslavensku državu“

piše Boris Postnikov

view more: next ›