I've got no objection to the pistol, but what is the likelihood of being murdered camping alone in the middle of the woods like this guy was?
tal
joined 1 year ago
The current community rules require sourcing images used in art; Rule 8. Note that images from the US federal and state governments -- which include a lot of official military images -- are very commonly in the public domain and can be freely used. The Department of Defense explicitly places imagery without specific restrictions in the public domain.
I don't think that it'll likely hit that level, but note that sh.itjust.works has an instance rule against pornography (which is certainly not strictly adhered to, probably not even in the past image submissions on this community). But just saying, given that a community banner image is probably higher-profile than a one-off image submission.
Well, it sounds like the existing one's changing. You willing and able to hand-create and contribute something worthwhile yourself? If you've got a personal objection to generated images, that'd be a constructive way to provide a viable alternative.
The crowd over at !imageai@sh.itjust.works generates images constantly, so if you're up for an AI-generated image -- which might permit for something with a more-cohesive feel than an image montage, might cross-post there to ask for submissions, get stuff maybe more like this:
The existing banner appears to be a montage of images that were previously posted to /r/NCD. Like, the Democracy is Non-Negotiable image appears to be a rescaled version of this:
https://old.reddit.com/r/NonCredibleDefense/comments/yifpm6/3000_blatant_propaganda_pieces_of/
Could patch together something out of those posts.
investigates
In my web browser, browsing the lemmy.today Web UI, looking at the homepage for the community, if I take a screenshot, the current banner appears to be displayed at 966x129; the actual underlying image is 4,000x533.
Looking at a different community's banner !imageai@sh.itjust.works, I get 966x240 visible in a screenshot, with the underlying image being 1,792x672.
So at least on my browser and viewed on that Lemmy frontend, I'm a little suspicious -- without looking at the code -- that 966 might be some kind of native target for width. It can clearly handle higher-res, and that might be desirable for some higher-resolution displays or clients, if they leverage that.
EDIT: Man, this should be on some kind of Lemmy community moderation wiki. Like, every moderator shouldn't have to individually figure this out.
EDIT2: One reference to 960x240 that I can find is here, though as I said, it doesn't appear to be quite right for native display resolution -- on my browser, maybe just something wonky with me -- and in that post, they point out that different themes can take advantage of higher resolution.
EDIT3: In the CSS, at least in the current default Lemmy Web UI, it looks like .banner has a max-height attribute of 240px, so I think that it's safe to say that at least in that environment, it won't grow past that.
You probably want to list your desired resolution.
I do think that branding is also a factor. I remember once reading something saying that that people who get married and have kids and need a family vehicle don't like driving what their parents drive, that it'd be boring and stodgy. So avoiding the station wagon that their parents drove, the next generation drove minivans. The next generation avoided their parents' minivan, and drove SUVs. The next generation avoided SUVs and drove hatchback CUVs.
They all kinda fill the same role, as a large enclosed vehicle with a fair bit of cargo space accessible via a rear door.
Here's a generation-old article from when SUVs were the hot item on the way in:
For a period starting in the early 1980s, when Chrysler couldn’t make enough Caravans and Voyagers, the minivan was a suburban status symbol. Baby Boomers claimed it as their preferred mode of family transportation, replacing the stalwart station wagon that had dominated for decades. Nearly every auto maker added a minivan to its line, and the category topped the auto sales charts throughout most of the ’90s.
Times have changed. Boomer offspring have grown up and out of their car seats and started driving their own cars. More and more moms, notably those from the older end of Generation X, are working. Sport-utility vehicles (SUVs) are all the rage in suburbia, with many a maturing mom abandoning her minivan, opting for liberating style over utilitarian substance. Along the way, the minivan has developed a stigma, and now brands its owner as pragmatic and sensible – not to mention a little bit square.
“Minivans are out of favor,” says Gordon Wangers, managing partner of Automotive Marketing Consultants Inc., Vista, CA. “Many former minivan moms wouldn’t be caught dead in a minivan [now]. They want an SUV. It’s a major trend that will not go away.”
Oh, good point, hadn't thought about the changes to garages over time. Hmm.
I suspect that some of this in the US was due to the strict liability imposed on civil aviation manufacturers in the US. It increased civil aviation safety, but demolished a lot of the civil aviation manufacturers.
In criminal and civil law, strict liability is a standard of liability under which a person is legally responsible for the consequences flowing from an activity even in the absence of fault or criminal intent on the part of the defendant.
It made manufacturers very risk-adverse, placed overwhelming weight on being a known, mature design.
GARA later rolled back some of this, but things never really returned to their original state.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Aviation_Revitalization_Act
The General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994, also known by its initials GARA, is Public Law 103-298, an Act of Congress on Senate Bill S. 1458 (103rd Congress), amending the Federal Aviation Act of 1958.
General aviation aircraft production in the U.S. -- following its 30-year peak in the late 1970s—dropped sharply over the next few years to a fraction of its original volume—from approximately 18,000 units in 1978 to 4,000 units in 1986. to 928 units in 1994. (In a 1993 speech, Sen. John McCain said "nearly 500 last year [1992]".)
General aviation aircraft manufacturers in the 1980s and 1990s began to terminate or reduce production of their piston-powered propeller aircraft, or struggled with solvency.
At the time, industry analysts estimated that the U.S. decline in general aviation aircraft manufacturing eliminated somewhere between 28,000 and 100,000 jobs—as unit production dropped by 95% between the 1970s peak and the early 1990s—sharply different from other segments of the global aerospace industry, where U.S. market share was still strong.
Product liability costs
Those manufacturers reported rapidly rising product liability costs, driving aircraft prices beyond the market, and they said their production cuts were in response to that growing liability.
Average cost of manufacturer's liability insurance for each airplane manufactured in the U.S. had risen from approximately $50 per plane in 1962 to $100,000 per plane in 1988, according to a report cited by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, a 2,000-fold increase in 24 years.
Rising claims against the industry triggered a rapid increase in manufacturers' liability insurance premiums during the 1980s. Industry-wide, in just 7 years, the manufacturers' liability premiums increased nearly nine-fold, from approximately $24 million in 1978 to $210 million in 1985.
Insurance underwriters, worldwide, began to refuse to sell product liability insurance to U.S. general aviation manufacturers. By 1987, the three largest GA manufacturers claimed their annual costs for product liability ranged from $70,000 to $100,000 per airplane built and shipped that year.
Ah, good to hear it. They do (or did, and I assume still do) also have higher res displays.
Going back to an earlier bit in the conversation, where you were concerned about light sources in the car, I think that auto-dimming might also help (not just with VFDs, but the brightness of any in-car display). My car dash has the option to automatically set brightness based on ambient light levels (something that I wish my desktop computer monitor could do...part of "dark mode"'s benefit is a mitigation for devices that don't do this). I don't know if that was a thing back in the 1980s or so, when these display designs were popular.
I also kind of wonder if eye-tracking, which has come a long way, could be made reliable-enough and responsive-enough to toggle off displays if the car can detect that a user is looking somewhere away from them. Maybe be conservative, not with some critical displays, but stuff like the radio or clock or something. Eye tracking systems normally use the near-infrared, as I understand it, not visible light, so I'd think that you could theoretically do it in a darkened car without problems.
Other than as a mind game, I don't see the point.
Google provides a centralized service. They own the generator system.
You could solve the whole problem much more simply and reliably by just retaining a copy of all generated text at Google -- the quantities of data will be miniscule compared to what Google regularly deals with -- and then just indexing it and letting someone do a fuzzy search for a given passage of text to see whether it's been generated. Hell, Google probably already retains a copy to data-mine what people are doing anyway, and they know how to do search. And then they could even tell you who generated the text and when.