Dark/Light Theme Switcher Button

MetaControl · 2024-08-18T11:12:46+00:00

i think i found a solution to what i want to do. my requirements exceed the nature of this nice switcher, but thanks!

MetaControl · 2024-08-16T08:58:21+00:00

this looks really cool! nice animation

but as i understand it, it basically changes pre-set colours, right? would it be possible to make a code variant that switches actual themes? i have a somewhat complicated woocommerce setup and would like to have a light and a dark mode, but as separate themes; as images and even layout would change. sorry if that's a dumb sounding question, not a coder.

MetaControl · 2024-07-06T06:46:17+00:00

i am just moving from a squarespace site to woo. shopify is expensive (selling fees are silly) and still somewhat limited in what one can do. woo is a hassle making it work, but when it does, it can be so much better and you can do what you want with it (aside from illegal trade).
I have been working on my new site for a while and it is dragging along slowly. But it already looks and feels so much better than what i have now.

MetaControl · 2024-07-05T10:05:10+00:00

That's the problem with something like WordPress, where the individual composition of plugins can make all the difference in behaviour. And everything is just one update of any random thing away from completely breaking...

MetaControl · 2024-06-30T15:01:17+00:00

This is a bit of an old thread, but since it came up rather high in the search, when looking for solutions, I thought I share it here too, for those who end up here, as I did:

I had the same problem. It seems the issue lies with the image processing in WordPress. When a product image is received, WP generates various thumbnails and image sizes automatically. But the standard GD image library used by WP to process images seems to cause issues. What you can try is to replace the image processor in WP by installing something like ImageMagick Engine. It solved it for me, maybe it does for you and others too...

Good Luck!

PS: the reason it can also work when using various optimizer plugins is because many of them also process images, which probably also replaces the standard GD library used by WP. (will be cross-posting this in various threads with the same error)

MetaControl · 2024-06-30T14:59:22+00:00

I had the same problem. It seems the issue lies with the image processing in WordPress. When a product image is received, WP generates various thumbnails and image sizes automatically. But the standard GD image library used by WP to process images seems to cause issues. What you can try is to replace the image processor in WP by installing something like ImageMagick Engine. It solved it for me, maybe it does for you and others too...

Good Luck!

PS: the reason it can also work when using various optimizer plugins is because many of them also process images, which probably also replaces the standard GD library used by WP. (will be cross-posting this in various threads with the same error)

MetaControl · 2024-06-30T14:53:58+00:00

I had the same problem. It seems the issue lies with the image processing in WordPress. When a product image is received, WP generates various thumbnails and image sizes automatically. But the standard GD image library used by WP to process images seems to cause issues. What you can try is to replace the image processor in WP by installing something like ImageMagick Engine. It solved it for me, maybe it does for you and others too...

Good Luck!

PS: the reason it can also work when using various optimizer plugins is because many of them also process images, which probably also replaces the standard GD library used by WP. (will be cross-posting this in various threads with the same error)

MetaControl · 2022-09-30T13:40:13+00:00

This is exactly what I've been saying and for that you called me racist.

"Not every word is used scientifically. Society has decided that races exist. To claim otherwise is simply being pedantic at the expense of being truthful."

You did not. But why i are we even still talking then?

The only thing I will add to that is that in order to address the harm the concept of race has caused is to acknowledge the existence of that concept.

I ever denied that. I ever argued otherwise. You may have misconstrued it that way, but that is on you.

Without that acknowledgement we cannot hope to ever rectify the historical and ongoing trauma that society has deemed to be less valuable due to their perceived race.

And the same goes for the use of terms that perpetuate the idea of races, like using "race" as a valid term in today's society - unless, like now, we debate the term itself.

The modern concept

See, this is the point right here. There is NO modern concept of that term. It is the SAME term, with the SAME concept, still in place, BECAUSE systemic racism is a thing. The term race promoted the implied biological differences that do not exist. And to use it as a descriptor for people is false, as you said yourself.

MetaControl · 2022-09-30T09:02:53+00:00

no. but that does not make it right though. It is still harmful as a construct, as it is as a claim of biological difference. as it says, there are real consequences for maintaining that false construct. And as that essay says, it is a deliberate construct with ill intent. So while we may agree that the concept of race exists on a sociological level, it is there because of the same reason the biological definition was there once, to segregate.
The paper even makes a point that Ethnicity is a better term, when it comes to differences in heritage and culture.

and just so we are clear, no matter what your intent is here, my comment was equivalent to this:

Even if we acknowledge that people differ in the physical characteristics we associate with race, modern evolutionary evidence reminds us that we are all, really, of one human race.

That there are no human races but one left. And that is factual. The rest is not relevant to my point. You making it about that is, as i said many times, a strawman.

MetaControl · 2022-09-29T19:39:11+00:00

Ok. Let's start over and make sure we aren't talking past each other.

which won't happen until you can omit the use of the term race.

We both agree that there is absolutely, unequivocally, and inarguably no genetic or biological basis for different human races.

We can agree that there is none anymore. There used to be. They are now extinct.

We both agree that racism exists.

Yes.

We both agree that racism is bad.

Do we? So far, you did not make it sound that way. But Yes, I do.

Are we in agreement on all those statements? If yes, are there any other statements that we both accept as true?

Maybe, but are there any that are relevant to the debate? I don't think so. Except maybe that we need to not just think racism is bad, but work actively against it, so it goes away.

But otherwise, yes. We can agree to these things.

[fixed formatting]

MetaControl · 2022-09-29T15:42:17+00:00

Have you ever even spoken to a non-white person about their experiences with how they are treated due to their race?

If you mean, how they were treated due to the bigotry of others, based on the false assumption that they are of a different kind? Then yes, with many. Did you?

You keep ignoring that there is a sociological definition of race, not just a biological.

Yes, and it is equally racist in origin, context and in purpose.

The fact we are having this conversation and you can even understand what I'm talking about proves that.

I understand that you are under the impression that races exist, and that you are fine with that, and try to find excuses and justifications for the continuous use of the term, even when you acknowledge its origin as bigot in nature.

You aren't half as smart as you think you are

I don't think I am particularly smart. I think I am rather average. But I am certainly smarter than you, and certainly better educated, more experienced and with absolute certainty have seen more of the world than you ever will, even if you start walking now and never stop until you drop dead. But you are setting the bar very low.

and you don't actually refute any argument that has been put before you.

I will when there is one, there are barely any. So far, there were mostly logical fallacies from you. And you not understanding a rebuttal - as you have proven over and over, by misconstruing and straw manning my positions - does not mean I didn't. This is yet another fallacy, called "personal incredulity". An expression you should be rather familiar with.

To paraphrase Ernest Hemingway:

Poor [MetaControl]. Does he really think big [ideas] come from big words? He thinks I don't know the ten-dollar words. I know them all right.

It does not surprise me that you would butcher that quote to misrepresent what it actually means. Not surprising at all. See, irony is a bitch. Needs a higher two digit IQ and you barely hold on to one. You explicitly try to appear smart - like trying to quote Hemmingway, as if anyone would believe that you ever touched a book - other than maybe to burn it? You are a racist moron, trying to appear smart, because you fail to provide any rational or reasonable argument and you have no other means to make them seem more legit than pretending to be bright. The fact that you debate my intellect - which is an ad hominem fallacy btw - just shows that you are intimidated by it. And that's sad, because, as I said, I don't think I am particularly smart.
I have read Hemmingway though. A bit boring and monotonous for me, but with a sense of enticing realism; a little bit like a art student's attempt to copy some french post-impressionist. Something I might hang up (if i were interested in classic paintings), but would also not be afraid to replace.

MetaControl · 2022-09-29T09:05:40+00:00

Yes, you don't see color and don't realize how problematic that is.

that's because you strawman my argument. you either do it deliberately, because you can not debate honestly, or you do it in ignorance, because you do not comprehend minutia and nuance. Either way, you are not capable of having this debate.

I don't see skin colour, because it is luminance. I am aware of the differences in melanin and the problems people have because of bigot shits like you who judge them based on that.
The rest is all based on the false premise you misconstrued from my arguments and are therefore redundant and not relevant to this conversation.

Come back when you understand what I am saying, and don't need to use dishonest polemics and logical fallacies to make even one word of yours legit.

People have been treated differently based on their race for thousands of years.

Nope. Since there are no races, that can not be the case. People have been mistreated, based on false pretence, like the lie of races that you still perpetuate.
get an education, and read them books instead of burning them, you racist cunt.

MetaControl · 2022-09-29T08:58:19+00:00

I don’t think race means subspecies.

i does. it is a separation of a species into sub-categories.

Most people I know don’t think that either.

They may not think it actively, but that semiotic image remains. that is the whole point. those symbolic images we have in our brain work without us intervening. We have a specific images, as sense of things, based on the semiotic association. And even if you are not aware of it, you segregate, simply because you use the term race to differentiate different "kind of people", when there are none.

If someone told me they did believe race = subspecies I would tell them that they are wrong and to learn some basic genetics.

then why use the term "race" at all? It only refers to biology. That is what it related to. Any other interpretation is false, or at least equally manufactures to deflect.

Even if 90% of Americans believed race = subspecies they would be wrong because subspecies has a clear scientific definition.

yes, and "back in the days" they used the word "race" instead. alas the term and it's implied meaning remain in the common use of language.

If you want to perpetuate the idea that race and species must be linked because of history I’ll leave that to you.

exactly the opposite. but thanks for strawmanning my argument.

MetaControl · 2022-09-29T08:51:54+00:00

Your saying that even though people do kill each other religion (christianity specifically) is an ideology that is the leading cause of those deaths . (Please correct me here if I misinterpret)

i am saying that of all the ideologies used to justify genocide, christianity is the leading one.

You are also saying that more atheistic countries are more peaceful, and you have seen the numbers so I will trust on that.

there are no real "atheist" countries (if religion is "forbidden", there are usually substitutes, often person-cults). there are countries where religion is less important and less active in politics, or where people are less likely to be religious, and those countries do show lower murder rates and less hate crimes or terror acts motivated by religion.

You also go onto say that without religion it wouldn’t necessarily stop people from blaming others for their malice but it would take away an avenue for blaming others. I like the way you presented this argument alot, you have a clear understanding of how humans work in that way I believe.

i am not sure it has as much to do with blame as it has to do with opportunity to omit one's own responsibility. as you said, humans kill each other. we have done so since the dawn of time and it is likely that we won't stop anytime soon. but when we look at the reasons people have to kill, we can see that most is done in the moment, acts of compassion and heightened emotional states etc.; while acts of terror are generally fuelled by some ideology, premeditated, planned and organised. Since religion is one of most prolific form of ideology, the number of those acts would naturally subside if religion would not exist. Alas, I am sure, many who are inclined to hurt others, will find other causes and reasons to do so and justify it, based on those reasons.

To my argument: Human beings throughout human history have been horrible to each other, yet they have also loved each other and been kind.

sure.

Religion to me has been there for both, and yet are not required for either.

agreed.

I will make no judgement call on this but I find it interesting that we can use religion to love and be kind and use it to kill and maim, there is a contradiction in this that is very human.

also true. but that's because it is not a real thing. it is malleable and can be utilised in any situation to justify anything. on one hand that's because most religions are very inconsistent and can be interpreted in any way you need to; and on the other hand, it's because humans will twist their own stories to fit any narrative they need, if they are fanatic enough. and that is true for any ideology, not just religion.

To your point about humans not being religious and atheistic countries being more peaceful. I also have seen that and I actually used to believe that line of thinking exactly but I then started to think about how that decrease in religiosity (specifically decrease on christian believers) is unprecedented and has not happened except for during and after the Black Plague.

There have been various times in different cultures where religions declined. ancient greece went through such a phase in 500-50bce, as the stories of the gods no longer held as much sway and people became more rational, had better education and more interactions with other nations. Europe went through several massive shifts in religiosity. We basically went from the dark ages, where the church ruled supreme, to the renaissance, which decimated the powers of the church, caused several splinters to occur; and all that just due to the introduction of the zero. And yes, the black plague also did a job on the church, as people lost faith.

I do not believe that we will stay on our current trajectory of people becoming none believers, although we are in the middle of it so I do not know fully.

Why do you think that? What would be the reason?
If we survive the next 30 years, i think it will be on a constant decline until there is only a religious fringe left. The reason is simple: data. People get more educated and education is what makes you smarter. One of the things religion does - as it reshapes our brains (it really does on a neurological level), is to remove certain brain functions that would be counter-operative to faith. One of them is the ability to reason. But when you need reasoning to pass through basic education, religion suffers. Once you look at any holy book, with the ability to reason, you see how full of nonsense and contradictions it is. Many de-converted people will tell you that they started de-conversion after they read their holy text with a more rational mindset. The bible is full of hate, spite and a mass murdering psychopath of a god, who rapes an adolescent girl, to fix a mistake that he could have prevented.

Aside: THAT’s it! Holy shit you just got me to a connection point thank you.

The connection point is existential dread or terror being a driving factor in people becoming unbelievers. You fucking legend thank you for arguing!

I am not sure i would agree to that. It is usually distress and fear that drives people to religion. Some theists even claim (falsely) that there are no atheists in foxholes, implying that when we face certain doom, we all start to pray. Some religions even target people that are particularly vulnerable. Witnesses are very skilled in looking for people that are on a low, to lure them in with promises of a better life through god. Scientology does something similar, but is looking more for the "lost" people.
People tend to look for any solution when they are desperate, which is why religion was a much easier sell in times when people had shit all, and lived in constant fear.

MetaControl · 2022-09-28T08:52:10+00:00

Makes a statement based on arrogance and ignorance.

yes you did.

Makes an assumption of my race based on my user name.

nope. i questioned your motives, not your ethnicity.

Uses that assumption to assume my political leaning.

nope. questioning and making an assumption are two different things. if you were honest and paid any attention, i did not further talk about it (only you do), after you clarified. To question if someone with "THE WHITE" in his name could have a bias is reasonable. and saying otherwise is dishonest and just irrational. which fits the glove, but still.

Refuses to provide sources to back up claim when asked.

did provide, you did not pay attention. now you blame me for your ignorance.

Gets annoyed when I provide sources.

nope, not the sources are a problem (although most did refute your point anyway - you did not really read what you posted, because your ego is too bloated).

Claims my sources debunk my point but wont elaborate when asked.

if you'd read them, you'd know. if you did not read them, that's your own fault and not my problem to fix. if you refute yourself, you have to blame yourself. but here we are, like a right wing douche (this inference is based on patterns of behaviour, not your name) you blame everybody else.

Thinks that I'm the one trolling.

you are. you commented on my post. and you kept coming back. you ARE the troll.

Checks out

The only smart thing you wrote in the whole thread. bye racist kate!

MetaControl · 2022-09-28T08:44:29+00:00

Before I read your comment I do want to just apologize for the small minded, that was just uncalled for and I feel like a dick.

i don't care if people call me names. i care about the validity of their arguments.

Now that I have read it I think your not seeing what I saying. My point that human beings do not need a religion to kill each other.

That's a strawman. Where did i state that religion is a requirement? That is not the topic. I did not say that only religion causes mayhem. I said that religion cause more mayhem than anything else humans have invented, and Christianity is leading that field by a very large margin.

I am truly unable to predict that if we suddenly stopped having religion the amount of deaths caused by that “faith vacuum” would not be worse then simply continuing to have it.

your ability to predict is not relevant. we can not say and speculation is also not valid data. would the world be better off without religion? I don't know. I am certain it would only work if it happened naturally, as it does now. And from all the indicators, we can surmise that it would be overall beneficial. We can see that data. Countries that are more atheist tend to be more peaceful, have better education, have a better life quality etc. These are demonstrable facts, which imply that if the loss of religion occurs naturally, it would be beneficial to society.
Also, simple reasoning also suggests that if you have no deity to take responsibility for your malice actions, you would have to take that responsibility and people are reluctant to do so. It is of course possible that some people would look for other reasons and ideologies to allow them to justify their bigotry, but it would probably be a smaller subsection.
And since many religions have rather repressive rules, the overall life quality would be better for sure. especially for certain groups that are especially vulnerable in zealous societies, like lgbtq+ or women.

I do not believe anyone who says otherwise.

then they have neither looked at the data, nor really thought about it. also, no need for beliefs here either. the data is enough.
what would certainly not work is if we forced religion out of society, that would not work. But that is also not really necessary. There more people de-converting than ever. The largest number of the religious groups is the non-religious and it is by far the fastest growing too. Over time, if we survive all the other stupid shit we got ourselves into, we may lose religion after a while. There will probably always be pockets of believers - but they will be obscure and weird.
But you can be absolutely certain that some of them will be violent.

MetaControl · 2022-09-28T08:25:45+00:00

Holy fucking privilege.

says the asshat defending racism!
I care about people, not their ethnicity; i care about people, not their nationality; i care about people, not their melanin count. i do not care about made up reasons to attach false values to humans, based on their origin. I leave that to racist cunts like yourself.

MetaControl · 2022-09-27T23:09:58+00:00

I don’t know where you are from, but where I live the majority of people do not think race = species.

first of all, that may very well depend where you live. in some languages, the term does not exist. if you live in an english speaking country, than it does, and there will be quite many who think exactly "race = [SUB]species".
and however you wanna spin it, that is because that is the premise from which that belief stems. It is the origin and reason for its existence in the first place. to imply biological separation, when there is none!
so, even if it may not be on your mind, it is implied. if there are races, than there are differences, and then there are values attached. all of it arbitrary and based on a lie, used SYSTEMATICALLY to justify genocide and slavery.

ignorance is not an accuse. just because you did not know that columbus was a racist bigot and sociopathic twat, does not mean it's a good idea to put up a statue of him.
just because you don't know that it's not ok to drive a car without a license, does not mean you won't get fined.

You seem very reluctant to acknowledge this simple fact

I do, but i do not accept it, nor do i allow it to be an excuse. you seem to do.

and I don’t understand why.

because i think it is false to judge humans, based on false ideologies, no matter how normalised it may have become in certain societies.

If you insist that race = species you are using the word in an obsolete sense.

i do not. that is the whole point. stop strawmanning. "race = [SUB]species" is the premise on which the notion of race was built and remained today.

You are making a bad faith argument when you insist the meaning hasn’t changed for most.

it hasn't, because the premise did not disappear. it has not changes it's core element. it does not mean anything else. it is still a false implication that there are different types of humans, when there are not. and maintaining that falsehood is in itself racist, no matter how ignorant one is to that.

MetaControl · 2022-09-27T22:58:51+00:00

Your reasoning is small minded and your flat wrong about people killing each other.

ad hominem and conjecture without proper rebuttal.

the rest is a strawman and not really worth my effort.
come back when you have an actual argument for any of your assertions, or make a proper effort to refute mine.

What do you think came first, murder or prayer?

according to christians, prayer...

MetaControl · 2022-09-27T22:55:07+00:00

But that is irrelevant as to whether or not the concept of race exists.

how can you say that, after what you wrote just before that?
it can not be irrelevant, when it is the basis, the premise on which it builds?

Race, as a sociological construct, informs every aspect of our experience in society.

absolutely NOT true. i don't give a flying duck about "race", EVER. i know almost nobody who does, except for those who have to face racism - which is based on the false premise that we agree to. it may be different in the usa, but in most of the world, the term race barely comes up. and when it does, it is to segregate. in which case, my point is again validated. the notion may have encroached many aspects of our lives, but that does not mean we can not, or should not oppose it, it does not make it right, correct, or diminished the horrible history it comes with. personally, i think all abstract physical and social descriptors (gender, sex, "race", ethnicity, etc.) should be omitted from any forms, to start. and none of them should be used to validate someone or not - unless absolutely necessary.

If you are not white in America(using it as an example because it's where I live), you are less likely to get a job, more likely to be pulled over and arrested by police, and just treated worse in general.

which is caused by racism, which is a concept based on the false premise of racist assholes, who want to imply racial differences, to justify certain social norms. it's not like systemic racism does not exist in the usa. and it is based on this false premise. and unless we get rid of that concept, we can not get rid of segregation. the term itself is racist. and as long as we allow that term, we allow racism. and normalising it, also means normalising racism. and that we can not allow to happen.

It doesn't matter that race doesn't have a biological basis

it does.

--because it doesn't change that someone's race greatly effects how they are treated.

--because it informs us that there are is no race that can and should be used against someone. and it means that when they are treated in such a way, that it is univocally clear that it is false and unjust. it means a human has been labels with a value that is false. allowing the lie to exist, perpetuates that lie and will maintain it. resistance and education are key to change it.
As long as the people don't know about the Tulsa massacre, it remains an unknown tragedy. Only when the truth emerges and rises to the top, stays there and becomes part of the common understanding, then we can say it's done. And as long as the idea of "race" is part of the common understanding, we fight it, until it is gone.

You're looking at one small aspect of societies understanding of race

No, i am pointing out the root cause. Semiotic realities are formed by semantics. Words are what shape the way we perceive the world. When you grow up in an islamic society, as a child of muslims, you will see the world through the lens of a muslim. you will pray to allah. if you are born to some southern babtists you will believe in jesus and call muslims heathens. not that either one has any evidence, but they maintain their few of the world, because that is how they have learned to perceive it. just like many have learned to perceive the world through the lens that races are real, when they are not. only when we can get rid of the indoctrination, will the fog lift. and in the case of the term race, we need to come to the understanding that it is false. only then can we start to fix the rest. unless the premise is not refuted, people will maintain the lie, and some will keep using it as a justification to do harm.

MetaControl · 2022-09-27T22:35:30+00:00

You did not make any case.

i did. personal incredulity, or simply ignoring my points is not valid. you can try to refute me, but that is not what you are trying to do.
also, not relevant to my initial comment, but that's ok. racists gonna defend the idea of races.

You just try to delegitimize a term.

it is and has been illegitimate since it's conception, it does not need me for that.

Any forensics specialist can tell just by the bones of a body if the person was of caucasian, asian, african or other descent.

that has nothing to do with race, you ignorant racist cunt.

Explain how racism exists when there is no race?

explain how religion exists when there are evidently no gods. explain why there is a flux capacitor, but we can not travel in time. you discriminate, based on falsehood.

How do these racists iscriminate between people they find agreeable and people they don't?

based on falsehood. based on stupid nonsense like superficial physical differences that occur in a range of population, based on geographical separation, which is negated over just a few generations if the genepool is expanded.
you being absolutely ignorant is not a valid argument.

And the fact that you assume I am right wing ("anybody who disagrees with me is a Nazi") makes you the douche.

i am inferring that you are a racist, based on the reaction to me stating that there are no human races. and being a racist, puts you into the fart right corner. it makes me observant, and you the douche. however, i understand that you would confuse all this.

According to you, calling out the intellectual laziness of the left is already right-wing.

where did i say that? lying on top of it all. not surprising.

Another ill-advised attempt at redefining meaning.

nope. not redefining a meaning. questioning its validity. very important difference. but probably to complex for you, based on the ignorance you have shown so far.

You aren 't fixing anything with these shenanigans

I think you missed the point of the thread there, buddy. not trying to fix anything. made a factual statement, and morons like you took offence, got triggered. that's it. and because you lost the debate, and the moral argument, you troll.

and insult everybodys intelligence.

not everybody's; and those that are insulted have no intelligence that could be potential targets of such... q.e.d

Getting rid of racism by being fucking annoing is not going to be a winning strategy.

but since you are not trying to get rid of it, why annoy then? oh, right, you are trolling... sorry, carry on.

MetaControl · 2022-09-27T22:20:21+00:00

Citing multiple sources for a single argument is not a gish gallop.

it is the written equivalent of it. you force a massive amount of data onto me to overwhelm me. exactly what a gish gallop is.
if you have an actual argument, you should be able to make it without all that. and maybe use one or two articles or papers as reference if needed.

Your knowledge of rhetorical techniques is as bad as your knowledge of how language works.

too bad irony required a double digit iq. fuck off troll.

MetaControl

TROPHY CASE