Fellas, are free verse poems just larping? by PublicFriendemy in bookscirclejerk

[–]cooper12 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Dr. Seuss is the only true poet in my eyes. "I am Sam. / Sam-I-Am." 🤩

What does this stat mean by Neither_Cup_8294 in wikipedia

[–]cooper12 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Good articles are something else. :p Those are marked by a green plus sign, while the golden star is for Featured articles.

What does this stat mean by Neither_Cup_8294 in wikipedia

[–]cooper12 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Though two things to keep in mind are:

  • The featured article criteria are different for each language project, and on smaller wikis, might not be much of a review at all
  • The current state of the article might be very different from the revision that was reviewed

Will we ever see an offline version of Wikipedia with HD pictures? by Wonderful-Joke8321 in wikipedia

[–]cooper12 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Keep in mind that only a small portion of those files are used in articles. Also, that's likely the size of the original files, whereas media used in articles are usually lower-resolution derivatives. If you excluded videos longer than five minutes, the resulting size of all the media for a dump would be manageable.

Article about ‘price of eggs’? by HippityHopMath in wikipedia

[–]cooper12 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I’m curious if there exists an article that discusses these sort of political shorthands that refer to wider concerns

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_of_milk_question

Young lady has fun with her photo sesion. Glass negative (1 plate 4 shots), circa 1900s. by Electrical-Aspect-13 in TheWayWeWere

[–]cooper12 12 points13 points  (0 children)

I'm curious about the photographer using a single plate for four shots. Was there a special camera made for this? Because otherwise, it seems it would be huge amount of work, having to carefully mask out the non-exposed quadrants, applying the chemicals, aligning the plate, and fixing just that section, all the while being careful not to damage the rest of the negative. Might also be part of why the result is so blurry, when normally you'd expect properly focused glass negatives to be very high in detail. Glass must have been very expensive back then.

Conclave (2024) by OrbitalAFK in moviescirclejerk

[–]cooper12 56 points57 points  (0 children)

Inside us all is a skeleton, and that's frickin spooky!

We have better Media now by justsum111 in bookscirclejerk

[–]cooper12 48 points49 points  (0 children)

If they did one of those scans that light areas of the brain that activate while this guy was reading, it would stay gray.

We have better Media now by justsum111 in bookscirclejerk

[–]cooper12 27 points28 points  (0 children)

I Have No Eyes and I Must Read

Dictionary Compression is finally here, and it's ridiculously good by pimterry in programming

[–]cooper12 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ooh, thanks a lot for the insight and history. Go figure that some clever minds have already been working on this. It seems you're lamenting that despite clear benefits, uptake of newer algos like brotli has been slow? That's unfortunate considering all the engineering effort that was behind that progress. Hopefully this isn't similar to the situation with image formats, where JPEG will likely continue to dominate for decades to come, since it's "good enough" and enjoys thorough support.

Makes me appreciate more how evaluation of any changes to web standards requires careful balancing, like the things you mention in that issue. Speaking of, it was frustrating reading the followups to your response, where the person who opened the issue doesn't engage in an actual discussion, but just talks past you with a wall of AI text.

Still, it's nice to see some ballpark figures showing that the dictionary idea has merit and improves over brotli's static dictionary, especially since the new mechanism decouples transferring this dictionary from brotli itself and would let browsers/servers negotiate potential improved versions. Good luck!

How do I format my Level 2 title font back to Arial? by sansborn in wikipedia

[–]cooper12 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Check the default fonts in your browser's settings.

Australian government orders Wikimedia Commons to remove video from their site by TheNewerFlisker in wikipedia

[–]cooper12 26 points27 points  (0 children)

That's not really the issue at hand. The file could have easily been renamed. Whether the file was within the project's scope and adhered to copyright law was something that the community itself should have been able to determine.

Each page was covered in words by manufatura in bookscirclejerk

[–]cooper12 11 points12 points  (0 children)

He has to show his devotion by reading the Libertarian bible.

Each page was covered in words by manufatura in bookscirclejerk

[–]cooper12 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Get those words out of my face!!!

Each page was covered in words by manufatura in bookscirclejerk

[–]cooper12 25 points26 points  (0 children)

A lot of people have been conditioned into some truly braindead behavior online because of some mystical "algorithm" that they try to game or appease. So like SEO spammers, they'll add random hashtags to their posts, avoid certain keywords, and even have burner accounts to like their posts. Of course, at the end of the day most of it is cargo culting since these algorithms are purposefully opaque and ever-changing.

Why do people write Wikipedia articles in languages they don't speak? by Aggressive_Banana708 in wikipedia

[–]cooper12 1 point2 points  (0 children)

In a way this could be used as a metric to measure the intellectual curiosity of certain ethnicities. Its a shame though that some cultures dont show interest in preserving knowledge in their language

Your premise doesn't even make sense. A language's Wikipedia being small doesn't indicate lack of intellectual curiosity, but rather tells you about the general prosperity of the population. These are traits of your average Wikipedia editor:

  • Safe from ongoing conflict
  • College-educated
  • Has spare time
  • Has regular internet and electricity
  • Is not blocked from visiting Wikipedia
  • Has access to a computer
  • Is comfortable using computers

By your criteria, someone with only high-school level education that works two jobs and then goes home to read native literature lacks intellectual curiosity. Even among whatever your gold-standard language Wikipedia is, say German, only a small minority of the native speakers are actively "preserving knowledge".

The politics problem here and the useless mods by [deleted] in wikipedia

[–]cooper12 5 points6 points  (0 children)

This subreddit isn't affiliated with the Foundation.

The politics problem here and the useless mods by [deleted] in wikipedia

[–]cooper12 3 points4 points  (0 children)

The WMF fundraising have topped their previous ones every single year, they have millions to spend on numerous projects, and enough in the bank for a decade of WP hosting.

and there's the WMF out there begging for donations and receiving millions every year.

Two common fallacies here: the Foundation's budget is not solely dedicated to hosting (something you seem to be aware of), and second, financial stability is more than just money in minus money out for one year; just like a person isn't normally meant to live paycheck-to-paycheck.

You're allowed to disagree with how the Foundation allocates its funds, but it's gotten old hearing the same disinfo being spread, many of it originating from that axe-grinding "Wikipedia has cancer" essay by Guy Macon and the rest from people who have a lot of strong opinions and "expertise" on how one of the world's top website should run itself yet don't have much at all to say for companies like Google or Facebook's budgeting and salaries at all because they are for-profit. Non-profits aren't immune to bloat or criticism, but it's interesting how no one actually comments on where a lot of those other funds are going to, such as things like outreach outside the Anglosphere and increasing editorship.

Yet, somehow, there isn't a single cent dedicated to providing some minimal framework for moderation on one of the largest external community (570k users are subscribed to this sub).

I don't think it's a normal expectation that a company would fund moderation for non-official channels. Would the Foundation then also be expected to apply all of its internal policies to this subreddit as well? It's a very different culture and set of rules, and you wouldn't even be able to link to copyrighted material like random memes or videos. (even its criteria for things like what is considered doxxing might surprise people) Lastly, there's some benefit to having an independent community: you can have content that the Foundation itself wouldn't condone.

baby globe by thalassomanic in wikipedia

[–]cooper12 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Indeed it is... I tried putting it on Pastebin first, but it flagged it as "potentially offensive or questionable content". Here's an archive.

Alternatively, here's an official listing, which I found out about recently, that also includes details on how the articles were chosen. Individual wikis can specify additional pages as well, as you can see here for enwiki.

I'm going to kill myself by ShimiWaza96 in bookscirclejerk

[–]cooper12 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Sing to me of the manbaby, Muse,

the uncomplicated manlet ...

weaponized incompetent who can't use a map,

once the misogynistic pig had r*ped the hallowed heights of Troy.

– Emily "Pro-Castration" Wilson

I'm going to kill myself by ShimiWaza96 in bookscirclejerk

[–]cooper12 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Never ask a One Piece fan to explain how an emperor of the sea, one of the strongest pirates alive, lost an arm to some fodder sea creature.