Hey guys. I have a steam link I’ve used for quite some time. But I’m wanting to figure out a solution that is similar but grants full PC control. I have my main PC hardwired and a steam link and monitor out in my garage I’m routing to with a power line adapter that works pretty great. But it has a lot of issues when minimizing steam to use as a full PC. I have a mini pc N100 I planned on using as a router. But would be happy to swap to use for this if possible.

I've wanted to try it for a long time, but never got around to it. I'm curious about any techniques that are more grass roots outside of the commercialized space, like what are the absolute minimum things needed when repeatability, convenience, and time are not important factors, but money and access to rare markets is extremely limited? What have you made before?

Like:

• a (blank) makes a good screen, or (blank) is an alternate technique to screens
• (blank) can work as a replacement for emulsion
• (blank) is an alternative for ink

I'm personally interested in printing on t-shirts, but also printing silkscreens on circuit boards.

Currently I'm using #, but it causes issues with certain applications.

Example:

#Top Folder
Games
Music
New Folder
Pics

Currently using mostly Windows, but trying to transition to Linux, so a solution that works for both would be perfect.

Thanks, Lemmy!

Fake Dentist perhaps? Something about getting cavities filled.

Fake McDonalds? Not sure.

I'm working on a side project studying variations in human facial features. It's been helpful to study celebrity faces because it's easy to find numerous reference photos. I've actually got a fairly good range of weird looking white men, turns out Hollywood is pretty flush with those, but it's been harder to find unique looking women or darker skinned people of any gender! Idk if I just don't know as many actors in those demographics, or if it's just harder to break into Hollywood as a weird looking person without also being white and male, but it's probably some combination of the two.

What're y'alls suggestions?

Obviously it was a good thing that it was banned, but I'm just wondering if it would technically be considered authoritarian.

As in, is any law that restricts people's freedom to do something (yes, even if it's done to also free other people from oppression as in that case, since it technically restricts the slave owner's freedom to own slaves), considered authoritarian, even if at the time that the law is passed, it's only a small section of people that are still wanting to do those things and forcibly having their legal ability to do them revoked?

Or would it only be considered authoritarian if a large part of society had their ability to do a particular thing taken away from them forcibly?

By employed I mean get a job in the industry either offline or online. Ideally something that would highly likely remain in-demand in the near future.

The names of previous Lemmy versions were all very boring and repetetive. We need something much more creative. Any ideas?

Body positivity is such a strange concept to me. There's efforts to reclaim words while simultaneously calling them bad if used as an insult. Ideally, people wouldn't be offended by someone describing their body with common descriptors, but socially there is so much value attributed to certain body types that it's almost impossible to avoid having an emotional response of some kind to various descriptors.

For example, It's not bad to be fat, but calling someone "fat" is almost universally considered a bad thing. The same definitely seems to go for the idea of being "short."

I'm asking this question because I can't put my finger on why but something seems to be different about the use of the term "short" from the use of the term "fat." I think that part of it is how, to me at least, the term "fat" is so generic and hard to nail down to a discrete definition, implying that the word really doesn't have a clear connection to reality. On the other hand, height is a single-dimensional number. You either are above a certain threshold, or you aren't.

I recently learned that May 6th to May 10th is "short king week" because it's 5'6" to 5'10" which then prompted me to search for the origins of "short king" and apparently the person most-credited with popularizing the term is Jaboukie Young-White who claims the term was meant to include all men under 6 feet tall. The average adult male height is 5'9" leaving men considered roughly average to be called "short" which is still considered an insult by many.

I dunno. As a term that was intended to champion body positivity compared with how the term is actually used, what do you think of "short king?"

Let me preface this by saying I'm not a fan at all of Bill Burr, but he recently went on Bill Maher's show, and said he was with the students. He's also said some inflammatory things in the past, so I'm not sure. Are we cool with Bill Burr, now?

When I was a kid, like a real little kid, I remember having this one song I liked a lot about a guy trying to deal with getting wedgies at school. I remember almost nothing about it now, other than the guy eventually finds that Fruit of the Loom brand underwear has stretchy enough elastic to make the wedges painless. (This song is the reason I kept bugging my parents to get me Fruit of the Loom brand underwear instead of other brands.)

Now I can't seem to find the song. The only reason I know it existed is because my parents also remember my weird brand loyalty to Fruit of the Loom because of that song. Can any of you guys help me find the underwear song that defined my childhood?

Since whales are teaming up with each other to take down yachts and teaching others how to do it I thought this would be a fun question.

If a majority of intelligent enough sea animals that could communicate with each other teamed up to mess with human activities in the sea who would win.

By the way for people that say that humans would obviously win we have already lost a war against emus before.

~Anti~ ~Commercial-AI~ ~license~ ~(CC~ ~BY-NC-SA~ ~4.0)~

I understand that our local galaxy group is considered "gravitationally bound" and therefore exempt from the expansion from each other ((, but we don't seem to have other galaxies collected into their own "local groups" of gravitationally bound clusters, so are we saying we're somehow unique? Is there a trick of perception taking place?)) <---edit:this is wrong

I found this quote in the Wikipedia article on the Expansion of the universe.

While objects cannot move faster than light, this limitation applies only with respect to local reference frames and does not limit the recession rates of cosmologically distant objects.

It seems to me that if we can perceive at cosmological distance something that cannot exist, perhaps we are falsely observing an expanding universe. Maybe everything IS gravitationally bound and we're just seeing expansion because... Relativity?

Now that the Reddit exodus is about a year old and the client apps have matured, what's the latest state of the above question?

What app do you use and why? I'm mainly interested in Android but suggestions for other platforms are also welcome. And if you are using multiple platforms, what's your primary one?

1. The whole of Germany shall be declared a united, indivisible republic.

2. Every German who is 21 years old shall be a voter and be eligible for election, assuming he has not been sentenced for a criminal offence.

3. Representatives of the people shall be paid so that workers may also sit in the parliament of the German people.

4. Universal arming of the people. In future armies shall at the same time be workers’ armies so that the armed forces will not only consume, as in the past, but produce even more than it costs to maintain them.

5. Maintenance of justice shall be free of charge.

6. All feudal burdens, all fees, labour services, tithes etc. which have previously oppressed the peasantry shall be abolished without any compensation.

7. All baronial and other feudal estates, all mines, pits etc. shall be converted into state property. On these estates agriculture shall be practised on a large scale and with the most modern scientific tools for the benefit of all.

8. The mortgages on peasant farms shall be declared state property. The interest for these mortgages shall be paid by the peasants to the state.

9. In the areas where leasing has developed the ground rent or lease payment shall be paid to the state as a tax.

10. All private banks will be replaced by a state bank whose bonds will have the character of legal tender.

11. All means of transport: railways, canals, steamships, roads, posts etc. shall be taken in hand by the state. They shall be converted into state property and made available free of charge to the class without financial resources.

12. In the remuneration of all civil servants there shall be no difference except that those with a family, i.e. with greater needs, shall also receive a larger salary than the others.

13. Complete separation of church and state. The clergy of all denominations shall only be paid by their own voluntary congregations.

14. Limitation of inheritance.

15. Introduction of strongly progressive taxes and abolition of taxes on consumption.

16. Establishment of national workshops. The state shall guarantee the livelihood of all workers and provide for those unable to work.

17. Universal free education of the people.

These are the 1848 Demands of the Communist Party in Germany, Marx and Engels.

So in the whole anti-natalism/pro-natalism conversation (which I'm mostly agnostic/undecided on, currently), my friend who is a pro-natalist, argued that the success/stability of our world economy is dependent on procreating more children each year than the previous year, so that we not only replace the numbers of the people who existed from the previous generation (and some, to account for the statistical likelihood that many won't have children or will be sterile or die young etc), but also ensure that the population keeps growing in order to produce more and more human labor to "pay back the debts" of previous generations, because all money is borrowed from somewhere else... this is all very murky to me and I wish someone could explain it better.

She is also of the view that this will inevitably lead to population collapse/societal/civilisation collapse because we live on a finite Earth with finite resources that can't keep sustaining more humans & human consumption (and are nearing critical environmental crises), but that there isn't any other option than to keep producing more children because a declining population wouldn't be able to support itself economically either. Basically the idea seems to be that economically & societally we're on a collision course for self-destruction but the only thing we can do is keep going and making increasingly more of ourselves to keep it running (however that as individuals, we should be plant-based & minimalist to reduce our impact to the environment, non-human animals and humans for as long as possible). And she is worried about the fact that fertility rates are falling & slated to reach a population peak followed by a decline in the relatively near future.

As I said I'm not sure how I feel about this view but at first glance I think that the effect of having fewer children in providing relief upon the environment and helping safeguard our future is more important than preserving the economy because destroying the actual planet and life itself seems worse than economic downturns/collapses, but I really don't know enough about economics to say for certain.

For me : Trippie Redd's "!" Is actually a great album