Needs alt text.
I don’t go to sites full of ads, or if I do, I just switch to reader mode and poof better readability without ads.
- 1 Post
- 103 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
Cake day: December 13th, 2024
You are not logged in. If you use a Fediverse account that is able to follow users, you can follow this user.
I really want to upvote this, but it lacks alt text. 😞
facts about natural processes don’t need “justification”
rage bait
that’s in the eye of the beholder & Y U MAD, THO?
Needs text alternative.
Images of text break much that text alternatives do not. Losses due to image of text lacking alternative:
- usability
- we can’t quote the text without pointless bullshit like retyping it or OCR
- text search is unavailable
- the system can’t
- reflow text to varied screen sizes
- vary presentation (size, contrast)
- vary modality (audio, braille)
- accessibility
- lacks semantic structure (tags for titles, heading levels, sections, paragraphs, lists, emphasis, code, links, accessibility features, etc)
- some users can’t read this due to lack of alt text
- users can’t adapt the text for dyslexia or vision impairments
- systems can’t read the text to them or send it to braille devices
- searchability: the “text” isn’t indexable by search engine in a meaningful way
- fault tolerance: no text fallback if
- image breaks
- image host is geoblocked due to insane regulations.
Contrary to age & humble appearance, text is an advanced technology that provides all these capabilities absent from images.
I didn’t know I liked Taylor Swift until now. Still needs alt text.
- usability
First, some languages do have authorities that bound their language by rules.
All natural languages work the same way. Some institution claiming otherwise doesn’t change that.
aren’t turning the word into a pejorative
This analogy fits you.
Imagine online activists started condemning usage of the word dutch as a slur. It’s bizarre: there is nothing wrong with the dutch, yet they’re acting as though we should think so & resist that urge? Why are they propagating problematic presuppositions we don’t have about the dutch? Why are they trying to make this official? Are they some special breed of stupid?
Continuing this analogy, they drag you into fights by claiming you’re a racist for using the word when you’re not actually saying anything offensive about the dutch. You & the rest of society know the word dutch isn’t offensive, yet these activists insist it is by pointing to some fringe online community spewing vitriolic propaganda about dutch inferiority specifically using the word dutch. You repudiate their claim by asking why some fringe group irrelevant to wider society gets to decide the meaning of words, but they condemn your “hurtful” language and say you’re as bad as them or one of them. Don’t be an asshole & use another word like Dutchperson, Netherlander, or Hollander they say: it’s the right thing to do & shows socially conscientious, moral rectitude.
Yes, they are whether they recognize it or not: from an external, impartial observer, claiming there’s a problem with the word female with little regard for context communicates the problem resides in whatever the word itself denotes rather than the contextual meaning.
Our society includes both a minority of sexists & a vast majority of non-sexists who use the word female differently, yet these activists privilege the language & rhetoric of the sexist minority over the non-sexist majority. Why should the sexists get to decide the meaning of words for everyone & the unequal ideas to perpetuate in society? Who does that serve?
Older activists understood that doesn’t serve them and chose to reclaim words like black & queer as words of pride instead. Newer activists would be wise to follow that example: instead of antagonizing non-sexists by treating them as sexists or fulfilling an inferiority complex to establish sexist language as normative, they could try not playing themselves.
The rest you wrote is misguided opinion you’d ironically perpetuate.
the people who use “female” to describe women and girls are already using it to “otherize” and dehumanize half the population
Counterfactual. The language community decides the meaning of words through observed usage, and in the preponderance of the community, female is inoffensive. That includes among females themselves. Female is used self-referentially “in-group”: it shows up in feminist book titles, in dating communities (eg, “F4F/M”), classifieds (eg, “need a roommate […] females only”), etc. In conventional language, female is an acceptable word.
I don’t want to throw around the word “mansplaining” willy nilly
Logic has no sex. You’d be wise not to internalize & promote sexism.
then it’s an unsettled contest between a split community
a language’s community isn’t bound by any rules: it’s free to change a language however it chooses
I’ve found a language policing minority on here try to pejorate female as derogatory, and I explain to them that by trying to induct sexist presuppositions into the language they’re either sexist or playing themselves
Needs text alternative.
Images of text break much that text alternatives do not. Losses due to image of text lacking alternative:
- usability
- we can’t quote the text without pointless bullshit like retyping it or OCR
- text search is unavailable
- the system can’t
- reflow text to varied screen sizes
- vary presentation (size, contrast)
- vary modality (audio, braille)
- accessibility
- lacks semantic structure (tags for titles, heading levels, sections, paragraphs, lists, emphasis, code, links, accessibility features, etc)
- some users can’t read this due to lack of alt text
- users can’t adapt the text for dyslexia or vision impairments
- systems can’t read the text to them or send it to braille devices
- searchability: the “text” isn’t indexable by search engine in a meaningful way
- fault tolerance: no text fallback if
- image breaks
- image host is geoblocked due to insane regulations.
Contrary to age & humble appearance, text is an advanced technology that provides all these capabilities absent from images.
yes, conventions (which include natural language) work that way: the community of users sets the convention
what if I told you images can have alt text?
- usability
1·12 days agoThe rough gist I’m getting is some poorly substantiated claim of ignorance of general exploitation as worse than overt abuse of human rights, eg
Yes, comrade, I’m locking you up and abusing your fundamental rights, but think how bad you’d have it free, doing the same work with a better standard of living & lower economic inequality while whining about exploitation!
Perhaps workers could earn better without “exploitation” in liberal democracies, but historical record & economic data show the opposite:
- the Soviet system stagnated & deteriorated behind liberal democratic counterparts at living standards & economic growth while still exploiting workers & abusing their fundamental rights
- several liberal democracies continue to achieve lower economic inequality & better living standards than communist states.
The Soviet Union gave up & dismantled itself for this reason. There was no tradeoff of human rights abuses somehow yielding a better life for a less exploited, average worker. For all its rhetoric, the Soviet workers got the worst of everything.
Per the philosophy of social democracies, socialism doesn’t require human rights abuses. Authorities abusing human rights are definitely worse than authorities not doing that & letting people fail on their own terms. In the case of those liberal democracies beating the performance of communist states, those “exploited” workers are freer & doing better than the “unexploited” ones. Given the results, it’s hard to find your notion of “exploitation” credible: I think it’s full of shit & mostly in your deluded theory that’s failing to bear out.
So
a government authority takes away your freedom & subjects you to abuse
you depress yourself about having to work & pay for shit or deal with your feelings
same thing! 😊
I can’t believe everyone who buys this equivalence bullshit of illegitimate abuse & coercion in one case and lack thereof in the other. It’s like they have some submission kink to getting dominated.
It’s entirely different when the government authority not only says it but takes away your freedom & subjects you to abuse. How are so many here missing that crucial distinction?
It’s entirely different when the government authority not only says it but takes away your freedom & subjects you to abuse. How are so many here missing that crucial distinction?
How do people avoid smelling their own farts? Do they run away?
3·14 days agoNeeds text alternative.
Images of text break much that text alternatives do not. Losses due to image of text lacking alternative such as link:
- usability
- we can’t quote the text without pointless bullshit like retyping it or OCR
- text search is unavailable
- the system can’t
- reflow text to varied screen sizes
- vary presentation (size, contrast)
- vary modality (audio, braille)
- accessibility
- lacks semantic structure (tags for titles, heading levels, sections, paragraphs, lists, emphasis, code, links, accessibility features, etc)
- some users can’t read this due to lack of alt text
- users can’t adapt the text for dyslexia or vision impairments
- systems can’t read the text to them or send it to braille devices
- web connectivity
- we have to do failure-prone bullshit to find the original source
- we can’t explore wider context of the original message
- authenticity: we don’t know the image hasn’t been tampered
- searchability: the “text” isn’t indexable by search engine in a meaningful way
- fault tolerance: no text fallback if
- image breaks
- image host is geoblocked due to insane regulations.
Contrary to age & humble appearance, text is an advanced technology that provides all these capabilities absent from images.
Principally because I don’t know who those bitches are.
- usability
That’s still pretty normal. People (think they) feel how others do. It takes effort & practice to dissociate and try not to feel.
Not necessarily. It usually means somewhat selflessly feeling or understanding how they might feel enough to care about their wellbeing & treat them compassionately.
If you’re selective about the recipients of your empathy (eg, only those you care about or near you), then you’re not really an empath or a good one. Buddhists had empathy & compassion figured out. Jesus stated it, too, with love your enemies. I’ve frequently seen people try to wield empathy as a cudgel and miss the point.
You just described abilities within the normal range of interpersonal skills: reading emotions. That doesn’t imply feeling them.
OP was ridiculing the projection of emotions people don’t necessarily have but that the subject arrogantly assumes they do.
Needs text alternative.
Images of text break much that text alternatives do not. Losses due to image of text lacking alternative:
- usability
- we can’t quote the text without pointless bullshit like retyping it or OCR
- text search is unavailable
- the system can’t
- reflow text to varied screen sizes
- vary presentation (size, contrast)
- vary modality (audio, braille)
- accessibility
- lacks semantic structure (tags for titles, heading levels, sections, paragraphs, lists, emphasis, code, links, accessibility features, etc)
- some users can’t read this due to lack of alt text
- users can’t adapt the text for dyslexia or vision impairments
- systems can’t read the text to them or send it to braille devices
- searchability: the “text” isn’t indexable by search engine in a meaningful way
- fault tolerance: no text fallback if
- image breaks
- image host is geoblocked due to insane regulations.
Contrary to age & humble appearance, text is an advanced technology that provides all these capabilities absent from images.
Yep, they’re special.
- usability
11·17 days agoYou’ll get over it or you won’t. 🤷
Imagine not claiming female as a word of pride but instead trying to realize some inferiority complex by promoting the establishment of sexist language that makes the word for an entire gender a demeaning slur.
This analogy fits you.
Imagine online activists started condemning usage of the word dutch as a slur. It’s bizarre: there is nothing wrong with the dutch, yet they’re acting as though we should think so & resist that urge? Why are they propagating problematic presuppositions we don’t have about the dutch? Why are they trying to make this official? Are they some special breed of stupid?
Continuing this analogy, they drag you into fights by claiming you’re a racist for using the word when you’re not actually saying anything offensive about the dutch. You & the rest of society know the word dutch isn’t offensive, yet these activists insist it is by pointing to some fringe online community spewing vitriolic propaganda about dutch inferiority specifically using the word dutch. You repudiate their claim by asking why some fringe group irrelevant to wider society gets to decide the meaning of words, but they condemn your “hurtful” language and say you’re as bad as them or one of them. Don’t be an asshole & use another word like Dutchperson, Netherlander, or Hollander they say: it’s the right thing to do & shows socially conscientious, moral rectitude.