It makes no sense to pronounce “jpeg” as “jay-peg” because the ‘P’ in Joint Photographic Experts Group clearly makes a sound like the ‘F’ does in ‘fell’. Saying it like “j-feg” is more correct.
It’s just flatout wrong to say it makes no sense because an acronym is pronounced as a word, not an abbreviation of its words. AIDS isn’t pronounced “awh-ids”, NASA isn’t pronounced “N-eh-sa”.
op’s just trying to make that happen so they can justify the “graphics not jraphics” excuse
OP is probably saying “suck my fenitals” right now. Or “pheephee” I dunno
deleted by creator
Spaces
Tabs!
White colored words that insult the reader.
Insisting that all tabs should be the same length as eight spaces.
Open up notepad, and compare. Eight spaces = 1 tab.
8 space tabs is incredibly stupid
And yet, that is its default definition regardless of operating system.
That’s also why almost every IDE out there has tabs auto-set to 4 spaces, and/or gives the user to change it away from 8 spaces.
And yet, that is its default definition regardless of operating system.
Defined by what? When does the os, rather than a program, determine how many spaces a tab is?
Its funny that the argument against tabs is purely because someone once opened a file in a shitty editor.
I am not arguing against tabs. I actually find them a lot cleaner than spaces. But the default definition of a tab has it being eight spaces long, regardless of operating system.
It’s just that “tab = 4 spaces” is either the default in a number of IDEs, and in those which it isn’t, almost everyone changes it to that anyhow.
I didn’t think that you were. I was criticising Notepad as a really shitty “editor”.
I personally set tabs to 2 spaces, but then thats the beauty of tabs over spaces. You can have two or four, or even eight if you hate yourself without impacting anyone else.
People who demand spaces are Republicans, they want to force their 2/4/8 space rule on you even if it is inconsequential.
This is one of those coders’ beefs, isn’t it?
If it were supposed to be pronounced “jif” it would have been spelled that way.
And clearly based on the intense response you win the controversial statement award
So how do you pronounce giraffe?
How do you pronounce github? GIMP? GNU? GPU? Javascript?
Oh Geremy, it’s time to jo to the jocery store! We need some jrape gelly.
Wait they’re supposed to be pronounced with J? Except JS obviously I pronounced them all with G
Geoff is a gentle German giant with ginger hair. He’s also a germaphobe, though generally he’s still a genuine gentleman. You get the gist.
How do you pronounce gift?
Yes, but “GIF” is not etymologcally Germanic. 😉
With the other pronunciation. Some letters have more than one. Your statement is nonsense lol
If there’s ever a Giraffe Interchange Format, I’ll pronounce it the same as giraffe. And unlike some people, I’ll be able to tell the two apart.
In the meantime, there is a Joint Photographics Experts Group. I love me some deep fried jfegs!
GIF is an acronym. Giraffe is not. The Giraffe response has been debunked for decades.
Graphical is a hard G.
Debunked? Its a counterpoint to the fact that it’s pronounced that way because it’s spelled with a g. If that poor argument wasn’t used, the giraffe one wouldn’t have to come up. It’s not evidence of anything other than that letters can be pronounced in more than one way.
For the graphical thing, imagine pronouncing NASA wrong because of the way aeronautical is pronounce. Or underwater in scuba. World in WHO? The I in AIDS isn’t pronounced anything like immunodeficiency.
Your argument doesn’t work either.
The argument holds up.
Thank you for providing me all new ways to pronounce things in horribly cursed ways, magic internet man.
Also “laser” as lah-seer
It’s a gift, not a jift.
Yeah and it’s giraffe, not jiraffe. See how that gets us nowhere?
Jood gob indeed (just kidding, no malice intended)
Laser is an acronym for Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation, and yet we all pronounce it “lay-Zer” not “lay-Ser”
The A in amplification and E in emission are pronounced differently too, so the “correct” pronunciation would be “lah-seer”.
This is a jem of a response, but by jeneralizing pronunciations of acronyms only by the way they are spelt, you are opening a jigantic can of worms on etymology and linguistics.
The jist of it is that English is a weird language, jenerally descriptive, and there can be many correct answers to the same pronunciation problem.
As for me? I’m a choosy developer, and I choose jif.
jigantic
I read that as Jig-antic. I would have to turn it into jygantik for it to sound the same.
The creator of the format is documented as having confirmed the pronunciation is “jif”, but I don’t care. Once he created it and put it into the world, he relinquished his control.
This is why literary analysis created death of the author.
I honestly believe he was just trolling when he said that and he probably giggles to himself everytime someone says (shudder) ‘jif’. It’s a hard G from graphics so I don’t know how else is could be reasonably pronounced.
Saying that my favorite cli editor is
nanoI preferred pico.
I prefer micro
Based
The only CLI editors I’ve used are VI and Nano. So my favourite CLI editor is Nano too.
I was hanging with a group consisting of mostly older millennial gay men who don’t like that trans people are being included alongside them in conversations about human rights, sexuality, and gender. They think it takes away from the fight their community has gone through over the past few generations.
I chewed them out. Like, a lot. I am usually not at all confrontational but I pretty much stunned them into silence. Now I’m waiting to let them process, expecting a couple to reach out to me to step back from some of the shit they were saying. If that doesn’t happen, I guess I’m not really welcome in that group anymore and I’m ok with that.
There are no trans people in this group. I’m not a gay man nor am I trans. But when I hear shit like that, I hear echos of gay men activists not being willing to work with lesbian women activists, white feminists not includig black women, male laborers trying to keep women out of labor rights movements. It’s stupid. It’s tribal and hateful. It undercuts the strength the movement could have if we weren’t asshats about it.
Rights campaigning 101, strength in unity. This is basic ass shit.
While I do agree that unity is the way to go in the fight for rights, I can understand why one would want to separate the T from the LGB. It’s an issue of consistency - L, G, and B all describe sexuality, while T describes gender. The two are related, but ultimately separate concepts - one does not inform the other, and grouping them can hypothetically lead ignorant people to think that they are directly related, which could hypothetically lead to non-straight cisfolk experiencing more oppression than they would have otherwise experienced due to the perceived association with transfolk, as non-conforming sexuality is more generally accepted today than non-conforming gender.
That being said, it’s all hypothetical, and what matters is the reality that people from all spectra of nonconformity are regularly oppressed, and in many places, the oppressors treat anyone LGBT+ with the same disdain. So grouping them is vital for the sake of the most oppressed.
I mean, you could similarly reason that bisexuals aren’t welcome (both gays and lesbians are solely attracted to the same sex, after all), or that asexuals aren’t welcome (you can be asexual and heteroromantic, after all), and so on. I think, ultimately, that unity between us is important, and allowing the umbrella to protect all members of gender, romantic, and sexual minorities strengthens the overall cause rather than weakening it.
one does not inform the other
Me omw to be a lesbian man
Hell yeah. Concern silos divide the people.
Trans rights are human rights
Women’s rights are human rights
Workers rights are human rights.
Stuck a wire in a power socket.
You can imagine ;)
Seriously, though, I said (irl) the home affordability crisis in my country can’t be truly solved in any way that simultaneously still allows people to invest in homes (rent them out, sell them at higher prices, do business with tourism, etc) to any meaningful degree. Everyone around had very strong, diverse opinions on that.
We literally had this situation for decades before a few short years ago. People could invest to a meaningful degree and there was no crisis. What is your reasoning that this is impossible?
Imagine a situation wherein everyone has more or less the same amount of money. They can afford the same number of houses, let’s say, two small, or one larger house. Even if there’s some inequality, it’s not hard to imagine people buying larger or smaller homes and yet everyone being able to afford one. Renting is an afterthought in this scenario.
If inequality grows larger, some people will not be able to afford ownership, and then renting becomes profitable; those who can afford more than one house will buy more than they need, increasing demand and then offering those homes for renting and getting profit. This in turn increases inequality, but as long as the forces pushing it down prevail, this state can last for long.
The crisis breaks out when these mechanisms eventually come out of balance, pushing a large share of people out of the market, and homeownership starts concentrating.
The idea is that investing is only profitable when people don’t have what they need; any solution that gives them that (increasing public housing is a popular proposal here) will reduce profit. In fact, profitability is at a maximum now because of the housing crisis, and even just going back to step 2 would reduce it. A “perfect” solution would give everyone homes at the best price physically possible and with full liquidity, which would sink renting yields to basically zero.
seems uncontroversial to me
Objectively, yes. But it was polarizing at the time because some of the people present were investing heavily in real estate.
Markdown is trash. It almost always comes in a fork that is naturally incompatible with other forks & never has the features you need for blogging or technical writing (leading to abuse of the limited features, unsemantic markup output, and/or embedding HTML which is both ugly & also ruining portability to non-HTML targets). This leaves you locked into some specific tool’s forked implementation & never looks good in other contexts. Markdown was also never the only or best option for lightweight markup at any time.
Nothing beats org mode syntax for markup. You don’t have to use emacs, but syntactically, org is so much more convenient, consistent and easy.
Downvotes here showing it’s controversial, but I am willing to bet these folk have never given AsciiDoc, reStructuredText, & LaTeX a spin in comparison (for ‘real world’ documentation, etc. with multiple output targets) to actually know what they are talking about 😅
You can embed LaTeX math formulas in Markdown with
$x = y$on many clients.Let me try: $f(x) = \frac{1}{x}$.
Doesn’t seem to work on Lemmy. Maybe a bug/missing feature?
It’s always a series of extensions nonstandardized but said to all be under the same umbrella. It would be better if these things called a spade a spade & say Markdown-like or Markdown-inspired instead of giving a false sense of compatibility.
School is where the passion for learning goes to die and the desire to cheat is born
In this day and age, hobbies are the last bastions of passion and curiosity. One who is engaged in a hobby is intrinsically motivated to learn and apply what has been learned in novel ways, just as the scholars of old have done. School, reviled by many a student, has earned its reputation by perverting the concept of learning and exploiting students’ passions. The desire to cheat is most unnatural among students, a telltale sign that one’s passion and curiosity for the topic at hand has been extinguished, replaced with a desire to rid oneself of a burden, the burden of learning only for the sake of becoming learned.
also, we need 20h/week, 4 days/week schools.
What do parents do then when they’re working since childcare in the US is fucked
That’s only half the plan. We cut school hours so kids can work in the mines.
deleted by creator
I think that’s polarising because using a weird incorrectly does not change its meaning; it’s far more subtle than that
But that is literally why we have many of the definitions accepted as standard today.
But if everyone is using it to mean something new then we need to record that.
“Literally” officially meaning “figuratively” radicalized me.
Lear Welsh or French. They’re both Prescriptive languages where that is (officially) true. English, however, is a descriptive language which means the dictionary is there to record how language is used not to define how it should be used
That’s so fetch.
Must be embarrassing to not understand that living languages evolve.
Nuke russia and china
Telling 8th grade content teachers that they must modify their assignments to accommodate migrant students and English learners, and that just directly translating those documents forever wasn’t going to cut it. Gosh there was a lot of grumbling in the room.
I get it, we’re short staffed and overwhelmed, but it doesn’t make it go away.
Marxism is correct and more relevant than ever.
I’m curious what makes you say that. What evidence is there to support Marxism? Isn’t Marxism just communism? Just genuinely curious. I always thought that communism has been proven not to work multiple times throughout history. Not trying to say I think Capitalism is perfect. I definitely agree that Capitalism that is unrestrained and companies that are allowed to reign free is bad for the common people.
I always thought that communism has been proven not to work multiple times throughout history.
The more accurate lesson would be that communist nations have been defeated by capitalist hegemony multiple times throughout history, mainly during the Cold War; the countries didn’t just implode of their own accord. Now, it’s fair to criticize them for this, if you have an ideology all about material conditions and then you aren’t able to survive those conditions, you probably messed up, but I think that’s a very different assertion from “communism doesn’t work”.
communist nations have been defeated by capitalist hegemony multiple times throughout history, mainly during the Cold War
You are aware of the many attempts in different countries to leave the USSR, right?
All of them were violently shut down, that’s why the system was able to keep going, but without violence against their own population the USSR would’ve collapsed much earlier.
I’m unimpressed. The US has crushed rebellions from its inception, famously including the civil war but also many other attempts, and I would say that the patterns of what some call the New Afrikan nation within the US to revolt, going solidly up to the 1980s or further depending on your interpretation, are perhaps the most important.
As some guy said, “Revolution is not a dinner party” and establishing and maintaining a revolutionary state requires its own violence. No Marxist says otherwise, as it is the famous quote of Engels: “The proletariat uses the State not in the interests of freedom but in order to hold down its adversaries, and as soon as it becomes possible to speak of freedom the State as such ceases to exist.”
Marxism is Communism, yes. Communism has been proven to work multiple times, and does to this day.
I suggest reading Blackshirts and Reds if that goes against what you believe to be true, though if you have specific questions I can do my best to answer.
Serious question, are there any true communist/Marxist nations today that would be examples of your statement?
Sorry about terribad formatting, old phone is old
Historically there have been more, such as the USSR, but currently the DPRK, PRC, Cuba, Vietnam, and Laos are explicitly Marxist. There’s a lot of misinformation surrounding them, but they retain Marxism.
Doesn’t the DPRK operate under the Juche political concept?
Juche is basically Marxism-Leninism, but with a focus on self-reliance.
Is it your stance that every nominally Marxist country is actually Marxist? That there are no revisionist countries even though, for example, the USSR spent most of its existence being revisionist?
I wouldn’t say there are any “orthodox” Marxist countries, most have taken some fair bit of revisionism, but are still Socialist and practice Marxism.
Fair enough, I mostly agree. I can imagine that China, Vietnam, and Laos are on the list because of, uh, capitalist roading, and the DPRK is nationalist to a reactionary degree and kind of culty, but what criticism would you apply to Cuba? Do they do capitalist roading too? I don’t hear much about them in that regard.
I guess in real life that’s polarising…
On here it’s just preaching to the choir, thus the upvotes.
Depends on the audience. It’s polarizing, hence the downvotes as well.
“I’m a centrist.”
wot? how do u liv wiv urself
skins a grape before eating it
drives with the seatbelt alarm going off every the minutes
I’m just a monster and monsters don’t care.
