Kalcifer @ Kalcifer @sh.itjust.works

All of this user's content is licensed under [CC BY 4.0](https://creativeco

---

Read more

Posts

161

Comments

1,710

Joined

2 yr. ago

A photo of the spores taken with a microscope could help definitely rule out Psilocybe.

Yeah, I would've liked to have provided a microscopic image of the spores, but I don't currently have access to a microscope of sufficient magnification to image them. Though I likely will soon, and, if possible, I will update with that information.

The breaking veil of a young specimen showing the web-like cortina of Cortniarius (like in the first image here) would suggest that genus.

I don't currently have an image for proof, but, from what I recall, the baby ones did not have that.

I don’t think I would be able to identify them, sorry.

No need to apologize! I appreciate your comments nonetheless.

I usually alternate between subscribed+scaled, and all+active. In both I see pretty much nothing.

It looks like SJW is fine. See my comment here for more details.

It’s not the only one.

See my comment.

It doesn't appear to be [1]:

So, in this image, if the application server, the push server, and the distributor app have nothing to do with Unified Push, then where exactly does it come into play? What exactly is it doing? I was of the belief that Unified Push standardized the notification communication protocol with the application server, replacing things like Google Firebase (which, iiuc, is equivalent to the push server in the above diagram, and the distributor app being built into the phone — ie Android). What's also confusing me in all this is what exactly a push gateway is doing. Ntfy, for example, implemented a Matrix Gateway [1][2], but I'm not exactly sure the point of that if it's not doing anything with Unified Push (Matrix uses it's own push API [3])

So, for example, if one were to register Unified Push notifications with Matrix using Ntfy, the creation of the encrypted Unified Push notifications would be done by the Matrix Unified Push Gateway which then gets handed off to Ntfy? Is there a way to confirm that the received notification is indeed encrypted?

Perhaps SJW is having federation issues. Anything related to personal blocks would be extremely unlikely, in my case.

The only cats I gave seen so far in my feed are maybe 3 from !cat@lemmy.world.

Update (2024-11-23T00:44Z): It appears that SJW is fine. See my comment here for more details.

I swear I've only seen meta posts talking about all the cats. I haven't seen a single non-meta cat post.

Update (2024-11-23T01:52Z): It turns out that, to see the cats, one must sort by "Hot" [1]. I was sorting by "All" + "Active", but, to see the cats, I must sort "All" + "Hot".

TL;DR: I blame FPTP.

Hm, I'd argue that this is a byproduct of the spoiler effect — I think it's due to strategic voting. I think that it's likely not due to people consciously voting against their own interests to benefit the rich (assuming that they indeed do this ­— ie that voting to benefit the rich is against their interests), but instead that the entities that support these sorts of beliefs, also tend to align with other beliefs that are more important to the voters, and "benefiting the rich", while possibly perceived negatively, is a sacrifice that the voters are willing to make.

If this sort of thing was commonplace, I wonder if this overtly male-focused advertising (I say "male-focused" as males, who are majority heterosexual, would be the largest collective that would be attracted to this sort of advertising) had anything to do with video games being stereotypically associated with males. Perhaps it's a sort of positive feedback. If so, I wonder what the initial bias towards males was.

https://www.amazon.com/Silicone-Realistic-Geoduck-Prostate-Stimulator/dp/B0DFYMJ183

There’s also the issue that larger grills make collisions a lot more dangerous.

While this may be true, the original argument was only regarding the safety risks due to lack of visibility.

Hm, that source makes some rather dubious statements, imo:

THE CLAIM: Gender-affirming surgeries are using a lot of health-care resources.

FACT CHECK: Gender-affirming surgeries represent a tiny proportion of the total number of surgeries performed in B.C. each year. [¶9-10]

This is a bit misleading as John was providing an example that spinal surgeons get less allotted time to do spinal surgeries than what is allotted for gender affirming surgeries:

“A doctor I was talking to just last week, he is a specialist in spinal injuries and neck injuries — a specialist surgeon. He gets two days every two months at the facility he’s working at. That’s it — that’s all the time that has been allocated,” Rustad said.

“One of his colleagues gets 12 days a month for doing gender-affirming surgeries. We can do better folks. We can figure out how to make sure that our professionals have the ability to go and provide the services that we need in British Columbia.” [¶6-7]

Now, of course, John's claim is also flawed, as just because one doctor has less time for one specific treatment than another doctor for another treatment doesn't mean that the latter's treatment is being favored more than the former's. There's no proof in this example that the spinal surgeon is sitting idle when not doing spinal surgeries, or that they are being offset by the gender affirming surgeries. That being said, for clarity, this is not a statement that one should be favored over the other, I'm simply speaking objectively based on the claims.

THE CLAIM: Sexual orientation and gender identity policies in schools violate “parents’ rights” and indoctrinate children.

FACT CHECK: SOGI policies are intended to protect children and youth from bullying. [¶20-21]

This fact check is a strawman — it doesn't address the original claim.

THE CLAIM: To keep sports fair, transgender athletes must be excluded from women’s sports.

FACT CHECK: There is no sure way to test women’s bodies to ensure they are female, and experts note that at most levels there are no competitive or safety reasons not to allow all participants. [¶33-34]

First, regarding

There is no sure way to test women’s bodies to ensure they are female

This should also be taken with the following excerpt:

At the highest levels of sports, there is a long history of attempts to verify that women athletes are female, from visual inspections to gynecological exams to testing of chromosomes and sex hormone levels.

But these testing methods have always run up against the same problem: human bodies don’t always conform to binary sex markers. [¶38-39]

When the fact check is taken with this second bit, it is technically true (in that there may not be a reliable way to universally establish the competitive fairness between two people), but both John and the fact checker are somewhat missing the mark for the issue of strength/performance differences between groups of people that put competitors at an unfair disadvantage. Fist, the exact linguistic definition of the term "female"/"women"/etc. is very important here, second it's crucial to look at, and define, the exact traits that make competition unfair in the respective competition, and, to that end, what extent "fairness" is to be achieved. It's a complicated issue, and rather philosophically driven, and is often subject to borderline disingenuous levels of reductionism.

Second, looking at

experts note that at most levels there are no competitive or safety reasons not to allow all participants.

The article doesn't appear to cite anything for this claim. I would certainly like to know more about why they are stating that as logic would dictate that if you have one person who is substantially stronger than another person, then the weaker person would be at a disadvantage if the competition in question favors strength.

Yes, they can read the data.

Isn't this contradicting the Unified Push spec? It states:

Push message: This is an array of bytes (ByteArray) sent by the application server to the push server. The distributor sends this message to the end user application. It MUST be the raw POST data received by the push server (or the rewrite proxy if present). The message MUST be an encrypted content that follows RFC8291. Its size is between 1 and 4096 bytes (inclusive). [1]

Isn't this contradicting the Unified Push spec? It states:

Push message: This is an array of bytes (ByteArray) sent by the application server to the push server. The distributor sends this message to the end user application. It MUST be the raw POST data received by the push server (or the rewrite proxy if present). The message MUST be an encrypted content that follows RFC8291. Its size is between 1 and 4096 bytes (inclusive). [1]

What's interesting, and is confusing me about this, is that Ntfy does not adhere to this [1]. I'm not sure how this can be.

::: spoiler References

1. "End-to-end encryption (E2E) between clients (Android app, CLI, web app)". binwiederhier. ntfy/binwiederhier. GitHub. Published: 2021-12-29T02:07:36Z. Accessed: 2024-11-22T05:04Z. https://github.com/binwiederhier/ntfy/issues/69. :::

Would you mind elaborating on your opinion that they aren't improvements?