If US tax dollars funded it (through NIH), then by NIH Public Access Policy it’s likely available free to the public at PubMed Central.

No, you are not. I also give 0 fucks about intellectual property.

People with their modern conveniences have it so well, they just make shit up to be upset about.

Trump admits Epstein list is real

1. List or files?
2. How will we know when they are released? Is the claim they haven’t been released falsifiable?

Leftism is the pursuit of social equality and egalitarianism.

Democrats are social liberals.

Social liberalism: Social liberal parties stress civil and human rights and favour a social market economy.

Refer to social market reforms & social programs from the New Deal (social security, security & exchange commission, labor relations, wealth redistribution, consumer protections, fair employment practices, public housing, minimum wage), their continuation & expansion of civil rights from Great Society (civil rights acts, voting rights act, war on poverty antipoverty programs, medicare, medicaid, welfare, social security expansion, education programs), more recent market regulations, health care expansions, consumer protections (eg, Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Affordable Care Act). This is a clear record of reforms to address social & economic inequality, improve education & healthcare, promote civil rights, regulate markets.

In terms of political spectrum

Generally, the left wing is characterized by an emphasis on “ideas such as freedom, equality, fraternity, rights, progress, reform and internationalism” while the right wing is characterized by an emphasis on “notions such as authority, hierarchy, order, duty, tradition, reaction and nationalism”.

Political scientists and other analysts usually regard the left as including anarchists, communists, socialists, democratic socialists, social democrats, left-libertarians, progressives, and social liberals.

The Democratic party is made up of factions with the center-left & left caucuses dominating: it tends left.

Claiming Democrats aren’t left (if impure) requires a level of delusion that outright denies basic definitions of left & political classifications, historical record, and usual knowledge of political scientists & analysts.

But then where will displaced trolls live? Will you adopt & feed a troll?

Slippery slope: none of that necessarily happens. As with any tool, it’s up to the users.

What we know for sure is that these are modern nuisances for people who live relatively amazing lives, so they just make shit up to be upset about. Other people have real problems.

I’m not sure this is so much virtues becoming rarer as inconvenient demands emerging: a video that could have been an article is a problem of the modern age.

Articles can be read quickly & processed structurally by jumping around sections. Videos, however, can be agonizing, because they resist that sort of processing. Transcripts can alleviate the problem somewhat, but obfuscating them undoes that. And we’ve got things to do.

Does the rest of the world have enough fucks to spare for this over their real problems of hunger, war, disease, poverty, violence, illiteracy, toxic pollution, human rights abuses? Despite their real-world problems paling in comparison to online bullshit, will they live?

You’re confirming the point just made.

Arm books, ban teachers.

Oh noes: 1ˢᵗ world problems. How will we live?

Like your idiotic and ridiculous lie that Clinton supported the public option and Obama didn’t.

Who do you think you’re replying to? Do you observe commenter names?

I’m just calling out lazy unwillingness around here to link to corroborating sources (easy & common sense for settling an argument) to instead sling words like petty, incompetent bitches. I don’t think I’m alone in not recalling the exact nuances of healthcare proposals candidates had in 2008.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=NEDFUjqA1s8

I didn’t have the patience to sit through 19 minutes of video, so I tried to read through the transcript. Then I saw the stuttering & weird, verbose fuckery going on there. Copilot, however, summarized the video, which revealed it was about deliberate obfuscation of subtitle files to attempt to thwart scrapers.

This seems hostile to the user, and doesn’t seem to work as intended, so I’m not sure what to think of it. I know people who have trouble sequencing information and rely on transcripts. Good accessibility benefits nondisabled users, too (an additional incentive for it).

Not trying to be overly critical. I’ll have to look into danbooru tags: unfamiliar with those. Thanks.

If you want to fuss about common industry guidelines, then take it up with them. It’s even in standard guidelines:

Note that it does not necessarily describe the visual characteristics of the image itself but must convey the same meaning as the image.

No one has to care about lazy words lacking substance of corroboration.

Again, you settled nothing besides showing lack of will to settle anything.

hyper purity test Leftists, and the AI=evil absolutists

IMPURE LEFTISTS BAD, AI BAD

UPVOTES NOW OR YOU’RE ONE OF THEM

ain’t rigid, overzealous thinking great?

It depends on how much you care that someone who needs or wants the alt text needs to know.

The accessibility advocates at WebAIM in the previous link don’t seem to think a verbal depiction (which an algorithm could do) is adequate. They emphasize what an algorithm does poorly: convey meaning in context.

Their 1^st example indicates less is better: they don’t dive into incidental details of the astronaut’s dress, props, hand placement, but merely give her title & name.

They recommend

not include phrases like “image of …” or “graphic of …”, etc

and calling it a screenshot is non-essential to context. The hand holding a newspaper isn’t meaningful in context, either. The headline already states the content of the picture, redundancy is discouraged, and unless context refers the picture (it doesn’t), it’s also non-essential to context.

The best alternative text will depend on the context and intended content of the image.

Unless gen-AI mindreads authors, I expect it will have greater difficulty delivering meaning in context than verbal depictions.

still somehow couldn’t muster the cojones to pass anything even close to the socialised healthcare

You guys are really trash at recalling or just looking up recent history. Many of us were there when it happened. We remember how it went down.

Too many conservative, pro-life Democrats were against anything better, and they had barely enough Democrats to squeeze through procedural obstacles (filibusters) in the Senate. A number of them voted against the bill that passed.

Someone please explain why

Because Democrats & leftists are better at infighting than setting aside differences to win.

no corroborating sources when linking them would have been trivial

You settled nothing. Why should anyone take anyone’s word on here for it?

What we need is a “fourth way” of politics, a system that makes billionaires impossible, that fosters public services, including housing, cares for the needy, etc, but also promotes entrepreneurship, taxes progressively, guards society against the excesses of capitalism, etc.

Oh, you mean, social liberalism?

Social liberalism: Social liberal parties stress civil and human rights and favour a social market economy.

Or the New Deal democrats of the Great Society reforms?

The Great Society sought to build on the legacy of former President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal reforms of the 1930s, and planned to use the power of the federal government in order to address economic inequality, improve education and healthcare, and promote civil rights.

There’s that word people on here hate again: liberal. You guys are reinventing positions from willfully forgotten history of liberals & the Democratic party.