dsilverz

Athene brama, Athene cunicularia, Athene noctua, Bubo ascalaphus, Bubo bubo, Bubo cinerascens, Bubo virginianus, Megascops kennicottii, Megascops asio, and the overly-specific list goes on (basically, Athene, Bubo, Megascops, maybe Micrathene and Glaucidium, but mostly the first triad I'm hyper-obsessed with because most of them share this same spiritual force, this same.... Lilithian energy, when they're not embodying Stolas (with his specific manifestation being, I guess, Bubo bubo)).

Maybe Corvus cornix and Corvus moneduloides (oh, hello, Lucifer, long time no see! How's it going?), maybe Dendroaspis polylepis as well.

As for the language? None in particular, maybe Enochian, Egyptian or Sumerian if I gained (through gnosis) the ability to understand these as if these were my secondary languages... but I guess this kind of communication benefits from some kind of telepathic, raw, non-linguistic communication, which would convey way more information than all human languages together, which have limits on what can be signified, with requirements of "beingness", "thingness" and "timefulness" (i.e. most languages can't translate the concept of "existent non-existence that have been happening since the eternal timelessness" without leading to this very kind of surreal phrasing between the quotes).

!asklemmy@lemmy.ml

and attract millions of followers

Argumentum ad populum (if said "millions" are actual Homo sapiens individuals, because "Dead Internet Theory" became so real that there's this strange phenomenon in which bots are following and watching other bots, sometimes even themselves) isn't necessarily a proof that something's "good". For example, poop also attracts millions of flies, yet it doesn't make poop tasty. This serves both for actual Homo sapiens "influencers" and simulacra of said "influencers": quantity doesn't mean quality.

I'd a "googol" (pun intended) times more prefer following a stranger's Neocities blog with less than a half a dozen followers than follow a person (regardless of whether their content is good or awful) who've been keeping millions of people hostage, together with themselves, to a parasocial relationship inside a platform from a monopolistic corporation (Google, owner of Youtube) from which neither are willing to release themselves. I say this as someone who have been actively boycotting Youtube for two years and counting, I never watched Youtube anymore, not even through circumvented manners. Yeah, I miss some of the STEM channels from there, but if they didn't seek Fediverse platforms and alternative donation-based platforms to be humanly closer to their audience, they don't care about their audience at all so they don't care about me as someone who values privacy and hates corporations.

!asklemmy@lemmy.world

The short animation as promised. Again: potentially triggering video due to some flashing as the camera moves through a chiaroscuro/high-contrast scene; not overly flashing per se, but in order to keep things safe, do not watch this video if you have epilepsy (I'm reinforcing this due to my past experience from back when I shared drawing time-lapses).

Alt-text: The earlier scene, now seen from multiple angles as the camera flies in a short clip video: first, at ground level at some distance while looking slightly up (with the Moon perfectly centered; both the owl and the skeleton appearing at the left half of the scene); then the camera moves closer to the skeleton's left shoulder (scene's right side), looking at the owl's talons; finally, to the right side of 'em both (left side of the scene), the same perspective as the earlier scene. There's some stop motion as the I originally made the camera animation for only 20 frames.

!artshare@lemmy.world

Tá na mão! (Fiz aqui bem rapidamente, usando GIMP, o "Photoshop do Linux", sem IA, então perdão pela qualidade)

!brasil@lemmy.eco.br

As a Brazilian who's also experienced with a hot climate, I'd say this would work if anthropogenic climate change weren't leading to... wet bulb... high temperatures. When current temperatures are 40°C and the air's relative humidity is practically 100%, no amount of wetting or sweating will get rid of the warmth, because evaporation can't happen when the air is already saturated.

!lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world

As I'm interacting from a non-Lemmy (Catodon) instance, I'll interpret the question as a broader "What made you join the Fediverse?".

In a nutshell, the open-source nature, the possibility of having choices (I can choose between instances and platforms), decentralization, distance from capitalist interests and from enshittification, the shared resonance to some of my principles, among other reasons.

I used to have a Lemmy account (The Lemmy Club) but I'm fond of a platform where I can have both a personal microblogging feed alongside the interactions with the communities on the threadiverse (Lemmy, Piefed, mbin, etc), and Misskey/Sharkey/Catodon is this platform. I also have accounts on other platforms, namely Mastodon, PixelFed, Friendica and tootik (Fediverse platform for geminispace/geminiprotocol, which has nothing to do with Google despite the name), but Catodon is the platform I've been using the most.

Also, I didn't come from Reddit, I didn't even use to use Reddit despite having had an account there many years ago. I don't even how who exactly is this "spez" y'all talk about. I mostly used from Orkut (back when it existed in 2010s) all the way to TikTok (up to a few years ago) before I ditched it all and pivoted to decentralized platforms. Nowadays, the only mainstream social platform I still have (against my own values, I eager to ditch it) is the damn WhatsApp because Brazilians around me use it as their must-have instant messaging, otherwise I'd have exclusively decentralized platforms.

!asklemmy@lemmy.world

You probably should have prefaced your post with explanation of who is “Her”

"Her" is Dark Mother Goddess, Lilith among many names I believe She manifests as. I follow no specific religion but a solitary, independent syncretism whose concepts stem from several Left-Hand Paths. It's mostly stemmed from gnosis, so I got no known source to point at that could define my current beliefs, but many concepts share the same original definitions: "gnosis" and "channeling" being "learning and/or being inspired by spiritual entities, often during altered states of consciousness", and Lilith/Lilitu being the powerful Mesopotamian Goddess depicted in the Burney Relief, flanked by owls while also having owl traits Herself (hence part of why my artworks often revolve around owl symbolism; I don't just find owls cute and awesome, for me, owls are one of the manifestations of the Goddess), sometimes paired with Lucifer (a more known name whom I also venerate to a lesser extent) as Her complementary in some LHP where both are known for, among other principles, forbidden knowledge, rebelliousness and untamed defiance (part of what I meant by "Her principles").

But notice how the earlier paragraph trying to summarize my beliefs is lengthy, hence why I tried not to preface my post with my religious beliefs (because the way I communicate myself is already lengthy unto itself; also to avoid committing proselytism), still I had to nod at the spiritual aspects of my question mainly for contextualizing that there are personal religious reasons (seemingly an important factor for legal disputes in some jurisdictions, including mine, Brazil) beyond just political-ideological orientation behind both my artistic expressions and the principles I'm looking for in a licensing template.

The problem is, a person cannot make one derivative work based on two works

I tried to search for existing mixed licensing situations as soon as I saw your reply and... oh!... I caught myself inside an A. cunicularia hole, so many things I wasn't aware of!

To the one hand, yeah, Creative Commons licenses don't always play nice with each other (remixing), with CC-BY-NC-SA being the 3rd most restrictive among Creative Commons licenses, and there are uncertainties regarding institutional usage. To the other hand, CC-BY-SA does neither prevent, say, a BlendSwap (where there are CC-licensed and even CC0/PD models made by artists for artists, but also an exclusionary "Plans" page) from charging users for downloading a model meant to be gratis, nor prevent them from omitting external links to the artist's own sources where anyone could get it for truly free. Now I'm left with more legal uncertainties than solutions to satisfy the strict-gratisness plus forgiven-lack-of-attribution-by-individuals principles for best affordability by anyone without rendering it paradoxically unaffordable 😅.

The list of commercial usages that NC theoretically prohibits includes, for example, collecting monetisation from a blog with this work posted or drawing it on a hand-made craft that would be sold in an indie shop.

The first case, for me, would be okay if said blog weren't to exclude other people from accessing because they can't afford paying for access; if, say, the blog/website were donation-based with donations being totally optional (like Wikipedia), that would be perfectly okay for me because it's the only monetization model I advocate for (and I made my donations to certain projects back when I was still employed, so it's not utopia). The second case, definitely a no-no, as it involves something (or its derivation) through which I, the original creator, actively refrained from profiting (even despite the costs I had doing it, costs of which I absorbed to myself so anyone could access it freely), being put behind a paywall ("shop") by someone else; I mean, that would be perfectly okay for me if the artist were to use my creation for their drawing while simultaneously asking for Ko-fi/etc donations, considering the derivative still gets to be shared free of charge despite someone not affording to donate to them.

!asklemmy@lemmy.ml

but it also allows everyone to legally “pirate” this work

The problem in this situation isn't piracy, the problem is the content being contaminated by demiurgic capitalism. I would definitely be the first and main person to endorse piracy unto capitalism-exploited versions of the content I myself created. But this means a corporation have successfully transmuted something spiritually charged (i.e. something channeled through my creativity outlets as gnosis) into some kind of capitalist aberration for archonic whims, an enshittification of which...

A regular BY-SA license doesn’t prohibit from selling your or derivative works by another party

...is the main thing I (and likely Her as far as I'm aware of Her principles and True Will) do not wish to see happening to the fragments and shadows of spiritual energy being channeled/carried through my creations (and which would be inexorably imbued into derivatives, hence the requirement that derivatives follow the same principles of gratisness).

but I wouldn’t recommend it’s use as it’s not compatible with the orders of magnitude more popular BY-SA

Oh... you mean... CC-BY-NC-SA is yet to be tested legally, is it?

BTW, any licenses imposing any restrictions can’t be called “public domain”, there are other words to describe them like “freely licensed”.

Yeah, I mean, this makes sense.. Even though the restrictions aim for humble creativity and artistic freedom, I can see how "enforcing freedom" may sound like a paradoxical/oxymoronic statement... but since archonic exploitation (greed) exists in this baryonic realm, and capitalism (esp. late-stage capitalism) won't rest until all the earthly Commons get transmuted into adware and/or subscription-based products, freedom is a principle that must be fought for, especially through cultural and religious means (counterculture and Left-Hand Paths, respectively). I can't help but notice how the Public Domain and the egregores of Libre knowledge as a whole are under attack, hence the need for enforcement of the freedom..

!asklemmy@lemmy.ml

No one will enforce rules for you that you as project owner/creator does not care about.

Exactly... And this seems to be also the problem when dedicating something to PD (Public Domain), as there's no legal way for anybody, not even the person who created and dedicated their creation to PD, to enforce derivatives and uses to be also dedicated to PD and/or shared free of charge like the original creation was.

I was thinking about dedicating my creations to PD because I believe art and knowledge (and gnosis) shall be accessible by anyone, anywhere, anytime, with said accessibility being, to me, inseparable from gratisness, otherwise it wouldn't be truly accessible, especially by those who can't afford paying. Given how the main raison d'être guiding me through my spiritual-personal artistic expression has essentially been strict principles against capitalist exploitation, the gratisness aspect of my creations and its derivatives is, to me, the more important aspect, moreso than my spiritual preference not to be nominally remembered (and/or being conjured/evoked post-mortem) through my creations.

You can select a license with attribution attached, but put in your project info that you have no plans to ever enforce the rules of attribution but will strictly enforce the rules of open availability and free of charge.

Thanks for this idea. Yeah, seems like the only legally feasible way for me to (try and) enforce this gratisness, using CC-BY-NC-SA (or similar licenses) alongside a disclaimer easing the "BY" aspect... Although the "NC" seems not enough to me given how capitalist exploitation can come in disguised clothes, loopholes of which the NonCommercial aspect of Creative Commons couldn't possibly curb, but then there's the legal feasibility of having something deeper than the NC statement.

While I'm still open to suggestions with this thread, seems to me like this suggestion of yours is the most (the only?) legally-feasible option.

!asklemmy@lemmy.ml

When it comes to Creative Commons, the "SA" and "NC" seem to require a "BY", an attribution of which, if possible, I'd like to avoid as I don't really care about having my name attached to the things I created (also, there are spiritual reasons for me to prefer not having the signifiers of my mundane embodiment being strongly tied to artistic expressions stemming primarily from gnosis and ~~theophanic~~ deaphanic manifestations, as it would hinder my ego-dissolution endeavors).

And, then, there's the gratisness aspect (i.e. pertaining to or having the quality of being free of charge). Because, for example, when it comes to the GPL (even though I'm very fond of GNU Foundation and their freedom principles, most of which I share), there's explicitly something along the lines "When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price" which feels, to me, like a major loophole in which someone or some corporation (particularly librewashing corporations) can release the "sources (several asterisks and tiny letters)", not without lots of deliberate mechanisms to make the thing hard to use from the sources, while putting a price tag on the ready-to-use thing, even worse, tying it to a monthly subscription.

When it comes to my own creations, I wish to grant 'em both gratisness and libreness to these, but especially the gratisness part. I mean, I built an entire 3D character from scratch all by myself precisely because I was faced by non-gratisness (paid art) while being an unemployed person, and I do not wish the same on others whose realities are, like mine, incompatible with buying things as if paying for things were a trivial thing to be done.

I want people from all economic backgrounds to afford accessing my artistic creations, from a person living in a Brazilian comunidade (who may afford access to a simple yet 3D-capable computer (like the old laptop I have), theirs or communities', but can't afford buying things for composing the artistic expression) all the way to even the bourgeois (considering they use it for hopefully converting themselves spiritually into being less capitalistic/greedy and more humble as they let go of their archonic/demiurgic egos).

I'm afraid these licenses (GPL or CC) don't really cover this specific principle I'm looking for, hence my initial question, regarding licenses in which the gratisness could be somehow guaranteed for a creation and its derivatives/uses, with legal instruments available as worldwidely as possible to curb corporations from exploiting it.

!asklemmy@lemmy.ml

!memes@lemmy.world Oh... Thanks, now I see it. I just did a quick test (comparison screenshots embedded in this reply), trying to imitate as much as possible from that Bluesky post (RGB 8-bit gamma integer, sRGB, background layer was deleted, an image with a smaller size was pasted to the canvas, a manual mask was added to the pasted layer) and, yeah, I was able to reproduce this problem here: if the alpha value is low enough, it either ends up truncating to zero, otherwise it gets reduced to a lower value; higher values are seemingly unaffected. The problem also happens with other transparency-able formats such as WEBP.

However... based on what I barely know about image file formats and color theory, I'd say it seems something to do with the color profile, as color profiles are responsible for gamma adjustment (and this ends up including the alpha channel as well). The very name of the GIMP's native color profile says it all: "Perceptual" sRGB, this means it's adjusting the values to account for human perception, akin to how audio files (MP3, to be exact) truncate everything below somewhere around 60Hz and above somewhere around 15 kHz (the frequency range for average humans). Even though PNG is meant to be lossless, a color profile is inherently a lossy thing, because human perception is a lossy thing, which certain color profiles try to imitate, especially "Perceptual" ones.

I didn't test the same GIMP behavior with other color profiles, though.

To be clear: I'm not talking about the "Export color profile" option one can choose during exporting, I'm talking about the color profile used when a new image is created and edited in GIMP. Really, this "color profile" thing is very important to a picture (esp. photographs) yet it's so complicated that even image editing software developers are likely to struggle with it...

Not to mention how it is kinda related to hardware too, despite the dismissal from Paynamia; to be exact, it has to do with the graphics peripheral, the LCD/LED/etc monitor/TV, as every monitor/TV can and will have different manners to display images; the color profile mainly tries to compensate for an expected monitor (which, in turn, tries to compensate for human perception), but it'll compute new values for the pixels to be saved in the file so the final picture matches the color profile but will likely lose the original precision.

I wonder how I never noticed this, even though I deal with transparent PNGs a lot, maybe I didn't have to use very low alpha values before.

As for the screenshot below, a triangular chunk of green background next to her (Lesser Horned Owl, Macaulay Library ML379762121) ear-tufts is missing from the PNG. Funny thing I used GIMP to do this side-by-side comparison regarding the GIMP's problem, lol.

(I'm aware I'm doing a deeply-technical reply in a meme community but I can't help myself but to be nerdy and verbose)

!memes@lemmy.world Sorry, what are you people talking about? I have precisely this GIMP version (to be exact, 2.10.28, in a very out-of-date Linux setup) and I never experienced problems with transparency/alpha channel. And I've been using GIMP since... I dunno, 2019?, even earlier, when I started to become accustomed to GIMP... I mean, I guess y'all talking about exporting a PNG file from GIMP, right? Or are y'all actually talking about other image formats?