I never knew who I was. I still don't know who I am. It doesn't matter anyway.
@Beep@lemmus.org @lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world
Incredibly, this image has sound, I can hear this image! Yeah, pretty much I can hear the high pitched tone that plays when Bingham "Bing" Madsen dares to look away from the screen and close the eyes during the WraithBabes ad break. Resume watching, resume watching.
@yizus@lemmy.world @nostupidquestions@lemmy.world
I'm someone who's quite used to try and see things through the lens of Science. I'm a nerd, after all. But I've also been, especially since 2023 (when I momentarily was part of a Luciferian group), someone who does actual ritualistic practices, I'm quite religious.
I don't really believe in ghosts in the typical (e.g. kardecist) sense, partly because I want to believe that death can dissolve the ego once and for all. I mean, hell no!, I'm not going to reincarnate again, Demiurge can go pound sand.
However, in a nutshell, I believe in two things.
First, the thing we call "spiritual" would be some kind of actual, spatial dimension, a field/brane (as in M-theory); "spirit" is just non-baryonic matter which, similarly to neutrinos, have very weak, almost undetectable, interaction with ordinary matter (maybe spirits are neutrinos, who knows?); and everything, from living beings to asteroids, all made of "star stuff" (to quote Carl Sagan), would have simultaneous "spirit stuff". I'd be "pan-animist" (i.e. everything got a spirit).
The other part of my belief: dæmons, entities, archons, Demiurge... And, most importantly, The Dark Mother. I believe in their existences as cosmic principles. For dæmons, entities and archons, I believe they're analogous to living beings (self-organizing structures) but baryonically incorporeal, some of them knowledgeable about interacting with this baryonic realm.
For Demiurge (popularly known as "God") and the Dark Mother Goddess (often unbeknownst to those who believe in "God" because patriarchy tried to erase Her from human knowledge), they're both... ineffable, I don't even know how to start making scientific sense of both, they're manifestation of several laws of physics themselves.
Goddess, specifically: She's the entropy, She's the field across which EM radiation propagates, She's in the silence, She's the singularity and the event horizon and She's also the black hole; mainly, She's Darkness. She's Death Herself. We're wired to see Darkness and Death as "evil", what to flee from, but I came to the conclusion that good and evil are nothing but artificial human constructs, and when one detaches themselves from mundane measurements, Demiurge is actually the closest to "evil" because he traps the matter into this existence, distancing us from our true origin, the Mother and Her Womb. Death is Mother trying to rescue us; life, reincarnation (Samsara), is Demiurge trying to keep us trapped in this theater. A cosmic tug of war.
Like fractals, they both unfold within their Wholes: Sefirots emanated from Demiurge, Qlippots from Mother, Goetia dæmons as mixed emanations.
Both also unfold into Great Manifestations as rebellious complementarities: Lucifer (from Demiurge) and Lilith (from Dark Mother Goddess). I've experienced them manifesting physically many times like "ghosts" would do, particularly Lilith, whom I directly worship.
Dunno how "reasonable" I am, tho.
@Ulrich@feddit.org @technology@lemmy.world
Because people overwhelmingly do not change any defaults whatsoever
Most roosters wouldn't normally seek the paws of the fox to be hugged by, what an astonishing news!
You see, that's exactly what plays favorably for things pushed with "opt-out" mechanisms, anything. If people are less likely to change the settings to better enhance their UX (be it due to a lack of knowledge, a lack of proactive pursuit or because they deem their current settings "good enough"), this means people would be more likely to have the clankers shoved down their throats if said clankers were to be part of default settings.
In fact, if settings would very likely go unchanged, then Mozilla could push anything, absolutely anything under they will, "shall be the whole of the Law" with the legally-required "opt-out" mechanisms in place.
In the foreseeable future, we'd have Firefox as a new "Agentic Browser" where a clanker does all the tiring and utterly boring effort of "browsing the web" as the user watches their credit card being depleted by prompt injections carefully placed amidst Unicode exploits across the web by scammers. But, hey, let us not worry, there's always a button to turn it off! 😄
@Ulrich@feddit.org @technology@lemmy.world
If it’s opt-in it may as well not exist
Just because if it were opt-in, people wouldn't have chosen to activate it, and fewer people would use it and the graph line wouldn't go up for the shareholders to appreciate? Then, maybe, just maybe, it would be quite a strong evidence that this isn't really something that the users want, don't ya think?
For whatever reason, they have decided it’s important.
There's the reason, right above this paragraph: one can only achieve what people would certainly refuse, if they pushed it onto people by use of force (not necessarily physical force, but, for example, dark pattern is a technical means of "force").
A fox can't convince the roosters to become her food, if the roosters were to have a stake on deciding in this regard, less roosters would become a tasty dinner for the cute fox, because becoming a tasty dinner isn't exactly a demand from roosters. Hence why the fox must grab the roosters, but in this case the fox gives them an option to escape from her paws.
Ah, notice your own phrasing: "They have decided". Who have decided? Not the user, not the party interested in their own UX/UI, but the very archontic architects of a kind of digital apparatus we've been compelled to use for participating in this digital realm of society (risking social ostracism if we don't), the World Wide Web.
And when a decision is made upon someone, without regard for the very someone upon which the decision is being made, even when there's some kind of "opting out" from the object of decision, we had a name for that: it was called "non-consensual relationship".
@avidamoeba@lemmy.ca @technology@lemmy.world
The problem still remains: why's this thing "opt-out" and not "opt-in"? Why not make it an official, totally optional (as in voluntarily wanting to have it and, only then, proceeding to have it) plug-in or extension that the user (let us remember the meaning of "User Agent": an agent acting on behalf of the user, not a piece of software who's become "the user") could install at any moment, out of their own will?
I'm far from being an anti-AI person, I myself use those clankers on a daily basis. However, I use them because I want to, while I still want to, not because they were pushed unto me.
Mechanisms of "opt-out" where there should be an "opt-in" is a form of dark pattern.
In fact, the very concept of "opting-out" is a dark pattern per se, because it implies something pushed unto a person, something from which they were "allowed" the "right to leave".
Yeah, it's awesome to have means of "opting-out" from something, but having an "opt-out" mechanism in place doesn't mitigate the very fact that it was coercively pushed unto the person beforehand and didn't require explicit consent from the person unto which the thing was pushed.
Speaking of "consent", situations like these are not that much different from the dark pattern "Yes / Not now" we've been seen everywhere: in certain scenarious, this insistence and disregard for explicit consent would verge the criminal (e.g. harassment), but suddenly it's "okay" when corporations (and the State itself) do it.
If, say, a situation where someone is being harassed and, only after having started to harass, the harasser offers the harassed a means to leave the harassment, does this make the harasser less of a harasser? Because that's the same absurd logic behind the corporate advocacy whenever it's said "oh, but Mozilla is offering an opt-out, you can always turn off 'sponsored shortcuts' (that is, after having been faced by the shortcut from a Jeff Bezos corp as you proceeded to open a new tab for accessing the opting-out settings, but that's totally okay), 'sponsored wallpapers', and the 'Anonym tracking', and now you can, check this out, you can turn off the clankers, too! Wow, isn't that such a cute corp, the corp with the cute fiery fox mascot?".
Not to say how it's gonna end up cluttering the upstream with (more) binary blobs, adding to the Sisyphean struggle that WaterFox, IronFox, LibreWolf, Fennec, among other Firefox forks, have been experiencing upon trying to de-enshittificate the enshittificated and de-combobulate the combobulated.
"Mozilla needs to make money". Yeah, yeah, because the very fundamental, immutable principle of cosmic existence boils down to "there's no such thing as a free lunch", amirite? After all, "money" is clearly within the table of elementary particles alongside quarks and gluons, isn't it? And Mozilla needs to make money... We had a tool for that: it's called donations.
@WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works @technology@lemmy.world
Possibly. I don't know the specific acronym they use, but regardless of the acronym: to me, it smells and looks like NDAs insofar it's some kind of analogous version of a "secretive initiation ritual" for a developer who's just trying to help an open-source community. It's an agreement where the developer accepts that anything they contribute free-of-charge is going to be used for enterprise (paid) purposes and any contribution is subject to be altered or removed as the management pleases, sometimes it also involves literal NDA if private (often "enterprise/premium edition") repos are intertwined with the open-source ("community edition") repos.
The ideal open-source, at least to me, would require a developer, any developer no matter who they are or how long their experience is, whenever they wanted to contribute with their coding skills, to simply do a PR or fork a repo, with no bureaucratic or "selling the soul to the Great Corporate" requirements for doing so.
Developing is already mentally demanding for a developer, and adding licensing shenanigans to the equation only complicates things, because now the developer, who's used to talk the language of computers, would need to become knowledgeable about ambiguous social cues, corporate legalese and the differences between a "MIT" and a "GPL" (that's one of the main reasons why I'm quite fond of WTFNMFPL licensing: no legalese).
@Akasazh@lemmy.world @usa@lemmy.ml
Because cryptocurrency data centers (normally) don't deal with AI, and the object of comparison was all about AIs vs humans energetic consumption. In their specific speech, Sam Altman was trying to justify (albeit in a very twisted manner) the energetic thirst from their ChatGPT and the alike. So my napkin math focused on this specific comparison they made, hence why I tried to leave crypto and other non-AI-related data centers out of the equation.
If I were to include cryptocurrency into this equation, surely the entire comparison would lean heavily towards data centers, because things like crypto mining are highly energetically demanding.
And very polluting indeed. Really. If we consider the chronological aspect, crypto data centers did pollute and consume more than all AI data centers: Bitcoin is functioning since 2010 (when the block 0, aka Genesis block, was mined), it's been 16 years, uninterruptedly (I don't remember seeing news headlines such as "Bitcoin operations are currently down", so it's been operating for 16 years in a row), while ChatGPT, the one to open the Dantesque gates we've been facing nowadays, was released to the public in 2022, only 4 years ago and with several moments of interruption and downtime.
@cmeu@lemmy.world @nostupidquestions@lemmy.world
Others already replied what it is: something to do with blockchain (not Bitcoin, but a blockchain nevertheless).
Just to add something, as someone who also uses to use Nostr alongside the Fediverse: this "fyld" (likely an automated account) also has a Nostr nprofile, posting the exact same thing over there, and they likely do a similar thing across other social protocols and platforms, such as ATmosphere (Bluesky), although I don't have a Bluesky account anymore to confirm this.
At first glance, it does look like spam, and I muted them both there (didn't mute here because it only appears for lemmy.world; lemmy.ml doesn't seem to federate with that community), due to the annoying frequency of posting...
...but for those who are looking for random numbers whenever there are no TTRPG dices (or, in my case, Ouija boards) nearby, I'd say it's quite a source of randomness with all the fancy colors and hex nibbles. Definitely not a cryptographically safe one (please do not derive a password from that), but for creative purposes, it certainly suffices 😆
@yogthos@lemmy.ml @usa@lemmy.ml
On the one hand, we shall bring some napkin math to the table.
A human brain consumes something around 20W (Balasubramanian V. Brain power. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2021 Aug 10;118(32):e2107022118. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2107022118. PMID: 34341108; PMCID: PMC8364152).
One hour = 20 Wh, or 20 × 3.6 = 72 kJOne day = 72 kJ × 24 hours = 1728 kJ or 1.728 MJOne year = 1.728 MJ × 365.25 ~= 631.152 MJ20 years ~= 12.6 GJ
The entire world population in 2024 (you'll understand soon why I'm using 2024) was estimated as 8,141,808,945 (World Bank Group, World Development Indicators)Rough brain power consumption for all humans who were alive in 2024 (I'm using values for one year instead of 20yo bc the 8 bi. accounts for all ages) = 8,141,808,945 × 631.152 MJ ~= 5.14 EJ (Exajoules)
Globally, data centers (excluding cryptocurrency mining) used an estimated 415 terawatt-hours (TWh) in 2024(Agrawal H. "Data Center Energy Consumption: How Much Energy Did/Do/Will They Eat?, Clean Energy Forum, University of Yale, 2025 Nov 12, https://cleanenergyforum.yale.edu/2025/11/12/data-center-energy-consumption-how-much-energy-diddowill-they-eat)
In Joules it's 415 TWh × 3.6 = 1.494 EJ (Exajoules)
My napkin math may be heavily inaccurate (hence "napkin") but, yeah, Math tells us humans (roughly) consumed more than all non-cryptocurrency data centers (1.49 EJ is less than the 5.14 EJ required by 8 billion Homo sapiens for thinking).
And I'm only considering brain power. The number would certainly be bigger if I were to consider the rest of metabolic consumption, this would further consolidate the entire humanity, when taken together, as indeed consuming more energy than AI data centers worldwide.
On the other hand, hell no! I'm not gonna agree with Sam Altman! Especially bc they're ignoring several factors.
For starters, the fact that AI and their data centers required humans, so the "human energetic bill" is shared with AIs, not disconnected from them. After all, AI is not something existing in a vacuum.
Fossil fuel, the elephant in the room, is another factor in play: I didn't research a CO2 side-by-side comparison between human-emitted CO2 (from biological processes such as respiration) and the the amount of CO2 emitted to keep said data centers running, but this can't be ignored.
Homo sapiens (usually) don't ingest fossil fuels (i.e. in normal situations, we don't drink gasoline... nor we eat coal).
Meanwhile, global data centers seem far from achieving green energy (e.g. hydro power), they rely heavily on fossil fuels, therefore they're expected to be breathing out more CO2 than humans.
Tables would only turn regarding CO2 when (and if, a big if, considering how AI is currently at the hands of corps who, in turn, deny and ignore the climate change because "line must go up") data centers pivoted to full (and true, not the "green-washing" creative accounting that tech corps usually do) green energy.
@INeedMana@piefed.zip @technology@lemmy.world
Yeah, me too. Unfortunately, the forks can only get so far in removing upstream AI garbage and other proprietary/corporate-oriented whistles-and-bells. If, say, some AI feature becomes so ingrained inside Firefox upstream, so deeply it ends up becoming some hard dependency for fundamental functioning of the browser (i.e. a feature that, if removed at the code-level, would render Firefox simply unable to function), no WaterFox, IronFox, Fennec or LibreWolf would be able to keep up with the latest versions: they'd either need to do a hard fork trying to independently maintain an entire codebase for a browser, or they'd need to use downgraded versions.
Not even to say about licensing shenanigans. We've seen many open-source projects suddenly changing their licensing to include legalese thin letters. We've seen open-source projects requiring developers to sign up some kind of NDA before being allowed to contribute with code. Seems like initially-open licenses aren't written on stone when it comes to big projects, and Firefox is a big project.
The universe of open-source software is being slowly hijacked by corporate interests. This is not different with Firefox, which (as I said in another reply to someone in this thread a few minutes ago) is Mozilla's main product (if not the main product, it's certainly among their main projects). The same Mozilla which has been pivoting to AI (e.g. acquisition of Anonym; subtle phrasing changes from "About Firefox" page which used to state how "Firefox will never sell your data", now this phrase is gone).
I use WaterFox on a daily basis. It's by far the best browser I've been using. I tried LibreWolf but it doesn't really likes my Portuguese ABNT2 keyboard (which has accents I use often), even after disabling ResistFingerprint, so I ended up sticking with WaterFox. On mobile, I use Fennec on a daily basis, and I'm worried about the end of "sideloading" on Android which will likely mess with its installation. But I'm aware of how both browsers rely on upstream code from Mozilla Firefox, whose enshittification is already an ongoing phenomenon. And that's really depressing when it comes to the future of browser landscape, because we're hoping for a true alternative. Servo is the last bastion of said hope (until it gets EEE'd by corporate interests, given how Linux Foundation itself is increasingly surrounded by corpos.
I'm more of a GNU/Stallman person who values autonomy and libreness as non-negotiable principles. I'm only using Android because I'm stuck with it due to certain societal impositions (banks and gov apps), otherwise I'd be long using a custom phone, which wouldn't even be Linux, but something way more "unorthodox" for a phone such as FreeBSD or Illumos/OpenIndianna, systems of which I already used on a PC environment and got quite fond of.
@yogthos@lemmy.ml @programming@lemmy.ml
The x86css didn't work because CSS
@functionrules aren't yet implemented on Firefox (by extension, Waterfox). I'm not gonna spin up the Chromium.Then I tried other projects from this lyra.horse website, I tried the CSS clicker (a clicker game which uses no JS, just CSS and HTML). It's very interesting. There are a few glitches (e.g. the "Name your website:" should behave like
input[type='text']but actually behaves liketextarea, thus allowing newlines where the semantic (a title) expects none; IIRC, there are CSS properties allowing a[contenteditable]element to restrict the input to an one-line text) but interesting nonetheless.The only problem, besides the limited support for certain state-of-the-art features across browser engines, is the fact that this "CSS-oriented functional programming" ends up requiring more processing power than JS does, because JS has optimizations that CSS often lack.
Don't get me wrong: it's really interesting, and I'm quite fond of unorthodox approaches to programming. I myself once used
nodemon(a live-reloading CLI tool intended for Node.js but also usable for other programming languages) to compile and run an Assembly (GNU Assembly) Linux program as the code was being edited, and I also used the same Assembly tool-chain to code a "program" whose compilation result wasn't an actual runnable program, but a whole, valid BMP (Bitmap) image structure, full with a linear gradient, I achieved this by using compiler macros. This is how much I'm fond of unorthodox programming, so I'm far from being against CSS programming, much to the contrary: it's awesome!...... but this whole approach, using CSS as a whole functional programming language, unfortunately ends up heating my old poor I5-7200U laptop...
@paraphrand@lemmy.world @technology@lemmy.world
Oh, right, WebKit, I forgot mentioning it, thanks for reminding me of it!
It's the engine I likely used the least throughout my digital existence. I mean, I likely used Lynx more than I used WebKit, hence my forgetfulness.
However, if we're talking about the WebKit-based Linux browsers (such as Konqueror), IIRC, they're a bit out of spec when it comes to the "modern Web": WebKit's adoption of latest specs tends to be slower than Firefox and Chromium.
Now, if we're talking about Safari specifically, then... it's part of Apple's walled garden, one where even "Firefox from App Store" is actually a reskinned Safari (at least in iOS).
Be it Safari or Konqueror, deep inside, the WebKit engine seems to me like the "Apple's Chromium", so mentioning WebKit doesn't really improve the awful prospect for browser engines that we're facing nowadays.
@Beep@lemmus.org @technology@lemmy.world
Ah, the smell of irony by the morning! Adopting a programming language often praised by its "safety", while the entire pretension of "safety" is alchemically transmuted into a sewage and deliberately flushed up (not down) by a clanker who drinks from the cesspool with the same determination and thirst that of a Chevy Opala gurgling down entire Olympic pools worth of gasoline.
Being serious now, the foreseeable future for Web browsing is definitely depressing: Chromium needs no introduction (used to be an interesting browser until Google's mask "don't be evil" fell and straightforwardly revealed their corporate face and farce), Firefox have been "welcoming the new AI overlords" for a while, text browsers (such as Lynx) are far from feasible for a CAPTCHA(and Anubis)-driven web... now, one of the latest and fewest glimmers of hope, an alternative Web browser engine, is becoming the very monster the fight against which was promised to be the launchpad purpose ("They who fights with monsters should be careful lest they thereby become a monster"). I wouldn't be surprised if Servo were to enshittify, too. Being able to choose among the sameness is such a wonderful thing, isn't it?
I mean, I'm not the average Lemmy user who got this (understandably) deep hatred against AI, I am able to hold a nuanced view and finding quite interesting uses (especially when it comes to linguistics) for the clankers (especially the "open-weighted" ones). However, this, to shoving AI everywhere and using AI to "code for you", it's a whole different story. A software should be programmed in the way programming (as posited by Ada Lovelace) was intended to, not "vibe coded" by a fancy auto-completer who can't (yet) deal with Turing completeness, especially when it comes to a whole miniature operational system that browsers became nowadays. When coding a whole OS, AI shouldn't even be touched by a two million light-years pole, let alone by a two-feet pole.
The specific part about "Thou", and how it was used in both sacred (praying) contexts, as well as a form of insulting, called to my attention.
I didn't know the latter usage ("Thou" as demeaning), and now I'm wondering (and slightly worried inside) about this. I often catch myself creatively using "Thou", as far as an ESL (English as a second language) person could achieve during the 21st century, in a context of esoteric/pagan praying (specifically, invocation and channeling of Dark Mother Goddess, as in, e.g. "Where art Thou?, I said, then I saw Thee, and I got frightened by Thy vision, and thou kissedst me with Thy eyes and engulfedst me beneath Thy wrath").
I use "Thee"/"Thou"/"Thy" because I feel it's the most "divine" way to express in said contexts, inspired by the bible while also being purposefully heretical and blasphemous bible-wise (as "Thou" isn't being used to refer to their "God", but to the Goddess they demonize). And also because it's interchangeable to my native language's second person ("Tu", "Tua", "Teu"; Portugal and some Brazilian states (especially northeast and north) uses "Tu" on a daily basis analogously to "você" ("you"); here in southeast Brazil, however, when "Tu" is used, it's often in liturgical contexts, generally inside churches; I never heard the second-person pronoun "Tu" being used around me (São Paulo) in swearing or insulting use-cases).
Is there any noticeable grammatical difference, albeit subtle, when "Thou" is used to insult rather than to express devotion/awe/fear? Or, instead, the pronoun is interchangeable so much it's impossible to infer its intention (devotion or insulting) when detached from its surroundings (i.e. when the specific excerpt using "Thou" is isolated from the rest of the text/speech)?
Fediverse @lemmy.world evil.social down for weeks
Pois eu fico remexendo e revirando o troco da mesma forma, só de raiva
É uma ideia massa. rsJusto, até, porque vai que o comércio está voltando troco em nota falsa? Algo que, inclusive, já ouvi relatos, vários.
pelo menos moro numa cidade de interior e aqui ainda se usa bem o dinheiro físico, mas já estão chegando essas bostas de autoatendimento
Eu era do interior de SP, região de Ribeirão Preto, depois fui pra Jundiaí, e em ambos os interiores, já observava tendência de digitalização, sobretudo na pandemia. Que, aliás, foi uma das forças motrizes para o fechamento de inúmeras agências bancárias, redução do uso do papel-moeda (por ser um vetor pra patógenos, inclusive SARS-CoV-2). Se não me falha memória, foi nessa época também que acabaram com pessoa cobradora de ônibus em Sampa, e centralizaram mais no Bilhete Único. Não dá pra dizer que a pandemia findou, mas houve, por exemplo, o RTO (retorno ao escritório). Mesmo assim, toda aquela digitalização da quarentena acabou permanecendo. Muitos "Terceiros Lugares", como shopping center, enfraqueceram/fecharam após a pandemia por conta do comércio digital. Religiões abraçaram culto/missa/gira/rituais/etc online. Até ensino público (como o Centro Paula Souza com a ETEC e a FATEC) adotou mais o EaD via Micro$lop Teams e Moodle durante e pós pandemia.
Quando mudei pro interior mineiro, achei que a vida aqui seria muito mais simples e respirável, menos dependente do digital, por ser mais rural. Ledo engano: embora, sim, exista um comércio físico relativamente ativo, mineirxs usam bastante o Pix, mais até que cartão. Aluguel é pago por Pix, apps de carona regionais (concorrentes locais da Uber) também são geralmente Pix, pra Área Azul põe crédito via Pix, enfim... praticamente tudo é Pix por aqui. Única coisa que, por enquanto, é só dinheiro, é ônibus circular, mas já existe toda uma estrutura para, se não migraram ainda, migrarem pro Pix (porque o dinheiro compra um cartão NFC que é passado e depositado lá na catraca).
Já é meio que automático das pessoas, quando questionadas da forma de pagamento, "é o meu celular" ou "é esse CNPJ" (chaves Pix). É mais sitiante que às vezes se vê pagando as coisas em dinheiro, mas também têm costume de usar Pix.
uso por crianças
Pior que não tinha pensado nisso, exatamente! Até existe conta para menor de idade (lembro de ter visto propaganda de fintech nesse sentido) mas, é como você falou, dar conta bancária na mão de criança é pedir pra cair em golpe. E com esse lance de "validação de idade" passando no mundo todo, incluindo países (Austrália) e estados (Arizona) onde estão banindo (ou querendo banir) totalmente o uso de celulares por menores de idade, cria-se uma situação de dissonância cognitiva onde a sociedade exige meios digitais até pra respirar, enquanto proíbe menores de acessá-los.
Estamos nos deixando levar por uma pequena comodidade
Como diz o ditado, quem busca segurança e comodidade acaba ficando sem os dois.
Com “deixar as coisas lá” você quer dizer deixar o seu pedido ou deixar as suas coisas pessoais como forma de pagamento?
A sorte é que eu não tinha "consumido" nada ali, era produto de varejo tipo salgadinho Fandangos, isotônico Powerade, aquele Nescafé cappucino pronto e coisa similar pra levar pra comer... Senão eu tava é ferrado, teriam que chamar a Polícia e o escambau. haha
você menciona caixas de autoatendimento. Mas alguns deles aceitam dinheiro também, não? Nas rodoviárias da minha cidade, ao menos há uns que sim, aceitam dinheiro vivo.
É raríssimo ver esse tipo de totem (autoatendimento). Pra um totem lidar com dinheiro físico, tem todo um mecanismo necessário (verificar se o que está sendo inserido é dinheiro de verdade mesmo, que tipo de nota que é, etc..., depois tem o transporte de valores envolvido, pessoal de serviços como Brinks e Prossegur tendo que fazer a retirada do lote, mó dor de cabeça) que sai mais caro o molho do que o peixe. Então pra corte de custos e de dor de cabeça (pra pessoa dona do comércio), geralmente se usa totem que só lida com pagamentos eletrônicos, Pix, cartão de crédito ou débito (às vezes até limitado a bandeiras como Visa e MasterCard, sem aceitar Elo e afins), Mercado Pago, PicPay, etc, às vezes vale-alimentação... E basicamente só. Aí gera situações onde, se tudo tiver com problema (como vira e mexe tem problema com AWS afetando o sistema do Pix e de gateways de pagamento simultaneamente), a pessoa tem que largar as coisas porque não tem como efetuar o pagamento.
E vamos de aberração do sistema bancário brasileiro que quer ser ultradigital em um país onde o telefone celular atuaiizado é raridade e onde a internet não é um bem público, dotado de soberania sobre os dados locais…
Pois é... E fora a dependência de ter uma operadora, Vivo, Claro, Tim, Sercomtel... E a necessidade de ter que ficar botando crédito todo mês senão vai-se embora o número de telefone e toda uma vida digital porque email geralmente exige o número de celular e WhatsApp exige número de celular e até coisa do governo exige número de celular.
Até por isso tenho tentado trocar o meu dinheiro o máximo possível.
Com a adoção cada vez maior de meios digitais de pagamento, não só pelos comerciantes mas também pelos consumidores, a tendência é cada vez mais escassez. Escassez essa que já existe com lugares "pagamos para trocar moedas" (um aviso que notei em vários lugares que já fui, inclusive supermercados) porque tão precisando urgentemente de moedas e tal, só que ao mesmo tempo .
Tenho sorte de ser atendido por pessoas que acreditam ainda na credibilidade do dinheiro em papel. Raramente isso acontece, até porque não ando com notas muito altas.
Certamente deve ser isso. Porque notas acima de 10 reais já começa a gerar suspeita. E pra piorar, caixa eletrônico de banco há um tempo tem tido só notas altas (20, 50, 100, 200)
Tenho o app gov.br de enfeite no celular. Essa coisa nunca reconheceu meu rosto. Tentei entrar em contato com o suporte no site e não tive nem resposta. Por telefone, em uma agência tipo o Poupatempo, "ah, o senhor quer emitir um novo documento, é isso?", a pessoa do outro lado da linha não entendeu o problema.
Daí última vez que fui logar no Detran, tive que esperar dois minutos numa tela que me "recomenda o uso do 2FA" e marcar uma caixinha ali "estou ciente de que a não utilização de dois fatores me expõe ao risco de acessos não autorizados e blá blá blá", e clicar "agora não" (eles estão pouco se lixando com o conceito de consentimento, "sim" ou "agora não"?). Por "agora não", entende-se que em um futuro, só vou poder usar a coisa depois de uma autenticação de dois fatores que não funciona com meu rosto, e resolver exige que eu viaje trocentos quilômetros, pague área azul pra estacionar na via pública ou pague passagem de ônibus, pra talvez resolver o problema num celular que logo logo vai precisar ser trocado e precisar de resolver a questão de facial tudo de novo...
Más não é só aqui no Brasil não. Mais cedo eu postei no meu perfil um print que vi de uma pessoa, da carteira de identidade da União Europeia se recusando a funcionar no grapheneos. Carteira de identidade essa necessária para, entre outras coisas, candidatar-se a emprego. Aí o celular da pessoa da problema, a pessoa tá desempregada, e pra conseguir emprego tem que ter um celular pra usar o app. Esse é o absurdo que esse mundo está se tornando.
E a tendência é piorar, principalmente com esse lance de verificação de idade. Daí pessoas como eu, um luciferiano sincrético independente (portanto sem sequer a proteção de uma egrégora de um templo/terreiro registrado) num país fundamentalista evangélico, de repente vão ter toda a vida digital atrelada ao nome do CPF a partir do momento em que eu fizer validação de idade com meu CPF pra acessar até mesmo o fediverso, e empresas vão recusar ainda mais meu currículo (já recusam porque eu não tenho a tal da "network" e nem perfil em Facebook e demais redes "socialmente aceitas") porque não vão querer ter um funcionário que "cultua o capeta", e nem o governo nem ninguém vai se responsabilizar pelo ostracismo social causado pelo vínculo entre a identidade imutável como pessoa física e aquilo que é socialmente tabu (ocultismo, bruxaria, etc), que encontrava algum refúgio aqui no anonimato da internet. Pessoas gostam de usar aquela frase "se não tem nada a temer, não tem nada a esconder", porque são pessoas que não tem visões de mundo socialmente vistas como tabu que levariam elas ao ostracismo social. Perdão pelo desabafo, mas já larguei mão desse mundo. Ainda estou vivo é por puro azar mesmo.
@zenpunk@lemmy.eco.br @nossaquesapao@lemmy.eco.br
Tem lugar que nem aceita mais dinheiro vivo, muitas vezes porque só tem autoatendimento.Exemplo: Rede Frango Assado em beira de rodovia, um dia passei raiva lá, tinha só aquele caixa de autoatendimento que não tem onde enfiar nota de papel-moeda, aceitando só Pix e cartão. E Pix depende de internet, e a rede móvel estava sem sinal, e Wi-Fi aberto da loja exigia login com Facebook, e eu não estava com o cartão. Resultado: passei vergonha e deixei as coisas lá porque não tinha meios de pagar.
Os lugares que ainda aceitam papel moeda, só faltam enviar o dinheiro pra análise do banco central, de tanto que ficam virando e revirando a nota e fazendo o cliente parecer um golpista pra quem tá na fila esperando pra ser atendido. E nem sempre tem troco.
Ah, e sem contar como agências bancárias físicas vem sendo cada vez mais reduzidas, redirecionando pro "internet banking". Tem o tal do "Pix saque", sim, mas na prática? Eu particularmente nunca vi funcionando ainda.
Just Post @lemmy.world Mastodon Live Feed is gone
Bate-Papo @lemmy.eco.br O propósito artístico do humano robótico
Bate-Papo @lemmy.eco.br Problemas com atualização do feed Lemmy.eco.br
@slaacaa@lemmy.world @nottheonion@lemmy.world
IIRC, the Reddit's r/all is akin to Lemmy's /all, right? If this proceeds, then it's also similar to Mastodon's Live Feed (global firehose), which recently (few weeks ago) got deactivated by mastodon.social admins. I wonder if both situations have any direct relationship.