A tossup between books 7-10 of the Wheel of Time series. I gave up half way through book 10 and resent the time that I wasted on the series. 20 years later I still recall the desperate hope that the next chapter/book would advance the storyline, only to be greeted with more subplots, stupid things happening because of characters inability/unwillingness to communicate, and overly verbose descriptions of every little thing.

I hear the final books, written by a different author, were much better.

Pizza Napoletana (usually margherita DOP or marinara when at home.)

One of my local Neapolitan pizzerias makes a fantastic pizza melanzane too.

High quality ingredients, carefully selected; less is most definitely more!

For most of the year, Assam (loose leaf) with a splash of milk; when it’s available, first flush Darjeeling.

*fish hook

Dude, you’ve been called out for bullshitting and caught in a lie - which is right there, for everyone to see - and you have no response, other than to say that I’m full of shit.

You never tried to meet in the middle. You just tried to reframe, once again, claiming I was misinterpreting you. If you really meant ‘light grey’, why did you bullshit about supposed issues with dark grey and ‘black is always black’ rather than clarify? Here’s a guess: You knew you weren’t misintepreted, but when your initial response was picked apart, you thought you could lie your way out - because the alternative was admitting to being wrong, and that’s beyond your capability.

And no, I don’t mind wasting some more time to set the record straight on a public forum. But since it’s now clear to all that you’ve been arguing in bad faith all along, there really is no need to continue.

You made a blanket statement about grey/white > black/white. I countered that dark grey/white is better.

Dark grey is grey. This is a clear counter example to your blanket statement - no misinterpretation.

You could have just corrected/refined your blanket statement, but instead you lied and bs’d about why dark grey is worse, and when that was called out you tried to make out that really this is all just my misinterpretatiom. Sure dude - whatever. I’m not gonna waste any more of my time arguing with someone that is straight-up dishonest.

It’s right there in the study:

“However, black text on white background represented a severe overstimulation of the OFF channels”

And yes, the study does refer to the opposite:

“while white text on black background overstimulated the ON channels”

And

“Note that reading white text on black background (ON stimulus, denoted in green) causes choroidal thickening while black text on white background caused choroidal thinning”

…

"Since choroidal thickness changes are precursors for future changes in eye growth, we expect that there will be selective effects on subsequent myopia development.

So black/white causes overstimulation (visual discomfort) and this could be causing future eye health problems.

This overstimulation is well known and understood and is why more knowledgeable web developers etc., understanding that too much contrast literally harms readability, choose something with slightly less contrast - like dark grey/white.

But you can go ahead and frame it however you like. If you’re going to continue reframing and outright lying* then there’s no point in having a discussion with you. You clearly have difficulty coming to terms with being wrong - which is really quite sad.

*You denied used anecdotal evidence for some wild, easily disproved, assertions (black is always always black), then confirmed a couple of comments later that this was based on your own years of experience - which I’m now strongly suspecting was also BS.

You said grey/white causes more eye strain than black/white. I posted a study showing black/white is worse than dark grey/white, and you’ve danced around the whole thing ever since. But sure - I’m the one digging my heels in.

It felt like you kept trying to reframe what you actually said rather than admit to being mistaken. You bemoaned the choice of grey/white over black/white. I pointed out studies showing dark grey/white to be objectively better - and rather than say “mb I meant light grey specifically”, you tried to BS about dark grey being rendered as light grey, and black always appearing black - based solely on your own experience. It’s cool - I’m done. Have a good evening.

You said “White background & gray text” in your original post - not light grey.

“From my experience of using screens like this for years”

Literally anecdotal. Search for “washed out black screen” - countless examples of black appearing grey.

“No developer ponders what shade of black to use”

And the evidence shows that if it’s on a white background, they should be pondering what else to use.

I agree that web developers/designers should be better informed about this - but the trend is probably in the right direction.

I just posted a study showing the problems of black/white. I don’t disagree about the overuse of light grey/white, but it’s really irrelevant to what I said.

The reason I felt what you were saying was anecdotal is because consistent black is really a feature of amoled screens. If a screen is so badly calibrated that dark grey is coming out substantially lighter then it’s probably going to doing something similar to black.

“Black always looks black”

“…[dark grey] text appearing light or mid grey”

These statements seem anecdotal and contradictory. You’re not really addressing the issue of black/white being overstimulating, and causing more eye strain than dark grey/white at any rate.

If the shade is really that different, then the problem is a poorly calibrated screen, and black text on white is also going to look “totally different”.

Studies have shown that the excessive contrast of black text on white overstimulates the eyes, creating more eyestrain than dark grey (#444).

Here’s a study showing how the overstimulation from black text on white background can cause myopia through choroidal thickening (and the reverse, with white text on black background causing choroidal thinning.) https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-28904-x

Prometheus as a Christian allegory (spoilers)

I believe Ridley Scott has broadly acknowledged this theory, and, when viewed through that lens, the repeated symbolism throughout the film is unmistakeable.

Some good suggestions. The cooked onions are delicious, and definitely worth keeping. I’ve used them in a roasted vegetable side dish, and within a veggie lasagna. The recipe is very well known though so there’s lots of suggestions online for what to do with them e.g. https://www.epicurious.com/expert-advice/what-to-do-with-onion-from-marcella-hazan-tomato-sauce-article.

Just to note, while black mold is common on onions and can be washed/cut off. The roots of some other molds can be highly toxic and discarding the visibly affected parts may not be enough, so be very careful.

Can’t go wrong with Marcella Hazan’s tomato sauce recipe if you’re looking for easy and tasty:

28oz can of tomatoes (San Marzano is best), 5 tbsp butter, onion peeled and cut in half. Add all ingredients to a pan and simmer on a medium heat for 45 minutes, stirring occasionally, and gently crushing tomatoes. Remove onion and add salt to taste. Makes 4 servings.

I like to throw in a sprig of basil too, but it’s not necessary.

And would you say that an idea formed from the combination of multiple old human ideas is not original? If the influence of an existing idea disqualifies it from being original then very little could be considered original. If something additional to existing ideas is needed for originality then that what is that thing which is beyond the capability of an AI?

Personally, I would argue that any new combination of existing ideas is inherently original (i.e. a fresh perspective.)

Talking specifically about image generators (rather than LLMs) which are trained on billions of images - some of which would be widely considered as artwork (old ideas?) and others documentary photographs.

Those ‘new’ ideas can be inputted as a prompt into an AI image generator. Would the output of that satisfy your criteria for OC?

How so? What is it that makes art OC that cannot be applied to AI created art? I think it would take an extremely narrow definition which would also exclude a significant amount of human created art.