What are the critical features of Discord?

• group chat with history and some degree of searchability
• forums (but with more realtime features so it works a bit closer to a chat)
• voice calling, including groups
• video calling
• screen sharing
• mobile app with much the same features as desktop
• web app, ditto.
• “ownership” of specific spaces (“servers” in discord context)
• solid permission setup for visibility (like “roles” in discord)
• trivial startup effort

Other less-critical but still potentially important features:

• markdown-like formatting in posts/messages
• grouping of channels
• intermix of “forum” spaces with “groupchat” and “voice/video” spaces

I don’t know of any that cover all of those, and ymmv on how critical some of these are.

That’s two; fourteen more to go!

I assume you meant not necessarily. If so: it’s actually safer because it means you spend less time in the line of fire, plus additional options to avoid a potential collision.

Ah yes if we just keep using a new synonym every time, that means we have to start all legal arguments from scratch.

Sure but not every opinion needs to be a discussion. There’s nothing wrong with downvoting or upvoting and moving on.

Im not so sure. I bet more than half of the drivers out there produce PCL output, and there are a lot of printers that use other languages too like ZPL and a myriad of others.

I just find it very odd, the seeming beginning of a Lemmy culture of “you would downvote me? EXPLAIN YOURSELF SIR”

No, I should not need to explain myself, a downvote shouldn’t carry that much weight, it’s not that big of a deal. Less than a middle-finger or even a thumbs down. At most a disagreeing shake of the head in conversation.

Further, the reasons can be their own, maybe someone wants to downvote everyone with a username starting with “h” just for a fun gimmick.

As another downvoter I will also take the time to explain:

I will basically always happily downvote people whining about downvotes. Especially if the whining is preemptive.

If I were going to turn every downvote into a conversation I’d be at this all day. And it would further encourage bad behavior because any engagement is good engagement right?: If you can pull someone into a quagmire of discussion then ragebait comments and posts would be the order of the day.

The downvote button is a quick shortcut to let people know their comment is “bad”, with a lot less risk of raising attention to the level where someone might dig through post/comment history or worse doxx/swat someone.

Does that mean that downvoting is perfect? Of course not. I would say that probably downvotes should be weighted much lower than 1:1 with upvotes, and it wouldn’t surprise me if it makes sense to ignore them completely or maybe just a tiebreaker. Might also be important to distinguish comment-downvotes from post-downvotes, but I’ll gladly leave it to the software designers to worry about all that.

The one with hairworks on?

Nothin’ wrong with McClure’s.

It makes interstellar travel plausible but not intergalactic.

It seems she was paid but not very well: “a big job for very little cash”

https://www.openculture.com/2025/10/meet-the-forgotten-female-artist-behind-the-worlds-most-popular-tarot-deck.html

It is “the Luxo ball”, but Luxo is not its name.

Compare to “the GEICO gecko”. Its name is not “GEICO”, it is (apparently) Martin.

Copying from sibling reply:

Following that logic its name is “Pixar”, but that is not the case.

It’s the Luxo ball as in “the ball from the Luxo film” not “Luxo the ball”. The ball doesn’t have a name.

Quoting the wiki (ew, fandom!)

The Pixar Ball (also known as the Luxo Ball) is a yellow ball with a blue stripe and red star that first appeared […]!

So… yeah, clearly not its name, not any more than its name is “Pixar”

It’s the Luxo ball as in “the ball from the Luxo film” not “Luxo the ball”. Luxo [Jr.] is the lamp.

Did an AI summary bot write this?

Who would confuse a ball with the lamp, especially given the name “Luxo” suggests a lamp?

I mean if you want to interpret some shitty line drawings as CSAM, knock yourself out.

The point I was trying (and clearly failing) to make is that judging images by the labels is stupid, but so is judging by leaving the appearance entirely open to interpretation.

Hell, I hadn’t even considered LLMs where a text description alone would be a problem since an LLM could use that to generate an image.

Because it’s less real. The amount of harm and/or damage is proportional the realism. Using that shitty line drawing I made for an example: if I say the lines represent something objectionable, would that make it so? No, not really.

The closer to real, the greater the psychological damage to the viewer. However it’s still no actual harm to anyone else.

And then production of actual CSAM actually does harm children.

Like, this seems like blatantly obvious stuff, no one is harmed by someone making lines on paper. (Or with modern tech lines on a screen but the idea is the same.)

Sure, I guess, although it’s kind of inextricably linked to the damage of actually using it.

Hmmm…

I mean, purely on principle? Sure. No one would have been harmed apart from the environmental damage. Once that’s done, nothing will undo that.

Psychological damage purely from exposure and normalization of that kind of content, probably not ideal.

The muddying of the waters around Epstein guilt, also bad. (“That was fake, so any other news must also be fake”).

Apart from the above sorts of things, (but maybe there’s others I didn’t think of off the top of my head): as long as no one watches it, it’s no more harmful than the sentence describing the idea in the first place.