Here are before and after images using the prompt, "A woman walks to an excursion boat, probably in Port Aransas, 1907. Please restore the image by removing noise, adding missing detail, sharpening, and colorizing."
I doubt I could read a book or a newspaper using white text on a black background. I have seen web pages like that, and found them just barely tolerable, FWIW.
And yes, this darker font on white background is grrreat.
--TP
I'm not sure about that, I'll never see them in a show, and from a lot of the articles, it looks like they have been slammed with fan mail. They may feel like they are being villianized (is that a word?) and canceled for 'just' telling jokes and trying to make a living, but I think they are fooling themselves pretty profoundly and a letter from a person who occasionally watches a joke they do on Youtube is not really going to have the traction that is needed.
I've changed text color. I'm wondering if the dark version, where it is white on a black background might be better.
As Michael notes, you've got to use the tools at the bottom, going old school with the tags doesn't work. The tools also include adding an image attachment, which people have struggled with.
The link is to Charlie Pierce's blog on the Esquire web site. It uses a pretty similar commenting format, but I think you need a subscription (~$20/yr) to get at the comments. That one uses threads -- you can reply to a comment -- but only 3 levels deep, I think. It has thumbs up/down tracked separately, and a notification function so you (a subscriber) can see who liked, disliked, or replied to your own comments. So, quite more elaborate than what I'm seeing here, but I've grown to like it.
The tags (<b>, </b> etc) don't seem to be working any more (for reasons I bet some of you understand, but I don't). It's a pity, I think they really add.
I think Mayor Pete offers more of this [the media expertise . . . to get the message out effectively] than does Newsom.
Agreed. And he comes across more effectively on social media and on traditional media. I think that we really need both today.
Pete might lose, but at least he would be heard.
I assume you are talking about the 2028 Presidential election. I'd like to think he would have a chance then, but at this point I certainly wouldn't bet the ranch on it. Which we would be doing if the Republicans nominate a MAGA nutcase (but I repeat myself), which seems like a distinct possibility.
I must disagree. There are bad people out there. People who do bad things. But Miller is on a different level. I would say that the correct description is: he is an evil person. Full stop.
ps As my last comment probably makes clear, but just in case not: I mainly believe in civility <b>to</b> the person/people with whom you are actually arguing. Civility <b>about</b> people you have strong and justifiable opinions on is a different thing, at least in my opinion.
I should add, I'm more concerned here with gaining the upper hand in how the issues get framed than I am with electability. Newsom fits fewer prejudices than do Pritzker or Buttigieg. I just don't think that what he is saying cuts through enough to change the conversation, and I think the conversation we are having is a losing conversation for the Dems.
lj- As a note, in Kamala Harris’ recent book, she said that she wanted Buttgieg, but thought that it was ‘asking too much of America’ (if I remember the quote correctly). I’m not second guessing that, I’m just imagining an America where it wouldn’t be asking too much.
I understand this reaction, but what wj had asked for was:
...someone else who a) is willing to stand up, and b) has the media expertise available to get the message out effectively.
I think Mayor Pete offers more of this than does Newsom. And I think that if the Dems want to break through, they are going to have to find someone that is more a brawler than a point fighter. Newsom is all jab with no follow-up, and he's too much of a lightweight to land a knockout with a jab. Both the guys I countered with seem capable of landing some body blows.
I cannot resist replying to you russell. I agree with every single word you say about Stephen Miller. I do not think it is demonisation to describe him as a bad person.
<i>A civility that just means “we don’t talk about that” is going to choke us.</i>
Agreed with every fibre of my being. I think my participation on ObWi shows very clearly that "not talking about that", and practising a civility that implies agreement, is not my way!
<i>it is about an attempt to avoid demonisation</i>
I affirm this, but as the kids say, "it's complicated".
It's important - essential - to recognize and respect the humanity of your counterparties in any conflict. Otherwise things devolve.
But IMO it's also important to recognize and name people's behavior for what it is. And not just their behavior, but their character, as it is manifest in what they say and do.
For example - Stephen Miller. He's a bad person, full stop. He has an extreme animus towards entire classes of people, and uses his position to do harm to them. Not with regret or out of dire necessity, but happily and with gusto.
A bad person.
A civility that says "you can't say that" is not helpful. In fact, it's harmful, because it keeps us from speaking truthfully about the plain facts in front of us.
And in saying all of that, I'm not demonizing Stephen Miller. Miller has done a thorough job of demonizing himself, no further effort on my part is needed.
I do not wish any ill toward Stephen Miller. I just want him to stop doing what he's doing. Or, be prevented from doing what he's doing.
What I'd really like is, to borrow language from my own spiritual traditions, for him to repent. Turn himself around. Make amends. But that is his hash to settle. I'll be content if he just stops hurting people.
So much of the crap we're dealing with right now seems (to me) to be about people <i>not wanting to honestly look</i> at our own national history. At the darker side of our own national character.
Slavery and the genocide of indigenous people, and the toxic ideology of white supremacy that justified it. The greed and sense of entitlement that makes us think we have a right to consume the natural resources of the planet in ways, and at a rate, that is simply unsustainable. The hubris that makes "we are the best country in the world" an article of faith.
I don't think we are going to get past the mess we're in right now until we can deal with all of that. By "deal with it" I just mean recognize it for what it is, accept it as a reality. We can't go back and change it, but at least we can stop pretending either that it didn't happen, or it didn't matter, or it has no lingering effect on how we all live now.
Denial is a killer. It's undermining out ability to function as a nation. Basically, it's crippling us.
A civility that just means "we don't talk about that" is going to choke us.
As a note, in Kamala Harris’ recent book, she said that she wanted Buttgieg, but thought that it was ‘asking too much of America’ (if I remember the quote correctly). I’m not second guessing that, I’m just imagining an America where it wouldn’t be asking too much.
I agree with her. I, too, would have liked Buttigieg. (Nothing against Walz, who I thought did a great job.). But I also thought that, for too many voters, it would have been too much. Actually, too much even with an old white guy at the top of the ticket.
But good on her for thinking Buttigieg would be a good choice. And for standing up and saying so.
Like lj, I can imagine an America where it wouldn't be. But even before the results came in I was pretty clear that we ain't there yet. Someday. Someday.
Stopping watching them on YouTube is one thing. But it might be more effective if they provided an email (or whatever) that fans use. Because a message that gets specific about what you are upset about might be clearer.
Yup, I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree. In my case because it looks to me like at the moment it is the "right" (if these categories are even useful any more) that is clearly being far more uncivil than most of the "left" (again IMO the "left" seems to specialise more in implied guilt, or at least invalidation, by association or history). And one thing is for sure, I'm definitely not in favour of "performative civility" which can definitely be used for "bad aims". I don't think calling for civility (as I understand civility) is about exerting power. I think it is about an attempt to avoid demonisation, and the inevitable descent into intractable silos, from which (as far as I can see) no good (or repair, in Gay's word) ever comes. And it is an attempt to remember, in Pro Bono's formulation, that one's ideological opposites are human. So be it. In russell's inimitable words, peace out.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Excelsior 2.1”
Tony P. and all, how about this?
"
That one uses threads — you can reply to a comment — but only 3 levels deep, I think.
Wouldn't happen here, but I've seen websites' comment quality go downhill fast after threaded comments were introduced.
On “Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk, nyuk”
I intended my comments for the Excelsior 2.1 post. :(
"
After processing the image. The "AI" took some liberties with the details it added. Like giving the men hats.
"
Images huh?
I've been playing around with Google AI Studio.
Here are before and after images using the prompt, "A woman walks to an excursion boat, probably in Port Aransas, 1907. Please restore the image by removing noise, adding missing detail, sharpening, and colorizing."
On “Excelsior 2.1”
I doubt I could read a book or a newspaper using white text on a black background. I have seen web pages like that, and found them just barely tolerable, FWIW.
And yes, this darker font on white background is grrreat.
--TP
On “Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk, nyuk”
I'm not sure about that, I'll never see them in a show, and from a lot of the articles, it looks like they have been slammed with fan mail. They may feel like they are being villianized (is that a word?) and canceled for 'just' telling jokes and trying to make a living, but I think they are fooling themselves pretty profoundly and a letter from a person who occasionally watches a joke they do on Youtube is not really going to have the traction that is needed.
On “Excelsior 2.1”
like this ? Aha! And I've never known how to
strike through"
I've changed text color. I'm wondering if the dark version, where it is white on a black background might be better.
As Michael notes, you've got to use the tools at the bottom, going old school with the tags doesn't work. The tools also include adding an image attachment, which people have struggled with.
"
Testing. Testing. Testing. How about a link.
The link is to Charlie Pierce's blog on the Esquire web site. It uses a pretty similar commenting format, but I think you need a subscription (~$20/yr) to get at the comments. That one uses threads -- you can reply to a comment -- but only 3 levels deep, I think. It has thumbs up/down tracked separately, and a notification function so you (a subscriber) can see who liked, disliked, or replied to your own comments. So, quite more elaborate than what I'm seeing here, but I've grown to like it.
--TP
"
<em>Alternate test of various ways</em> to do <strong>emphasis.</strong>
"
You have to use the tools along the bottom edge of the comment edit
window."
The tags (<b>, </b> etc) don't seem to be working any more (for reasons I bet some of you understand, but I don't). It's a pity, I think they really add.
On “Where are the 5 words?”
I think Mayor Pete offers more of this [the media expertise . . . to get the message out effectively] than does Newsom.
Agreed. And he comes across more effectively on social media and on traditional media. I think that we really need both today.
Pete might lose, but at least he would be heard.
I assume you are talking about the 2028 Presidential election. I'd like to think he would have a chance then, but at this point I certainly wouldn't bet the ranch on it. Which we would be doing if the Republicans nominate a MAGA nutcase (but I repeat myself), which seems like a distinct possibility.
On “Excelsior 2.1”
Darker type in these comments, please. Middlin' gray doesn't cut it for these old eyes.
On “Where are the 5 words?”
Stephen Miller. He’s a bad person, full stop.
I must disagree. There are bad people out there. People who do bad things. But Miller is on a different level. I would say that the correct description is: he is an evil person. Full stop.
"
ps As my last comment probably makes clear, but just in case not: I mainly believe in civility <b>to</b> the person/people with whom you are actually arguing. Civility <b>about</b> people you have strong and justifiable opinions on is a different thing, at least in my opinion.
On “Excelsior 2.1”
Just an observation that you have to have JavaScript enabled in order to leave comments now.
Testing the attach-an-image comment feature:
On “Where are the 5 words?”
I should add, I'm more concerned here with gaining the upper hand in how the issues get framed than I am with electability. Newsom fits fewer prejudices than do Pritzker or Buttigieg. I just don't think that what he is saying cuts through enough to change the conversation, and I think the conversation we are having is a losing conversation for the Dems.
Pete might lose, but at least he would be heard.
"
lj- As a note, in Kamala Harris’ recent book, she said that she wanted Buttgieg, but thought that it was ‘asking too much of America’ (if I remember the quote correctly). I’m not second guessing that, I’m just imagining an America where it wouldn’t be asking too much.
I understand this reaction, but what wj had asked for was:
...someone else who a) is willing to stand up, and b) has the media expertise available to get the message out effectively.
I think Mayor Pete offers more of this than does Newsom. And I think that if the Dems want to break through, they are going to have to find someone that is more a brawler than a point fighter. Newsom is all jab with no follow-up, and he's too much of a lightweight to land a knockout with a jab. Both the guys I countered with seem capable of landing some body blows.
"
I cannot resist replying to you russell. I agree with every single word you say about Stephen Miller. I do not think it is demonisation to describe him as a bad person.
<i>A civility that just means “we don’t talk about that” is going to choke us.</i>
Agreed with every fibre of my being. I think my participation on ObWi shows very clearly that "not talking about that", and practising a civility that implies agreement, is not my way!
"
<i>it is about an attempt to avoid demonisation</i>
I affirm this, but as the kids say, "it's complicated".
It's important - essential - to recognize and respect the humanity of your counterparties in any conflict. Otherwise things devolve.
But IMO it's also important to recognize and name people's behavior for what it is. And not just their behavior, but their character, as it is manifest in what they say and do.
For example - Stephen Miller. He's a bad person, full stop. He has an extreme animus towards entire classes of people, and uses his position to do harm to them. Not with regret or out of dire necessity, but happily and with gusto.
A bad person.
A civility that says "you can't say that" is not helpful. In fact, it's harmful, because it keeps us from speaking truthfully about the plain facts in front of us.
And in saying all of that, I'm not demonizing Stephen Miller. Miller has done a thorough job of demonizing himself, no further effort on my part is needed.
I do not wish any ill toward Stephen Miller. I just want him to stop doing what he's doing. Or, be prevented from doing what he's doing.
What I'd really like is, to borrow language from my own spiritual traditions, for him to repent. Turn himself around. Make amends. But that is his hash to settle. I'll be content if he just stops hurting people.
So much of the crap we're dealing with right now seems (to me) to be about people <i>not wanting to honestly look</i> at our own national history. At the darker side of our own national character.
Slavery and the genocide of indigenous people, and the toxic ideology of white supremacy that justified it. The greed and sense of entitlement that makes us think we have a right to consume the natural resources of the planet in ways, and at a rate, that is simply unsustainable. The hubris that makes "we are the best country in the world" an article of faith.
I don't think we are going to get past the mess we're in right now until we can deal with all of that. By "deal with it" I just mean recognize it for what it is, accept it as a reality. We can't go back and change it, but at least we can stop pretending either that it didn't happen, or it didn't matter, or it has no lingering effect on how we all live now.
Denial is a killer. It's undermining out ability to function as a nation. Basically, it's crippling us.
A civility that just means "we don't talk about that" is going to choke us.
"
As a note, in Kamala Harris’ recent book, she said that she wanted Buttgieg, but thought that it was ‘asking too much of America’ (if I remember the quote correctly). I’m not second guessing that, I’m just imagining an America where it wouldn’t be asking too much.
I agree with her. I, too, would have liked Buttigieg. (Nothing against Walz, who I thought did a great job.). But I also thought that, for too many voters, it would have been too much. Actually, too much even with an old white guy at the top of the ticket.
But good on her for thinking Buttigieg would be a good choice. And for standing up and saying so.
Like lj, I can imagine an America where it wouldn't be. But even before the results came in I was pretty clear that we ain't there yet. Someday. Someday.
On “Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk, nyuk”
Stopping watching them on YouTube is one thing. But it might be more effective if they provided an email (or whatever) that fans use. Because a message that gets specific about what you are upset about might be clearer.
On “Where are the 5 words?”
Yup, I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree. In my case because it looks to me like at the moment it is the "right" (if these categories are even useful any more) that is clearly being far more uncivil than most of the "left" (again IMO the "left" seems to specialise more in implied guilt, or at least invalidation, by association or history). And one thing is for sure, I'm definitely not in favour of "performative civility" which can definitely be used for "bad aims". I don't think calling for civility (as I understand civility) is about exerting power. I think it is about an attempt to avoid demonisation, and the inevitable descent into intractable silos, from which (as far as I can see) no good (or repair, in Gay's word) ever comes. And it is an attempt to remember, in Pro Bono's formulation, that one's ideological opposites are human. So be it. In russell's inimitable words, peace out.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.