That accounts for the goods and products, I guess? OTOH, for most of the world stuff like software, film, music, all sorts of digital services, it all comes from the US (and makes it money and gives it influence).

Though let’s be honest, most porn is just ugly and unappealing.

I understand, but this is still coming off as “being the general after the battle”. I.e. judging the mistakes done by scientists while the available knowledge was more limited. The shift towards portraying dinosaurs with feathers was triggered by, well, discovering dinosaur fossils with feathers. We made a discovery and corrected accordingly.

Of course we should be aware of the limits of studying and reconstructing prehistorical species in general, I’d say most popular dino media downplays or ignores the difficulties and doubts in the endavour, presenting the conclusions as a given rather than as an educated guess, without showing the “behind the scenes”. But the image of “scary, giant lizards” in popular perception has IMO been on the decline since Walking with Dinosaurs from 1999 - of course, the exaggerated Jurassic Park and its increasingly trashy sequels and similar media have had more of a broad cultural presence, but that’s not much to do with paleontology and serious paleo-art.

“Completely wrong” is an exaggeration, would portraying a chicken without feathers be “completely wrong”? Of course not, if the overall anatomy is plausible, it would be inaccurate in one regard but not scientifically or illustratively worthless.

No, not all dinosaurs were feathered. Some definitely were not feathered (we have evidence of their scaly exterior, most impressively this armoured dinosaur specimen) while certain other clades definitely were, for which we have strong evidence, and thus species such as Velociraptor have been reconstructed with feathers even in the most broad-audiences-oriented media for over two decades. For many species it’s uncertain. So no, many of the featherless reconstructions are still not wrong in that department, considering our current knowledge.

I find this sort of “reconstruction” kind of disingenuous. Dinosaurs were reptiles, so they’re reconstructed to look roughly like reptiles of today. Of course the approach gives wildly inaccurate results on mammals, but on modem reptiles it would be alright. This same approach isn’t taken to reconstructing prehistoric birds or mammals either.

That’s not to say dinosaurs haven’t been portrayed as too bony for the coolness effect or that the Dunkleosteus wasn’t subject to the same exaggerated treatment, but why go into the other extreme?

RETVRN TO… donke?

They’re not really claiming copyright, Springer is just selling the articles (anyone can sell copies of public domain texts). The problem is in their moronic mechanical attempt (probably not even checked by a lawyer) at “detecting” copyright infringement by comparing two editions of the same article.

checks notes… alleged neo-Nazis

Allow me to present this handy guide:

If so, i’d expect Iran to publicly distance itself from the attack. According to the article, they still haven’t made any official statement. Does Russia have military presence in the region?

Per Wikipedia:

Tens of thousands in daily protests; 100,000–200,000 at the 13 June rally; more than 250,000 estimated at the 20 June rally

And Albania has a population of 2.4 million.

Yeah, USSR progressively legalised homosexuality and then even more progressively made it illegal again, while the regressive fascist liberal west still hasn’t caught up to the second step 🤣

Cool alternative history you’ve got there.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBTQ_history_in_the_Soviet_Union

Neat, but, I have to admit, completely incomprehensible to the uninitiated 😅

“\subseteq”?

Lemmy is the public kitchen.

Last year I had to fight tooth and nail to delete some bullshit article based on Cold War era propaganda that nobody bothered to directly scrutinise and criticise (there was thankfully enough related information out there that undermined the article indirectly). These days I checked a dozen books to confirm a term regularly used on WP is made up by whoever created the page two decades ago, so I’ll have to try and dispute it. A friend of mine has spent years looking for historical documents confirming some statement that’s been repeated by historians in passing since mid-20th century with no proper corrobating info, obviously repeated on WP as well. Sometime last year there was a reddit thread by a relative of some minor desceased celebrity from 90s who said the celebrity’s WP article is entirely based on one journalist’s sensationalist book that even got their year of birth wrong; the relative was advised to contact WP’s legal team to see if they can solve that somehow.

No, these are not major bits of misinformation, but in specific areas and for specific people they are important. Not claiming GWB is still the president of the US is a very low bar that Wikipedia has already passed like 15 years ago, rather I’m talking about the limits of their sourcing policy. Many sources will say who’s the current president of a country, but what do you do when there’s one source that got something wrong, two other ones that just repeated what the first said (a very common thing, obviously), and nothing else?

If there’s actual, provable lies about a notable person in the encyclopedia, then there should be actual, provable truths to combat it

No, not necessarily. Lots of false info spreads around, including serious academic publications. People who publish books and articles don’t always do additional verification of the stuff they read elsewhere. And if nobody publishes something containing the correct version of the story, you as a WP editor don’t really have a reliable source that you can use against the existing ones. I’ve seen this happen multiple times. Wikipedia is nominally meant just to convey what the sources say, not do active research or provide you with the capital T Truth.

Sanger was laid off from Wikipedia early on, started a competitor site that failed, and then returned to Wikipedia not so much to contribute but to rail against the project, his only credentials being setting up some of the crucial rules for the site two decades ago. It was really pathetic, like an ex pestering the other one years after the breakup, unable to move on. I hope he finds a better hobby now.

Nice to see Russia is starting to take care of and protect its population. Keep it up.

Lol.

.ml isn’t blocked on .world