Seems to work now, I guess they really did it.

People would do that? Go on the internet and tell lies?
- Albert Einstein

Sega doesn't want to preserve the ownership of their ip, they were bought by a gambling company who took on their name and is using sega as a public relations shield.
Their aim is to keep sega in high public esteem.

Meanwhile Nintendos ip is extremely valuable compared to the size of their company, so their aim is to protect ownership way more than making new games or other ongoing business.

International ip law is weird, so letting fanmade games go runs a risk of loosing ip. For Nintendo that is even more dangerous than for other studios whose ip value compared to revenue is not as extreme. While for sega ultimately loosing ip control is basically the point of the investment.

Summit can do that yes

Does aurora support split apk yet?
Last I checked it was impossible to install basically any app due to that.

To be fair I can't see if someone came from canvas or elsewhere. It's not like I added a /canvas that redirects to / and makes it unique.

I get ~5-30k external page loads a day (realistically probably 95% ai crawlers). There's no way I can filter out a few people from canvas in that.

Is this a real image?

Not doubting the story, but I almost took a completely wrong fact from the image.
I noticed the hairstyle and went "guess that cycle is similar now to 1909". But no, that's ai generating a modern high-end styled haircut with rubber hairband into an image where that factually makes no sense.

Edit: Maybe

Shows instances for everyone, even myself.

When I started using summit a bit over a year ago that was pretty much the first thing I noticed, complained about under an unrelated update release note, and idunnolulz fixed it next update.
Almost forgot about it.

The snipping tool looks very similar to the gardening scissors I've seen, which there must be endless product images of. It's also a focus of the image, so the creator will probably have made sure it looks correct and might have given specific instructions for that part.

I've tried reverse searching the image and it appears to only exist on a recent facebook post. No gallery, historic site, ...

The reverse search should have been able to find a non-upscaled version too if that had been it.

You may have started the wave of poop vandalism with that

In the real world, not on canvas. I wouldn't wanna build a country flag where politicians are acting like that

Quite unrealistic.

How could a paperclip clipped to a paper hold the entire weight of a fish without slipping?

Not the proudest year for germany.

I see the stylisric reason to only apply the effect around the object, but it isn't realistic.
That radiation isn't affected by optics, it'll go right through the lenses that flip and focus the image and the aperture that might be engaged, and will hit the entire sensor equally. The entire image should be that noisy.

closer to clones than individual consciousnesses

You know that genetic clones are still individuals with independent brains, right?
Like twins don't have to take on the same profession or have the same personality. They're about as mentally different as any other random person.

It's also completely fine under all international law.
Following copyright law is more like a trade agreement, so if you feel wronged enough as a nation it's completely uncontroversial to suspend all or all international copyright law and deal with the consequences (mainly the us being very salty about it).

The EU contingency for a US attack on Greenland for example is among other steps to suspend all US copyrights recognition and starve the US service industry.

Vor allem ein Industriezweig ist betroffen.

Maschinenbau

󠀀

fucking clickbait ey

I assumed he'd estimated it based on how distorted the face appears behind the glasses. I do that all the time.

At this angle it's hard for me to do that, since I usually use the edges of the face to estimate it. negative glasses pull the line inwards, positive outwards. I can reliably tell when someone is wearing fake glasses (0 strength) for example, and probably estimate strength within 30% of the actual value.

If the image was higher res maybe I could estimate this case too. Or this professional optometrist is just a lot better at it than I am.

Strong negative glasses: (Note the faces contours in the glasses appearing well inside the faces contours around the glassed)

Fake glasses:

Positive glasses:

PS: Searching for generic terms yields 100% fake glasses, so I took a specific person I remember having strong glasses for myopia.