First, imagine a number in JavaScript. (Bit of a nail biter here, huh?)

let i = 5

Then, we will construct an incrementor. This is really simple: here is the method.

1. Make a bracket-string-centric version of eval().

[]["filter"]["constructor"]("return i+1")()

2. Reconstruct stringy eval() by using +[] as 0, +!+[] as 1, and implicit conversions as ways to create strings. For example, ‘false’ is (![]+[]), so ‘f’ is (![]+[])[+[]].

[][
  (![] + [])[+[]] + // f
  ([![]] + [][[]])[+!+[] + [+[]]] + // i
  (![] + [])[!+[] + !+[]] + // l
  (!![] + [])[+[]] + // t
  (!![] + [])[!+[] + !+[] + !+[]] + // e
  (!![] + [])[+!+[]] // r
][
  ([][(![]+[])[+[]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]]+(![]+[])[+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+ // c
  (!![]+[][(![]+[])[+[]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]]+(![]+[])[+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+ // o
  ([][[]]+[])[+!+[]]+ // n
  (![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+ // s
  (!![]+[])[+[]]+ // t
  (!![]+[])[+!+[]]+ // r
  ([][[]]+[])[+[]]+ // u
  ([][(![]+[])[+[]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]]+(![]+[])[+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+ // c
  (!![]+[])[+[]]+ // t
  (!![]+[][(![]+[])[+[]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]]+(![]+[])[+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+ // o
  (!![]+[])[+!+[]] // r
]("return i+1")()

3. Draw the rest of the fucking owl. Final code:

let i = 5; // haha yay

[][
  (![] + [])[+[]] + // f
  ([![]] + [][[]])[+!+[] + [+[]]] + // i
  (![] + [])[!+[] + !+[]] + // l
  (!![] + [])[+[]] + // t
  (!![] + [])[!+[] + !+[] + !+[]] + // e
  (!![] + [])[+!+[]] // r
][
  ([][(![]+[])[+[]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]]+(![]+[])[+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+ // c
  (!![]+[][(![]+[])[+[]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]]+(![]+[])[+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+ // o
  ([][[]]+[])[+!+[]]+ // n
  (![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+ // s
  (!![]+[])[+[]]+ // t
  (!![]+[])[+!+[]]+ // r
  ([][[]]+[])[+[]]+ // u
  ([][(![]+[])[+[]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]]+(![]+[])[+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+ // c
  (!![]+[])[+[]]+ // t
  (!![]+[][(![]+[])[+[]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]]+(![]+[])[+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+ // o
  (!![]+[])[+!+[]] // r
](
  (!![]+[])[+!+[]]+ // r
  (!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+ // e
  (!![]+[])[+[]]+ // t
  ([][[]]+[])[+[]]+ // u
  (!![]+[])[+!+[]]+ // r
  ([][[]]+[])[+!+[]]+ // n
  (+[![]]+[][(![]+[])[+[]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]]+(![]+[])[+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]])[+!+[]+[+!+[]]]+ // ' '
  ([![]]+[][[]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+ // i
  (+(+!+[]+(!+[]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+[+!+[]]+[+[]]+[+[]])+[])[!+[]+!+[]]+ // +
  +!+[] // 1
)()
// no virus i swear. execute arbitrary code in your browser console.

Anyway, that’s just everyday JS work. It’s like step 5 after resizing the button, but a bit before centering the div.

based on this. _{some translation methods done differently.}

══════════•⊱💀⊰•═══════════

•ＳＴＹＬＩＳＴＩＣ ＢＲＥＡＤＴＨ

══════════•⊱💀⊰•═══════════

Obviously only for important cases, like compiling custom insults into sudo. :)

Did you see Mozart’s new concerto?

Everyone’s speculating so I’ll put in something concrete:

About 3 months ago, r/wholesomememes mods clamped down on karma-farm bots as hard as they could…

causing no new posts to appear for two entire days.

Hey there friends! It’s only been a few days since we started cracking down on the spam bots and excessive reposts that have been plaguing r/WholesomeMemes - and now there is nothing left! –mod

erasure edit: ok nvm, thanks

Interesting, 18 up and 16 down as of this comment. Because this started with ~2 downvotes (the first image had terrible jpeg for a few minutes), we either have

1. my taste did not land
2. early downvotes beget more downvotes

this comment is here for notetaking. let’s see if i’m a moron or if iambs are stronger than herds.

That’s an interesting perspective actually

Maybe it’s because of who’s giving them? If my little cousin gave me an AI Christmas card, I’d be happier than if a stranger gave me one on the street. (Though I’d feel bummed if they didn’t even marker in a single custom sentence)

i.e. higher standards of creativity/effort from a stranger than from a family member.

Also the stranger isn’t stuffing a tenner in the card lmao

Whoops, typo! Fixed c:

its 3am and i laughed my ass off. why?

I forgive 'em cuz watt hours are a disgusting unit in general

Work over time, × time, is just work! kWh are just joules (J) with extra steps! Screw kWh, I will die on this hill!!! Raaah

Master manipulator. Needs to be contained

Ty for feedback :>

Your paragraph read well. I definitely agree – grammar with risks, outside of hyper-formal sitches, is just stylized diction. ChatGPT could scarcely come up with an e.e. cummings poem (just tested now, it never gets the style about right), nor dare to abuse parentheses, nor remove cruft for conciseness (e.g. to start a sentence with “Kind of changed” instead of “This kind of changes” for compression (woot)). It’s a “wrong” but not quite “wrong”, and I’m glad that “riskless” manages to carry that feeling

And I edit a lot too :) it’s the “post-email-send clarity” effect

edit: updated accordingly for clarity

Ah, I mean proper grammar as in formal, largely riskless grammar. For example, AI wouldn’t connect

monolingual + educated + have access to technology

with pluses, like a human would.

Not sure how I’d phrase that though. Maybe “perfect, risklessly formal grammar” as I just tried to call it? (i.e. if AI trainers consider using +‘es a “risk”, as opposed to staying formal and spick n’ span clean).

Perfect grammar is humanly possible but there is some scrutiny that can be applied to GPT-style grammar, especially in the context of the casually-toned web (where 100%ed grammar isn’t strictly necessary!).

I believe Inkscape has some interaction with tkinter, which binds python to Tcl/tk

https://github.com/flathub/org.inkscape.Inkscape

Subdermatoglyphi–

the resistance shoots me. I am revealed to be a Terminator despite misreading the question

You’re right. Looking back I confused a lot of ( with [!

Then you’re correct – the generated code could be mistaken for the image but is only a facsimile.

Alpine: musl + Christmas 💪🎄🎁🎉

I… I put effort in…

Edit: What about an ivory leg?

I’m not sure I agree but I’m happy to discuss! :)

Why are you calling my statement “selective memory” (am I intentionally excluding something?), and what do you mean by “way worse”? Do you consider unskilled art as not art at all (i.e. “so-called”)?

What I was trying to say, is that on social media, skilled artists formerly dominated attention (likes, upvotes) because viewers wanted well-constructed, pleasing-to-the-eye artwork. I wasn’t trying to say that they were the only art posters (sorry for my wording!). Continuing, now that AI is in the arena, “technically-decent” art is no longer the lower bound for pleasurable-to-see – now, viewers are more partial to knowing that a human was vulnerable when they expressed themselves with art.

It’s an intensification of internet-ugly aesthetic, which Douglas (2014) called "an imposition of messy humanity upon an online world of smooth gradients, blemish correcting Photoshop, and AutoCorrect” (p. 314). Now, online, handmaking art at all is a declaration of humanity, because you could corporately fake something full-colored and intricate, but arguably soulless, with lower effort.

Of course, I’ll try to take it from your perspective. I’ve seen really bad human art (I like art!), and I’ve seen less-artifacted AI art (have you ever seen Even_Adder’s generations on lemmy.dbzer0? they don’t have the overshading issue at all). Of course, some may disagree that the latter is art (is art only human expression?), but supposing I do consider the latter art, my point still stands – viewers are more on the lookout for genuineness now.

Happy to see what you think!

References

• Douglas, N. (2014). It’s supposed to look like shit: The internet ugly aesthetic. Journal of Visual Culture, 13(3), 314–339. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470412914544516