I really like the idea of the Terminal Graphics Protocol and the aims of the project, but I feel it's important to address the choice of the Lenna photo. This image, although historically significant in the field of image processing, is increasingly viewed as an outdated and inappropriate choice due to its origins and the implicit message it conveys.
The Lenna photo, originally taken from a Playboy magazine, perpetuates a narrow and objectified view of women. Its continued use in tech demos and educational materials not only overlooks the rich diversity of alternative images available for such purposes but also subtly endorses a culture that many in the tech community are striving to move away from.
In an era where inclusivity and sensitivity are rightfully gaining prominence, it's crucial that we reassess and update our educational and demonstrative tools to reflect these values. Opting for more neutral and universally appropriate images would not only avoid potential discomfort among a diverse audience but also demonstrate a commitment to fostering a more inclusive and respectful tech culture.
If you don't want your image being used broadly without your control, then don't become a model for playboy. Ultimately she was paid fairly for the rights to her image and so that's that. It is completely fair use and hearing about how she should be able to somehow universally dictate the usage afterwards is boring. If the copyright holder wishes to issue takedowns they can do so, nobody elses opinion on the topic matters whatsoever, including hers.
Sorry, is there some shortage of other pictures on the Internet? Do you only do the right thing when you're legally or contractually forced to do so? Were you expecting a Playboy model in the 70's to anticipate the Internet when she signed that contract?!
Just use a different image. It's a pretty simple ask. For fuck's sake, this shouldn't be so hard to understand with a tiny shred of human empathy.
There's a shortage of photos that have a 50 year history in the field. By using this image you can compare directly to the 1973/4 paper. Using some other stock photo won't let you do that.
This is ignoring that the photo itself is completely innocuous. People who complain about the Lena photo, I suspect that 99.9% of them have absolutely no problem with AOC's appearance at the Met Gala in her Eat Mor Chikin dress. Which, from a perspective of propriety, there is no possible differentiation from the Lena photo. Their complaint has to do with the photo's origins, not with the photo itself. And, sorry, but the world isn't ruled by the pearl clutchers on their fainting couches.
Yeah, it's not rocket science. It's also not about objectification or diversity or whatever, the picture is 100% innocuous. But if the model does not want to, just don't fucking use it, your paper will be fine.
It's all well and good that you feel that way but what do you offer to replace the Lenna photo? It's easy to say it needs to be replaced but it's actually quite a different matter to find something so universally recognized. Everyone knows exactly what it's /supposed/ to look like and that's why it's useful as a reference to judge image processing.
The Nature-family of journals have banned its use, and recommends ‘Cameraman’, ‘Mandril’ or ‘Peppers’ as alternatives. In other words there is a well established alternative and you just didn't try googling for it.
According to wiki, Playboy (copyright owner) decided to not pursue copyright infringement for that centerfold.
> Although Playboy is notorious for cracking down on illegal uses of its images, it has decided to overlook the widespread distribution of this particular centerfold.
I personally have no problem if it was a different photo but lets look at some theoretical objections to the one you provided.
An astronaut? Some would see that as classicist. Blue and Orange? This impacts people with deuteranomaly and protanomaly color blindness. NASA? They are a capitalist space program that hired Nazis after WWII. A woman? Sitting? A person of color? Rectangular dimensions? ect... ect...
These are, of course, completely absurd objections. But someone somewhere would complain about your choice as firmly as you complain about the Lenna photo. And would you think their objections are as absurd as some think your objections are? Probably.
Standards are standards because they provide a solid reference that everyone can use and they should, by definition, be resistant to change. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Amazing work on this knowledge graph engine component edward (and whomever else was involved). Flickr Foundation is already paying dividends. Is there some way to push signal from Wikicommons as to photos needed that could be added to Flickr with the appropriate license for Wikicommons consumption?
I don't think I'd be comfortable with it having elaborate editing functionality. PDF editing in a browser is finicky, and an enormous bug fest.
I do PDF editing offline, on the desktop, then re-upload to paperless. Not the most integrated flow, but much more bulletproof. I want the PDFs themselves to be immutable once on paperless. Only metadata should be editable.
It keeps an “original” PDF and presents a working copy for modifications like OCR and metadata. Rotation is important for OCR, so rotate-and-redo is a worthwhile feature.
There is an issue about this, basically it's not going to happen because it is editing functionality. They suggest using another solution before import (build a pipeline).
I submitted a talk to the wild card track and it was accepted. It's a session I've done at a few other conferences. The title is "Tools for linking Wikidata and OpenStreetMap".
I know it feels harmless, but this kind of low-effort drive-by PR is loathed by maintainers. It's not contributing anything significant to the project, but requires some of their time and gives you visibility in the changelog.
Personally, I have sent these kinds of PRs out and received only approvals and thanks from maintainers. When in an approver/maintainer role myself, these kinds of PRs are trivial to approve and I appreciate them. The PRs that change a bunch of stuff, are large, hard to review, poorly described, poorly justified, poorly tested, etc., are the annoying ones.
I agree that spelling mistakes in a readme / website / docs should be fixed. Comments, on the other hand, are irrelevant, and not worth pinging the maintainers for unless they are affecting comprehension (not the case here). On a project with 0 PRs open it may be ok, but in more active projects that have dozens/hundreds of PRs at any given time, it's just adding noise.
It's also been a trend in the past few years for people to make this kind of PR, which is very low hanging fruit, just to increase the number of projects they "contributed to" and their profile activity. The author may have not had this intention, but it sure plays into the stereotype.
https://fosdem.org/2024/schedule/track/railways-and-open-tra...