This is great news. Shipping X11 on a system that doesn’t need it is a big waste.

Yes. I think the question was should it be labeled as “photoshopped” (or probably “manipulated”). I don’t think it should. I think those labels would be meaningless if you can’t event change the aspect ratio of a photo without it being called “photoshopped”.

Made them more valuable.

I literally described to you what people mean by “photoshopping” in the comment you’re responding to. Can you really not tell that I know that? Also, dropping the r slur will definitely help get your point across, right? You’re really living up to your username.

There are absolutely different levels of image editing. Color correction, cropping, scale, and rotation are basic enough that I would say they don’t even count as alterations. They’re just correcting what the camera didn’t, and often available in the camera’s built in software. (Fun fact, what the sensor sees is not what it presents you in a jpeg.) Then there are more deceptive levels of editing, like removing or adding objects, altering someone’s appearance, swapping faces from different shots. Those are definitely image alterations, and what most people mean when they say an image is “photoshopped” (and you know that, don’t lie). Then there’s AI, where you’re just generating new information to put into the image. That’s extreme image alteration.

These all can be done with or without any sort of nefarious intent.

You don’t have to open photoshop to do it. Any basic editing software will include a cropping tool.

A lot of photographers will take a photo with the intention of cropping it. Cropping isn’t photoshopping.

The label is accurate. Quit using AI if you don’t want your images labeled as such.

I like how the code has ASS in it.

He’s addicted to the Microsoft flavored kool-aid.

I hug my friends. I don’t want to snuggle with them.

Yes, but that’s called UV, not blue. Blue light filter is a thing, and this was not that.

You mean leaving porous stones in your vagina for a long time can cause damage?

The GOP.

If yours have a yellow tint then at least they actually have a filter. Mine have zero tint whatsoever. (Which is what I want, but they were marketed to me as having blue light filter.)

I don’t think I’ve experienced this. Do you mean some pages not working in Firefox, but working in Chrome? That’s mainly because of parts of web standards that are ambiguous or undefined, and Firefox and Chrome have different behavior. Some web developers (read lazy web developers) don’t test in Firefox, so they write bad code. Both Firefox and Chrome follow the standards, so if web devs just stick to the standards, everything should work.

If it’s a UV filter, they should call it a UV filter, not a blue light filter. If it doesn’t filter blue light, then it’s not a blue light filter.

They literally have no blue light filter in them. It was just marketing snake oil. I don’t even know why they do that. Who would want that in their glasses?

Blue light filter on glasses. When I got my glasses, the lady said they come with blue light filter for free, and I said, “I don’t want that, my job requires that I see colors accurately, so I can’t have any sort of color filter.” She said don’t worry, it doesn’t filter any colors. Ok, then what the fuck is it exactly?

Golden.