TIL - Today I Learned .. share something you learned for the first time

[Persephone Emerald]

Today I learned the difference between a Spanish tortilla and a Mexican tortilla, between a Spanish torta and a Mexican torta, and how the differences between European Spanish vs. Mexican Spanish can be just as wide as the differences between British English and American English.

Torta originally means cake in Spanish, but a Mexican torta is basically a sandwich. A tortilla (diminutive of torta) in Spain is a dish made with potatoes and eggs, similar to a fritata with potatoes in Mexico, but a tortilla in Mexico is a flat unleavened bread made with either corn or wheat flour.

A Spanish tortilla is yummy, can be served hot or cold, and can even be imported from Spain already cooked and then frozen (probably). I bought one today at a discount grocery. It listed only natural ingredients, no preservatives, but was still good to eat.

https://slate.com/culture/2013/10/spanish-tortilla-recipe-authentic-tortilla-espanola-minus-the-flipping.html

Edited July 23, 2023 by Persephone Emerald
Spelling

[Katherine Heartsong]

TIL ... How to calculate the amount of stone needed to build a retaining wall in your garden, and also include a weeping drainage system along the bottom course of stone. Useful for making sure things don't slowly tilt then collapse over a period of a decade.

[Conifer Dada]

Today I learned something new and useful in SL.

I'm lucky enough to have a good computer and internet connection so I usually have shadows enabled. One problem with SL avatar shadows is that they don't begin at your feet but a short distance away, giving the impression you're hovering above the ground.

I played about with debug settings and found that setting RenderShadowBias to 0.000 fixes that problem. The default setting is -0.004. There's still a slight hover effect, but much less. I did find this fix before, a long time ago, but it didn't then persist so you had to reset it each time you logged in. Now, though, it does persist.

Many of you might already know about this, but I learned it today - after 16 years in SL!

Edited July 24, 2023 by Conifer Dada

[Lindal Kidd]

On 7/24/2023 at 10:32 AM, Conifer Dada said:

setting RenderShadowBias to 0.000 fixes that problem

Yes, it does. But it also CREATES much worse problems when the sun is at the noon position.

[Randall Ahren]

On 7/24/2023 at 7:32 AM, Conifer Dada said:

Many of you might already know about this, but I learned it today - after 16 years in SL!

After 16 years, LL should have fixed the problem.

[Casidy Silvercloud]

TIL that I do in fact remember how to properly sort my inventory, and make outfits. 

I also learned how much I dislike that part and how easily I'm distracted. I've made two outfits in the last 3 or so hours of trying ***** on. 

[Persephone Emerald]

Today I learned to not put an open plate of food on my front passenger seat, even if I'm only going to be driving a short distance. 

The first left turn I made, it slid off to the side of the front passenger seat.

At least the birds in the neighborhood will get some cooked rice with veggies and Indian spices.

[Conifer Dada]

On 7/25/2023 at 3:52 PM, Lindal Kidd said:

Yes, it does. But it also CREATES much worse problems when the sun is at the noon position.

I didn't know that. The day cycle I use on my land is similar to what we have in Britain, so the sun isn't close to directly overhead, even at noon in mid summer.

Edited July 26, 2023 by Conifer Dada

[Conifer Dada]

16 hours ago, Randall Ahren said:

After 16 years, LL should have fixed the problem.

Maybe all they need to do is change the default value in debug settings!

[Conifer Dada]

On 7/25/2023 at 3:52 PM, Lindal Kidd said:

Yes, it does. But it also CREATES much worse problems when the sun is at the noon position.

I tried the basic LL Mid-day setting with RenderShadowBias set to 0.000 and it was much the same as the default setting of -0.004. There was a bit of 'disturbance' around some of the nearby shadows. I tried resetting to -0.001 and the disturbance disappeared, with little noticeable difference in the foot shadows from 0.000. However, if you set to +0.001, everything is in shadow, as I discovered by accident!

Edited July 27, 2023 by Conifer Dada

[Rowan Amore]

Mid day (noon) has way more issues than just shadows.  Possibly the worst light setting one can use IMO.  

[Missy Starchild]

TIL Tampico citrus punch is actually terrible and I'll never waste money on it again

[Love Zhaoying]

Today I Learned - you can't just google the "Bellisseria Covenant", you'd have to go there and actually read the "About Land"!

(At least, according to Googling previous Forum entries.)

[diamond Marchant]

16 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

Today I Learned - you can't just google the "Bellisseria Covenant", you'd have to go there and actually read the "About Land"!

Also on the web at https://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Linden_Lab_Official:New_Linden_Homes_2019

It is a very long page and you have to scroll to the end, unless you notice the Table of Contents.

Have not verified that this text is identical to the About Land version.

I am finding Google to be less and less useful.

Edited August 8, 2023 by diamond Marchant
shade on Google

[Rat Luv]

That an ant's face looks like this under a microscope 😍

[Love Zhaoying]

2 minutes ago, Rat Luv said:

That an ant's face looks like this under a microscope 😍

Grinning Satan Ants!

[Phil Deakins]

TIL (actually yesterday or maybe the day before) that the Bellisseria covanent has a rule that isn't even in the covenant. The rule is 'the spirit of the covenant'. The covenant says that avatars that are ejected can't be auto-banned using the land's ban list. What it doesn't say is that ejected avatars can't be auto-banned using another method, such as a blacklist. But using a blacklist is against the unstated 'spirit of the covenant' rule.

This isn't a complaint as I have an alternative method, but it is something that I learned.

Edited August 9, 2023 by Phil Deakins

[Qie Niangao]

49 minutes ago, Phil Deakins said:

TIL (actually yesterday or maybe the day before) that the Bellisseria covanent has a rule that isn't even in the covenant. The rule is 'the spirit of the covenant'. The covenant says that avatars that are ejected can't be auto-banned using the land's ban list. What it doesn't say is that ejected avatars can't be auto-banned using another method, such as a blacklist. But using a blacklist is against the unstated 'spirit of the covenant' rule.

This isn't a complaint as I have an alternative method, but it is something that I learned.

Okay, I'm stumped. What is a "blacklist" in this context, other than the parcel's banlist? Just a list of people who'll be ejected quicker next time? (Seems unlikely given the strict floor on how quick that can be.)

I'm hoping the "alternative method" is to check if the landowner (or some other listed agent) is present on the parcel and, if so, present them with a button to add the intruder to the banlist. Personally, I think the covenant should have disallowed any "security" while there's no owner or listed agent on the parcel. On the other hand, if a script isn't allowed to automatically (re-)add to the banlist when the owner returns it can't very well clear the banlist when they leave.

It probably wouldn't be good for Linden business anyway, there still being some roleplayers who value the part of their backstory where nobody can see their private virtual world homepage even when they're not browsing it themselves. 🙄

[Love Zhaoying]

10 minutes ago, Qie Niangao said:

Okay, I'm stumped. What is a "blacklist" in this context, other than the parcel's banlist? Just a list of people who'll be ejected quicker next time? (Seems unlikely given the strict floor on how quick that can be.)

I posted on Phil's thread details from the website, although I did not manage to get to Belleseria to read the "About Land" Covenant for myself. Diamond Marchant provided the link a few posts ago:

16 hours ago, diamond Marchant said:

Also on the web at https://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Linden_Lab_Official:New_Linden_Homes_2019

It is a very long page and you have to scroll to the end, unless you notice the Table of Contents.

Have not verified that this text is identical to the About Land version.

I am finding Google to be less and less useful.

From that link, is this information - it is pretty clear that by "blacklist" is the "parcel banlist".  

*Security devices are only allowed if they comply with the following restrictions:
    -Minimum of 15 seconds warning time (no shorter)
    -Eject from parcel only (not teleport them home)
    -Effective range cannot include the airspace between 400m and 2000m (to allow for people to fly overhead but not in the airspace where skyboxes are allowed)
    -Does not add names of ejected persons to the parcel ban list automatically

Edited August 9, 2023 by Love Zhaoying

[Phil Deakins]

@Qie Niangao

Some years ago, following a discussion in this forum, I added the ability to one of my security devices to recognise when it's in Bellisseria, and it not to break any of the covenant rules there. One of the rules is that ejected avatars must not be automatically added to the land's ban list. Knowing that people would rather not have forcibly removed avatars coming straight back, I incorporated a blacklist in the device, so that any removed avatars are put in it it, either permanently or for a user-set period of time. Using it is a user-option. Avatars in the list would be instantly removed on sight; i.e. allowed in but automatically removed on sight. That's what I mean by a blacklist. It's like a whitelist, except it's black

It is not what Love suggested.

Some devices can be set to stop scanning when the owner or an admin isn't in the parcel. Mine does that, but it's a user-setting that can be turned on and off. Now that you've mentioned it, I think I'll set it so that it's on when rezzed. After that, it's up to the user.

Just out of interest, Bellisseria homes are provided with a security device that ejects unwanted avatars after a minimum of 15 seconds, but they can go straight back in immediately for another 15 seconds, ad infinitum, or until the tenant manually bans them in the land's ban list. I think that's really bad, but it's the way they have it.

I have a solution that was suggested by Fionalein in the thread that Love mentioned, which I've described in that thread. It doesn't ban anyone and it is almost the same as a blacklist. The difference is that it can't be used to keep people out forever or for a long time - just for 15 seconds or until they get fed up of going back in and instantly being put back out. The thread includes posts by 3 Moles, one of whom has outlawed the use of an actual blacklist, but, after reading the solution, hasn't said that it won't be allowed. It's a lot easier to implement than a blacklist too. I wish I'd thought of it years ago lol.

Edited August 9, 2023 by Phil Deakins

[Missy Starchild]

TIL the idea of OJ Simpson playing the Terminator was never seriously considered, with James Cameron dismissing it early on as a stupid idea. His first choice was Lance Henrikson (Bishop from Aliens, Hackett in Mass Effect) whose likeness he based the Terminator's concept art on. After a discussion with Arnold Schwarzenegger (who was going to play Kyle Reese) over how to make the character more authentic as a cyborg changed Cameron's mind, Henrikson would instead play Hal Vukovich in the same movie.

Edited August 9, 2023 by Missy Starchild

[Persephone Emerald]

2 hours ago, Phil Deakins said:

@Qie Niangao

Some years ago, following a discussion in this forum, I added the ability to one of my security devices to recognise when it's in Bellisseria, and it not to break any of the covenant rules there. One of the rules is that ejected avatars must not be automatically added to the land's ban list. Knowing that people would rather not have forcibly removed avatars coming straight back, I incorporated a blacklist in the device, so that any removed avatars are put in it it, either permanently or for a user-set period of time. Using it is a user-option. Avatars in the list would be instantly removed on sight; i.e. allowed in but automatically removed on sight. That's what I mean by a blacklist. It's like a whitelist, except it's black

It is not what Love suggested.

Some devices can be set to stop scanning when the owner or an admin isn't in the parcel. Mine does that, but it's a user-setting that can be turned on and off. Now that you've mentioned it, I think I'll set it so that it's on when rezzed. After that, it's up to the user.

Just out of interest, Bellisseria homes are provided with a security device that ejects unwanted avatars after a minimum of 15 seconds, but they can go straight back in immediately for another 15 seconds, ad infinitum, or until the tenant manually bans them in the land's ban list. I think that's really bad, but it's the way they have it.

I have a solution that was suggested by Fionalein in the thread that Love mentioned, which I've described in that thread. It doesn't ban anyone and it is almost the same as a blacklist. The difference is that it can't be used to keep people out forever or for a long time - just for 15 seconds or until they get fed up of going back in and instantly being put back out. The thread includes posts by 3 Moles, one of whom has outlawed the use of an actual blacklist, but, after reading the solution, hasn't said that it won't be allowed. It's a lot easier to implement than a blacklist too. I wish I'd thought of it years ago lol.

If your security device ejects people immediately, that's the same as a 0 second ejection. It doesn't matter if they've been on the parcel before or not, whether that was a year ago, 15 minutes ago, or 1 minute ago. 

I honestly wouldn't care if these devices would only eject avatars, but it's damned irritating to get sent home just for crossing over the edge of someone's parcel, especially when there is a public road or waterway right next to it.

[Phil Deakins]

33 minutes ago, Persephone Emerald said:

If your security device ejects people immediately, that's the same as a 0 second ejection. It doesn't matter if they've been on the parcel before or not, whether that was a year ago, 15 minutes ago, or 1 minute ago. 

Yes.

33 minutes ago, Persephone Emerald said:

I honestly wouldn't care if these devices would only eject avatars, but it's damned irritating to get sent home just for crossing over the edge of someone's parcel, especially when there is a public road or waterway right next to it.

That's up to the users of them. In Bellisseria, they are not allowed to send people Home.

[LittleMe Jewell]

10 hours ago, Qie Niangao said:

What is a "blacklist" in this context, other than the parcel's banlist?

As Phil said, it is basically a ban list that is specific to the security object. Some security objects contain a notecard that is the 'blacklist' - same concept as parcel banlist but processed by the security object itself. Anyone on that list would be auto-ejected just like if they were on a parcel banlist. 

It is useful when your security object is only covering part of your parcel -- say just the area between 500 m and 1500 m.  If you want to allow someone on the parcel, but not within the area that your security object covers, then the security object's banlist / blacklist is what you need to use.

ETA:  Phil probably explained it all, but I responded before I read everything.

Edited August 9, 2023 by LittleMe Jewell

[Abnor Mole]

Phil asked about the Belliseria covenant is was explained to him that in Bellisseria we work from the concept that people should be giving people the benefit of the doubt rather than assuming every avatar that happens to enter your parcel has ill intent. That is why we amended the covenant to disallow devices to automatically add avatars to the parcel ban list. He pointed out that his could do the same thing essentially by adding them automatically to the device's blacklist (and that wasn't expressly disallowed in the covenant according to his interpretation).

I agreed that it is essentially the same thing... and because of that I recommend not including that feature in the "Bellisseria" setting on the device he makes and sells. 

I applaud him for wanting to make a security device that makes it easy for users to know they are complying with the covenant. I simply pointed out that adding features that use loopholes in the letter of the law to get around it and violating the spirt behind it is not the way to go. When that happens we will just amend the covenant again if we have to, making such "Bellisseria compliant" devices non-compliant. And then he will have to change it anyway if he wants to sell and advertise it as a "Bellisseria compliant" device.

Edited August 10, 2023 by Abnor Mole