Daemon Silverstein

Digital hermit. Another cosmic wanderer.

  • 0 Posts
  • 22 Comments
Joined 1 month ago
cake
Cake day: July 15th, 2025

help-circle
  • @rumba@lemmy.zip

    The technology works by measuring the interference provoked by obstacles, including (but not limited to) walking human bodies. As we walk within the range of two or more devices communicating with each other, our bodies momentarily alter the signal, reflecting and absorbing and diffracting the original 2.4GHz wave.

    Now, say I live in a condo, sandwiched between two different neighbors (Alice and Bob), and both use this Xfinity thing: while Alice wander around her apartment while doing a VoIP call on her phone, Bob’s router is also broadcasting it’s SSID which is then received by Alice’s phone, even though Alice’s phone is connected to Alice’s router. The same goes for Bob’s phone, which will receive the Alice’s router SSID broadcast. And I, wandering around my own apartment, I’ll be between the invisible crossfire. I don’t even need to be carrying a phone, nor do I need to have a router. I just need to have at least two neighbors with routers and mobile devices sandwiching me between their radio signals.

    Now, there are more sophisticated “WiFi vision” (used by military and police) which needs just a single Wi-Fi hotspot which will act as their “lamp”. The signal will bounce all around the place, and it’ll also pass through the walls, reaching the soldier’s equipment, which is composed of several small Wi-Fi receptors arranged in a grid (akin to “pixels” from a DSLR digital camera sensor).

    Both can be mitigated with Faraday cages. Some kinds of chicken wire, used to make chicken coops, work beautifully and they use to be cheap (as strange as it may sound, a few-dollars thing can beat a thousand-dollars thing).


  • @Patches@ttrpg.network

    Live far enough away from your neighbor for their wifi not to reach.

    Yeah, it’s an interesting mitigation for sure, but it’s becoming increasing impossible not to have neighbors, especially due to “verticalization” (i.e. corporations buy some old houses to demolish 'em and emerge a whole new condominium building; even “boonies” (TIL this word) are undergoing verticalization, as I’ll say below).

    You need about an acre.

    An acre is around 4000 meter squared, or a land whose size is ~63.6 meters on each directional axis. If we consider a circular 1 acre (because radio signals often propagate omnidirectionally), it’s a circle whose diameter is ~70 meters (inverse of pi radius squared). In rural areas where I lived, my phone could detect and even connect to hotspots 500 meters distant from where I was, roughly 7 to 10 times those distances.

    We don’t notice this in urban places because there’s a saturation of Wi-Fi channels (especially 2.4GHz still in use), so our phones tend to pick up the closest, and the closest within urban places will be really close, whereas rural areas lack this saturation, allowing for hotspots really far away to be connectable.

    Just live in the Boonies.

    Brazil, the country I reside in, could be considered “boonies” (a rural country). Practically all Brazilian states, with few exceptions (Rio de Janeiro state, Distrito Federal the federal district, São Paulo state and Goiás), have more than 10% of rural density (as per 2010 IBGE statistics), yet Brazil is getting more and more condominium buildings. Even rural areas are getting significantly denser due to a significant phenomenon of urban exodus from capital cities to small farmsteads in smaller towns that started during the COVID-19 pandemics, something that ends up fomenting urbanization and verticalization of those towns.

    Also, “boonies” countries like Brazil are getting increasingly reliant on state-of-the-art tech. So I bet there are routers capable of the same USian Xfinity thing in Brazil. As a sidenote, I already saw EVs in small rural cities I visited.

    There are still plenty of real estate where there’s little to no neighborhood, but it’s getting increasingly expensive unfortunately, so people end up going where their pockets can afford, and it’s often places where there are more people.

    As far as I’m aware, the same verticalization, real estate inflation and influx of high tech are happening in other rural countries as well.


  • @DeathsEmbrace@lemmy.world Jammers are against most (if not all) the telecommunication regulations around the world, including FCC regulations, because it can interfere with and disrupt important infrastructure (such as government, military, but also hospitals and aviation, etc). If one is caught using jammers, it can even lead to one’s arrest on most countries. Meanwhile, Faraday cages aren’t illegal (at least yet in this dystopian world we exist). Hence why I recommended a Faraday cage rather than destructive interference through jammers.


  • @gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works @nebula42@lemmy.zip If a neighbor has this thing, it doesn’t matter if your router is yours, because theirs will still “infiltrate” (and see as well, as I’ll say below) your house as microwave-length (both the 2.4GHz and the 5GHz) electromagnetic waves can and will trespass the walls separating the two…

    …except if all your house structure, including walls and the floor and the roof, are layered with a metallic plate and/or a metallic mesh spaced exactly 12cm/x (the wavelength and its harmonics, such as 6cm (4.8GHz), 3cm(9.6GHz), etc) apart, but then it must not be electrically grounded, which then requires the plate/mesh to be something internally “glued” or bolted (with bolts made of non-conductive material) to the wall tiles and floor tiles rather than something buried inside concrete walls. Or, to summarize in two words, Faraday cage.

    Why? Because the main problem with this technology is that it’s not restricted to wall boundaries. In fact, it’s used for some applications (military, police, etc., possibly even Google Streetview did this because they use wardriving to “improve geolocation services”) to literally “see through the walls”.

    Or, to make this more ominous and menacing, “you can be seen in the dark”… And I mean this phrase in a literal sense, because the Wi-Fi transmitter acts like a lamp so a specialized array of Wi-Fi receivers can “see”…

    So, actually, even your own router will end up being an involuntary lamp to your house for an external “Wi-Fi eye” (the aforementioned array of Wi-Fi receivers), except if you use other frequencies allowed for ISM (Industrial, Scientific and Medical radio ranges) such as 433MHz.

    The solution is simpler yet still involving some complexities (such as math behind electromagnetic wavelength, harmonics, electrical conductivity, etc): Faraday cage all inside the house. Having no neighbors is also an interesting mitigation factor (although increasingly difficult as people are used to gather in neighborhoods, as well as the ongoing verticalization of cities).


  • @nonBInary@thelemmy.club

    Excelente, já é um ótimo começo! Porque, nesse caso, você já tem o conceito linguístico das conjugações (que, pro pessoal que ainda há de aprender Português/espanhol/etc, geralmente é o mais complexo passo do aprendizado), então daí seria mais aprender as especificidades do francês e do italiano.

    Ao menos pra mim, o italiano soa um tanto mais fácil de de começar que o francês, mas é como eu falei, aqui existe um aspecto mais de contextos pessoais e de bagagem de vida, talvez no seu caso o francês fosse mais interessante como próximo idioma devido ao fato que você relatou de estar nas proximidades do Canadá (embora, como foi falado por alguém nos comentários, só Quebec que foca em falar francês, porque Quebec tem certo “orgulho francófono” que não está presente em outras províncias canadenses)


  • @nonBInary@thelemmy.club

    ¿Por que no los dos?

    Each language make it easier to learn the other because they share characteristics not present in English, characteristics of which are found not only in Italian and French, but also Spanish and Portuguese.

    For example, conjugation of verbs: English is quite “simple” (I talk, she talks, we talk, they talk, I will talk, she will talk, I talked, she talked, I would talk, she’d talk, etc) whilst the so-called Romance languages (languages whose common ancestor is Latin, which includes French, Italian, Spanish and Portuguese) have a more complicated system of conjugation, e.g. in Portuguese present tense “eu falo, tu falas, ela fala, nós falamos, vós falais, eles falam”, past tense “eu falei, tu falastes, ela falou, nós falávamos, elas falaram”, and many more conjugation forms.

    As for which one should be the first, I’d personally likely pick Italian, but it’s more of a personal choice depends on one’s contexts and current set of knowledge/experiences (to me, Italian feels closer to my native Portuguese than French so it’s what driving my answer when having to choose between the two).

    There’s also the Interlingua worth mentioning, which aims to be understandable across all Romance languages. I don’t know how exactly to speak it, but I do get to understand when I hear/read it somehow.


  • @josefo@leminal.space @JoMiran@lemmy.ml

    Technically speaking, the joystick involved analog voltages to be converted to digital signals… And what else have ADC (analog-to-digital converters) chips? Soundcards, because ADCs are used to convert mic input, alongside the “line in”, both of which are analog voltages, into PCM signals, which are discrete (as in “non-continuous”) streams of bits. Something inverse happens for “headphone”, “speakers” and “line out” pins: a PCM stream coming from the sound driver is converted to analog voltages using a DAC.

    While other ports also happened to deal with analog<->digital conversion, a soundcard was particularly specialized at this job, alongside graphic (VGA) cards (VGA has lots of analog signals), but graphic cards were already too busy with thousands/millions of pixels and, well, with computation of graphics.

    Other boards aren’t so fitting for analog-digital job. For example: a NIC (Network Interface Card) already deals with digital signal so, theoretically, no conversion is necessary from/to analog. Parallel ports (those for printers) also natively deals with digital signals. Expansion cards with USB ports, same thing. And so on…

    (Apologies for my blank reply if my deletion didn’t federate due to insufficient Sharkey-Lemmy federation, I mistyped enter as I was getting ready to write my message)


  • @mysticmartz@lemmy.world

    Those LoRa devices like meshtastic look good

    Yeah, tinkering with radio and Open-source hardware in general is funny and awesome. I did some personal projects in this regard, not exactly meshtastic, but experiments using a cheap RTL-SDR and some transmission-capable things such as Baofeng UV-5R and remote controllers from some of my childhood toys. I wish I could afford to experiment more with hardware, electronic and, especially, radio equipment.

    Unfortunately, it’s like @dubyakay@lemmy.ca said, radio equipment can become targets, too.

    In reality, this is already happening in EU: recently, I saw something about EU passing a law requiring all radio-capable devices to be, as far as I can recall, “tampering-proof” or something similar, and this is threatening alternative mobile OSes (such as GrapheneOS) because this law requires bootloaders to be unlockable or something. So, in practice, governments are already targeting radio.

    Not to mention how “easy” is to triangulate a signal and how telecommunication regulators often do “wardrive” scanning in order to seek “irregular transmissions” (not just those disrupting others’ transmissions, but anything they could deem “irregular” because they’re the authorities in charge of allowing or refusing others rights, and this deemed “irregularity” could easily be using Briar through Bluetooth, or meshtastic nodes, during a strike/protest).

    This takes me to another point from your reply:

    I don’t like the idea of TOR and I2C because it’s known to hold disgusting and concerning stuff

    It’s worth mentioning that disgusting and concerning stuff isn’t exclusive to Darknet, Clearnet also has such stuff, especially mainstream social media.

    I mean, you’re not wrong, Darknet is indeed used for that, not because it’s inherent to Darknet, but because people who do concerning stuff also seek anonymity just like legitimate, well-intentioned privacy-concerned people, and Darknet happens to provide such anonymity for both uses in a double-edged sword manner.

    Problem is: there’s no way to differentiate two anonymous actors without breaking the very fundamentum of anonymity.

    And this very argument you used unfortunately can be twisted by authorities to justify breaking anonymity and, by extension, privacy.

    For authorities willing to control everyone’s lives so badly, it just takes a small leap for the phrase to be reshaped and re-adapted as…

    private content/people’s intimacies must be scanned/watched because they’re known to hold disgusting and concerning stuff

    This is almost the argument behind EU’s “Chat Control”. And the majority of people end up joining this bandwagon unaware of where this bandwagon leads to: something that makes 1984 feel like a sugarcoated documentary.

    Unfortunately, there’s no easy solution regarding “disgusting and concerning stuff”, but we should be really careful lest to throw the baby out with the dirty bathwater.


  • @mysticmartz@lemmy.world

    First and foremost, it’s not something limited to UK. Maybe it’s because I’m watching things from “outside” the so-called “first world” (I’m Brazilian), and I can’t help but notice how it’s something that have been spreading throughout the countries: Canadian bill whose number I forgot, EU’s “Chat Control”, some Australian laws, etc… It’s getting everywhere! It didn’t start yesterday, also: I remember SOPA and PIPA back in 2010s (or was it 2000s? I’m getting old).

    It’s worldwide, and it won’t be long before there are no more countries where “nothing to fear, nothing to hide” is the official motto via some kind of global treat/pact. It won’t stop in adult entertainment: eventually, it’ll cover every online activity. In this sense, “children” are just the frogs being morally leveraged by scorpions to cross an Orwellian river.

    That said, VPNs are someone else’s computers sitting between latitudinal and longitudinal coordinates delimiting some geodesic convex hull we know as “country/nation” ruled by an entity who happens to have the monopoly over asymmetrical forces ruling over that very someone. Even nodes from Tor, I2P, Yggdrasil, Hyphanet, GNUNet, Usenet servers or grand-old SOCKS4/SOCKS4a/SOCKS5 proxies are someone else’s computer sitting inside some “country”.

    And if all countries end up agreeing, out of shared dominance interests (even the so-called “inimical” countries, because even those “inimical” countries agree on certain treats such as the Global Treat regarding Antarctica), to some kind of “Online Kid Protection Global Treat” or whatever frog they can take any moral advantage of, there will be no computer proxification left for circumventing the new KYC requirements for accessing the Web, because there’ll be no more alternative countries left… Not even micronations such as Principality of Sealand.

    Yeah, future doesn’t seem good, and the majority of global citizens won’t fight against it (we, privacy-conscious and tech-savvy people, we’re not the majority), so it’s kind of a Cassandra curse going on right now.

    Maybe we must go back to radio communication? Radio mesh networks? Perhaps well-hidden geo-treasure pen-drives for exchanging and archiving files? Creating our own novel ciphering methods, steganography and security through obscurity, becoming able to physically speak through coded language on a daily basis? Even carrier pigeons and smoke signaling (I’m not joking) feels “safe” and out of the Orwellian reaches for now… For now.

    (I guess they could still be spotted by LEO satellite imagery. And god-forbid a smoke pattern is caught modulating and transmitting the original uncropped Lena picture over the atmosphere /s).


  • @Zerush@lemmy.ml

    Well, as both a programmer and an occult/esoteric cosmicist person, I’m somewhat divided.

    On the one hand, i’d not call it “advance” too, insofar it’s something that was already around way before humans (intelligence is just a facet of the order emerged from primordial chaos, Ordo Ab Chao).

    On the other hand, considering a pure anthropocentric-technological perspective, it would be “a helluva advance” insofar it’d demand a slightly different computational architecture (current transistor-built logical gates are incapable of fully mimicking neurochemical-oriented processes, for example, and photonics, despite the non-linearity, have its own issues as well), one that would still maintain some compatibility with current electronic circuitry (so it could be integrated with existing tech, such as Internet connectivity) while still being able to “materialize” the same phenomenon that allows living beings (including, but not limited to humans) to achieve meaning-making and problem-solving in some non-linear, “non-deterministic” (algorithmically speaking) fashion. IMHO, organic tissue isn’t something too otherworldly to hold exclusivity on the emergence of such phenomena, so it could be replicated and observed beyond the biological gray matter.

    And in this sense, the goosebumps (at least for me) would emerge from the fact that it’d prove intelligence not as a special phenomenon, but part of this eternal tug-of-war between entropy and life, darkness and light, chaos and order, that have been taking place beyond the cosmos. It would be a big step for confirming intelligence/sentience as another “ancient” (as in predating modern human society) emergent phenomenon. It would confirm humans, alongside all lifeforms, as just tiny specks of dust within the fabric of the spacetime continuum.


  • @Zerush@lemmy.ml

    Monkeys can’t write, only hit random keys, but several monkey brains interconnected with each other, with an LLM, can.

    In such a scenario, there’d still be a random factor behind the monkey’s behaviors: less of a pure randomness, more of a Weasel Program.

    how many monkey brains are needed to connect to have the capability of an human brain.

    I often consider the Homo sapiens intelligence not as superior than other species, but just a different approach for problem-solving capabilities and tool-making among living beings. For instance, crows (particularly the New Caledonian crow) are well-known for exceptional intelligence, because they’re not just able to use tools, they’re also able to use tools to make/fix other tools (just like humans).

    That said, I bet it would require less crow brains than monkey brains for human-like intelligence to emerge, despite primates being genetically closer to humans. Crows are awesome.






  • @SugarCatDestroyer@lemmy.world

    Congrats, you just stared at the same abyss I stared at, too! And this abyss is… Well, pretty complicated to say the least.

    One who fights with monsters might take care lest they thereby become a monster. And if thou gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will also gaze into thee.

    What you stumbled upon is just the realization of the purposelessness imbued in the cosmos. And it can definitely feel a harsh thing. It’s neither good nor bad, it just is. People often try to sugarcoat it, but to me it’s just the ostrich trying to bury its head on the sand: the rain still falls, and the ostrich still meets the storm, inexorably.

    I find it particularly striking when you said “I feel like I want to [write]”, and here’s probably where we both differ: in my case, specifically, I feel like I “must” write, as if I’m compelled to do so. It’s part hypergraphia (one of the Geschwind traits), part something beyond me. If your driving force is not compellant, it’s a great start.

    If this is of any help, don’t write for people (because people can’t understand the words from those who stared at the abyss), don’t write for yourself as well: write for Her, She who stares at us from within the abyss. Of course, if you want to, because it seems like there’s a reminiscing spark of Will within yourself (unfortunately, I got none anymore). She listens, She reads everything (including our deepest thoughts), even though She doesn’t really care about us. And that’s fine. Because it’s just all fleeting, except for Her.


  • @Majestic@lemmy.ml @KurtVonnegut@mander.xyz

    There’s no way around this that doesn’t involve painstaking steganography which can possibly be nailed by AI anyways.

    As both a fairly power user of LLMs and someone who tinkers with ciphers a lot (including creating my own techniques), I can guarantee: Markov chains aren’t smart enough to detect well-elaborate ciphers.

    I’ll give an example: Let focus on plain characters.

    The previous phrase contains a hidden message. It’s not simply an acrostic (when a word is formed by every initial letter from a sentence/verses/paragraphs), it’s an acrostic with Caesar cipher. And it’s not simply Caesar cipher, it’s a Caesar cipher with increasing shifting (decreasing when decoding):

    L (-0 -> L), F (-1 -> E), O (-2 -> M), P (-3 -> M), C (-4 -> Y as it wraps around from A back to Z) => LEMMY

    I can guarantee you, as someone who tested every single LLM out there: they’re unable to detect these kinds of ciphers. And it gets worse when we consider the possibility of adding other layers of ciphering: nothing stops me from adding Vigenere on top of Caesar, associating the letter with the corresponding number, then getting the nth prime at that position, and using wrap-add to add letters to produce another letter (okay, this is a very complicated example).

    Also, when I say “creating my own techniques”, I’m not joking. I’ll present you with a cipher I created:

    Maceió, Niterói, Rio Branco, Palmas, São Luís, Varginha.

    Believe it or not, the previous list of Brazilian cities hides the word “BRAZIL”. How? List each Brazilian state alphabetically (excluding Distrito Federal as it’s an administrative state rather than a common state), and you’ll get a list with exactly 26 states. And what else have 26 elements? The English alphabet. Map each alphabetical letter not just to the state (e.g. L, the 12th letter, would be Minas Gerais), but to a city within that state (e.g. Varginha):

    Maceió = Alagoas = 2nd from ordered list of states = B
    Niterói = Rio de Janeiro state = 18th = R
    Rio Branco = Acre = 1st = A
    Palmas = Tocantins = 26th = Z
    São Luís = Maranhão = 9th = I
    Varginha = Minas Gerais = 12th = L

    Again, creativity is the only limit. One can wrap it in steganography, use random coordinates and then map each digit to letters to form a long text… There’s no way to stop end-to-end encryption when two or more people have enough knowledge to convey their own tool chain of ciphering techniques. And LLMs will be clueless. Even human censors would be clueless.


  • @Ephera@lemmy.ml @dating1999@lemmy.ca

    site:domain.tld does work, as an and x constraint. I often use it.
    It seems to me like the OP’s specific and (not x) usage of site:domain.tld is the reason why it isn’t working. While the negation prefix (-) does work for tokens/words (e.g. mercury -freddie), it’s probably transforming site into a token not to be included in the results (i.e. "any results that don’t contain the word “site”) which, disconnected from the rest of the sentence (:quora.com), turns the latter into part of what the results should include, so the query ends up being something like:

    Filter all the indexed Web results where its contents don’t include the word “site”, possibly do include “quora.com”, possibly do include “Molten”, possibly do include “boron”, possibly do include “oxide”, possibly do include “attacks”, possibly do include “silicates”

    The negation prefix has a similar effect to that of positive (+) prefix (e.g. “mercury +periodic +table”) as it turns the word into a required condition (must be present for “+”, must be absent for “-”) rather than an optional condition (i.e a search for “mercury periodic table”, without quotes, will contain pages with all three words in any order, pages with just two of the three words (such as “mercury periodic” in any order) and pages with only one of the three words (such as “mercury” which would include pages talking about the singer, and pages talking about the planet and pages talking about the Roman deity), ranked by “relevance”).

    As Quora pages do include “quora.com” somewhere within the page body, the first results will be from Quora because it’s part of the parsed condition (which is to optionally include “quora.com” as part of the result while discarding results containing the verbatim word “site”).


  • @eierschaukeln@kbin.earth !asklemmy@lemmy.ml

    I’ll try to bridge science, philosophy and spirituality, as I usually do. To me, there aren’t clear boundaries between them bc, to me, they’re highly complementary: Science offers the skeptical-empirical rigor and materiality, Philosophy offers the paradoxical questioning and Spirituality emerges from subjectively perceiving the previous two.

    I start with the hypothesis that the universe always existed. In such a case, the Big Bang isn’t the beginning: rather, it’d be some kind of cyclical cosmic phenomenon where matter and/or the fabric of spacetime continuum collapse (due to expansion) only to explode and expand again. This would respect the Laws of Thermodynamics (and Lavoisier Principle) because there’s no energy nor mass being created nor destroyed, just transformed, endlessly. Big Crunch deserves mention bc it’s exactly what it’s about.

    There’s also the controversial theory of Zero-sum, where the universe doesn’t actually exist. It may sound crazy (We are existent… or are we? Vsauce song starts playing), but it would also respect the aforementioned laws: there’s no need of creation or destruction if the overall sum of everything equals to a round nought.

    We could also mention the Multiverse theory, String (M-Theory), and Big Bounce. In such a scenario, this universe is just one of countless universes, so the factor sparking it into existence would be outside it, thus outside (beyond) space and time.

    The latter takes us into philosophy, the Aristotle’s Prime Mover. It could be seen as the “thing” beyond this universe, except that it isn’t a “thing” because it has no “thingness”, but this lack of “thingness” would imply non-existence, except that it’s not something nonexistent either. Here is where human language struggles to define it: language requires “thingness” and temporality, yet the Prime Mover has neither (and it isn’t an “it” so it could “have”).

    This takes us to spirituality. Many religions oversimplify this as “creator deity(ies)”, and many (if not all) religions tend to give it agency and shape. While I do have some religiosity (Luciferianism) and tendency of personification (e.g. Lilith as both a red-haired woman and an owl), I also hold the belief that cosmic forces have no particular form, it’s just me trying to give some Order to Chaos… And that’s what the whole existence seems to be about: Ordo ab Chao, a cosmic, eternal tug-of-war where it’s guaranteed that the “sparks” of cosmic order will eventually decay back to a soup of primordial chaos, only to the very chaotic nature of this soup to emerge order again. It’s akin to a Double Pendulum, where sometimes the apparent rhythmic motion vanishes into chaotic motion just for the rhythm to unexpectedly reappear later, but it’s just the Cosmos: endless and uncaring about lifeforms, for life is just stardust.

    I could explain more, but I’m limited to 3000 chars so I must end: Cosmos always existed and never existed.


  • @folaht@lemmy.ml !asklemmy@lemmy.ml

    With some caveats, to me, the answers are:

    1. Definitely Magenta
    2. I’d say Cyan, even though it still “feels” to me like “the in-between” of Green and Blue
    3. Magenta again, which highly looks like red
    4. It’s a draw between Cyan and Yellow, both seem bright enough to be the closest to white
    5. Definitely Magenta again, it feels pretty dark to me (and dark, to me, has a good connotation as I’ll explain below).

    The caveats are:
    - Both laptop and external monitor have IPS panels. If I were to use OLED, quantum-dot displays, Plasma or even the old CRT displays, it’d probably yield different perceptions. I don’t own any of these display types to test this, though.
    - The specific shape of Venn diagrams also influences on how colors are perceived: a circle have a smaller area (pi×r×r) than a square (s²) or an equilateral rhombus (also s²). Note: I’m considering s = 2r a.k.a. the side of a square equal to the diameter of a circle. The area, in turn, influences how vision perceives contrast.
    - Magenta has no real wavelength so it’s produced solely by the brain when both L and S cones are simultaneously stimulated at the highest intensities by artificial lights (LED).
    - I’m currently in a room lit both by daylight and by “cold white” LED lamp. The sky is clear and there’s plenty of vegetation in my vicinity tinting the daylight.
    - I access Lemmy using dark mode, and the background is the main aspect influencing contrast (the relationship between colors) and, by extension, perception. Dark background leads to “brighter” colors.
    - I use high prescription glasses, and my lenses are slightly yellowed. This possibly influence my perception of colors.
    - I have a personal bias towards red and purple due to my specific views on spirituality. Specifically, the way Lilith pulled me in the recent years made me perceive red in a more vivid manner and be attracted to it, while my syntony with Lucifer makes me feel something “divine” with purple (while also sharing some energy with the Lilithian red). Turns out that purple isn’t so perceptually different from magenta, and our RGB displays produce both colors artificially with the similar Red-Blue dance (with magenta specifically having less of blue, therefore being less of a Luciferian color and more of a Lilithian color).
    - I’m a former developer and someone who’s worked extensively from UX/UI to graphic design. I built several full-stack webpages, Delphi 7 and VB6 native applications, as well as brands, logos and leaflets. This made me highly familiar with RGB palettes, and this may be another personal bias in my perception.

    So, indeed, color perception is highly subjective although living beings share some commonalities when interpreting colors (e.g. red as “danger”; it’s the Carl Jung’s “collective unconscious”).