u/Proud-Computer3412

Allinkl. Wenn's mal Probleme gibt, werden die zeitnah gelöst

Rankmath oder Yoast in Verbindung mit eigenem SEOPlugin

Database wp_user

Inhalts-Revisionen, Transients, Heartbeat-API, Individuelle Inhaltsstrukturen

In der Regel baue ich benötigte Plugins weitgehend selbst.

Wer so etwas behauptet, verwechselt mangelndes technisches Verständnis mit Systemkritik. WordPress als „extrem unsicher“ hinzustellen, ignoriert völlig, dass die eigentlichen Sicherheitslücken fast immer vor dem Bildschirm sitzen – durch veraltete Plugins, schwache Passwörter oder mangelnde Updates. Der Vergleich mit Blogger und dem Verweis auf angebliche XML-Kenntnisse offenbart zudem eine völlige Verkennung der Architektur: Wer ein echtes CMS mit Datenbankanbindung, flexibler Benutzerverwaltung und maßgeschneiderter Logik braucht, kommt mit starren Baukasten-Blogs und ein bisschen Markup schlichtweg keinen Schritt weit.

Dieser Charakter ist Robbie Baldwin, der zu diesem Zeitpunkt im Civil War-Crossover den Namen Penance trägt. Früher war er als der leichtfüßige, fröhliche Held Speedball bekannt. Nach dem tragischen Vorfall in Stamford (bei dem ein Kampf seiner Gruppe, den New Warriors, in einer Katastrophe mit vielen Toten endete und den Civil War auslöste) überlebte er als Einziger. Von Schuldgefühlen zerfressen, traumatisiert und nach Misshandlungen inhaftiert, veränderten sich seine Kräfte: Seine kinetischen Kräfte funktionieren seither nur noch, wenn er körperlichen Schmerz erleidet. Sein neuer Anzug ist mit hunderten von Dornen besetzt, die ihn permanent verletzen, um seine Kräfte zu kanalisieren.

Falsche skills

für mich mit absoluter Sicherheit "Home of Barbers" in der Annastraße 2 in Augsburg . Friseurmeister, zur Zeit alleine , deshalb Termin buchen. Für mich einer wichtigsten Punkte: Die Hygiene . Hier passt sie - das ist bei vielen anderen leider nicht so

Ja. .Seit einigen Tagen Stable

A bit more detailed and clearly separated:

Gothic Elements: The pointed arch is clearly a core characteristic of Gothic architecture, as is the tracery concept with quatrefoil forms. The symmetry and vertical articulation clearly point to a Gothic origin. The quatrefoil is also commonplace in High Gothic tracery, for example in rose windows and parapets.

Elements with an Arabic or Islamic feel: The pointed arch itself is not an exclusively Gothic element. Historically, it originated in the Near East and came to Europe via Islamic architecture. In your design, the arch appears very even and softly drawn, without a strong upward elongation. This is precisely what creates the association with Islamic pointed arches. Additionally, the flat ornamentation in the lower area and the repetitive patterns reinforce the impression of arabesque decoration, rather than constructive Gothic tracery.

[The last sentence appears to be from a different context and is omitted.] Why this impression arises: In Gothic architecture, pointed arches are usually more vertically oriented and clearly serve structural purposes. Ornamentation is subordinate to the construction. In your design, the ornamentation is very prominent and equally important; this is typical of Islamic architecture, less so of Gothic windows.

Conclusion: It's not a stylistic break, but a borderline case. One can interpret it as Gothic with an Oriental influence, or as a hybrid design between Gothic and Islamic ornamentation. It's not too Arabic, but definitely not purely Gothic in the Central European sense.

According to current research, the brightly lit figure in the foreground of the Raising of the Cross is predominantly understood as a deliberate self-presentation by Rembrandt. It is not a classic self-portrait, but rather a symbolic inscription of himself into the action. Rembrandt presents himself as an active participant in the crucifixion, which is usually interpreted in the context of a Protestant-influenced theology of guilt. The alternative assumption that Rembrandt is merely an inconspicuous figure in the background plays hardly any role in art historical literature.

Noch unheimlicher: die beiden kleinsten auch

Der Fehler liegt in der Annahme, man könne über Prompt-Rituale oder Strukturvorgaben wieder internes Reasoning bzw. höheren Rechenaufwand erzwingen.
Der Prompt verbessert die Darstellungsform der Antworten, nicht die Tiefe des tatsächlichen Modell-Denkens.

What Mehdizadeh & Hilbert describe here as epistemic substitution is indeed a very precisely formulated finding—but not a surprising one. The crucial question is not whether AI encyclopedias shift epistemic authority, but how to deal constructively with this finding.

The article convincingly demonstrates that while Wikipedia and AI encyclopedias can produce outwardly similar texts, they are epistemologically based on completely different foundations:

Wikipedia remains—despite all its problems—a system of human testimony with external referencing and attributable responsibility.

LLM-based encyclopedias, on the other hand, generate synthetic testimony whose authority derives not from sources, but from model architecture, training data, and platform decisions.

This is precisely where the divide lies.

What the article (understandably) leaves open is the practical follow-up question:

How can AI be used meaningfully at all without carrying out this epistemic substitution?

Interestingly, this very question has already been systematically addressed elsewhere – for example, in my project VERA-VM (Virtual Expert for Research & Analysis). There, the diagnosis that the article now develops theoretically was the starting point of the architecture from the very beginning:

– AI must not simulate epistemic authority – AI must not provide interpretation – AI must not assert truth

Instead, AI is strictly limited to a methodological support function: structuring, separating, checking, marking – but not deciding. Authority explicitly remains outside the system: with the method, the chosen theory, the sources, the human actor.

While Grokipedia and similar encyclopedias shift authority into the system, VERA-VM is built precisely as the opposite model: as a disciplinary framework that prevents AI from assuming epistemic roles to which it is not entitled.

In this sense, the article very aptly describes the problem—but it also marks the beginning of a debate whose practical consequences are already becoming apparent: The answer is not "better" AI encyclopedias, but systems that make epistemic responsibility visible again, instead of obscuring it algorithmically.

In short: The danger is real.

But it is not inevitable.

www.vera-dm.de

Der Eindruck einer „versteckten Schwangerschaft“ entsteht ausschließlich aus moderner Wahrnehmung. Die Mode des 15. Jahrhunderts – insbesondere die burgundische Houppelande – erzeugte ganz selbstverständlich eine voluminöse Silhouette im Bauchbereich. Diese Wölbung ist kein verborgener Hinweis und keine symbolische Verschleierung, sondern reine Kleidungsphysik: schwere Woll- oder Samtstoffe, Pelzfutter, hoher Taillenansatz und das übliche Raffen des Gewandes mit der Hand.

Dafür sprechen drei klare kunsthistorische Fakten:

Modegeschichte statt Biologie: Zeitgenössische Bildquellen zeigen dieselbe Silhouette bei unzähligen Frauen, von Bürgerinnen bis Hofdamen – unabhängig von Schwangerschaft.

Keine ikonografische Tradition: Es gab im 15. Jahrhundert keine bildliche Praxis, Schwangerschaft durch Kleidung zu „verbergen“. Vielmehr galt Fülle als Zeichen von Wohlstand und als stilistisches Ideal.

Fehlender historischer Kontext: Der oft zitierte Schwangerschaftsmythos entstand erst in der ikonografischen Forschung des 19. und frühen 20. Jahrhunderts. Moderne Forschung (Campbell, Harbison, Seidel) lehnt ihn vollständig ab.

Kurz gesagt: Die Houppelande erklärt die Silhouette vollständig. Die Schwangerschaftsidee erklärt nichts.

Der vermeintliche „Schwangerschaftsbauch“ ist eine der langlebigsten Fehlinterpretationen dieses Gemäldes – und das völlig ohne Grund. Was wir sehen, ist nichts weiter als die Mode des 15. Jahrhunderts: schwere Woll- oder Samtroben mit nach vorne gezogener Stofffülle, häufig mit wertvollem Pelzfutter. Die Frau rafft den Stoff an, um den kostbaren Unterrock zu zeigen. Das wurde damals so getragen, und es sah genau so aus.

In keiner zeitgenössischen Quelle wird eine Schwangerschaft erwähnt. In keiner Kleiderordnung wird diese Form als „Schwangerschaftssilhouette“ beschrieben. Und keine Frau hätte für ein repräsentatives Bild derart öffentlich ihren „schwangeren Zustand“ inszeniert.

Die moderne Forschung ist sich einig: Keine Schwangerschaft – nur Mode, Material und Status.

Der Fehler entsteht, weil heutige Betrachter moderne Körperbilder in ein altes Bild hineinprojizieren. Das hat nichts mit Blindheit zu tun, sondern mit einer sehr menschlichen, aber methodisch fatalen Gegenwartsbrille.

There is no known source in which Duchamp himself explains why he used the black border in the 1916 version. A symbolic interpretation cannot therefore be proven. However, the edge can be classified in the context of the years 1915 to 1916.

During this time, Duchamp clearly broke away from traditional painting. The edge can be understood as a conscious decision not to show the image as an open space, but as a demarcated object. It marks an attitude of distance.

Black edges appear on photographic contact prints from this era. At that time, Duchamp was heavily concerned with mechanical and reproductive processes. The edge seems like a reference to this technical context, i.e. to an approach to photographic objectivity.

The 1912 act was greatly misunderstood at the Armory Show. The 1916 version appears more closed. The edge can be read as a conscious clarification of the image zone, which clearly demarcates the experiment and no longer creates the impression of an open, picturesque area.

In other works, Duchamp uses similar settings to make the conditions of the picture visible. Frames or frame effects occasionally appear in his work, often with the function of marking the status of the work.

Conclusion: There is no evidence of symbolic meaning. The most plausible is a formal and conceptual function. The edge separates the image from the traditional painting surface and refers to Duchamp's focus on object, process and idea.

Correct. Access will soon be set up for interested parties on a subdomain. Simply register or use the contact form

Thank you for the question — and an important clarification: VERA-VM is not a database-driven software, but a modular analytical framework.

Yes, it works perfectly with objects that are not on the internet, and even with objects that are not widely known or studied.

The reason is simple:
VERA-VM does not rely on external image databases or prior knowledge of a specific artwork.
Its analysis is based on a structured sequence of hermeneutic modules:

• formal description,
• contextual reasoning,
• theory-based interpretation,
• and a controlled synthesis.

Because the system reconstructs meaning from the object itself and from general cultural, historical and theoretical knowledge, it can handle:

• unpublished works,
• undocumented pieces,
• private collections,
• local artworks,
• newly discovered or understudied objects.

In other words:
VERA-VM does not need the object to be “known” — it only needs the object to be visible.

For unknown works, the output simply reflects this:
the system marks uncertain or hypothetical areas explicitly and avoids unfounded claims.

Thank you for the response. I’m curious — which aspect stood out most to you: the formal reconstruction, the contextual constraints, or the way the model tests iconological hypotheses?

For Verlaine:

Brendan Gleeson

Yes, that’s correct. His main iconographic features are:

• the exposed thigh with the plague bubo • the pilgrim’s outfit (hat, cloak, staff, scrip) • the dog bringing bread • in some regions an angel tending to the wound

These elements appear consistently across Europe from the 14th century onward and make him instantly recognisable.

You’re absolutely right to ask about the historicity of Roch’s vita and the epidemiological context. The short answer is that the narrative of his life is hagiographic, not documentary, and we have no reliable contemporary records connecting him with a specific attested plague outbreak.

The earliest “Vita sancti Rochi” texts (14th–15th c., especially the Montpellier tradition) present his illness as a generic plague episode, not tied to a verifiable local epidemic. Piacenza is mentioned in some versions, but without chronological precision, and the accounts were composed decades after the events they describe.

Importantly:
Medieval uses of the word pestilencia / pestis were indeed broad and could refer to various epidemic fevers. But in the iconographic tradition of Saint Roch, the lesion is consistently treated as a bubo belonging to the plague-topos, not as a clinical record of a specific disease event.

So the scene reflects symbolic medical typology, not eyewitness reportage. That’s why, despite regional uncertainty, the bubo-reading stays consistent across more than five centuries of depictions.

Happy to share sources if useful.

I came across this debate as well. The “worm” interpretation is interesting from a morphological standpoint, but it becomes difficult to sustain once the wider iconographic and medical context is considered.

In every textual and artistic tradition from the 14th to the 18th century, Saint Roch’s lesion is treated as a plague bubo with a stylised efflux, not as a parasite. There is no historical, epidemiological or hagiographic evidence linking him to dracunculiasis. In addition, Dracunculus almost always emerges from the distal leg, not the proximal thigh.

I recently analysed this issue by comparing the biological claim with the historical and iconographic record. If useful, here is the breakdown of the evidence:

https://louisdelasarre.substack.com/p/die-anomale-wunde-des-heiligen-rochus

Happy to discuss the sources if you’re interested.