antonim

This hasn't been reported on much, but I actually checked what that "competition" really was, back when the image won the prize. It was some local festival in Bumfucknowhere, USA, which among various other events (sport events, food tasting, that sort of stuff) included an art competition. I doubt the jury was made up of highly experienced art critics.

And besides, people should trust their own eyes. If you like the picture, you like it, and if you don't, you don't. Appealing to the critics as a source of objective artistic judgment is naive, and I say that as someone who has published some art criticism myself.

I mean all of that is true, but, speaking as someone from Croatia - we don't follow safety standards and regulations here anyway even with native workers, the quality of the bridge would definitely not be any better had Croats built it, and I doubt there even is the adequate workforce and know-how within Croatia that would be needed for such a massive and complex job. I would unironically expect the deadlines to be breached by several years had the job been given to a local company. We also aren't a rich country by European standards, so the price was probably a crucial factor.

In case you're worrying about general Chinese influence on Croatian politics, that's not really a problem, our govt is strongly pro-EU (for better and for worse), as well as much of the population.

What the hell is "sus" about that?

Wasn't that just recently?

The actual article seems quite positive about her art. Why that title was written to sound so dismissive, I do not really understand, it's not at all in line with the content. If her art was thought to be so irrelevant, it wouldn't merit an article in the first place. Maybe it was meant to be positive by conveying her non-academic background and "natural", intuitive approach to painting (I think that naïve/outsider art was already gaining some positive interest at the time).

It's interesting that the article was written by a woman too.

Indeed, according to anthropologist Robert L. Hoover, “the killer whale [orca] was regarded by the Chumash as a benevolent creature which drove schools of porpoises and whales ashore where they could be utilized by man.”

Hmm, "1200-600 CE"?

https://samblog.seattleartmuseum.org/2018/08/whale-effigy-charm/

Looks like it should be 1200-1600 CE (or AD).

That might depend on where you live, but generally no, I think.

As I notice this comment is satirical, unlike the (currently) 49 plebeian downvoters, I feel my massive genius brain undulating and pressing upon my skull.

(Sorry for the late response.) Well it depends a lot on the site. Since I focus on books and scholarly articles, the ideal way is to find the URL of the original PDF. The website might show you just individual pages as images, but it might hide the link to the PDF somewhere in the code. Alternatively, you might just obtain all the URLs of the individual page images, put them all into a download manager, and later bundle them all into a new PDF. (When you open the "inspect element" window, you just have to figure out which part of the code is meant to display the pages/images to you.) Sometimes the PDFs and page images can be found in your browser cache, as I mention in the OP. There's quite some variety among the different sites, but with even the most rudimentary knowledge of web design you should be able to figure out most of them.

If need help with ripping something in particular, DM me and I'll give it a try.

I never said I follow the law, I'm just wondering what the law says ;)

Honestly much of your reply is confusing me and doesn't seem to be relevant to my questions. This is what I think is crucial:

Just because a file is cached on your device does not mean you are the legal owner of that content forever.

What does being "the legal owner forever" actually entail, either with regards to a physical book or its scan? And what does that mean regarding what I can legally do with the cached file on my computer?