Always Sleepy

Are you encouraging people to be “healthy” or do you think everyone is beautiful the way they are?

Everyone knows fitness is a fatphobic tool of facism

I'm gonna link this ask where I've addressed all of this before and I'm also going to explain all the points of faulty logic here:

It you think fitness and fatness are mutually exclusive, congratulations, you have internalized a very fatphobic myth. Building muscle, improving flexibility and endurance, consuming more nutrients, prioritizing hydration and quality rest are fitness habits that can improve our quality of life. They have nothing to do with our weight and any person at any size could pursue these habits, without pursuing weight loss.

I do not care what you look like. I am not concerned with beauty, that is subjective to begin with. Only you get to decide if you're beautiful and it has absolutely nothing to do with your fitness level.

I am concerned with demystifying fitness and making it accessible to anyone who wants to pursue it. I want to decouple fitness from vanity.

Having a strong core is valuable. Having visibly defined ab muscles is not. I want to shift the zeitgeist so that fitness is not seen as a tool of aesthetic modification, but as a tool of functionality.

I am chronically ill. I will never be "healthy" but pursuing fitness has improved my chronic pain dramatically, improved my balance (which is a big deal given than I am dyspraxic) helps regulate my mental state, and so, so much more. It also helped me gain weight, despite the fact that my Crohn's disease makes putting on weight extremely hard for me.

The truth is fascists would love if we all abandoned fitness. They would love to rule over a weak populace that has no ability to fight back. But fitness isn't their tool.

They've done everything they can to poison the well around fitness and make it as inaccessible to the working class as possible. I want to undo all of that. I want fitness to be a tool of the people as it originally was.

Please destroy the idea that being fit means pursuing thinness. It does not. Please also remember that fitness is just a hobby. You don't have to pursue it if you don't want to. Lots of hobbies provide benefits but that doesn't mean it's a moral imperative that you pursue them.

It's just an option. One that's currently shrouded in myths that I want to destroy. That's what I'm here for. To teach people, who want to learn, how to pursue fitness, not weight loss, in ways that accommodate their level, their interests, and their goals. And I'm here to remind people like you that when you position fitness as antithetical to fatness, you are perpetuating fatphobia, not fighting it.

Last week, the Trump administration quietly released a sweeping new federal rule that would use funding threats to force institutions across the country to reject transgender people. The 400-page proposed regulation would codify the administration's anti-trans executive orders into binding federal policy, imposing a blanket prohibition on federal funds going toward "gender ideology"

The proposed rule, formally titled "Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance," rewrites the government-wide framework governing all federal grants across every agency. Among its most consequential provisions, it requires that before a federal grant recipient can receive money, the award must pass a "pre-issuance review" conducted by a political appointee—not a career expert or peer reviewer—to ensure it is "consistent with applicable law, Federal agency priorities, and the national interest." The regulation explicitly instructs these appointees to screen for "denial by the recipient of the sex binary in humans or the notion that sex is a chosen or mutable characteristic." [...] An institution that acknowledges transgender people exist—through its policies, its training, its healthcare, its bathroom access, its HR procedures, its name-change processes—could be deemed to "deny the sex binary" or to “support the notion that sex is mutable” and have its federal funding blocked.

This torches everything. And I do mean everything.

A very abbreviated list of its ramifications include (but are not limited to):

ending funding for ALL DEI related initiatives

allowing the government to terminate grants at any point for any reason

preventing researchers from publishing, going to conferences, and being part of academic societies

requiring that topics must support the president’s agenda.

What this means, and if anything I’m under selling it, is the death of science and research in America. It allows the government to restrict any topic they please at a whims notice, putting officials who have no background in the topic in charge of deciding funding continuity. It controls what gets researched and if/how researchers are allowed to share their discoveries. There are no books to burn if the government never allows them to be written. This is fascism plain and simple.

Public comments are not a vote, it is a chance for you to say "here is an issue with this law I think you need to address" and provide justification for legal challenges if it goes forward:

"Comments raise the bar that agencies have to meet when making a rule; “if an agency fails to adequately respond to significant, relevant comments in a final rule, members of the public may seek to challenge the rule in court on that basis and claim it could be struck down.ˮ"

1. The court holds Google responsible for statements made by its AI, considering them Google's statements (search engines have limited liability for results in their engine as they're the words of other sites/companies/people), meaning when their AI lies/hallucinates they're liable for the defamation/harm resulting from those statements.

2. Google's defense that customers are generally aware of the lack of reliability and are responsible for fact checking was dismissed. As the court pointed out, that would "significantly diminish" AI Search's stated purpose and it can't be distinguished from Google's business practices/statements as a search tool.

3. Studies have found about 91% of Google's everyday AI responses are accurate, leaving millions of searches per HOUR with potential liability for falsehoods. 56% of correct responses weren't supported by the sources the AI listed. Both of which mean Google is now liable for a LOT more AI "errors."

4. Google was held liable for 80% of court costs in this case and this precedent is expected to reverberate around the world. This is a massive shift from the 3rd-party search provider role Google has previously played and it comes right as they've tied ALL searches to their AI search.