Eruvadhril

Lasers have a lot of uses! Measuring things, heating things, cutting things, entertaining cats, particle physics. Lasers are pretty cool. Very versatile, very useful, potential to be very powerful.

Someone shows up one day and says "I have developed a never before seen technology! I call it a Death Star."

And it's a 3.4mW laser. Well no, we haven't seen this exact size of laser much since that's not really standard, but that's a bit of a misnomer, and I wouldn't call it new -

"HOLY SHIT GUYS! This Death Star is so entertaining! My cat loves it and it has such a nice color!" The Death Star becomes a viral novelty, and is mildly entertaining, as laser pointers often are.

Somehow, seemingly overnight, this leads to mania. "Lets stick lasers in EVERYTHING! The public loves them!"

More companies make 3.4mW lasers to jump on the bandwagon. Everyone that makes anything vaguely mechanical starts sticking lasers into their designs.

Everyone is calling them Death Stars. Any time there is a "Death Star innovation", it is just that they made a bigger laser.

Ford's next truck comes out and it has "Death Star integrated headlights", where they have just stuck giant lasers in place of their previously functional headlights.

An electric toothbrush is now "Powered by Death Stars" and shoots a laser at the tooth its cleaning. You think that maybe this could have actual applications as a sanitizing device if you're being generous, but when you actually look at the product, its laser has no purpose but to point at the tooth and drain the battery.

Mechanical products across the board get noticeably worse as everyone starts stuffing lasers in places where lasers have no right to be.

The lamp business gets in on it. "Here's a Death Star powered lamp!" These guys haven't even tried to stick a laser in their damn lamps. They've just started calling their light bulbs Death Stars and hoped you bought it before you could tell the difference. You at least appreciate that they haven't ruined their lamp about it.

Death Stars are lauded as the solution to all the world's problems. If it's not working, you should stick a laser in it! That'll fix it, everyone says. Once in a blue moon, it's even true! Weather prediction is really good now. But most things are garbage. Like "Death Star powered washing machines". What the fuck does that even mean?

Meanwhile, since all functioning mechanisms are being replaced with lasers, problems start showing up. All mirrors now cost $1000+ dollars, because the whole supply is being used up to make more lasers. The earth heats up, because everyone's blasting lasers at everything. People keep going blind, on account of all the lasers.

You, in fact, study optical mechanics. You know what a laser is, and how it works, and that it was invented many years before any of this nonsense actually started. People keep asking you about Death Stars, since surely you must know so much about them.

You explain that this is not really what lasers are for, except you have to call them Death Stars now, and that they're causing a lot of harm, so you don't like them much.

"Oh, but they're still such new tech!" they reply. "They'll figure out how to make Death Stars that don't burn your eyes out soon, and then it won't be an issue anymore!"

Somewhere, deep and buried, you remember lasers being used in particle accelerators, or in telescopes, or in laser cutters, or funny cat videos. They are, in fact, still interesting. Still cool.

But by this point they have replaced roads with "Death Star Powered Pathways", which are just laser pointers propped up on tooth picks pointing vaguely through the forests.

And you think you are going mad.

And they are still just FUCKING LASERS.

To me they’re art that someone made - and art that I make - its a machine that does something fun or interesting through the interaction of its parts. (Yes, a toy.) As someone who builds them and got into building them from playing with their functionality, I really like to examine their functionality and exercise and enact it, and it makes me sad to see a lack of appreciation - and even contempt - for the functionality.

What I’m observing and pointing out is that in the machine-that-does-fun-stuff fanbase there is a major zeitgeist of only buying these machines for the purpose of smashing them on the ground and doing a little dance on the pieces. It’s so pervasive that even people who make machines are starting to make them not to function but instead to be smashed apart, or making them with soft, brittle pieces with the expectation that they’ll be smashed apart anyway(meaning that for anyone who doesn’t want to smash it, it is likely to break down anyway).

I’m urging that you give these machines a try as a whole with their moving parts intact before you start smashing them, you might even find them more fun as toys when they’re being used as intended.

I’m telling you that if you wanted to do a little dance, you can do that without buying a machine and smashing it first, and your feet would even hurt less without chunks of plastic all over the ground.

To a not insignificant, and very vocal, subset of users, expressing this desire that my “silly little games” and the “silly little games” of my peers be used as intended, is tantamount to terrorism.

In minds of many trans people, cis men are allowed more diversity of visual expression, and in part it is because their existence is seen more like a blank slate. They're often not perceived as actively having a gender that femininity or androgyny could be in conflict with. And nobody thinks about them as "people on testosterone", even though, technically, in some ways, they are.

Meanwhile trans men and other people who may want T are seen as taking active masculinizing steps. And an attempt to deviate from typical masculine body goals confuses and enrages some people. It's seen as a waste of T, as appropriation of the "true trans" experience.

@cats-go-bump-in-the-night idk which version of this post you commented on, but this one might give more context.

It really varies. I personally don't want to look masculine. My transition goals look more like this

But cis people have goals, too. Did David Bowie come out of the womb looking, dressing, and acting like that? No. He worked towards it. He didn't always do it in the healthiest or most advisable way, but he put a lot of effort into projecting a very specific image that he had in mind.

It's also such a double standard. Women, cis and trans, are not just allowed but expected to put a ton of effort into curating an aesthetic for themselves. They're expected to spend a ton of money on beauty, fashion, and even home decor to fit an aesthetic. And i don't just mean cottagecore. I mean the aesthetic of a regular cute girl who is clean and healthy. The aesthetic of a quirky girl with a personality. The aesthetic of a good, clean, organized partner. The aesthetic of a loving mother who dedicates herself to her kids. The aesthetic of a cool, fashionable girl. Of a nerdy girl. Of a professional in a white collar job.

Men are expected to put in minimal effort. If they're seen doing too much, it's a challenge to their masculinity, and that's absolutely the case for cis men as well as trans men. Men are the ones who are stereotyped as not wiping their asses, they're the ones who don't wear makeup, who can get away with messier homes or a lack of decor without anyone commenting on it, who aren't supposed to know the names of different styles of shirts or shoes. They dress boring. Their hair is short and practical. They don't express themselves too much because that's a girl thing.

So people, subconsciously or not, protect those expectations onto trans men, who have often gone our whole lives being expected to curate an aesthetic and put effort into our appearances... and it turns out, some of us like to do that when we have control over it and it's not forced on us. We want to be men, but we want to be men who look cool and feel good to be. After all, we're going to do much effort for it.

A lot of cis men would do the same if they felt they could get away with it.. Alternative men, who have more leeway because they're alternative, LOVE to curate aesthetics and I've seen straight goth men pour tons of money, time, and energy into protecting elaborate images of who they want to be - much more than most gay men or even most women would because they have a community surrounding them that is affirming towards their presentation and their belonging within that community, whether they're the guy who shows up in a basic band shirt and black jeans or the guy with contacts, makeup, a wig, and an elaborate costume that cost hundreds of dollars.

Trans men have to fight so hard for our masculinity, and we already know we're not going to be taken seriously as men. So a lot of us just say, fuck it, if that's how it's going to be, I guess I'm just gonna work hard to be exactly the kind of man I want to be, because what's the point in transitioning if I'm still constrained by gendered expectations that prevent me from dressing the way I want to?

But the people ridiculing us usually haven't done much self-reflection regarding the way they view men, masculine gender roles, and how patriarchy forces them on men (it does!).

So it's allowed when it's David Bowie because he's cis and no one is going to question his gender. He's an artist. An eccentric. He made a ton of money off the fact that women found his version of male gender presentation sexy.

It's allowed when it's a cis gay man doing ir because, again, no one is questioning his gender, and he's fighting big, evil masculinity, so it's acceptable.

But a trans man is choosing to be a man, so why isn't he conforming to every single expectation of what masculinity is supposed to look like? Why does he want to be feminine? He must not really be a man, because only women and queer cis men wear makeup. He's probably a fujoshi girl who doesn't know what real men are like after a lifetime of mooning over fictional characters because girls are silly and boycrazy and don't know their own minds.

they deleted it, as soon as everybody saw it, and went "woopsie" but i know what they did. in short, what the hell do i do about this?

Yeah this is not at all within the spirit of the game. It goes against all the states reasons to keep character sheets secret and not telling people.

The player doesn’t have a +3 in forgery, the character does. These are not the same people and the player should not act as such.

The character sheet here is being treated as an in-game object even though it is not something that exists in-game, so the character can’t “forge” it, and the other characters can’t see it.

This is just a player lying to the other players and depriving them of the conventional guesswork or lack thereof(which is itself a different thing) that would be associated with wondering if another player’s character has particular Traits.

Tell this player not to do this again. As for what to do about it now that it has happened, that’s a social thing not really something that can be covered by game rules or my advice, not knowing your group. You could make this player admit that the character is not in fact a vampire, without revealing anything else, but you know how anyone in the group is going to react to anything better than I do. The only thing you have to do is say that that wasn’t cool or within the spirit of the game so that this does not become a repeat thing. Anyone reading the rules of the first part of Chapter 1 and the first part of Chapter 2 should be able to understand that.

The thing is it is clever, and in a different TTRPG I might think it was a lot cooler, but for Eureka specifically it’s totally counter to the intended experience.

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.

I used to have it really bad, and I no longer do.

Note: my reaction to meltdowns is isolation, not confrontation. And I don't really get angry much in general. But even so, I've probably been unfair to people in other ways because of RSD.

My gut reaction advice was simply "actually ask your friends for reassurance". Just admit you're feeling insecure and request a little extra support, especially before it gets really bad. But then I realised this was very incomplete advice because of one specific reason...

RSD is "triggered by perceived or actual rejection, criticism, or disapproval". Those are actually VERY different, and so is the advice.

If you're logically pretty sure your friends don't hate you or are annoyed at you:

If someone seems to be ignoring you, stop yourself from trying to "fix" it by being more entertaining or fun. You're making it worse for yourself when they don't react.

(Also don't try to force someone to cheer someone up because you can't handle them being sad around you.)

Gently ask for reassurance. "I'm feeling a little needy right now, can you respond to the thing I shared?"

Find out why you get the rejection vibe. Chances are they're tired or busy or whatever, and it has nothing to do with you.

You can couch it in an apology or question if you feel guilty. "Sorry, are you busy?" "How are feeling today? You seem quiet." (This is also a good way to respect their time and energy, at the same time as you reassure yourself.)

IMPORTANT: Do not make demands! Friends do not owe you constant validation.

Do your very best to avoid blaming them for your feelings. Don't say "you're being very short right now and it's triggering my RSD". Instead admit you have need for more reassurance.

Again, remind yourself it probably has nothing to do with you. You can also ask other friends for input and reassurance to try to figure out if it's all in your head. Outsource your validation.

Over time you will hopefully get more secure.

If you're dealing with actual rejection:

Accept their rejection. Always. Their consent is more important than your feelings. Even if the feelings really suck.

Never ever punish them for their rejection.

Aka, don't demand a justification, don't get angry or upset at them, don't guilt them. If you have gotten an actual rejection, the best thing is probably to remove yourself from the situation, especially if you're having a big emotional response.

Your feelings are YOUR responsibility.

If you make it clear that it isn't safe to reject you, then consent means nothing. You will probably trample over boundaries even if you don't mean to or realise.

Seek emotional support ELSEWHERE. Talk to a friend. Do self-soothing. Have a good cry if you need to, or punch some pillows - just don't do it at the person who rejected you.

Basically:

If you're facing actual rejection, I'm sorry, but you are in fact just going to have to learn to deal with it. Everyone has to. It sucks.

If you think your brain is just sabotaging you, reach out for reassurance. But remember that not everyone is able to give you that at all times, and you NEED to have more than one person to rely on.

Work on emotional regulation in general. That's a bigger topic I can't cover, but it will help.

PS: This is assuming your friends are decent people who want what's best for you. If someone is actually being an asshole, I'm not saying you should excuse or tolerate it. (Getting a second opinion can help there too.)

PPS: Same goes for unwarranted criticism or disapproval. When I talk about respecting rejection, I mean when someone does want to hang out, or you got fired or something. But the advice to simply remove yourself from the situation works for both.

PPPS: Remind yourself that someone who's liked by everyone is probably very bland, or extremely people-pleasing. You don't actually want everyone's approval. Focus on the people whose opinions you respect and care about.

BUT