Kitty Dorkling

Helen Whitaker, England

" Sycamore Seed "

Anniversary of APOLLO 11 MOON LANDING

On July 20, 1969, 109 hours and 42 minutes after launch, Neil Armstrong and Edwin ‘Buzz’ Aldrin entered the lunar lander ‘Eagle’, made a final check, and the Eagle undocked from the lunar orbiter ‘Columbia’, where the third member of the crew Michael Collins, stayed in orbit around the moon. Partially manually piloted by Armstrong, the Eagle landed 0 degrees, 41 minutes, 15 seconds north moon latitude and 23 degrees, 26 minutes east moon longitude. Armstrong stepped out, and Aldrin followed 20 minutes later: human beings stepped on the moon for the first time. The two men spent 21 hours and 26 minutes on its surface. One of the astounding aspects of the mission was the seeming simplicity of the technology used to get man to the moon. According to Oliver Gassmann, professor of Technology Management, the mobile phone in your pocket has one million times more memory than the Apollo 11’s computer. Same about the procesor: the latest phones typically have more than 100,000 times the processing power of the computer that landed man on the moon 50 years ago.

“It suddenly struck me that that tiny pea, pretty and blue, was the Earth. I put up my thumb and shut one eye, and my thumb blotted out the planet Earth. I didn’t feel like a giant. I felt very, very small.” –Neil Armstrong

But a major stylisation of it was that flat, shiny, Tim Burton/Disney CGI. The world was dripping in this. Everything was that oversaturated, over-polished, over-worked CGI.

But every time they collected/destroyed another Mcguffin, that CGI went away. But by bit it transitioned into real sets and practical effects until there is no noticeable CGI at all. Because that’s the system they were fighting - they weren’t being allowed to see what the real world looked like.

Decay and rot and broken infrastructure were being essentially photoshopped over because our villainous leader had no interest or ability to maintain things. It was only ever a temporary solution thought up by someone who thought that transforming a pack of wolves into humans to be her elite guard force was, in fact, a good idea.

(It was not. There was a whole subplot about the secondary antagonists in-fighting and being driven insane by the disconnect between how humans and wolves think and act where the one which were cubs when transformed were desperate to return to something they’d never experience and the patriarch/matriarch of the family knew they were too changed to ever survive as wolves again - definitely stolen from Terry Pratchett)

ok brief context first for any readers not aware: in the Odyssey, the unfaithful maids are a group of enslaved women in the house of Odysseus who are hanged for 'betraying' Odysseus by having sex with Penelope's suitors. In the Penelopiad they are instead Penelope's most faithful and trusted maids who she enlisted to spy on the suitors.

my issue w the Penelopiad on this subject is just that I think making it so the maids weren't actually 'unfaithful' carries the implication that if they had done all the things the Odyssey says they did then in some sense they would have had it coming.

yeah I haven't seen the Nolan film but i read the summary bcos i was interested to see if they kept in the Unfaithful Maids and not only are they out but the film also seems to have really played down the massacre of the suitors?

which is another thing where like, even in the original context, we are not supposed to 100% agree with that!! its followed by a sequence where the suitors' families are all like 'dude what the fuck'

part of the emotional impact, to me, of the Odyssey is that we spent the whole epic being encouraged to sympathise w Odysseus as this almost everyman-type main character who just wants to go home and then at the end of the poem he murders a bunch of people. yikes!!

My meme-ish poster about executive dysfunction, or "The Sits" as we call it in our house. This is to share my experiences with exec. dysfunction, everyone's a little different ☺️

Been very frustrated lately by lack of phone call accessibility as someone who lacks speech but needs a lot of resources to stay healthy.

With rise of AI, it's only getting worse and worse.

More places changing their systems to incorporate AI answering machines.

Thing is...

Whenever I hear most people ranting about this change, it's usually about how annoying it is from an abled-person perspective or environmental or ethical impact.

Which are important valid reasons to be upset. I share those sentiments too.

But feel like disability is once again forgotten about within important discussion about change.

AI creates terrible language accessibility issues.

In fact, that's why it so annoying to deal with it.

In the past, if a place didn't have a call center or desk person to answer calls, they use extentions.

That meant you had to press a few numbers to get the right person.

Now with AI, you're expected to have a full conversation with a robot.

Tell them why you're calling, who you need to speak to, verify your info so the humans don't have to later, etc.

These bots can be bad at understanding what able-people are saying, so imagine how they handle these disabled callers:

People who use AAC (speech aids/devices)

People who slur, stutter, have "strange" voice or pronunciation

People with rapid or disorganized speech

People who use poor grammar & who don't speak full words or sentences

People who mix up similar common words

People with "deaf accent"

(i don't know if there is a different preferred term for this. Im sorry if I sound offensive. Please Lmk)

People with non-communicative speech such as vocal tics, echolalia, or babbling

Anyone who uses speech or language in a way that needs a human mind to interpret

Anyone whose voice sounds notably different

Ability to understand what AI is saying can be harder too:

d/Deaf people and other hearing differences

Auditory processing disorder

Receptive language disorder

Developmental disability, especially intellectual and learning disabilities

(AI can't help people who need things explained a certain way. AI unreliable and fails to adapt a lot.)

Anyone who frequently can't make out sounds and/or speech

Anyone who frequently has trouble with meanings in conversation

The problems I often face with AI answering machines (and that I'm sure many other disabled people have faced as well):

AI slightly mishearing me/my device

AI mishearing so badly that it basically makes up a fake conversation

AI not hearing me/my device at all

AI registering tics and stims as answers

AI "explaining" an instruction by repeating the same instruction again word-for-word

AI directing me to the wrong person without trying to confirm what I said

AI sometimes just... hanging up on me right after I speak my first answer...

These are the machines being put in front of

hospitals

doctors offices

mental health centers

pharmacies

transportation and in-home care

health insurance member services

medical supply companies

government resource agencies

non-profit organizations

advocacy groups

justice centers & other legal resources

customer service lines

many other places disabled people often need to access from home

It's another example of some of the most vulnerable being pushed away from the things we need, and we're also being forgotten in these discussions about things that can affect us a lot

Next time someone is ranting about AI job interviewers, please also remember:

the AI pharmacy assistants that make it impossible for someone with a speech disorder to sort out their meds

the AI scheduler that won't allow a D/deaf person to access the right extension of the clinic to set up an appointment

the AI agent that confuses an intellectually disabled person into anger and tears

the AI answerer that hangs up on a mentally ill person seeking help in crisis because they aren't speaking coherently enough

Human beings need to be at the forefront of human resources and issues for disabled people especially. Please remember us. Please fight.

Interplanetary Journal of Cultural Studies Volume 16, Issue 3, Pages 322-340

Abstract

The recently decoded Internet Archive includes the digital artifact called “Archive of Our Own” (AO3) from early third millennium Earth.  AO3 is unusually well backed up and therefore is presumed to contain some of the most significant -- perhaps even sacred -- texts of the time.  In this paper we present our preliminary analysis of AO3 metadata, including new insights about the literature, gender and sexuality, religion, and scientific understanding of this historical era: 

I. LITERATURE. We describe the cultural centrality of figures such as the Winchesters and Reader.  We explore how they featured heavily in every dominant literature genre of the era, including Fluff, Angst, Hurt/Comfort, and Oral Sex.  

II. GENDER AND SEXUALITY. We review the overwhelming evidence that male-male relationships were the most culturally significant sexual and romantic relationships, but we also show that it was a culture with an unusually broad set of sexual and gender roles.  In particular, we highlight the unusual tripartite conceptualization of gender as including alpha, beta, and omega roles; we note the apparent prejudice against betas, illustrated in the prevalence of “no beta we die like men” and similar protest slogans. 

III. RELIGION. We describe a newly discovered religious taboo: doves were a common sacrificial animal of the time, but they were forbidden from being eaten.  

IV. SCIENCE. Finally, we present new insight about alternate universes.  While previous scholars hypothesized that the scientists of Earth may have developed a correct early theory of the multiverse by the late second millennium, our analysis of AO3 presents evidence to the contrary.  As late as the early third millennium, prevailing theories postulated highly specific universes, such as a universe in which everyone is in high school, or a universe contained within a coffee shop.