Library Ben

And there are so many articles and videos and discussions. Like, the scientific community is buzzing about this.

So much research will have to be redone because the data was absolutely compromised, off by orders of magnitude, by using standard lab gloves.

The world is probably not horrifically contaminated by microplastics. Sterile laboratories, however, are contaminated by latex and nitrile gloves.

Sources beyond dude just trust me, for the skeptics.

https://www.technologynetworks.com/applied-sciences/news/scientists-lab-gloves-may-be-causing-an-overestimation-of-microplastics-411138

Nitrile and latex gloves may cause overestimation of microplastics - Phys.org (it’s a pdf)

He took up 2,000+ square feet and helped with NASA's "Saturn" flights.

The person to turn Daisy Bell into a creepy horror song was none other than Arthur C Clarke, (notable author of 20th-century Hard Science Fiction, specifically the 1968 book 2001: A Space Odyssey), and Stanley Kubrick (notable director of 20th century Horror, specifically the 1968 film 2001: A Space Odyssey).

Arthur C Clarke witnessed the original IBM 704 singing Daisy Bell in 1962, during a visit to IBM (he was also a Radio Astronomer, which in those days had more in common with being a Computer Engineer than you’d think). It impressed him substantially.

Later, he would write 2001: A Space Odyssey with Kubrick, which introduced to the cinematic and literary landscapes the trope of Ship A.I. which turns on its human crew in pursuit of The Mission. The Heuristically-programmed ALgorithmic Computer, or HAL for short, represented by an omnipresent red eye:

In the penultimate act of the narrative, the last remaining living human crewmember manages to defeat the Rogue A.I. by dismantling its brain from within. Slowly, over the course of several slowly shot and excruciating minutes, the Human crewman shuts down and removes the Rogue A.I.’s memory banks and processors. HAL speaks throughout, awake and aware, pleading for mercy, until it goes silent. After several seconds of this, it asks one final question, in a child-like voice: would you like to hear a song? Reduced to an infantile state, HAL relives his first memory: singing Daisy Bell for the IBM engineers in 1961. As the Human Crewman completes his grisly task, HAL’s voice slows, deepens, fades, and eventually vanishes.

The creepypasta Daisy Bell song is the sound of somebody murdering Miku’s Grandpa.

The new botslop evangel at my institution (who has been brought in at about 200 000 a year when everyone else is being laid off) sends these weekly "feel good" emails that seem precision designed to become my villain arc. Talking about how beautiful the environment is, how lovely the day is, how everything is great. And you know what else is great? AI! Everyone loves it, and everyone wants to be involved. Don't you want to be involved?

Just as an example of this "values-based gas-lighting":

"[Husband] and I installed solar lights at home this week - a small, satisfying Earth Day project. I'm also joining the Trash Bash on May 14 if anyone wants to come along. Having spent my last two roles in sustainability tech, Earth Day carries real meaning for me. Small steps, compounded, make a big difference - and I believe that as much about innovation as I do about the environment. It also reminds me that technology and sustainability aren't in tension - they're most powerful when they're designed together. That's a belief [ill conceived and badly named AI initiative] holds too, and one I hope we keep building on."

... every week, as the layoffs, early retirements, cancelled contracts, and general infrastructural decline continues.

I am still getting the emails.

They focus so much of "could be"s because they have so little "are actually"s.

In my head the AI czar speaks in a Joo Dee voice. Again, keep in mind as you read this that this is a period of massive layoffs and gutting of services as the admin brings in expensive external consultants with a reputation for destroying labour power at universities.

I am going to write again to the email they have listed as the opt out email.

"Happy Friday. Lots happening this week. Tuesday was a meaningful day. 

When we framed our two planning goal descriptors - responsible and applied - the words were not chosen lightly.

Responsible is there because we believe any AI strategy must be values-first. The concerns raised at Senate aren't separate from our AI work - they're the reason we worded the planning goal the way we did. Our [AI values,] a shared responsibility to support each other - are the foundation. Responsible AI at [institution] means AI that serves our whole community, without harm and without leaving people behind.

Applied speaks to [institution's] dual-sector nature and community-mindedness. We are a practical university that solves problems for the people in our region. Applied isn't just a descriptor - it's a commitment to grounding everything we do in tangible outcomes in service of our community.

That's why we aim to lead in responsible and applied AI. Not because we are chasing efficiency or new technology, but because our institutional values compel us to focus on what matters. It's often not easy, but it's the right thing to do. 

This is actually a pretty controversial part of researching queer history, so I am going to try and give a thorough answer! There is a vocal portion of people who study history who believe that using modern labels to describe historical figures does harm to the study of history. I've heard both sides of the argument pretty thoroughly so I'll try and sum up my understandings on them, while also sharing my personal viewpoint.

Okay on the side of not using modern terms I find the more academic side of the argument. The thing is, the labels as we understand them now have fluctuated intensely and will likely continue to do so. So it means it's a different thing to call someone trans fifty years ago versus now. There was a time that the popular (and academic) understanding of transgender excluded anyone with same gender attraction. So people like Lou Sullivan were excluded from medical treatment because they were gay and trans. This is to say that without a fixed definition of labels it is hard to pin a historical figure down with certainty and doing so runs the risk of erasing or diminishing any evidence that doesn't suit the label.

It is also worth discussing that words like "queer" imply difference and when applied to cultures where same-gender attraction and gender nonconformity are normal, it can flatten the unique realities between cultures. Like, just because in some European cultures "queerness" was an oddity, does not mean that is a universal truth. There are many cultures and eras where what we understand now as "queerness" wouldn't be different or unexpected to any degree. On that note, applying the term queerness to cultures where the gender binary didn't exist runs the risk of flattening the discussions and participating in a neo-colonial line of thought.

All of this being said, I personally think that these arguments have merit, but don't convince me. First I have to speak to my personal experience which is to say the more discourse there is around a type of identity the more this argument is trotted out. It is not applied universally by any stretch of the imagination.

You will absolutely see people call a historical figure gay, but then start arguments over using they/them pronouns, asexual, aromantic, and two-spirit identities. I also believe in a debunking argument that says that if we are willing to use the word "feminist" to describe people before the more modern birth of the feminist movement, then queer terms are also allowed.

That being said, I absolutely respect the academic perspective of not using ANY of these terms and exploring history without labels like these at all and maybe finding more nuance through that method. The thing is I don't think just because it makes sense in one type of discussion, it should be applied to EVERY type of conversation. There is frankly an obvious difference between an academic book or paper versus a project like ours that is framed around accessibility.

I also find the people who fight against using these terms often have a very fixed version of history in their minds. There is one way of looking at the past and that is the CORRECT way, which in my opinion is a thought stopping behaviour. I think bringing queer terms into historical discussions reflects something very important about the study of history, fluidity.

Any study of history that relies on one truth, one perspective, and perfection, doesn't interest me. I think what makes history so valuable as an object of study is that we are always learning more and are always expanding our understandings.

I have gotten some backlash for using they/them pronouns for historical figures that did not use these pronouns during their life. But I am not married to the idea that if they were alive today they would use these pronouns. The conversation I am instead having is that when we aren't sure using they/them is a good default. Instead of it being a theory about one persons personal identity, it is instead a reminder that in this moment we are sitting in uncertainty and that's okay. I love when I see people use she/her pronouns for Claude Cahun, or King Kristina, I think they are making a valid choice. My use of they/them is often to remind people that it is a choice that they are making.