Empiricism is fully capable of putting Rationalism in the metaphorical hospital, but Rationalism would still win in a metaphorical fight.

JVL
styofa doing anything
Aqua Utopia|海の底で記憶を紡ぐ
AnasAbdin

izzy's playlists!
h
almost home
let's talk about Bridgerton tea, my ask is open

❣ Chile in a Photography ❣

Andulka

PR's Tumblrdome
ojovivo
dirt enthusiast

titsay
Today's Document
i don't do bad sauce passes
YOU ARE THE REASON

if i look back, i am lost
RMH

seen from United States

seen from France
seen from Netherlands

seen from Malaysia

seen from Austria

seen from Australia

seen from Malaysia

seen from United States

seen from United Kingdom
seen from United States

seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from Singapore
seen from France

seen from T1

seen from Malaysia
seen from United States

seen from United States

seen from Netherlands
@pulpchamber
Empiricism is fully capable of putting Rationalism in the metaphorical hospital, but Rationalism would still win in a metaphorical fight.

Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
Blame is not empirical. It's not that blaming people is morally wrong, it's not that shame is a useless emotion -- when we blame a person, we are addressing a subject that does not empirically exist.
What causes a person? What gives content to a person? Is this so-called "person" an event in time that we can stop? They're in the room with us, but are they an existent causal factor? Are they an entity with an essential self, or one we project for basic expediency that falls apart into a mess of ideas, concepts and beliefs under closer analysis?
I do feel it's vital to highlight that this is not hypocrisy, but a fundamental quality of ownership being fungible and not based on need or use. Theft defined as violating legalistic ownership rights just IS a concept with hypocrisy in it, there isn't an ethically consistent way for it to appear in the world that doesn't lose that coherency immediately when interests and balances of power change.
Y'know how Walgreens initially blew up? Being allowed to sell alcohol by prescription during prohibition. Literally, the company's wealth came from an arbitrary legalistic change that allowed them to do a criminal action legally. That's where all wealth comes from.
Beyond the Screen: The Global Economy of Exploitation and Digital Caricatures
We need to talk about the deeply disturbing intersection of the digital creator economy, global capitalism, and systemic racism.
Over the last few years, investigative journalists (like the team behind the BBC Africa Eye documentary "Racism for Sale") exposed a multi-million-dollar industry online centered around "blessing videos." In these videos, content creators in various African nations paid local children—often pennies or small snacks—to hold up signs and chant phrases in Mandarin for clients in China. In the most horrific cases, children were unknowingly instructed to chant racist slurs against themselves for shock-value entertainment and profit.
https://youtu.be/H-V7cXGhIq0?si=chpQLNahharFDhfu
A video about How some Chinese bloggers in Africa are abusing and exploiting young children, some scenes are distressing, watch at your own risk
While international outrage led to legal convictions and platform crackdowns on those specific videos, the underlying systemic issue hasn't disappeared—it has just shifted forms.
Recently, you might have seen a viral trend involving hyper-deformable, "ugly-cute" silicone stress toys. These toys are frequently designed with deeply exaggerated features and dark skin, marketed as ASMR objects meant to be smashed, stretched, and thrown against walls for stress relief.
Why This Matters
It is easy for people to look at a squishy toy or a "funny" video in isolation and claim "it’s not that deep." But nothing exists in a vacuum.
The Return of the Caricature: Whether intentional or not, designing a dark-skinned doll with grotesque, exaggerated features and marketing it as an object to be violently abused for stress relief taps directly into historical tropes of racial caricatures and casual dehumanization.
The Algorithmic Buffer: The internet economy rewards shock value, detachment, and high engagement metrics. In a highly homogenous environment with little direct contact or historical education regarding global racial dynamics, human empathy gets completely bypassed. The subject becomes an object; the object becomes content; the content becomes profit.
Systemic Apathy: This is what happens when supply chains and digital algorithms operate without ethical boundaries. A factory manufactures it for profit, an influencer abuses it for views, and a consumer buys it for entertainment—all of them completely insulated from the real-world weight of what they are perpetuating.
The Takeaway
It is completely valid to feel exhausted and cynical watching these trends cycle through our feeds. It serves as a stark reminder of how easily systems can strip away human dignity for the sake of monetization.
Awareness means refusing to let these trends pass as "harmless internet culture." It means calling out the normalization of treating marginalized groups as content, caricatures, or tools for cheap entertainment. Systems might be driven by cold metrics, but we don't have to participate in them.
Everyone thinks "Any sufficiently advanced technology will look like magic" is about a War Of The Worlds type scenario, where people are confronted with technology so far out ahead of their civilization's knowledge that they're helpless before an overt conquest. This is an error of mistaking comfort for knowledge -- in reality, most technology we use on a daily basis appears like magic to us. Knowing there's a rational explanation doesn't change the mechanics of how we tend to think if we don't understand it and take no interest in learning it in full detail. If we reach a certain point and go "Ok good enough. I got rid of those superstitions by learning that it's rational," NO YOU DIDN'T, you address superstition by learning exactly How things are rational. It is not a Yes/No question.

Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
So let me get this straight. When you code you actually have to write code and understand coding to code??
no actually you just copy paste other’s code and hope it works
One of the historical periods I'm low-key obsessed with is that time around WWII when computing and math got an exponential burst of support from military industrial powers [eg. Bletchley Park]. All those technical advances started to bubble up over the proceeding decades as they got declassified and independently discovered in the private sector, but there was still a HUGE qualitative change in that stretch from analog to digital mathematics. In purely formal terms they're just representations of similar math, but applied math is never purely formal so in practice the entire engineering process has changed with the increased power and flexibility of digital computing. The result is a sort of blackboxing: the technology works so well that we don't NEED to know its minute internal workings, and anyone who actually does is more likely to be the consultant getting fired for raising problems that are comfortably invisible to people who're accustomed to just plugging shit into the black box until it works. Trusting the box is easier and more expedient. The development process doesn't "work" unless you trust the box. But it also doesn't work if you do [X UNKNOWN MISTAKE YOU CAN'T KNOW BECAUSE IT'S INSIDE THE BOX].
The amount of safety features incorporated into modern cars is unreal. I've seen crashes where the car flipped over and the occupant only had minor injuries. My dad was t-boned by someone speeding off the highway and walked away with a broken arm. The car was completely smashed except for the passenger compartment, which was curtained on all sides with airbags. That one manufacturer has decided they are exempt from implementing all these advancements disgusting and terrifying
When I was going through driver's ed I was taught that the steering column would stab through your chest if you crashed head on and that was just the way it was. We do not want to go back, not even a little
The point of car safety features is that the car is supposed to die in an accident so you don't have to. Your car should be a pile of smoking rubble after an accident, and you should be fine.
I totaled my first car. Like, the car itself just stopped where the windshield met the dashboard. Ahead of that point, there was no more car. It was gone.
Me? I had some really spectacular bruises and a lil friction burn on my nose from where Mr. Airbag and Ms. Glasses had a disagreement. That's it. That's it.
I was driving a little tiny coupe and went more or less head-on with a pickup truck. The entire engine and hood of my car was twisted rubble that was not connected to the rest of the car afterward. I sat down on the verge, about twenty or thirty feet from the accident, while I waited for the cops and EMTs to work their way through the traffic backup to get to us, and found that I was sitting beside one of the headlights of my car. The whole entire headlight, bulb and reflector and cover and frame and all.
All I had were bruises and that little friction burn. That's it.
Crumple zones save lives. So do seatbelts and airbags; half the bruising was the exact shape of my seatbelt in livid crimson and black on my torso. It was and remains the most insanely intense bruising I have ever experienced in my life. BUT IT WAS JUST BRUISING!! Unpleasant, sure, but eminently survivable and didn't even require much treatment beyond not wearing a bra for a few days. But all the force that created that spectacular bruising was force that wasn't flinging me through the windshield or impaling me on the steering column. My car crumpled and crushed and dissolved but it held me safe and secure and protected.
Crumple zones save lives. You do not want your car to look undamaged after the accident, because that means it made like a Newton's Cradle and passed every bit of the impact straight through to your soft and highly crushable body.
This is not my usual content, but as a result of my job, I see the aftermath of many extremely fatal car crashes. And I will add, just to emphasize: your car is the product of thousands of engineers and decades of research aimed towards the goal of protecting your body in its seat inside the car. However: this relies, significantly, on your body staying in its seat. Your seatbelt is crucially important in keeping you alive. With your seatbelt, you are locked into the safest place in your vehicle. Without your seatbelt, you are a soft projectile in a rapidly collapsing metal structure. Wear your seatbelt.
Shoutout to the time I fell asleep on the highway and hit one concrete barrier and then bounced off to hit the other concrete barrier and the whole car was fucked. Like one of the wheels was twisted 90° like the damn back to the future car. My injuries? A little scratch from the airbag twisting my medical alert bracelet and the clasp got me. Crumple zone and airbags my fucking beloved. I was face first into that airbag like a pillow and I was fine.
Microsoft explicitly says it wants to "make people addicted" to its new AI personal assistant agent in internal documents.
The document, which outlines Microsoft’s plan to embed a more mainstream and accessible version of OpenClaw AI agents in its Microsoft 365 software suite, describes “three phases” to its approach. The first: “Make people addicted.”
“Continue shipping the standalone ClawPilot experience. Pilot the UX, grow the user base, and build the skill and tool ecosystem that makes people depend on it daily. This is already happening organically,” the document states.
Microsoft explicitly says it wants to "make people addicted" to its new AI personal assistant agent in internal documents.
The document, which outlines Microsoft’s plan to embed a more mainstream and accessible version of OpenClaw AI agents in its Microsoft 365 software suite, describes “three phases” to its approach. The first: “Make people addicted.”
“Continue shipping the standalone ClawPilot experience. Pilot the UX, grow the user base, and build the skill and tool ecosystem that makes people depend on it daily. This is already happening organically,” the document states.

Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
I agree and get and understand this, but can someone let me know how to find that middle ground between "working together no matter what" and "drawing very reasonable boundaries", because my local capitalist "allies" tried to cancel me with the entire local community for pointing out their poor allyship; I'm banned from their local capitalist "pride" event and treated like a CIA op, and in turn I don't get the allyship and community from Fucking Capitalists Who Don't Actually Care About Any Cause At All Except For Making Money.
Similarly, how does one hold this in balance with Actually Doing Something That Matters Someday (?) bc people also treat you like you're trying to entrap them if you suggest or consider doing something that might make the group look bad or incentivize lashback, rather than milquetoast "patriotic" performances that are easily clowned upon and ignored?
You square that circle with mutual aide tactics. If a group's allyship is shoddy, you find the other people who don't work with those kinds of orgs because they also can't count on their support, and figure out what y'all can do for one another that's more mutual. It might seem intuitive in a highly unequal society that the more privileged need to help and share with those below them -- and materially speaking yeah, they do -- but organizationally it just doesn't play out that way: people have illogical, ungrounded ideas about stuff they aren't deeply experienced with. People without a given problem in their lives do not understand what the problem IS, and will respond to it in line with whatever vague incorrect idea they have about its nature.
If I have to deliver any message to people trying to do political and social good from a position of having a lot of resources but very few struggles: give your money to poor people and then leave them alone. If you insist on sticking around just sit your ass down and watch you may learn something. Too many people try to "do something" when we could be a smidge less controlling about it and accomplish a lot just by filling other people's buckets. Everybody wants to be the one tossing water on the inferno, but that's not everybody's role because it's a social problem and we cannot [at least not without radically restructuring our lives] just change our position in society to be closer to the blaze.
Marjane Satrapi, Iranian-French author of graphic novel 'Persepolis', dies aged 56 - https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/marjane-satrapi-iranian-french-author-graphic-novel-persepolis-dies-aged-56-2026-06-04/
https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/marjane-satrapi-iranian-french-author-graphic-novel-persepolis-dies-aged-56-2026-06-04/
our idiotic ancestors used to believe stuff that's not true but luckily we've now figured out all the true things to believe in
This is so fucking embarrassing. This is one of the most embarrassing business quips I have ever seen in my entire vile career.
coat bath
tag yourselves i'm the GREAT ROOM beside the GOURMET KITCHEN
i remade it in the sims 4
I think one of the fundamental problems with modern society is that we have superstitious and unfounded beliefs about how people work. We're so habitually out of touch with our own bodies and feelings, get so little encouragement to observe them without hardtack analysis, and so much reinforcement of dualism telling us we CAN excise messy subjectivity from clean objectivity, we tend to passively ignore how subject we are to the whims of our own bodies and minds, and therefore show no understanding or compassion to people who are caught up in false ways of thinking.
I really have to give credit for this insight to everyone I've ever known who had the grace to share their experiences of psychosis with me. We are not fundamentally that different from someone who believes the government is gassing them or monitoring their phone lines, we just have the good fortune to have brains that cooperate in helping us keep track of who to trust and what's salient to our safety.
If we make an effort to bracket our own ableism and see the mind as a tool, reality as a story our mind HELPS us write and keep track of, we can see more clearly that sane people engage in paranoid and delusional thinking all the time. Not having whatever underlying neurological or chemical factors make a person diagnosable with a schizospec disorder, does not mean we all don't engage in the same thought patterns -- we're just theoretically able to adjust our thinking so that delusional ideas stop appearing real in our perceptions, while schizophrenia makes the brain MUCH less cooperative in that because the dopamine system is constantly going "HEY! LISTEN!"
This isn't only relevant to people we categorize as mad, it's how we all think, and there are countless non-clinical reasons why someone's sense of salience can misfire. That well-known internet behavior of 'making up a guy to be mad at'? Paranoid and delusional thinking. Likely not clinically significant in any given case, in fact I'm fairly certain most people doing that don't have those problems, but still an utterly delusional way of thinking based on phantasmic projections of other people's intentions. Those patterns of misperception are completely tolerated unless they cross the invisible line of interfering with your life and give you a recognizable disability: they aren't seen as dysfunctional or unhealthy separately from mental health diagnoses, so they're difficult to see in our own behavior because *well that would mean we're crazy.*

Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
Honestly, Tvyek is pretty miraculous. It’s permeable to water vapor but not to water, it’s nearly impossible to tear, but can be easily cut. It’s cheap and made entirely without binding chemicals. In addition to being used for wristbands, it’s used to wrap construction sites to keep out water during construction, for tear-resistant envelopes at Fed-Ex, coveralls for mechanics, and my wallet, actually.
Fun tip, though it looks like paper, Tyvek is plastic, and cannot be recycled with paper.
holy fuc
I didn’t even know it had a name
WHAT
there's a trope, common among other genres in superhero fiction, where a lone scientist or a corporation or such manage to come up with an invention that is way outside the usual tech level of their setting, and continues to be way outside the tech level. only one entity can make the super serum or mind control chip or laser gun or whatever. they don't mass produce it and nobody else independently discovers it, it's a thing they can do, not a thing their society can do.
and the thing that tickles at my brain is, it'd be interesting as a worldbuilding premise to keep the huge leaps in capabilities done by individual actors but get rid of the lack of replicability. start with a world like ours and say, ok, we're on the cusp of the mad science revolution, people are starting to come up with all sorts of previously-impossible technology, but once invented it's out there. every military has to adapt their doctrine to super soldier serum and laser guns. there's a cure for cancer and the protocol has to account for the one in a twenty chance it'll turn you into a werewolf. your neighbour moves in and she's made of metal and you're not sure if it's a full-body prosthetic or if in the last month when you stopped keeping up with the robotics news they made robots who are people. and it's definitely rude to ask. teleportation halfway across the planet is not cheap but like neither are planes and it does have a lower carbon footprint.
and like, it's not surprising why this doesn't happen by default, right. 'what would one guy being able to teleport mean in a world like ours' is a completely different kind of question to think about than 'how does teleportation reshape society, after accounting for the six other ways society has been reshaped in the past year'. it'd be hard to write. but it would be fun.
A conventional superhero story could be totally compatible with the tech being replicable, if the superhero comes to find out they've been fighting primarily so their handlers can hold a monopoly on the tech. As in the super serum macguffin WILL change the world, countless others WILL discover and replicate it, but the hero's job is to halt and control that process, and the only reason they aren't being actively hunted down themselves is because they're an asset.
The above sort of conundrum is one reason I've always had such an affinity for X-Men. It's innately more interesting to me when superheros have to deal with a world where powers are unpredictable and disruptive, and multiple interests need to deploy force and conspiracy to shape change towards their ends, because that's just factually closer to how super impactful innovations work IRL -- they ARE replicable, people will replicate them more or less unpredictably if there aren't boots on the ground to stop them.
We don't live in a world where one world power built nukes and the others said "wow damn that looks impossible better not try it" and it's difficult to imagine any world where that would be the reaction to an emerging asset like superheros.