My next book is The Reverse Centaur's Guide to Life After AI, out next month. Pre-order it now, including as a DRM-free audiobook or ebook, at my Kickstarter, and help me continue to prove that DRM-free isn't just the right way to reach an audience, it's also the best way to reach them.
The "Third Way" in liberal politics involves saying things that working people love, but doing things that sociopathic plutocrats love. It works âŚright up until voters notice that you're not doing the things. That realisation breeds cynicism and fury and paves the way for fascist strongmen.
It's really ugly, and no one does it uglier than Canada's Liberal Party. Remember that time Prime Minister Justin Trudeau marched with Greta Thunberg to protest Canada's shitty, planet-wrecking climate policies?
Gee, Justin â it sure would be great if you could have a word with the fella who decided to bail out America's doomed tar sands pipeline and vowed to pump and torch 173,000,000,000 barrels of Canadian oil:
Trudeau's "Third Way" eventually proved so unpopular that he opened the door to an authoritarian takeover of Canada by an otherwise totally unelectable, Trump-aligned far-right maniac. The only thing that saved Canada from a fate dumber than Trump was Trump himself, who wouldn't stop promising to make Canada the 51st state, an idea that was even more repellent to Canadians than five more years of Third Way bullshit:
And boy did Canadians find a Third Way bullshitter to move into 24 Sussex Drive: Mark Carney, an austerity-crazed central banker who will endorse incredibly progressive policiesâŚprovided he never has to do any of them. When it comes to championing working Canadians while royally screwing them, Carney is the only Canadian politician capable of out-Trudeauing Trudeau.
But we shouldn't reject Carneyism due to the mere fact that Carney refuses to deliver Carneyism. The problem with Carneyism isn't Carneyism itself â the problem with Carneyism is Mark Carney.
Take Carney's policy promise to charge US tech giants a 3% tax, a move that would defeat their incredibly clever gambit of pretending to be Irish and thus not owing any tax, anywhere:
That was a good policy! So was Carney's "elbows up" policy of sticking it to America in retaliation for Trump's flagrant violation of CUSMA, the free trade agreement negotiated by (checks notes) one Donald J Trump:
Unfortunately, Mark Carney didn't get the memo from (checks notes) Mark Carney, and the very instant Trump arranged his face into his trademarked confused scowl, Carney dropped the tax, apologising profusely:
In the last days of the Trudeau government, the Liberals passed a bill that transformed Canada's Competition Bureau from the weakest antitrust regulator in the world into one of the strongest (on paper, at least):
It's impossible to overstate how useless the Competition Bureau was before this bill passed. In its entire history, the Bureau had only challenged three mergers, and had never successfully challenged a merger. Canada's do-nothing competition enforcers allowed the company to be captured by Made-in-Canada oligarchs whose ripoffs and abuses would make the Hudson's Bay Company blush:
If Canada was ever going to be a real country (and not just two monopolists and a mining company in a trenchcoat) it needed a serious competition enforcer. Nominally, it has one, thanks to the 2024 Competition Act. The only problem was Carney, who made sweeping real-terms cuts to the Bureau's funding. Thanks to Carney, Canada has a Competition Bureau with all the powers it needs to save Canada from its oligarchs â but it can't afford to do any of that stuff.
Monopolists rip Canadians off like crazy. We even have a guy who mistook Les Miz for an HBR case-study, and embarked upon the country's worst-ever price-fixing campaign, gouging the country on bread prices:
(The Bread Bandit isn't solely to blame for the price-fixing scandal. He had help! The plan was actually devised by Pete "Third Way" Buttigieg. Mayor Pete cited his work setting up Canada's bread cartel as his proudest accomplishment from his days as a McKinsey ghoul:)
You don't have to be a monopolist to steal from Canadians. Ripping off Canadians is the game everyone can play! Consumer protection agencies are incredible value for money, saving the public hundreds for every dollar that we spend on them. Guess who just eliminated Canada's consumer protection agency?
Oh, to be a scammer in Mark Carney's Canada! Whatever Galen Weston doesn't steal is yours for the taking!
But again, the problem isn't Carneyism â the problem is Carney. Carneyism is great. Carneyism gave us that remarkable speech at Davos, where Mark Carney declared a "rupture" in the US-dominated global system of trade and politics, promising a future of "minilateralism" in which "middle powers" like Canada band together for mutual prosperity:
If only Mark Carney had been there to hear those stirring words! He might have understood what a fucking insane idea it is to turn over Canada's military to Palantir, the company that, more than any other, has fused itself with the Trump regime's domestic program of ethnic cleansing and its international program of extraterritorial aggression:
Carneyism isn't merely a rejection of the old international order. Domestically, Carneyism promises technocratic excellence, skilled leadership that delivers first-class services for the Canadian people. This is a great pitch! It got Mamdani elected, and Mamdani's sincere pursuit of governmental excellence thrills New Yorkers in new ways every day:
Here, too, Carneyism is entirely sound â the problem is Carney's vicious anti-Carneyism and his plan to fire tens of thousands of civil servants and replace them with AI chatbots. It's not just that chatbots are terrible substitutes for skilled public officials, they're also controlled by US corporations that are entirely beholden to the Trump regime:
Unlike Mark Carney, I support Carneyism. Carneyism promises protection for Canadians, from monopolists and mad emperors, petty thieves and potholes. But Carney himself ardently opposes these policies. This will only get worse when the AI bubble pops and vaporises a third of the US stock market, spreading contagion to global capital markets. That will be Carney's cue to roll out his favourite go-to tactic: austerity.
We cannot afford this. Austerity is how we lose the country. Austerity â more than any other force â drives working people into the arms of fascists:
The thing is, Mark Carney has shown his political opponents how to beat him: just embrace Carneyism. The things Carney says are incredibly popular. Now we just need to elect someone who'll do them.
If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:
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.
â Live Streamingâ Interactive Chatâ Private Showsâ HD Quality
Anya is LIVE right now
FREE
Free to watch ⢠No registration required ⢠HD streaming
Instacart reaches into your pocket and lops a third off your dollars
I'm at the end of my tour for my new book, the international bestseller Enshittification. My last two stops are CCC in Hamburg, Dec 27-30 and the Tattered Cover in Denver (Jan 22). Hope to see you!
There's a whole greedflation-denial cottage industry that insists that rising prices are either the result of unknowable, untameable and mysterious economic forces, or they're the result of workers having too much money and too many jobs.
The one thing we're absolutely not allowed to talk about is the fact that CEOs keep going on earnings calls to announce that they are hiking prices way ahead of any increase in their costs, and blaming inflation:
Nor are we supposed to notice the "price consultancies" that let the dominant firms in many sectors â from potatoes to meat to rental housing â fix prices in illegal collusive arrangements that are figleafed by the tissue-thin excuse that "if you use an app to fix prices, it's not a crime":
And we're especially not supposed to notice the proliferation of "personalized pricing" businesses that use surveillance data to figure out how desperate you are and charge you a premium based on that desperation:
Surveillance pricing â when you are charged more for the same goods than someone else, based on surveillance data about the urgency of your need and the cash in your bank account â is a way for companies to reach into your pocket and devalue the dollars in your wallet. After all, if you pay $2 for something that I pay $1 for, that's just the company saying that your dollars are only worth half as much as mine:
The economy is riddled with surveillance pricing gouging. You are almost certainly paying more than your neighbors for various items, based on algorithmic price-setting, every day. Case in point: More Perfect Union and Groundwork Collaborative teamed up with Consumer Reports to recruit 437 volunteers from across America to login to Instacart at the same time and buy the same items from 15 stores, and found evidence of surveillance pricing at Albertsons, Costco, Kroger, and Sprouts Farmers Market:
The price-swings are wild. Some test subjects are being charged 23% more than others. The average variance for "the exact same items, from the exact same locations, at the exact same time" comes out to 7%, or "$1,200 per year for groceries" for a family of four.
The process by which your greedflation premium is assigned is opaque. The researchers found that Instacart shoppers ordering from Target clustered into seven groups, but it's not clear how Instacart decides how much extra to charge any given shopper.
Instacart â who acquired Eversight, a surveillance pricing company, in 2022 â blamed the merchants (who, in turn, blamed Instacart). Instacart also claimed that they didn't use surveillance data to price goods, but hedged, admitting that the consumer packaged goods duopoly of Unilever and Procter & Gamble do use surveillance data in connection with their pricing strategies.
Finally, Instacart claimed that this was all an "experiment" to "learn what matters most to consumers and how to keep essential items affordable." In other words, they were secretly charging you more (for things like eggs and bread) because somehow that lets them "keep essential items affordable."
Instacart said their goal was to help "retail partners understand consumer preferences and identify categories where they should invest in lower prices."
Anyone who's done online analytics can easily pierce this obfuscation, but for those of you who haven't had the misfortune of directing an iterated, A/B tested optimization effort, I'll unpack this statement.
Say you have a pool of users and a bunch of variations on a headline. You randomly assign different variants to different users and measure clickthroughs. Then you check to see which variants performed best, and dig into the data you have on those users to see if there are any correlations that tie together users who liked a given approach.
This might let you discover that, say, women over 40 click more often on headlines that mention kittens. Then you generate more variations based on these conclusions â different ways of mentioning kittens â and see which of these variations perform best, and whether the targeted group of users split into smaller subgroups (women over 40 in the midwest prefer "tabby kitten" while their southern sisters prefer "kitten" without a mention of breed).
By repeatedly iterating over these steps, you can come up with many highly refined variants, and you can use surveillance data to target them to ever narrower, more optimized slices of your user-base.
Obviously, this is very labor intensive. You have to do a lot of tedious analysis, and generate a lot of variants. This is one of the reasons that slopvertising is so exciting to the worst people on earth: they imagine that they can use AI to create a self-licking ice-cream cone, performing the analysis and generating endless new variations, all untouched by human hands.
But when it comes to prices, it's much easier to produce variants â all you're doing is adding or subtracting from the price you show to shoppers. You don't need to get the writing team together to come up with new ways of mentioning kittens in a headline â you can just raise the price from $6.23 to $6.45 and see if midwestern women over 40 balk or add the item to their shopping baskets.
And here's the kicker: you don't need to select by gender, racial or economic criteria to end up with a super-racist and exploitative arrangement. That's because race, gender and socioeconomic status have broad correlates that are easily discoverable through automated means.
For example, thanks to generations of redlining, discriminatory housing policy, wage discrimination and environmental racism, the poorest, sickest neighborhoods in the country are also the most racialized and are also most likely to be "food deserts" where you can't just go to the grocery store and shop for your family.
What's more, the private equity-backed dollar store duopoly have waged a decades-long war on community grocery stores, enveloping them with dollar stores that use their access to preferential discounts (from companies like Unilever and Procter & Gamble, another duopoly) to force grocers out of business:
Then these dollar stores run a greedflation scam that is so primitive, it's almost laughable: they just charge customers much higher amounts than the prices shown on the shelves and price-tags:
When you live in a food desert where your only store is a Dollar General that defrauds you at the cash-register, you are more likely to accept a higher price from Instacart, because you have fewer choices than someone in a middle-class neighborhood with two or three competing grocers. And the people who live in those food deserts are more likely to be poor, which, in America, is an excellent predictor of whether they are Black or brown.
Which is to say, without ever saying, "Charge Black people more for groceries," Instacart can easily A/B split its way into a system where they predictably and reliably charges Black people more for groceries. That's the old cod-Marxism at work: "from each according to their desperation."
This is so well-understood that anyone who sets one of these systems in motion should be understood to be deliberately seeking to do racist profiteering under cover of an algorithm. It's empiricism-washing: "I'm not racist, I just did some math" (that produced a predictably racist outcome):
This is the dark side and true meaning of "business optimization." The optimal business pays its suppliers and workers nothing, and charges its customers everything it can. Obviously, businesses need to settle for suboptimal outcomes, because workers won't show up if they don't get paid, and customers won't buy things that cost everything they haveâš.
âš Unless, of course, you are an academic publisher, in which case this is just how you do business.
A business "optimizes" its workforce by finding ways to get them to accept lower wages. For example, they can bind their workers with noncompete "agreements" that ban Wendy's cashiers from quitting their job and making $0.25 more per hour at the McDonald's next door (one in 18 American workers have been locked into one of these contracts):
Or they can lock their workers in with "training repayment agreement provisions" (TRAPs) â contractual clauses that force workers to pay their bosses thousands of dollars if they quit or get fired:
But the most insidious form of worker optimization is "algorithmic wage discrimination." That's when a company uses surveillance data to lower the wages of workers. For example, contract nurses are paid less if the app that hires them discovers (through the unregulated data-broker sector) that they have a lot of credit-card debt. After all, nurses who are heavily indebted can't afford to be choosy and turn down lowball offers:
This is the other form of surveillance pricing: pricing labor based on surveillance data. It's more cod-Marxism: "From each according to their desperation."
Forget "becoming ungovernable": to defeat these evil fuckers, we have to become unoptimizable:
How do we do that? Well, nearly every form of "optimization" begins with surveillance. They can't figure out whether they can charge you more if they can't spy on you. They can't figure out whether they can pay you less if they can't spy on you, either.
And the reason they can spy on you is because we let them. The last consumer privacy law to pass out of Congress was a 1988 bill that bans video-store clerks from disclosing your VHS rental history. Every other form of consumer surveillance is permitted under US federal law.
So step one of this process is to ban commercial surveillance. Banning algorithmic price discrimination is all well and good, but it is, ultimately, a form of redistribution. We're trying to make the companies share some of the excess they extract from our surveillance data. But predistribution â ending surveillance itself, in this case â is always far more effective than redistribution:
How do we do that? Well, we need to build a coalition. At the Electronic Frontier Foundation, we call this "privacy first": you can't solve all the internet's problems by fixing privacy, but you won't fix most of them unless we get privacy right, and so the (potential) coalition for a strong privacy regime is large and powerful:
But of course, "privacy first," doesn't mean "just privacy." We also need tools that target algorithmic pricing per se. In New York State, there's a new law that requires disclosure of algorithmic pricing, in the form of a prominent notification reading, "THIS PRICE WAS SET BY AN ALGORITHM USING YOUR PERSONAL DATA."
This is extremely weaksauce, and might even be worse than nothing. In California we have Prop 65, a rule that requires businesses to post signs and add labels any time they expose you to chemicals "known to the state of California to cause cancer." This caveat emptor approach (warn people, let them vote with their wallets) has led to every corner of California's built environment to be festooned with these warnings. Today, Californians just ignore these warnings, the same way that web users ignore the "privacy policy" disclosures on the sites they visit:
The right approach isn't to (merely) warn people about carcinogens (or privacy risks). The right approach is regulating harmful business practices, whether those practices give you a tumor or pick your pocket.
Under Biden, former FTC chair Lina Khan undertook proceedings to ban algorithmic pricing altogether. Trump's FTC killed that, along with all the other quality-of-life enhancing measures the FTC had in train (Trump's FTC chair replaced these with a program to root out "wokeness" in the agency).
Today, Khan is co-chair of Zohran Mamdani's transition team, and she will use the mayor's authority (under the New York City Consumer Protection Law of 1969, which addresses "unconscionable" commercial practices) to ban algorithmic pricing in NYC:
Khan wasn't Biden's only de-optimizer. Under chair Rohit Chopra, Biden's Consumer Finance Protection Bureau actually banned the data-brokers who power surveillance pricing:
These are efforts to optimize corporations for human thriving, by making them charge us less and pay us more. For while we are best off when we are unoptimizable, we are also best off when corporations are totally optimized â for our benefit.
If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:
I mean, I get mixing them up based on names alone, but Iâm concerned about the people who think Martin Luther King Jr. routinely wrote with a quill or dressed like a Renaissance man.
Please help me. One of my brothers asked for my help doing an art and when I said âokay first off letâs get some reference imagesâ he said âoh I donât do those.â
my brother in Mom what the fuck do you mean you donât do that
Okay so Iâm not accredited or anything but Iâve taught a few people how to art
And when I TEACH art, I tell anyone learning that I can teach them how to DO Art in two ways:
âImitationâ, or âCreationâ
The difference between the two is vast
âImitationâ art means âI Train You How To Do Something So You Can Do It Over And Over On Your Ownâ. This is stuff like DIY kits, Pinterest crafts, community craft projects where you make like. A mug or a painting of a flower. With âimitationâ art, the skills you are developing are a result of the thing you are making. You have a goal, and the pursuit of that goal may or may not teach you new skills that you can apply elsewhere in a limited radius.
âCreationâ art means âI Rewire Your Brain To Understand What It Perceives In A Way That Is Replicable.â And while it can be fucking boring, and a lot of what you make will look like ass, it will make you far more skilled and capable long-term. With âCreationâ art, itâs sort of backwards- you have NO singular goal, and so the things you ARE making donât really matter as much as the skills you are using to do it.
And again, Iâve never been trained how to teach, but this is just what Iâve learned through TRYING:
The vast majority of people donât have the energy and stamina to sit through âcreationâ oriented classes. Which makes sense to me- itâs painful and humbling and boring, and can be a pretty constant blow to your ego.
Most people have WAY more fun with âimitationâ oriented art- Seeing something they like, going âI want to make thatâ, and then learning how. And it IS more fun, and better for a lot of reasons! Itâs cheaper, faster, more enjoyable, more encouraging, and if youâre going into a dedicated field then you can hone a very specific skill set in a way you already KNOW you like over a long period of time.
And this isnât directed at my brother- he doesnât have an account here, and Iâve already rambled passionately at HIM about this for far too long- but itâs very, very hard for almost ANYONE to achieve âcreationâ results with âimitationâ training.
Iâll go either way. You tell me what you want to achieve, and Iâll help you get there. Iâm an art nerd, Iâll have fun no matter what.
But please.
For the love of god.
If you choose the âcreationâ route, if you want to master the skill in-depth and develop a brain that can SEE the way an artist sees, that communicates with your hands and UNDERSTANDS why you perceive things the way you do.
Okay, so you know Baking, right? Well itâs works because of Chemistry, and if you know the Chemistry, you can develop your own recipes. This makes sense?
Well if I have a class to teach, I can ask you on the first day, âWould you like to learn some recipes? Or would you like to learn how to invent a recipe?â
And most people who take art classes, they do it because they want to feel like an artist. So they tell me, âI want to invent a recipeâ.
And I tell them, âOkay. Well then today weâre going to learn about carbonâ
A LOT of my quasi-students sit through this painfully and maybe come back once or twice before dropping out.
The remainder will say, âOh, I donât want to do that, can we do a recipe instead?â And I can work with that. Nothing wrong with it.
And then a few. A small, blistering, agonizing remainder. Will dig their heels into the concrete and INSIST that No, They Are Not Doing That. They Are Just Going To Create A Recipe. They Are An Artist.
And these students- I beg them, âYou might be a pretty good artist already, but if youâre going to try an invent a whole new kind of cake from the ground up, youâre going to have to learn about levening agentsâ
And they say âNo! I Make cakes all the timeâ
And I say âOkay. Well then, can I see you make a shortbread first?â
And then this sort of learner will almost invariable become defensive, decide I doubt them, and doubles down on proving themselves by doing something IMPRESSIVE to win my respect, and theyâll say something to the tune of âNO!!! Shortbread is easy and boring. I am an ARTIST. I donât NEED to make shortbread. I will make A NEW KIND OF MACARONâ
And I tell them. âI can teach you a cupcake recipe. Or you can show me how you make shortbread. One or the other. Option three is I go homeâ
And either they call it all off and storm away. Or they make the shortbread
And the shortbread has been, every single time this has happened, unexceptional.
Maybe itâs awful. Maybe itâs fine. But itâs never anything better than âĂĄ shortbreadâ.
And then I ask them how their ingredients BECAME shortbread
And they never know the fucking answer
So like. If you are a student of any kind. In any discipline. I am begging you to ask yourself.
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.
â Live Streamingâ Interactive Chatâ Private Showsâ HD Quality
Anya is LIVE right now
FREE
Free to watch ⢠No registration required ⢠HD streaming
âTwas brillig, and the slithy toves
A stately pleasure-dome decreed.
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Could frame thy fearful symmetry?
I had a dream, which was not all a dream.
See in her cell sad Eloisa spread,
Lookâd up in perfect silence at the stars.
I shut my eyes and all the world drops dead.
A sudden blow: the great wings beating still
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
Pack up the moon and dismantle the sun,
I work all day, and get half-drunk at night.
If I should die, think only this of me,
Between what I see and what I say,
In this short Life that only lasts an hour
Shall I compare thee to a summerâs day?
#i get knocked down but i get up again
#oâ what a rogue and peasant slave am i!
#didnt make sense not to live for fun
#do you love the color of the sky?
#everybody wants to rule the world
#everybody walk the dinosaur
#and if i couldâ iâd make a deal with god:
#to keep it real i fuck him on the floor
Using generative AI built on stolen labor from artists/writers etc is saying "I value what you have made, but I do not value you. I do not value your ability to pay your bills, to live your life, to even receive recognition and connection from what you've worked on and the skills you've developed. I want what you've made, but I don't want you."
Which is the exact hypercapitalist bullshit making workplaces hell.
just like, if there's a history at your institution of disabled kids not being able to make it you realise that's your fault right. like why don't you fucking do something about it. i guess they tried to do something about it with me and it failed so they let me go. crazy. nice work. why should we try to do any better.
only 5% of people with adhd who go to college finish a degree. FUCKING. FIVE!!! PERCENT!!!!!!!!!!!
that should disgust and enrage you.
if any other demographic of students had a 95% failure rate, we would be demanding reform and studies to understand why thatâs happening
when i was at my first university, trying to get accommodations for my ADHD, they just kept asking me what accommodations i wanted, and refused to answer when i would ask what was available to me. how the Hell am i supposed to know what i can have? whatâs available???? also, i donât know!!!! iâm an adhd sufferer, not a fucking disability expert for the fucking college, unlike you, DISABILITY EXPERT WHO WORKS FOR THE COLLEGE.
but because the us is OBSESSED with making sure no one gets anything ââfor freeââ, she literally would not tell me what my options were until i broke down in tears and asked her why she was refusing to help me. and then she did a big sigh, like i was fucking up her entire career by *checks notes* asking the disability center in my university to help me, a disabled student
at the second uni i went to, i tried to explain to a dean that i was literally two gen eds that had nothing to do with my degree away from graduating and that i was burnt out and broke and exhausted and suicidal and i just needed to be able to finish my degree without the gen eds. and this. fucking. guy. looked me right in my face and said in the most patronizing tone he could muster âif you canât handle it, then maybe college just isnât for you.â keep in mind that up until that semester, i had been an honor student who made Deanâs List every semester and didnât get below Bs. if it hadnât been for my mental breakdown, i would have graduated cum laude, maybe even summa cum laude.
but this dean of students looked a disabled person right in the face and said well i guess you just canât do it, short bus
Pulled these from a couple articles really quick but yeah the statistics are not kind. I remember writing a scathing essay about my issues with ADHD and college as part of an assignment for academic probation. I got back an email calling me entitled and lazy. Somehow, this thread helps me feel a lot better. I still have about a semester of school unfinished that Iâm unsure if Iâll finish but⌠yeah. Makes me feel better to know itâs not just me.
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.
â Live Streamingâ Interactive Chatâ Private Showsâ HD Quality
Anya is LIVE right now
FREE
Free to watch ⢠No registration required ⢠HD streaming
Anyone else remember when Toys'R'Us would have those contests where the winner could run through the store and keep everything they could put in a shopping cart within 5 minutes? I swear that kept me up at night as a kid.
âI always remember having this fight with a random dude who claimed that âstraight white menâ were the only true innovators. His prime example for this was the computer⌠the computer⌠THE COMPUTER!!! THE COM-PU-TER!!!
Alan Turing - Gay man and âfather of computingâ Wren operating Bombe - The code cracking computers of the 2nd world war were entirely run by women Katherine Johnson - African American NASA mathematician and âHuman computerâ Ada Lovelace - arguably the 1st computer programmerâ
- Sacha Coward
Also Margaret Hamilton - NASA computer scientist who put the first man on the moon - an as-yet-unmatched feet of software engineering, here pictured beside the full source of that computer programme. #myhero
Grace Hopper - the woman that coined the term âbugâ Â
Grace Hopper did more than coin the term âbugâ. She invented the first program linker in the early 1950s, for the UNIVAC I. A program linker translates instructions from one language to another (for example, numerical codes that represent instructions translated to machine code that computers can read), which is the very foundation of how computerâs operate independently. she also pulled a steve rogers and tried to enlist in the military a bunch of times and was denied. then, an exception was made for her when she joined the navy reserves, and she ended up serving for over 40 years (half of which was active duty). she retired from the navy Rear Admiral Grace Hopper. she was born in NYC in 1906. Grace Hopper was a fucking badass.
also computing was typically a job for women (many of whom were black women that made incredible contributions) back in the day, so itâs absolutely fucking wild that straight white men think they are the foundation of computer innovation. men PUSHED women out and took the credit.
Also, just about every computerized device outside of desktops is running ARM chips now. Your phone, your keyboard, your car, your watch. Basically everything.
And ARM was primarily designed by Sophie Wilson, a trans woman.
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.
â Live Streamingâ Interactive Chatâ Private Showsâ HD Quality
Anya is LIVE right now
FREE
Free to watch ⢠No registration required ⢠HD streaming
