Nightjar

For me, I would say the most common blind spot I run into from would-be children's authors is if the book is written from a place of authority, correction/dogma towards children rather than joy, genuine help/compassion, or curiosity.

For me, the author whose works most exemplify this is Julia Cook. Not only are her book's illustrations ugly as hell, but they heavily focus on correcting bad behavior in kids, usually with an overarching theme of "You're having a hard time making friends because you're loud/annoying,/unable to take responsibility/any number of things that it's perfectly natural for a kid to be because they barely have a concept of self yet, let alone awareness of other peoples' experiences and needs." I feel these books ultimately operate from a place of shame towards their audience and it's baffling to me that so many parents are like "Yes! That's exactly the book my kid needs!" On top of all that I feel like Julia Cook's books are also overly-texty. I think the blind spot here is that a lot of would-be kid's authors think they've figured out an approach to correcting kids' behavior, but they actually haven't been able to separate their own frustrations from communicating more constructive ways for kids to build social and emotional skills, which is how you end up with a book from at first glance makes me (a librarian) ask, "Do you hate kids, or something?"

A better example of a book focusing on social skills and emotional regulation in kids would be the "Big Bright Feelings" series. These books actually center the kids' emotions and experiences and are really compassionate with regard to where these feelings come from. Also, in my opinion, the illustrations are cuter.

Like, Ravi's Roar is focused on anger and emotional regulation, but it takes time to build up all of Ravi's frustrations throughout the day and actually gives Ravi some credit with how much he's tamped down/swallowed up before his anger finally gets the better of him because guess what! Kids are dealing with a lot! So much is new to them! They don't have an emotional baseline for so many of their experiences! It takes time to tell kids that it's okay to be angry, to show the adults reading how to support kids and steer their anger in a constructive way, and the metaphor of Ravi turning into a tiger makes the story feel both more accessible and more broadly applicable.

Another blind spot which I think is tricky is adults like and agree with this book, therefore they think it is up to children's standards. You see this a lot with a lot of well-meaning independently published liberal books (about community gardens, voting, recycling, etc.), and to be fair, how much a kid relates to or values a book can vary wildly depending on the kid and their state of development, but like the above point about dogmatism in children's books, you can tell when an author is assuming a lot about their audience's priorities. And again, with a lot of independently published titles, you often get this combo of too much text and mediocre illustrations,

I love a community garden. I love indigenous ethnobotany. But if you're going to go this high-concept for a young audience, I mean this with all kindness, but you're going to want to get an illustrator with enough of a professional background to be able to tell when their illustration's background is a busy mess.

Sometimes the enthusiasm of the adult reading the book to a child can bridge the gap, but speaking as someone who's done her fair share of story times, kids can absolutely tell the difference between something they want to do, and something adults are trying to convince them they want to do. Again, this is definitely a more subjective blind spot, and some books can make up for text content that doesn't quite land with their intended audience by having illustrations that capture the imagination and bridge that gap--like, I loved the book Weslandia as a kid even though the concept of "This kid created his own staple crop-based civilization" kind of flew over my little head at the time because I was so enchanted by the illustrations and I think there was also the factor of Wesley, the main character, operating a lot on his own curiosity and drive. It's a book of solitude and curiosity and discovery and invention eventually blossoming into something you can share with others. As a kid so frequently distracted by my own imagination that I had trouble connecting with peers, that emotional honesty landed with me even though other parts of it were a little high-concept.

This year marks the 20th anniversary of Rice Boy! Hooray!!! 🥳

Sit back with a nice plate of orange popping plants and spend a while re-reading (or reading for the first ever time! wow!) the epic tale of Rice Boy over at rice-boy.com, by the incredible @evandahm!

BUT

First: THIS RECALL IS NOT STATE SPECIFIC. IT IS NATIONWIDE.

here are the specific products and dates:

FDA page on this:

let's explore how this sort of thing can create issues. hagfish are an important part of benthic ecosystems and the carbon cycle due to being scavengers who are often among the first to arrive to corpses (sometimes before they're technically corpses. i'm warning you ahead of time so if you look into hagfish scavenging and predation you're aware) and whose feeding behaviors influence the behaviors of other benthic scavengers. they do this primarily through competition with other scavengers who eat soft tissues and through making different parts of the carcass more accessible by stripping those soft tissues. (sources: x, x) they also influence their environment by stirring up sediment when burrowing, which oxygenates the sediment (a big deal in the deep sea where oxygen is scarce) and loosens the substrate for use by other animals. (sources: x, x ) for this reason some scientists recognize hagfish as 'ecosystem engineers,' animals whose presence and actions have a significant effect on the ecology of the area they live in. (source: x)

this is not directly relevant to my questions about the reproductive biology of hagfish but it is very much connected, as not knowing how they reproduce impacts our ability to assess hagfish population stability. and it is very important that hagfish be able to maintain population stability. as of right now, policy decisions regarding deliberate fishing of hagfish and hagfish as bycatch are being made on limited, incomplete information about their life cycles that people may not be aware is limited and incomplete. after all, at this point i've found multiple sources that say 'hagfish reproduction works like this' and then when i dig deeper, the full statement is 'hagfish reproduction works like this (we think) (we're guessing) (no one actually knows for sure).' that's two different statements! those are VERY different levels of knowledge! it's irresponsible to present an unproven hypothesis as solid fact. but it's also socially rewarded to make confident-sounding statements and bury the uncertainties, and the majority of people just accept the surface and skim over the revealing details.

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.