The Grey Tribe

Confirmed.

"training AI on a book without paying for it is stealing" -> "fine, we'll buy the book"

"if you pay for one copy you can only keep one copy" -> "okay, so we'll shred the physical copy and keep the digital one"

"now nobody can read it!" -> "you couldn't read our copy anyway, because we're not interested in selling it, and you've set up a legal framework where you can't read books without paying for them"

Point 3 has been a problem as long as books and markets have existed. Point 2 is the most common legal solution for digital lending libraries. The only thing that's new is point 1, and that's a direct response to lawsuits that people on this website have long cheered.

anyway the reason they are destroying books is because it's simply MUCH easier to get a fast and clean scan of a book's pages if you cut off the spine and can scan the pages flat.

The process, known as “destructive scanning,” involves cutting the spine from a book so its pages can be fed through high-speed scanners before the remaining physical copy is discarded.

[from a fortune article about the same subject, not paywalled for me but there might be a paywall if you read too many articles idk]

in contrast, the non-destructive scanning by the internet archive is an extremely slow, manual process with significantly more complicated equipment required (and often a worse result! text near the spine can end up warped just from the way the pages are pressed and photographed)

it's easy and satisfying to laugh at failure, whether it's small scale (the reflecting pool has algae) or huge scale (the Iran war is dragging on), just as it makes sense to lampoon hypocrisy (he said one thing but did another) or simple grubby dirt (crypto scams, the Epstein files).

technically none of that is partisan or threatening to power in the sense that it's just judging people by their own public statements and goals: Trump saying he will discipline Iran quickly then failing to do so is a target of mockery regardless of what you may think about the relationship between the US and Iran!

but would a late night host be willing to claim that the enthusiasm of the entire US establishment to attack Iran goes way beyond Trump and that even a successful war would have been criminal, that planning such an attack is the ultimate crime against humanity for which men were hanged at Nuremberg, and that "of course Iran cannot be allowed to get a nuclear weapon" is how people justify atrocities?

it's not all empty laughter, like Jon Stewart (or one of his identical clones, I forget) rightly pointed out that the White House Correspondents' Dinner is an appalling idea, not because Trump bombed at it but because it reinforces a cozy dynamic in which the journalists get overly friendly with the bastards they are supposedly there to keep honest, the carrot and stick of precious access to power mattering more than truth or justice.

we went through this whole rigamarole under Bush, with Colbert giving a monologue at the '06 dinner and Bush panned for his bit pretending to search for lost WMDs at the '04 dinner, and it's certainly no better twenty years on; arguably the only reason to even keep it going is to give the public a chance to rush the stage with a [redacted] or something.

he brought up the idea of "why don't you all band together to ask questions?"

and the answer is, at least sorta, they did. there was an effort on the part of the wh press corps where. if one reporter asked a question, and it wasn't actually answered, the next reporter called on would repeat the question.

and that was in Trump 1.0 and Biden.

so now, Trump 2.0 has revoked press credentials of real reporters and stuffed the press room with fringe right wing podcasters and shit.

However, the "trauma description" genre of writing is so common because it is favored by publishers, workshops, and the culture of literary writing, which values intense disclosure and "vulnerability" from the artist

People write this way because of ideas they absorb about what writing is for, about what things are valuable to write, about what is considered worthy of writing. It's a problem that is reinforced in all parts of the literary writing ecosystem.

And then there's a bit right at the end of the story as the wife and the husband are walking out of court:

Jill turned abruptly. "What is your name? Your real name."

The man's gray eyes flickered. He smiled a little, kind, gentle smile. "I'm afraid you would not be able to pronounce it. The sounds cannot be formed..."

Jill was silent as they walked along, deep in thought. The city lights were coming on all around them. Bright yellow spots in the gloom. "What are you thinking?" the man asked.

"I was thinking perhaps I will still call you Lester," Jill said. "If you don't mind."

"I don't mind," the man said. He put his arm around her, drawing her close to him. He gazed down tenderly as they walked through the thickening darkness, between the yellow candles of light that marked the way. "Anything you wish. Whatever will make you happy."

And I. God. There's something there. A soupcon of monsterfuckery. To tell your partner in a moment of intimacy that yes, you're something so inhuman that the lips you're stealing can't speak your actual name. You're a parasite that not only had the ability to burrow under this man's skin and take over his life, but you were so desperate to escape a dead, dry, blasted planet that you did.

Yesterday, WIRED learned that Madison Square Garden was suing us for our accurate reporting.

We stand by our reporting. That's why we're removing the paywall from two of the MSG stories they don't want you to read, making them free for everyone.

Even though we know that most business owners, or people in marketing, are terrible at understanding long term progress. Even though we know that business and marketing statistics are a joke. Even though we know that businesses and marketing agencies will manipulate data or flat out lie to show the answer they want. Even though we know these people are so easy to grift that there's multiple economies just around grifting billionaires. So the sector populated by credulous and ignorant people who rearrange the truth constantly for their own enrichment are definitely relying on valid, scientifically rigorous, accurate and truthful data which is able to mind control all of us into excess consumerism. The same people who thought fake personality tests should be used for hiring decisions.

“there’s a restaurant two miles from my house called—” nope

“today I learned [celeb] went to my high school—” nope nope nope nope nope

these are all real posts I’ve seen on the internet that allowed me to identify a user’s hometown instantly. if it’s a small town, that’s doubly dangerous, because a bad actor could trace you just by a unique first name or selfie you once posted. in an age where doxxing and stalking are some of the worst I’ve ever seen it, you HAVE to think twice about what you’re posting online.

i once saw a 13-year old post an image they noted as being “a few miles from their house.” it had a theater in the shot with a unique enough name to be local. one google maps search, now everyone knew not only what city they lived in, but the possible neighborhoods in that radius too. and they had a HUGE following…who all knew this was a 13-year-old child.

so yeah. not to sound like a 90s internet safety PSA…but I’m gonna be that PSA for a minute.

if you’re posting an image, there is NO need to say that you live there. you could just be traveling. “saw this in Montana” is better than “saw this by my house!”

before you post about a venue, especially a restaurant or small store, check and see if it’s local—CRUCIALLY if it has only one or two locations. people might travel to arenas or convention centers, but they’re far less likely to be traveling to Bartleby’s Fish and Chips. if it’s an anecdote and you still live nearby, you can honestly just leave the name out entirely.

if you’re sharing a news story, it can just be a story you found and wanted to share. you don’t have to clarify “it happened in my town,” because even if you don’t mention your town name, an easily-googled news article will.

if you’re seeing a concert or meeting a celebrity on a tour that’s stopped locally, wait until they’ve hit a few more venues before you post about it, or at the very least wait until you get home. this is honestly a smart move for any event you attend: unless you’re marketing yourself, there’s no need to advertise your location in real time.

check your selfie backgrounds for anything identifying. this includes city names on venues, school names, street signs, and house numbers.

this stuff is flexible if you no longer live in your hometown, or if your city is particularly big, but there’s STILL no reason to tie yourself to your school, your workplace, or your street. you can call it paranoid, but as someone who’s seen my friends get literal death threats over fictional characters before, the last thing I want is someone willing to act on those threats finding out where they live.

saw this on Insta and the idea that people who are anti-AI are just using it anyway like... willing to give it up? I ACTIVELY AVOID THAT SHIT BUD! WHAT ARE YOU EVEN TALKING ABOUT?

ALSO

Number three is the one with Kirk Douglas.