KIROKAZE
Origami Around
Love Begins
Alisa U Zemlji Chuda
JBB: An Artblog!
hello vonnie
Keni
#extradirty
Peter Solarz
Sade Olutola
blake kathryn
i don't do bad sauce passes
Andulka
🪼
we're not kids anymore.
Product Placement
seen from United States
seen from Germany
seen from Germany
seen from Brazil
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Brazil
seen from Türkiye
seen from Germany
seen from Spain
seen from Singapore
seen from Türkiye
seen from Malaysia
seen from United States
seen from Türkiye
seen from United Kingdom
seen from Netherlands
seen from United States
seen from Singapore
@theaceofwords
It's called the Global Justice Report, it is here. This is an actionable plan which can be sent to legislators and demanded of political parties. We could save the world within our lifetimes.
It has always been possible. It is still possible.
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
You don't have to defend the Iranian misogynistic religious theoacry to condemn the Israel-US decision to bomb them btw. It's not a stan-war.
if anything you're reading makes reference to the cultural practices or social structures of "indigenous societies" you should mentally annotate it with "WHICH ONES???" in bright red marker
I need the ai bubble to burst so badly. I feel insane. My uncle shows my driving license (a piece of id with my picture, basic info and signature) to chatgpt to figure out what is the code a form ask for. My brother shows my mom's medical report to perplexity to have it explained in lay terms before she brings it to her doctor. All of those pieces of information could have been acquired without putting crucial personal information into the servers of big data. All of those pieces of information could have been acquired without putting crucial personal information into the servers of big data. All of those pieces of information could have been acquired without p
For decades there were countless truisms in politics about what you could and couldn't say and the president is just out there going "I made everything double in price for no reason and I love it"
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
Do you think it's immoral to use chatgpt for college assignments? I think it's unfortunately unavoidable.
It is absolutely immoral, completely counterproductive to the goal of learning things, and turns out incredibly subpar work.
As for unavoidable….you understand that the vast majority of people who have ever graduated college throughout history did so without ever once using AI, right? You understand that?
You understand that the point of writing papers isn’t just to have a paper with words on it, right? You understand that the entire point is to do the mental work necessary to put your learning into organized words, such that you actually learn it? And that if you outsource that to AI you are not learning?
Remember, a system's intention is what it does. Immigration laws in the US haven't failed because there are undocumented immigrants here. Immigration laws are what has created a large class of undocumented immigrants, and thus resulted in a class of workers who lack any protections by labor laws, who can be paid sub minimum wage, who can be sexually coerced with no legal escape, who can be put through life threatening conditions, and whose attempts to organize can be easily crushed with the threat of deportation. The intention of American immigration laws is to create a class of workers who the ruling class can subject to their ancap desires. All politics is class politics.
This may be the best Pride merch I've seen from a major corporation.
Levi's said yes, actually. Assless chaps and a biker vest. Happy Pride.
And the assless chaps sold out on June 1.
They also specifically contacted members of the leather community, used them as models iirc, and donated $100k to Outright International. They talked the talk and walked the walk and put their money on it too. I don't really care that I can't afford and don't want this merch, I love to see my community getting the respect it deserves. Levi's said, "We make jeans which gays wear lots of jeans? Oh leather daddies? Let's call them."
I think Levi's donates to Outreach International every year too, as well as sponsoring pride events and other community support. They were offering Same Sex domestic partner benefits to employees in the 90s, and have been very public about their support for pro-lgbt legislation all through the 2000s.
So, you know, a giant corporation that walks the walk pretty consistently.
A German regional court has ruled that Google is directly liable for the content of its AI search overviews. According to the court, previou
Let’s fucking go
This is HUGE.
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.
TL;DR Google reeeeeally stepped in it this time.
5. If the words are Google's, this solidifies the position of universities who demand that all answers from AI are fully cited. If all the in-line citations now have to be (Google, 2026), that's going to make it obvious when someone's trying to use Google as a source. There's still the difficulty with people who are academically dishonest by trying to pass off the AI writing as their own. 6. 91% accuracy is officially too low to use as a source of references, which means the AI can't be used as a source of references either. This makes it less legitimate for such purposes than Wikipedia of all places (Wikipedia might need date/time proof of when it was accessed for the reference to be valid, but at least it is possible to prove the link existed at a particular date and time). 7. This will help encourage the rollout of courses on how to avoid AI search for students who need academic accuracy, because it's statistically not good enough to use. 8. This strengthens the case intellectual property authors have against Google in the EU, as this is proof that an intellectual property transfer took place.
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 wish I could make white people(and not just white Americans) understand how diverse the pre-columbian Americas were. The history, religion, culture, politics was at least as complex as Europe's. There was the full gamut of religions, from monotheists to animists to ancestral religions. There were city building empires, village farmers, nomadic traders, and so many other ways to live. This is all just based on what we know, the fragments left behind and the stories of survivors of an apocalyptic plague. All this before the most extended campaign of genocide in history was waged in an attempt to wipe out those survivors.
Over 500 years spent trying to cut down a whole trunk of human culture.
Do you understand how much poorer our whole species is because of it? Can you imagine where art, religion, and science would be if we still had these vast bodies of knowledge? The stain of the colonial project will never be fully washed clean. We owe more than just the land to those we stole from. We owe them a whole future, a future that could have been brighter for all of us. If only greed and fear weren't allowed to rule this land.
These pescatarian birds are directly exposed to PFAS contamination due to the island's position near the St. Lawrence Seaway.
Over fifty years of data show a peak in PFAS (also known as "forever chemicals") content in seabird eggs in the 90s, followed by a decrease as regulations went into effect. The most recent findings show a 70% decrease of most common PFAS.
While continued vigilance a regulation is needed, this data indicates that regulations are working to reduce PFAS concentrations in marine ecosystems.
Yes!!!! I did a review of literature on PFASs in human drinking water about half a year ago, and there is a lot of really good progress! Please celebrate this, please don't let this solution be forgotten (at least so quickly) as the ozone layer or acid rain.
We are making genuine progress! Producers are dramatically altering how much they use PFAS and how much gets released in effluent, but also there's a lot better understanding of how to remove PFAS from the environment!
Environmental problems CAN BE SOLVED.
A German regional court has ruled that Google is directly liable for the content of its AI search overviews. According to the court, previou
Let’s fucking go
This is HUGE.
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.
TL;DR Google reeeeeally stepped in it this time.
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 dunno man. The Atlantic article may or may not be true, but all the criticism of it I've seen so far is ringing very hollow to me, like it's just emitted unconsciously without a single care whether it's true.
Hypothetically, if the article were actually completely correct, would you even be able to tell (or admit it)? Or would you still pattern-match to the same set of reflexive complains about reactionary elders and whatnot?
i think the general category of claims made in the Atlantic article are ones I wouldn't be willing to accept. Not from a "i refuse to believe smartphones are making anyone dumber" so much as "i refuse to believe anyone can make an honest assessment of whether smartphones are making people dumber"
I think sociology and psychology largely belong in a conflict theory rather than a mistake theory context: people who want to tell a particular narrative construct some unrigorous set of anecdotes (in the case of this article) or perhaps pretend to conduct a few low power research studies whose results wouldn't generalize (in the case of published research studies). largely this is an exercise at arriving at a conclusion that was decided prior and is independent of observation.
so the atlantic article is just the same old saw as "the moon's phase and mercury in retrograde tell me that the youth are revolting" and it's not a matter of critiquing the methods of astrology so much as pissing on the old farts who make their appeals to it for speaking out of turn and demonstrating that they've forgotten what it was like to be young.
Not from a "i refuse to believe smartphones are making anyone dumber" so much as "i refuse to believe anyone can make an honest assessment of whether smartphones are making people dumber"
But you and the other people talking about the article seem to be going much further than that. It's one thing to say "I refuse to believe anyone can make an honest assessment of whether X is happening" (which is defensible in isolation, although I think even that is a kind of epistemological nihilism that IME is only ever selectively deployed against hypotheses one doesn't like. "isolated demands for rigor" etc.). But it's another thing entirely to slide from that into "therefore X isn't happening, and the worrying about it is caused by old fogeyism instead of any real trend".
The central claim of the article— that more and more students are arriving at college unable to complete reading tasks that many decades of prior incoming freshmen could do— is a concrete one. It may be hard to measure and subject to rose-tinted nostalgia bias, but it's not ineffable or unfalsifiable. It's a claim for which the first wave of evidence will necessarily be anecdotal, from the professors who have been doing this for a while, and only later might show up in something more quantitative and peer-reviewable. Saying that we should ignore the anecdotal data entirely (which, in the world where the trend was real, would be the only data we had for a while) and make no updates about the state of the world or an attempt to investigate more rigorously to find the truth of the matter, is a nutty way to form a world-model. It's also one that's weirdly STEM-brained ("only that which can be rigorously measured is real"), which is why I'm sort of weirded out that I'm the one arguing against it and instead insisting on the classically humanities-coded claim that we should also incorporate fuzzy, historically-informed information when deciding what to do.
I'm just baffled because, again, I'm the STEM-lord here who is supposed to be the one pooh-poohing the importance of the humanities, but instead I'm watching a bunch of humanities people insisting that "the incoming acolytes to their discipline might not be able to read" is nbd. It's odd!
Students are not what they used to be. The crisis is worse than you think.
Re: “the first wave of evidence will necessarily be anecdotal” from the above post.
I don’t see how you can not be really, really blackpilled about this, except by resorting to the same “well, every generation says this about the youth” bromides that seem very hollow to me and that this time really is different. Like, it’s looking like only barely an exaggeration to say that an entire incoming generation about to enter adult life can’t read or write and that this is structurally impossible to correct.
I'm sorry to bring this up again, but The New Yorker is forcing my hand:
Some of the evidence for the drop in literacy is thin. One widely discussed study, for instance, judges students on their ability to parse the muddy and semantically tortuous opening of “Bleak House”; this is a little like assessing swimmers on their ability to cross fifty yards of molasses.
When Tumblr started talking about the Bleak House study, usually to disagree with it, I bit my tongue. I was thinking, "well, maybe it's mostly just Tumblr teenagers saying this". But when the New Yorker is dismissing it, I'm sorry, there's a serious problem.
No it is fucking not like "assessing swimmers on their ability to cross fifty yards of molasses"! What is wrong with you?!? These are incoming English literature majors being asked to read and understand a small amount of English literature.
The standard excuses getting trotted our here are maddening. You can't wave it off as "well, current readers can't be expected to know what the Lincoln's Inn Hall is like contemporary ones could"— the study specifically says the students were allowed to use any reference material they wanted for unfamiliar terms, and they still bombed.
Nor is the "well, this is a bad choice of book, it's too hard". This isn't Finnegans fucking Wake! Dickens had mass-market appeal and was a best-seller among commoners in his own time.
I'm going insane seeing everyone around me poo-pooing "incoming English literature majors can't read English" as probably just old men yelling at clouds. I feel like the people in January 2020 going "hey, so, this respiratory thing in China seems bad?" and getting told either that "saying this is bad would hurt Trump, so it isn't" or "saying this is bad would be racist, so it isn't".
Six weeks into the term, I assigned my rhetoric and writing students a 20-page article. It was the same length I had assigned for five years and the same length I had read without complaint as an undergraduate a decade ago. Not one student finished it.
When I asked why, a student answered honestly: It was too long, and she kept losing track of what the paper was about. This was not a remedial class: These were students who had cleared the admissions process and written essays good enough to get them here. Yet a routine academic reading assignment had defeated them.
Every generation of professors has complained that their students cannot read. The lament is usually overblown, but data have caught up to anecdote, and what I am seeing in my classroom is no longer a hunch. There is a measurable, generational collapse in sustained reading and writing, and the academy is responding to it with improvisation and exhaustion rather than the structural overhaul it requires.
I’m going to keep banging on about this until everybody agrees with me, because every time I post these I get the same thought-terminating clichés about Socrates, xkcd 1227, Abe Simpson, etc. even while the empirical evidence just keeps mounting, and it is driving me bananas. This time it’s from the Chronicle of Higher Education, not a neoliberal old-fudder handwringing site like The Atlantic, but the bastion of “the students are always right” philosophy hegemonic to college administration for the last decade+. At some point you’ve gotta accept that literacy collapse is a real thing that’s happening right now, no matter how many people were wrong about something similar in the past.
it's very frustrating seeing otherwise well-structured posts about media literacy and critical thinking bookended with statements about "nowadays", "nobody has literacy anymore", "this generation is so anti-intellectual", and the like, unquestioningly falling into better past fallacies.
Do we really think the 80s and its Satanic Panic were better at critical thinking? what about the 40s? the Victorian era? societies have always had problems with critical thinking and literacy, because most societies have dealt with propaganda, corrupt leadership, difficulty providing education (due to poverty or discrimination or other issues), and/or people who resist critical thinking (due to privilege or circumstance or what have you). we can criticize media trends without pulling a "well back in the GOOD OLD DAYS" about it.
^ source
^source
I was curious about this, so I did a little snooping. While it is true that "nobody is thinking about X any more" is fallacious and a true classic human sentiment, there is also demographic evidence stretching back to the 90s indicating that cultural engagement in particular, and literacy more broadly, have been on the decline in the US for the last few decades.
Now, that said - back in the 1870s, there were estimated to be about 9,000 college degree holders in the entire continental US, so we certainly have made some strides in that respect.
