One taco, sometimes two, maybe even 2.72 taco

What I learned is that there is an inflexible rule about how people interact with systems. If your system would work perfectly if people Just Would, and yet they Don't, then your system is bad and you should feel bad. Systems must be built with an eye toward "will people actually do this"?

Recycling was a thing when I was a child. (The 70's.) In my home in New York State, you could carry recyclables to a recycling center. Nobody did. Now in 2024 Baltimore there is a trash truck that comes every week to pick up my recyclables, and I and my neighbors fill our cans with objects that can be recycled, because a system was developed that was easy for busy people to do, and there's a lot of social pressure to do it -- but the social pressure wouldn't exist if it wasn't easy to do. Only the most crunchy granola people bitched at you if you didn't recycle in 1979, when it required a lot of effort. Now it is considered kind of on par with spitting in the street or leaving a dirty diaper on the diaper changing table in the bathroom instead of throwing it out, if you don't recycle.

@alarajrogers what did you mean by this?

A small thing. If you want to support trans and nonbinary people, then on government forms, if they require gender and you can't get around it, allow "other"; better still, don't require gender. If you're building a medical system, and the patient's gender is M, do not gray out all the "female" problems he might be presenting with on the grounds that a man can't possibly have menstrual problems, be pregnant, or have issues with his uterus; likewise if the patient presents as F, don't make it impossible to enter a diagnosis of prostate cancer for her.

Don't set up validation rules that prevent someone with gender M from having a husband. Better yet, let "husband" and "wife" both be covered by the term "spouse", because that is inclusive of non-binary spouses as well.

Because I'm in IT, I think in terms of IT systems. But there are government systems and insurance systems and financial systems and all sorts of systems out there, that should be set up so that a gay person will be able to navigate it as easily as a straight person, and a straight person will see that the available options don't privilege them at the expense of everyone else... a subtle reminder that no, you're not the center of the universe and gay people exist. Why do you think the right wing fights so hard against there being Spanish on forms that are also in English? You'd think, it doesn't harm anyone using the form for there to be both Spanish and English. But they know, the presence of Spanish reminds English speakers that the world doesn't center around what works for them; other options exist. That's what they want to get rid of, the subtle reminder that someone besides them is important too.

This is a discussion about how to make systems work in some way other than If People Would Just, making them easier to promote the result you want, so I'm not sure how you even got "the onus is on gay people to be more palatable", and I get the feeling you don't understand the context of the discussion. I am not even sure how you could devise a system that incorporates "gay people should make themselves more palatable" because that sounds exactly like a thing that People Should Just... meaning, you're relying on humans to behave in the exact specific way you need them to for your system to work, and the whole point of this conversation is that doing that dooms your system to fail. Gay people will never Just Make Themselves More Palatable To Straights, as a cohort, so if your system for getting gay people to be better accepted relies on If Gay People Would Just, your system will fail.

Last week i was looking into one of my teen's homework when I noticed she was writing words she "wasn't supposed to know" in english (like "furthermore", for example. They only know very intermediary english) I got a bit mad for a second. I wear an "anti-AI" button all the time, i even told them before why i was anti-AI, yet she didn't listen to me and thought she could get away with it... But i decided to keep it cool because i didn't know why she would do this, since she never did.

Okay, one week after, this Wednesday, it was time for their class again and, when she arrived, i told her to come to my desk and asked her: "what is furthermore?" She went pale when she noticed the paper in my hands. I asked again: "darling, what is furthermore?" Then, she shuttered: "I don't know, teacher. I'm sorry, I had to ask Gemini because I had no time..." then I sat her down, she was clearly upset (she is just 13) and I asked her what happened. "I didn't have any time left because of my exams and there were too many units to go through. So I asked my mom to help me and she told me to use ChatGPT but I asked google instead." Okay. So I looked into her eyes and told her it was okay, that she didn't need to be upset, but she would have to re-do that paper and bring it back to me by the next week. I told her she didn't need google or gpt to do her work, because she got a very high score at her english exam (both at school and at the course). She got right back on her feet and we started class as normal.

i call this "grace and rocky versus archive of our own"

bonus featuring adrian:

Iwaizumi and Oikawa forget to tell anyone they're dating but Mattsun doesn't even think its weird when Oikawa smacks Iwa's ass in the hall.

Daichi and Suga forget to tell anyone that they're dating but they figure out that Daichi is dating "someone" and everyone feels bad for Suga and starts walking on eggshells.

Akaashi and Bokuto forgot to tell anyone they were dating and the whole team thought that Bokuto had finally gotten over his crush because he finally wasn't constantly asking if they thought Akaashi might like him.

Aran and Kita forgot to tell anyone they were dating and Atsumu borrowed Aran's phone, saw he had set a picture of Kita sleeping to his lock screen, and tried to have a sit down conversation about how creepy that was with him.

Not always bad ideas, but shitty ones.

A bad idea will result in harm or hold something back substantially. A shitty idea is a first-draft. Unrefined, unoriginal, sauceless. A bad idea must be stopped, but a shitty idea can be improved.

Because normally if you want art you have to consider the composition, effort, expenses, techniques, etc. that will go into making it real. Then you have to assess all that and decide "is this idea worthwhile?". In this environment, most ideas that get turned into Something are ones that the author(s) believe in. Ideas that have been shifted and improved upon so the resources doesn't go to waste. Decidedly non-shitty ones.

But with gen AI people just generate whatever half-assed idea they thought up first, often publishing it as-is. No drive to improve, no perfecting the vision. Because the idea lacked passion from the outset. Sowing slop, reaping slop. Every shitty idea put on full display, wearing the rotting skinsuit of all artists from the past, monetized to hell and expected to be taken just as seriously as the non-shitty ones.