Tootfinder

2/2 I continued blogging Alberniweather and on FB and Twitter but I gradually removed my personal self from Facebook and eventually during the Pandemic, I decided the Facebook environment was just too toxic even for weather stuff and I shut down my page and left Facebook completely.
The impact on traffic to Alberniweather.ca and its prominence in the community was, and still is, significant.
I have diehard followers, many who have become friends over the years, I still get the odd call from media, or even the public about random weather things.
I have good connections with a few folks at Environment Canada (though their staff have become thinner and more transient :(
and major events still get spikes of local traffic but I since about 2022, and after I removed myself from Twitter that year, I don’t blog nearly as much. I would do a few posts in a week, and then go months without posting. I just got out of the habit I guess.
But I am still interested in the weather. I still feel like Alberniweather is a useful service for people in my community. I still feel a willing obligation to inform people about the weather and I believe I am trusted to do so by the public and local leaders. I’ve never made any money at it, I sold ad space on the website for a few years but it wasn’t worth the hassle and I didn’t feel comfortable taking the money when I was councillor. I have had some generous spontaneous donations at times.
But mainly I do it because it’s interesting, and I hope it is useful for people especially when people are looking for information during a major event.
The highest traffic I have ever had on Alberniweather pre-FB exit was the local Dog Mountain forest fire in 2015.
post-FB exit: the #underwoodfire
People want easy access to reliable local, trusted, information.
Large media orgs have mostly given up on this.
I am grateful we still have an active local newspaper and radio and that both trust me and I trust them.
@… @…

1/2 Thanks to @… for this interesting article. It speaks to me. :)
I’ve been weather blogging @… since 2005. It is interesting how it has changed, and how I have changed.
My website used to be just data from the (expensive) station I bought when I moved back to Port Alberni. It was a hobby and a side project to practice web/coding skills I use at work. My focus was on creating useful data for people that was more local/relevant than the official EC station outside of the city.
Then I put up a webcam and learned how to make timelapses. This got the attention of local media… because pictures. :)
Then I added a blog and started to write about the weather almost daily. This was before Facebook. There was a popular local online forum where I would post things. The media would also follow my website and they started to call me when there was extreme weather (usually very hot or very wet/stormy).
Then Facebook started to get big and I made a page that eventually had a few thousand followers. I would blog often. Lots of traffic from Facebook… this was 2010 and on. I blogged about climate and weather pretty equally.
Like anyone in Port Alberni, I was/am obsessed with the Martin Mars and got wrapped up in that issue along with others which combined with the weather following probably gave me just enough exposure to have me elected as a councillor in 2014.
I continued through that 4 years, blogging often in addition to councillor duties and work, heavily on facebook, then it all went sideways on my own poor judgement (go ahead and google it, it’s ok :)) and I was not reelected, but Facebook by 2018 had also changed. Cambridge Analytica, etc.
….Continued…
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-weather-apps-data-wildfires-storms-preparation-obsession-social-media/

I'd venture this backlash isn’t just because of one Epstein PR mistake. It’s because Trump smells weak and vulnerable, and his supporters are looking for an exit. The MAGA types loved Trump because he made them feel like winners. And right now he doesn’t.
That doesn't mean we win, yay, time to kick back. His supporters are in an abusive relationship, and they will find it hard to leave.
What this means is − keep the pressure up. ←
Worth skimming this whole roundup from @…. I just don't think the backlash happens without larger underlying weakness.
#uspol https://toad.social/@wdlindsy/114851991461182777

Why AI can't possibly make you more productive; long
#AI and "productivity", some thoughts:
Edit: fixed some typos.
Productivity is a concept that isn't entirely meaningless outside the context of capitalism, but it's a concept that is heavily inflected in a capitalist context. In many uses today it effectively means "how much you can satisfy and/or exceed your boss' expectations." This is not really what it should mean: even in an anarchist utopia, people would care about things like how many shirts they can produce in a week, although in an "I'd like to voluntarily help more people" way rather than an "I need to meet this quota to earn my survival" way. But let's roll with this definition for a second, because it's almost certainly what your boss means when they say "productivity", and understanding that word in a different (even if truer) sense is therefore inherently dangerous.
Accepting "productivity" to mean "satisfying your boss' expectations," I will now claim: the use of generative AI cannot increase your productivity.
Before I dive in, it's imperative to note that the big generative models which most people think of as constituting "AI" today are evil. They are 1: pouring fuel on our burning planet, 2: psychologically strip-mining a class of data laborers who are exploited for their precarity, 3: enclosing, exploiting, and polluting the digital commons, and 4: stealing labor from broad classes of people many of whom are otherwise glad to give that labor away for free provided they get a simple acknowledgement in return. Any of these four "ethical issues" should be enough *alone* to cause everyone to simply not use the technology. These ethical issues are the reason that I do not use generative AI right now, except for in extremely extenuating circumstances. These issues are also convincing for a wide range of people I talk to, from experts to those with no computer science background. So before I launch into a critique of the effectiveness of generative AI, I want to emphasize that such a critique should be entirely unnecessary.
But back to my thesis: generative AI cannot increase your productivity, where "productivity" has been defined as "how much you can satisfy and/or exceed your boss' expectations."
Why? In fact, what the fuck? Every AI booster I've met has claimed the opposite. They've given me personal examples of time saved by using generative AI. Some of them even truly believe this. Sometimes I even believe they saved time without horribly compromising on quality (and often, your boss doesn't care about quality anyways if the lack of quality is hard to measure of doesn't seem likely to impact short-term sales/feedback/revenue). So if generative AI genuinely lets you write more emails in a shorter period of time, or close more tickets, or something else along these lines, how can I say it isn't increasing your ability to meet your boss' expectations?
The problem is simple: your boss' expectations are not a fixed target. Never have been. In virtue of being someone who oversees and pays wages to others under capitalism, your boss' game has always been: pay you less than the worth of your labor, so that they can accumulate profit and thus more capital to remain in charge instead of being forced into working for a wage themselves. Sure, there are layers of management caught in between who aren't fully in this mode, but they are irrelevant to this analysis. It matters not how much you please your manager if your CEO thinks your work is not worth the wages you are being paid. And using AI actively lowers the value of your work relative to your wages.
Why do I say that? It's actually true in several ways. The most obvious: using generative AI lowers the quality of your work, because the work it produces is shot through with errors, and when your job is reduced to proofreading slop, you are bound to tire a bit, relax your diligence, and let some mistakes through. More than you would have if you are actually doing and taking pride in the work. Examples are innumerable and frequent, from journalists to lawyers to programmers, and we laugh at them "haha how stupid to not check whether the books the AI reviewed for you actually existed!" but on a deeper level if we're honest we know we'd eventually make the same mistake ourselves (bonus game: spot the swipe-typing typos I missed in this post; I'm sure there will be some).
But using generative AI also lowers the value of your work in another much more frightening way: in this era of hype, it demonstrates to your boss that you could be replaced by AI. The more you use it, and no matter how much you can see that your human skills are really necessary to correct its mistakes, the more it appears to your boss that they should hire the AI instead of you. Or perhaps retain 10% of the people in roles like yours to manage the AI doing the other 90% of the work. Paradoxically, the *more* you get done in terms of raw output using generative AI, the more it looks to your boss as if there's an opportunity to get enough work done with even fewer expensive humans. Of course, the decision to fire you and lean more heavily into AI isn't really a good one for long-term profits and success, but the modern boss did not get where they are by considering long-term profits. By using AI, you are merely demonstrating your redundancy, and the more you get done with it, the more redundant you seem.
In fact, there's even a third dimension to this: by using generative AI, you're also providing its purveyors with invaluable training data that allows them to make it better at replacing you. It's generally quite shitty right now, but the more use it gets by competent & clever people, the better it can become at the tasks those specific people use it for. Using the currently-popular algorithm family, there are limits to this; I'm not saying it will eventually transcend the mediocrity it's entwined with. But it can absolutely go from underwhelmingly mediocre to almost-reasonably mediocre with the right training data, and data from prompting sessions is both rarer and more useful than the base datasets it's built on.
For all of these reasons, using generative AI in your job is a mistake that will likely lead to your future unemployment. To reiterate, you should already not be using it because it is evil and causes specific and inexcusable harms, but in case like so many you just don't care about those harms, I've just explained to you why for entirely selfish reasons you should not use it.
If you're in a position where your boss is forcing you to use it, my condolences. I suggest leaning into its failures instead of trying to get the most out of it, and as much as possible, showing your boss very clearly how it wastes your time and makes things slower. Also, point out the dangers of legal liability for its mistakes, and make sure your boss is aware of the degree to which any of your AI-eager coworkers are producing low-quality work that harms organizational goals.
Also, if you've read this far and aren't yet of an anarchist mindset, I encourage you to think about the implications of firing 75% of (at least the white-collar) workforce in order to make more profit while fueling the climate crisis and in most cases also propping up dictatorial figureheads in government. When *either* the AI bubble bursts *or* if the techbros get to live out the beginnings of their worker-replacement fantasies, there are going to be an unimaginable number of economically desperate people living in increasingly expensive times. I'm the kind of optimist who thinks that the resulting social crucible, though perhaps through terrible violence, will lead to deep social changes that effectively unseat from power the ultra-rich that continue to drag us all down this destructive path, and I think its worth some thinking now about what you might want the succeeding stable social configuration to look like so you can advocate towards that during points of malleability.
As others have said more eloquently, generative AI *should* be a technology that makes human lives on average easier, and it would be were it developed & controlled by humanists. The only reason that it's not, is that it's developed and controlled by terrible greedy people who use their unfairly hoarded wealth to immiserate the rest of us in order to maintain their dominance. In the long run, for our very survival, we need to depose them, and I look forward to what the term "generative AI" will mean after that finally happens.

The blind leading the gamers https://www.wired.com/story/ross-minor-the-blind-leading-the-gamers/ "when Minor asks a sighted person for help, it might actually be for our sake: to let *us* feel useful and included."

He’s Blind. He Plays Video Games. Here’s How That Works
Ross Minor lost his eyesight at 8 years old. Today, he’s a hardcore gamer who runs YouTube and Twitch channels and consults for big studios. This is not—necessarily—an inspirational story.

As Trump's tariffs cut off the US from imports and as he deports the core of the US labor force, I think about the fact that tariffs and other import taxes were a major part of the lead up to the Revolutionary War. It's no coincidence that a bunch of the Founding Fathers were smugglers.
The logistics of the resistance and the logistics of the population were intertwined, meaning that it was not always possible to attack resistance logistics without alienating the population.
All this is worth keeping in mind right now.
#USPol

@… some German cities built very expensive bike storage
Of course they built them in shitty locations and with bad usability
And then are confused why nobody uses them

Millionengräber: Fahrrad-Parkhäuser in Bonn und Leverkusen bleiben leer
In der Theorie klingt es super: Das Fahrrad für wenig Geld sicher abstellen. Nur wird das Angebot nicht genutzt.

Just got a small space heater and damn it’s so much more comfortable here now
As a @… fan I’d prefer if my AC/heat pump supported heating mode, but welp it was already installed when I moved here so an electric heater will do it for the 2 days a year it’s actually cold enough for that to be useful here. Getting all that heat from the bedroom to the living room would be a problem anyway.
And I didn’t even need to make a fire hazard in order to use it since a 20A outlet was already around due to the coffee thingy, yay!
It’s been on for just around 40mins and it’s already sooo much better in here (the temp sensor is not on the side the heater is pointing to (the sofa) so it’ll take a while for it to reflect the change specially since this is a big room (kitchen dinner living), but just pointing the heater to where I’m at is enough to make it a comfortable temperature (and probably even way too hot in a bit)).
I’ve been wanting this for a while, but it never felt worth it bc we don’t really have many cold days here. Tho this year we got some more I think and today was specially cold (9~11°C) so I decided to just do it. Extra points bc it was available on fucking iFood of all places so it arrived less than an hour after I ordered it lmao.

One last push:
The @… app campaign is just €7000 away from it's €55,000 target, and 2 days to go. Surely there are #fedizens who may not have seen this already? If they make the €55,000 target I promise to write a peertube channel into my next grant proposal, AND I'll post some better quality videos of our Greenland and #Antarctic research over the coming weeks...
Go!
#bigTech derisory) amount of EUR 75,000 to develop the opensource #fediverse competitor app to Youtube. Maybe chuck 'em a few euros if you think it useful?
https://support.joinpeertube.org/en/