Tootfinder

I think I have a whole blog post/talk/video in me on this topic, but I feel like most ppl lack imagination when thinking about the DB repository pattern. It doesn't have to be just add/list/get—it's probably even wasteful!
Catchy: ”Database Repository Pattern for People Who Don't Hate Databases”

The #IWW #GDC as an antifascist organization was always kind of a hack. It was a beautiful hack and it worked well for what it did.
In 2016, as Trump was rising, I found info from the Twin Cities GDC. They were super organized, building an amazing community defense organization. When we (Seattle) went to set up our chapter, following their lead, they were extremely supportive. When I got shot, Twin Cities folks were at my house keeping my partner safe. They literally flew people out to support us. They very much remain in my mind when I think about what mutual aid looks like.
Unionism is an important strategy of a larger fight. But it's important to realize that it's not the other way around. The GDC was built to defend the union, because there wasn't something larger to do that work. It filled a gap.
When we organized against Trump, we tried to make the GDC the greater thing. We tried to make the GDC into the vehicle for social revolution against the fascist threat... And it sort of worked. We were able to do a lot.
But that was never what it was built to do. It was always built as an appendage of the IWW. This contains its own problem. If Unionism is the revolutionary movement, then it becomes impossible to build a truly revolutionary society. Unionism centers "workers" which implicitly decenters those who can't work in the traditional sense (the young, the elderly, those physically or mentally able to work). It also decenters care labor that hasn't yet been widely commodified. Sure, there are all types of hacks to patch the holes, but the fundamental construction starts from the wrong assumptions.
It felt, for a while, like things could go another way. Like that our ability to bring members in could shift things a bit, maybe set the GDC on more equal footing with the core focus of the IWW. But that was always an illusion, far less important to think about than the crushing terror of the regime we were fighting.
Now, I will absolutely trash talk the IWW on occasion but in the end I do think they're doing good and important work. Any criticism I have should be taken with a grain of salt... And I know I do have a lot of salt. Again, Unionism is an important strategy. It's useful both in improving immediate material conditions and as part of the most powerful weapon we have against the capitalist system: the general strike. It's important, I can't say that enough. But it's not sufficient.
I've been thinking about this a bit recently, and I wonder if there are any other GDC organizers or former organizers who might be feeling the same. Feel free to DM me. I'd like to get some more perspectives and see if my understanding from several years ago deviates significantly from what other folks are feeling right now.
I'd also like to bounce some ideas around that come from my own organizing experience.

Today was the last day of ESA's JUICE Science Working Team Meeting at #mpsgoettingen in Göttingen – with lots of talks, discussions, and planning for the months and years ahead. Thanks to everyone for being here and making the meeting a success!
#ESA

The fracturing of the Dutch far-right, after Wilder's reminded everyone that bigots are bad at compromise, is definitely a relief. Dutch folks I've talked to definitely see D66 as progressive, <strike>so there's no question this is a hard turn to the left (even if it's not a total flip to the far-left)</strike> a lot of folks don't agree. I'm going to let the comments speak rather than editorialize myself..
While this is a useful example of how a democracy can be far more resilient to fascism than the US, that is, perhaps, not the most interesting thing about Dutch politics. The most interesting thing is something Dutch folks take for granted and never think of as such: there are two "governments."
The election was for the Tweede Kamer. This is a house of representatives. The Dutch use proportional representation, so people can (more or less) vote for the parties they actually want. Parties <strike>rarely</strike> never actually get a ruling majority, so they have to form coalition governments. This forces compromise, which is something Wilders was extremely bad at. He was actually responsible for collapsing the coalition his party put together, which triggered this election... and a massive loss of seats for his party.
Dutch folks do still vote strategically, since a larger party has an easier time building the governing coalition and the PM tends to come from the largest party. This will likely be D66, which is really good for the EU. D66 has a pretty radical plan to solve the housing crisis, and it will be really interesting to see if they can pull it off. But that's not the government I want to talk about right now.
In the Netherlands, failure to control water can destroy entire towns. A good chunk of the country is below sea level. Both floods and land reclamation have been critical parts of Dutch history. So in the 1200's or so, the Dutch realized that some things are too important to mix with normal politics.
You see, if there's an incompetent government that isn't able to actually *do* anything (see Dick Schoof and the PVV/VVD/NSC/BBB coalition) you don't want your dikes to collapse and poulders to flood. So the Dutch created a parallel "government" that exists only to manage water: waterschap or heemraadschap (roughly "Water Board" in English). These are regional bureaucracies that exist only to manage water. They exist completely outside the thing we usually talk about as a "government" but they have some of the same properties as a government. They can, for example, levy taxes. The central government contributes funds to them, but lacks authority over them. Water boards are democratically elected and can operate more-or-less independent of the central government.
Controlling water is a common problem, so water boards were created to fulfill the role of commons management. Meanwhile, so many other things in politics run into the very same "Tragedy of the Commons" problems. The right wing solution to commons management is to let corporations ruin everything. The left-state solution is to move everything into the government so it can be undermined and destroyed by the right. The Dutch solution to this specific problem has been to move commons management out of the domain of the central government into something else.
And when I say "government" here, I'm speaking more to the liberal definition of the term than to an anarchist definition. A democratically controlled authority that facilitates resource management lacks the capacity for coercive violence that anarchists define as "government." (Though I assume they might leverage police or something if folks refuse to pay their taxes, but I can't imagine anyone choosing not to.)
As the US federal government destroys the social fabric of the US, as Trump guts programs critical to people's survival, it might be worth thinking about this model. These authorities weren't created by any central authority, they evolved from the people. Nothing stops Americans from building similar institutions that are both democratic and outside of the authority of a government that could choose to defund and abolish them... nothing but the realization that yes, you actually can.
#USPol #NLPol

Thinking Machines Lab co-founder Andrew Tulloch has left to join Meta; he reportedly declined Zuckerberg's offer of a $1.5B package in August (Wall Street Journal)
https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/thinking-machines-lab-co-founder-departs-for-m…

Domain-Adapted Pre-trained Language Models for Implicit Information Extraction in Crash Narratives
Xixi Wang, Jordanka Kovaceva, Miguel Costa, Shuai Wang, Francisco Camara Pereira, Robert Thomson
https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.09434

Domain-Adapted Pre-trained Language Models for Implicit Information Extraction in Crash Narratives
Free-text crash narratives recorded in real-world crash databases have been shown to play a significant role in improving traffic safety. However, large-scale analyses remain difficult to implement as there are no documented tools that can batch process the unstructured, non standardized text content written by various authors with diverse experience and attention to detail. In recent years, Transformer-based pre-trained language models (PLMs), such as Bidirectional Encoder Representations from…

NewtonBench: Benchmarking Generalizable Scientific Law Discovery in LLM Agents
Tianshi Zheng, Kelvin Kiu-Wai Tam, Newt Hue-Nam K. Nguyen, Baixuan Xu, Zhaowei Wang, Jiayang Cheng, Hong Ting Tsang, Weiqi Wang, Jiaxin Bai, Tianqing Fang, Yangqiu Song, Ginny Y. Wong, Simon See
https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.07172

NewtonBench: Benchmarking Generalizable Scientific Law Discovery in LLM Agents
Large language models are emerging as powerful tools for scientific law discovery, a foundational challenge in AI-driven science. However, existing benchmarks for this task suffer from a fundamental methodological trilemma, forcing a trade-off between scientific relevance, scalability, and resistance to memorization. Furthermore, they oversimplify discovery as static function fitting, failing to capture the authentic scientific process of uncovering embedded laws through the interactive explora…

There's a simple trick for increasing your velocity: just redefine "done" from "value was created" to checking off an arbitrary box.
Tools like bogus "design thinking" templates and LLM people-simulators get sold en masse as a solution to "improving velocity."
But when you apply a speedrunning attitude to the product development lifecycle, your biggest asset (divergent thinking and diverse perspectives from collaborators) becomes your h…

The people ARE the process
Cutting down on collaboration tricks you into thinking you're going faster, but it destroys the divergence effects that make the design process valuable.

I was just thinking about how the fact that #Musk named his AI "Grok" is evidence that he "reads sci-fi" in the same way he "plays video games." Like, he claims to do it but when it comes time to show the evidence it's clear he does not actually "grok" it.
Like... To grok something is to have a layer deeper than simply knowledge, but mathematically encoding statistical relationships between words is pretty obviously not even understanding much less qualifying as "groking" it. In the book, the ability to grok something is also the ability to annihilate that thing with a thought. Just pretending that an LLM actually *was* something that could become AGI (which it's not), this name would imply the AI would have the power to annihilate reality. That's bad. That's a bad name for an AI.
And why would a greedy fascist name something of his after something an anarchist communist space Jesus taught to the hippie cult he started? There are so many layers of facepalm to this. It's some kind of php-esque fractal of incompetence.
Like, there's no reason to talk about this but my brain does this to me sometimes and now it's your problem.