Tootfinder

This is also the reason I despise most requests for content warnings. I do not in fact want to use your schema for this, and people do not in fact agree on what’s triggering. I’m happy to accommodate specific people in some contexts, but for example generally on social media? Sorry, no. The unfollow button is over there.
And it’s not like I go posting spider images or grisly photos or anything. I talk about hard stuff though. usually a little academically, usually a little distantly. And I deeply believe we need more of that and not to bury it under ‘cw: trauma’ or whatever. That warning gives very little information to go on and presumes a whole lot about the schema of the world that does not hold. I won’t be subject to it.
I can exercise care for people in other ways.
And not everyone all the time gets personalized care from me. That’s an impossible demand and should be treated as such.

The first record of the parable commonly known as the "Blind Men and the Elephant" showed up around 2500 years ago, in a Buddhist text from India. At this point it's pretty commonly known. I assume that most folks reading this will be familiar with some variation of it.
If not, it's essentially a story about people who have limited information making assertions about something: one man grabs a tail and says, "it's like a rope," another the trunk and says, "it's like a snake," a third the leg saying, "it's like a tree," and so on. Later variations are less kind to the men, having them not simply report their findings, but fight over them. The first English translation draws a parallel to religion.
This comes to mind for me, because social media has a tendency to incentivize us to make those hard assertions, to dig in, to argue our perspective as part of a spectacle. Free and federated social media isn't structurally that different from corporate media, so the incentive models built to maximize engagement by maximizing conflict tend to leak through the similarities in the user experience and the conditioning of other platforms.
I didn't really come here to critique the fediverse, but rather to remind everyone, "no one sees the whole fucking elephant." We are limited and there are necessarily some things so big they will never be individually comprehensible. Any system that relies on us all agreeing cannot possibly respond to those big things.
We can see that concretely if we look at the difference between "democratic unity" and "diversity of tactics." In the first model, everyone either agrees or gets forced to behave as though they agree (at least on some issues). That's how liberal democracy works. Diversity of tactics (which systematically described, for example, in the "St Paul Principles"), on the other hand, let's people align on goals without needing to agree on exactly how to achieve them. The reality being that often there are multiple "correct" paths, and sometimes those paths can only work if multiple paths are taken in unison.
No one sees the whole elephant. We won't even see the elephant later. People will still be arguing about the elephant long after it's gone. But if you want to get rid of the elephant, you're gonna need to accept that you can't comprehend it all and you're gonna have to figure out a way to work together that doesn't require a unified approach.

"Der Zustand ist nicht deshalb so schlecht, weil das System unterfinanziert war, sondern weil die Vorstände der Deutschen Bahn fast alles konnten ausser Eisenbahn in Deutschland. "- Lokführer und Gewerkschafter Claus Weselsky
#DeutscheBahn

Deutsche Bahn: Weselsky über Probleme und neue Investitionen
Lokführer und Gewerkschafter Claus Weselsky ist einer der schärfsten Kritiker der Deutschen Bahn. Im ZDF-Interview wirft er dem Staatskonzern und dem Bund schwere Versäumnisse vor.

Sources: the Trump administration is pressing Meta to submit its AI models for voluntary review; Meta is the only major US AI developer without an agreement (New York Times)
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/23/busines

U.S. Presses Meta to Agree to A.I. Reviews
Federal officials are urging the lone major tech company holdout to allow government safety evaluations, weeks after ordering Anthropic to pull its latest model.

Friends Don't Let Friends Make Bad Graphs! Do you agree with the examples of bad graphs and the alternatives Chenxin Li (@chenxinli2.bsky.social) lists at #RStats

GitHub - cxli233/FriendsDontLetFriends: Friends don't let friends make certain types of data visualization - What are they and why are they bad.
Friends don't let friends make certain types of data visualization - What are they and why are they bad. - cxli233/FriendsDontLetFriends

RE: https://kolektiva.social/@witchescauldron/116842902073738535
I very much agree, but have encountered pushback many times. For example, technical nerds love the challenge of complexity. "You are not google" or "This old, boring t…

#Laubbläser um die Parzelle von den Eichenblättern zu befreien, ist auch next-level. #Camping
Und das am Sonntagmorgen.

Replaced article(s) found for math.DS. https://arxiv.org/list/math.DS/new
[1/2]:
- The structure of totally disconnected Host--Kra--Ziegler factors, and the inverse theorem for the...
Asgar Jamneshan, Or Shalom, Terence Tao
https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.04860 https://mastoxiv.page/@arXiv_mathDS_bot/109997807513962212
- Polynomial entropy of induced homeomorphisms on $C_k(\mathbb{S}^1)$ and $C_k([0,1])$
Ma\v{s}a {\DJ}ori\'c, Jelena Kati\'c
https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.06037 https://mastoxiv.page/@arXiv_mathDS_bot/115173666484478030
- On the geometric quantization of $\theta$-almost twisted Poisson manifold
Nasser Saipele Nansidi, Bertuel Tangue Ndawa, Joseph Dongho
https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.21168 https://mastoxiv.page/@arXiv_mathDS_bot/115269630154890083
- On the generating series of the degree sequence
Quang-Khai Nguyen
https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.06142 https://mastoxiv.page/@arXiv_mathDS_bot/115337828753858865
- Resolvent-Based Singular-Value Diagnostics for Data-Driven Koopman Finite Sections
Yuanchao Xu, Itsushi Sakata, Isao Ishikawa
https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.24953 https://mastoxiv.page/@arXiv_mathDS_bot/115819316279700435
- Refracting Filippov systems: sliding dynamics without sliding regions
D. J. W. Simpson
https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.10333 https://mastoxiv.page/@arXiv_mathDS_bot/116215253094993668
- Complete realization of multifractal entropy spectra and pressure functions
Xiaobo Hou, Wanshan Lin, Xueting Tian
https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.20617 https://mastoxiv.page/@arXiv_mathDS_bot/116611418906721246
- Structural Causal Discovery and Predictive Sufficiency in High-Dimensional Dynamical Systems
Abd AlRahman R. AlMomani, Curtis N. James, Christopher C. Hennon, Ronny Schroeder
https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.00710 https://mastoxiv.page/@arXiv_mathDS_bot/116679365046680815
- Shadowing in Dynamical Systems: Zero-dimensional Extensions and Inverse Limits
Dekui Peng
https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.14435 https://mastoxiv.page/@arXiv_mathDS_bot/116752985726507271
- One residual set of Cantor graphs with dense conjugacy classes
Zhengyu Yin
https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.21018 https://mastoxiv.page/@arXiv_mathDS_bot/116973856140760258
- Hausdorff dimension of non-uniquely ergodic directions in eigenform loci
Yuming Wei, Pengyu Yang
https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.24181 https://mastoxiv.page/@arXiv_mathDS_bot/116996562370083221
- Sharp Cyclicity of Neutral Entry--Exit Cycles with Quadratic Grazing
Haibo Lu
https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.27464 https://mastoxiv.page/@arXiv_mathDS_bot/117013446092691734
toXiv_bot_toot

RE: https://hachyderm.io/@thomasfuchs/117122488745257105
I'd welcome any thoughts you have on this, even if unstructured.
There should be reasoning and a line of argumentation, not just "it's unethical".
I'm interested in the why a specific thing about it is (e.g. "data centers are unethical because of pollution and water use", or "generating text and serving it to humans as your own is unethical because it's deceitful").
It could also be counter-examples, like "generating code that's verified through testing and based on training data from open source projects is not unethical."
(These are just examples which you may or may not agree with, it's not the point.)