Tootfinder

Three skeptics called war "media lies"—then visited Ukraine's bombed hospitals and mass graves - Euromaidan Press
https://euromaidanpress.com/2025/07/21/three-skeptics-called-war-media-lies-then-visited-ukraines-bombed-hospitals-and-mass-graves/

DUH - for senior citizens NOT paying attention. 🤬
✅ Taxes on Social Security benefits were not eliminated despite what you've heard - USA Today
https://www.

Trump’s sudden announcement Saturday night that he bombed three Iranian nuclear sites has Republican skeptics of U.S. military action against Iran largely falling in line.
The prospect of strikes against Iran had sparked backlash from Democrats and days of infighting within Trump’s MAGA coalition
But after the president posted on Truth Social that the U.S. has bombed Iran,
several GOP critics cheered the strikes as a "limited action".
Several top Democrats …

I realized I'm generally no longer replying to people vaunting the benefits of LLMs (online and IRL) the same way I'm no longer replying to people vaunting the benefits of killing somebody at winter solstice to ensure the sun returns.

"Restored wetlands reap benefits for climate, drought-resilience after just one year, study shows"
#Wetlands #Climate #ClimateChange

Restored wetlands reap benefits for climate, drought-resilience after just one year, study shows
Reviving floodplain wetlands slashes carbon emissions by 39% and restores critical ecosystem functions in one year—without the methane spike typically seen in restored peatlands, a new study has found.

Overly academic/distanced ethical discussions
Had a weird interaction with @/brainwane@social.coop just now. I misinterpreted one of their posts quoting someone else and I think the combination of that plus an interaction pattern where I'd assume their stance on something and respond critically to that ended up with me getting blocked. I don't have hard feelings exactly, and this post is only partly about this particular person, but I noticed something interesting by the end of the conversation that had been bothering me. They repeatedly criticized me for assuming what their position was, but never actually stated their position. They didn't say: "I'm bothered you assumed my position was X, it's actually Y." They just said "I'm bothered you assumed my position was X, please don't assume my position!" I get that it's annoying to have people respond to a straw man version of your argument, but when I in response asked some direct questions about what their position was, they gave some non-answers and then blocked me. It's entirely possible it's a coincidence, and they just happened to run out of patience on that iteration, but it makes me take their critique of my interactions a bit less seriously. I suspect that they just didn't want to hear what I was saying, while at the same time they wanted to feel as if they were someone who values public critique and open discussion of tricky issues (if anyone reading this post also followed our interaction and has a different opinion of my behavior, I'd be glad to hear it; it's possible In effectively being an asshole here and it would be useful to hear that if so).
In any case, the fact that at the end of the entire discussion, I'm realizing I still don't actually know their position on whether they think the AI use case in question is worthwhile feels odd. They praised the system on several occasions, albeit noting some drawbacks while doing so. They said that the system was possibly changing their anti-AI stance, but then got mad at me for assuming this meant that they thought this use-case was justified. Maybe they just haven't made up their mind yet but didn't want to say that?
Interestingly, in one of their own blog posts that got linked in the discussion, they discuss a different AI system, and despite listing a bunch of concrete harms, conclude that it's okay to use it. That's fine; I don't think *every* use of AI is wrong on balance, but what bothered me was that their post dismissed a number of real ethical issues by saying essentially "I haven't seen calls for a boycott over this issue, so it's not a reason to stop use." That's an extremely socially conformist version of ethics that doesn't sit well with me. The discussion also ended up linking this post: https://chelseatroy.com/2024/08/28/does-ai-benefit-the-world/ which bothered me in a related way. In it, Troy describes classroom teaching techniques for introducing and helping students explore the ethics of AI, and they seem mostly great. They avoid prescribing any particular correct stance, which is important when teaching given the power relationship, and they help students understand the limitations of their perspectives regarding global impacts, which is great. But the overall conclusion of the post is that "nobody is qualified to really judge global impacts, so we should focus on ways to improve outcomes instead of trying to judge them." This bothers me because we actually do have a responsibility to make decisive ethical judgments despite limitations of our perspectives. If we never commit to any ethical judgment against a technology because we think our perspective is too limited to know the true impacts (which I'll concede it invariably is) then we'll have to accept every technology without objection, limiting ourselves to trying to improve their impacts without opposing them. Given who currently controls most of the resources that go into exploration for new technologies, this stance is too permissive. Perhaps if our objection to a technology was absolute and instantly effective, I'd buy the argument that objecting without a deep global view of the long-term risks is dangerous. As things stand, I think that objecting to the development/use of certain technologies in certain contexts is necessary, and although there's a lot of uncertainly, I expect strongly enough that the overall outcomes of objection will be positive that I think it's a good thing to do.
The deeper point here I guess is that this kind of "things are too complicated, let's have a nuanced discussion where we don't come to any conclusions because we see a lot of unknowns along with definite harms" really bothers me.

Trump’s statement tonight was a farrago of contradictions:
He said, for example, that the main Iranian nuclear sites were “completely and totally obliterated”
—but it will take time to assess the damage, and he has no way of knowing this.
He claimed that the Iranian program has been destroyed
—but added that there are still “many targets” left.
He said that Iran could suffer even more in the coming days
—but the White House has reportedly assured Iran thro…

The United States Bombed Iran. What Comes Next?
President Trump is taking an enormous risk.