Tootfinder

soc_net_comms: Networks with group metadata
Snapshots of LiveJournal, Friendster, Orkut, and YouTube online social networks, as well as DBLP and Amazon. Node metadata represents a post hoc definition of a 'community' that a node belongs to, derived from topical labels of the node or interest-based 'groups' that a node links to.
This network has 317080 nodes and 1049866 edges.
Tags: Online, Social, Collaboration, Informational, Relatedness, Unweighted, Metada…

De mythe van de Porsche 911 werkt niet meer - NRC
https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2025/06/27/de-mythe-van-de-porsche-911-werkt-niet-meer-a4898301
Aan het eind van het in memoriam ook nog een stukje over de hybride versie.
E…

I wrote about frictionlessness and "AI". The essay is admittedly a bit of a weird ride trying to connect a few very distinct thoughts. I hope it's still worth reading.
https://tante.cc/2025/07/30/friction-and-not-being-touched/

Friction and not being touched
The journalist Karen Hao – who published an absolutely fantastic book about OpenAI called “Empire of AI” recently – coined (as far as I know) one of the best terms for describing modern “AI” systems: Everything Machines. “AI” systems are not framed as specific tools that solve specific problems in specific ways but just as […]

Unser heutiger Tag in #Cremona stand ganz im Zeichen der #Violine. Das Violinmuseum ist sehr beeindruckend und zeigt viele wunderschöne Geigen, die auch regelmäßig gespielt werden. Und auch der Kirchturm des Doms, der #Torrazzo

I want to push back on the idea in the world of tech work that a PIP (performance improvement plan) is about getting rid of someone, that they're not intended to be survivable.
This is completely false. (I'm sure there's instances of it, of course, but the mode and vast majority are, in fact about performance improvement. Sometimes they're shadow layoffs, but that is cruel callous behavior that not everyone will exhibit.)
Now _most people do not survive the PIP process_. This is to be expected: if someone is in fact not performing, and more gentle remedies haven't worked, it's not looking good.
But here's where I get a bit spicy: most performance problems are constitutional problems with management and management style, not individual performance problems. However, since managers are as a class 'in power' somewhat, the individual contributor takes the fall for this structurally.
The intent of a PIP is not to get rid of people. It's to right performance.
However, as a system, PIPs do largely get rid of people who are constitutionally misaligned with management. Even when it's a management problem (and it usually is)

In #Schorndorf waren wir an die 350 und laut gegen den „Bürger Dialog“ der Noafd. Bericht der ZvW (€) https://www.zvw.de/lokales/schorndorf/nie-

How popular media gets love wrong
Okay, so what exactly are the details of the "engineered" model of love from my previous post? I'll try to summarize my thoughts and the experiences they're built on.
1. "Love" can be be thought of like a mechanism that's built by two (or more) people. In this case, no single person can build the thing alone, to work it needs contributions from multiple people (I suppose self-love might be an exception to that). In any case, the builders can intentionally choose how they build (and maintain) the mechanism, they can build it differently to suit their particular needs/wants, and they will need to maintain and repair it over time to keep it running. It may need winding, or fuel, or charging plus oil changes and bolt-tightening, etc.
2. Any two (or more) people can choose to start building love between them at any time. No need to "find your soulmate" or "wait for the right person." Now the caveat is that the mechanism is difficult to build and requires lots of cooperation, so there might indeed be "wrong people" to try to build love with. People in general might experience more failures than successes. The key component is slowly-escalating shared commitment to the project, which is negotiated between the partners so that neither one feels like they've been left to do all the work themselves. Since it's a big scary project though, it's very easy to decide it's too hard and give up, and so the builders need to encourage each other and pace themselves. The project can only succeed if there's mutual commitment, and that will certainly require compromise (sometimes even sacrifice, though not always). If the mechanism works well, the benefits (companionship; encouragement; praise; loving sex; hugs; etc.) will be well worth the compromises you make to build it, but this isn't always the case.
3. The mechanism is prone to falling apart if not maintained. In my view, the "fire" and "appeal" models of love don't adequately convey the need for this maintenance and lead to a lot of under-maintained relationships many of which fall apart. You'll need to do things together that make you happy, do things that make your partner happy (in some cases even if they annoy you, but never in a transactional or box-checking way), spend time with shared attention, spend time alone and/or apart, reassure each other through words (or deeds) of mutual beliefs (especially your continued commitment to the relationship), do things that comfort and/or excite each other physically (anywhere from hugs to hand-holding to sex) and probably other things I'm not thinking of. Not *every* relationship needs *all* of these maintenance techniques, but I think most will need most. Note especially that patriarchy teaches men that they don't need to bother with any of this, which harms primarily their romantic partners but secondarily them as their relationships fail due to their own (cultivated-by-patriarchy) incompetence. If a relationship evolves to a point where one person is doing all the maintenance (& improvement) work, it's been bent into a shape that no longer really qualifies as "love" in my book, and that's super unhealthy.
4. The key things to negotiate when trying to build a new love are first, how to work together in the first place, and how to be comfortable around each others' habits (or how to change those habits). Second, what level of commitment you have right now, and what how/when you want to increase that commitment. Additionally, I think it's worth checking in about what you're each putting into and getting out of the relationship, to ensure that it continues to be positive for all participants. To build a successful relationship, you need to be able to incrementally increase the level of commitment to one that you're both comfortable staying at long-term, while ensuring that for both partners, the relationship is both a net benefit and has manageable costs (those two things are not the same). Obviously it's not easy to actually have conversations about these things (congratulations if you can just talk about this stuff) because there's a huge fear of hearing an answer that you don't want to hear. I think the range of discouraging answers which actually spell doom for a relationship is smaller than people think and there's usually a reasonable "shoulder" you can fall into where things aren't on a good trajectory but could be brought back into one, but even so these conversations are scary. Still, I think only having honest conversations about these things when you're angry at each other is not a good plan. You can also try to communicate some of these things via non-conversational means, if that feels safer, and at least being aware that these are the objectives you're pursuing is probably helpful.
I'll post two more replies here about my own experiences that led me to this mental model and trying to distill this into advice, although it will take me a moment to get to those.
#relationships #love

"I hate [politician on my side not doing what I want], they need to go!"
You can blame people you basically agree with, or you can work with the people available to try to work toward better.
1st feels good for maybe 5 minutes, then ruins improvement right now, the 2nd has a chance to make things better.
Try to take your anger, your resentment, which I share, to those chiefly responsible for problems, and not to those nearest and ablest to help, even if not as fla…

soc_net_comms: Networks with group metadata
Snapshots of LiveJournal, Friendster, Orkut, and YouTube online social networks, as well as DBLP and Amazon. Node metadata represents a post hoc definition of a 'community' that a node belongs to, derived from topical labels of the node or interest-based 'groups' that a node links to.
This network has 317080 nodes and 1049866 edges.
Tags: Online, Social, Collaboration, Informational, Relatedness, Unweighted, Metada…

Heute ging es für mich - ab jetzt alleine - 150 km von Cremona bis nach #Ferrara. Das war eine echte Herausforderung. Dreimal habe ich den Akku nachgeladen. Einmal sehr gut zu Mittag gegessen. Es ging am Po vorbei durch die Po-Ebene. Am Ende kam der Wind nicht wie am Vormittag von vorne, sondern schräg von hinten. Das hat gut getan. Morgen dann wieder mehr Bilder ...