Tootfinder

Opt-in global Mastodon full text search. Join the index!

No exact results. Similar results found.
@tiotasram@kolektiva.social
2026-05-24 15:42:26
Content warning: Minor spoilers for "A Psalm for the Wild-Built"

Just finished "A Psalm for the Wild-Built" by Becky Chambers. Overall it's good but I also have some Thoughts.
First, it was very pleasant to finally read some non-trite utopian solarpunk after having read stuff like Octavia Butler recently. Both hope and despair can be poisonous on their own IMO, so getting some balance in is nice. It's definitely a very valuable thing to be able to lay out an actually desirable and in many ways imaginable future given our grim present. Chambers is no LeGuin though. I'll probably be reading more of her work and maybe she fleshes out these ideas elsewhere, but at least in this book there is no focus on either how the transition to a better society could happen nor on how the better society holds up in the face of adverse events and inclinations. Compare LeGuin's "The Dispossessed" or N. K. Jemisin's short story "The Ones Who Stay and Fight" and it feels like there's something important missing from Chambers' portrait of a future society. Of course, maybe the point is to make a cozy book, in which case fine, there's certainly a place for such things, and I can look for deeper inspiration elsewhere.
The second big thought I had was that Chambers' worldview seems not well-informed by certain indigenous perspectives, and this creates some contradictions. For example, (minor spoilers) when Dex enters the wilderness there's a whole bit about understanding humankind's place in nature and how human settlements are what we're used to but they're only a brief interruption of the vast untouched wilderness. Along the same lines, much of the world is intentionally left untouched by humans as a way to keep it pristine and natural. Later however, a character makes the point that humans *are* animals. The indigenous perspective that I appreciate would agree with that, and would further question the value in distinguishing between human influence on ecosystems and influences that others have. More sharply, one might observe that there's a bigger difference between how different kinds of humans relate to and influence their environments than between how less-disruptive humans and various animals do the same: the strip-mine-operator vs. migrant tribesperson impact difference is probably much greater than the migrant tribesperson vs. beaver gap, for example. Rather than talking about limiting human disruption, then, as if all human-environment interactions are disruptive and must be minimized, we could/should be talking about how to create human societies that have beneficial relationships with their environments and acknowledging that we actually have many positive examples of that, both historical and contemporary. Chambers' utopia is a "humans dominate nature but restrain themselves so that their disruptions are minimal and thus nature can thrive" vision, but what I'd even more like to see would be a "humans study old ways and make new ones so that they can interact positively with ecosystems again" vision, including some of "here are the places that sometimes breaks down but also the patterns and institutions that ensure repair of those breakdowns and thus long-term sustainability."
Final big thought: Chambers' utopia is too homogenous for my tastes. Of course it's hard enough and valuable work dreaming up and sharing any utopia and Chambers' transcends triteness in a number of ways, so this criticism is a bit rude. But the single shared religion, lack of mention of conflicts around shared decisions, especially historical society-defining ones, and nagging questions like "what about the people indigenous to the now-uninhabited lands?" and "what about the indigenous peoples who weren't part of the factory-building societies?" leave me wishing for more nuance in this direction.
All in all: a good book, and I'm criticizing out of a place of appreciation, not scorn. I've got there sequel out from the library as well and will probably detour to a few other books but get to it pretty soon.
Sadly I don't remember who, but I got this one because of a recommendation on here, so thanks if you're someone who recommended it!
#AmReading #ReadingNow #Bookstodon

@fanf@mendeddrum.org
2026-06-23 08:42:02

from my link log —
If multicast is the answer, what was the question?
arxiv.org/abs/2211.09029
saved 2022-11-23 dotat.at/:/K9DVS.html…

@raiders@darktundra.xyz
2026-07-22 02:56:23

4 biggest questions facing the Raiders before training camp raiderramble.com/2026/07/21/4-

@ErikUden@mastodon.de
2026-06-18 15:13:31

Hey folx! You probably see a lot of stuff from other social networks mirrored to Mastodon, how about we do it the other way around?
Recently, I've starred to mirror my posts to Instagram, Reddit, and other platforms, and I've had quite the success. My biggest post on Instagram, which is just one screenshot of a Mastodon post, has 44.5k likes and 256k views. My

Erik Uden on Instagram: "Babe, wake up. New man-made horrors beyond comprehension dropped!! In the end of the day, these companies probably realized that, just like with AI, they can somehow use scare tactics to attract venture capital. It's still a horrifying thing to think of, but possibly overblown to get money. The headline of the Science article reads: Not alive, but not dead: disembodied human brains used for drug testing By restoring some functions to intact brains from deceased donors, the startup Bexorg hopes to create a better drug development test bed for neurodegenerative diseases, written by Sara Reardon, published on the 20th of May 2026. Though, reading this Science article made me think: aren't we the brain? Am I missing something here? Now, of course the devil lies in the detail and the article makes it clear that this startup only restores “some functions”, which is certainly more complex in action than it is in theory written here, but certain language of the article makes me question the author's understanding of what is a human. The article writes: “Just a day ago, the brain was in a living person. Now, hours after its owner died, it sits on a cart draped in tubes [...]” What do you mean “it's owner” — isn't the brain it's owner? Isn't that where it's owner is? I mean, certainly the brain had no more activity, the person must've been declared brain dead by all standards before being sent to this startup, still it's odd hearing someone donated their brain instead of saying they've donated... themselves? Also “using a set of proprietary brain-sustaining machines” is a terrible sentence I always thought the people who don't donate their full body to hospitals are religious lunatics, but this is the first time I wrote something on my organ donor card. They can take my brain, but not as one piece."
45K likes, 971 comments - erik.uden on May 21, 2026: "Babe, wake up. New man-made horrors beyond comprehension dropped!! In the end of the day, these companies probably realized that, just like with AI, they can somehow use scare tactics to attract venture capital. It's still a horrifying thing to think of, but possibly overblown to get money. The headline of the Science article reads: Not alive, but not dead: disembodied human brains used for drug testing By restoring some functions to inta…

@annsev@troet.cafe
2026-06-19 11:36:42

Kaja #Kallas hätte es durchaus öffentlich sagen können: #Israel ist ein #Apartheid|systen. Schon 2017 hat sich die UN in diesem Sinne wörtlich geäußert.

@bencurthoys@mastodon.social
2026-06-16 08:45:24

I saw this and I instantly thought of @… because somehow he had become the most salient reference node for revolting arthropods and we all know why.
instagram…

@steve@s.yelvington.com
2026-05-11 00:29:13

Some thoughts from Claude about military use of AI in targeting.
instagram.com/reel/DYIHIM6ihVJ

Artificial Intelligence | ChatGPT | Technology sur Instagram: "Claude was asked how it feels about being used by the U.S. military to help select targets. And the answer was not what people expected. During an AI at War event, journalist Shane Harris asked the question directly. Claude responded that the idea was troubling, especially because its purpose is supposed to be helpful, harmless, and honest, not tied to decisions involving real-world violence. Claude does not have feelings the way humans do. But the answer still sounded less like a neutral machine response and more like a system reflecting the ethical rules built into it. AI is already becoming part of national security, intelligence, cyberwarfare, and military decision-making. At the same time, companies like Anthropic are drawing lines around uses like fully autonomous weapons and mass surveillance. So the question is not just whether AI can help in war. It is whether we are comfortable letting it get that close to life-and-death decisions. What do you think, should AI have any role in military targeting? 👉 Comment “TOOLS” to get my 700+ AI Toolkit for free 🎥 Media: De Balie on YT #ai #artificialintelligence #claude #militaryai #futuretech"
122K likes, 1,251 comments - longliveai le  May 9, 2026: "Claude was asked how it feels about being used by the U.S. military to help select targets. And the answer was not what people expected. During an AI at War event, journalist Shane Harris asked the question directly. Claude responded that the idea was troubling, especially because its purpose is supposed to be helpful, harmless, and honest, not tied to decisions involving real-world violence. Claude does not have feelings the way hu…

@fgraver@hcommons.social
2026-05-16 16:38:44

This is my question too.
The hantavirus debacle raises a key question: why would anyone go on a cruise?
theguardian.com/commentisfree/

@Techmeme@techhub.social
2026-07-04 23:30:54

Source calls UK- and OpenAI-touted plans in 2025 for Stargate's ~£20B Cobalt site a PR stunt; OpenAI and Nscale failed to visit Cobalt or lodge planning forms (Aisha Down/The Guardian)
theguardian.com/technology/202

@fanf@mendeddrum.org
2026-07-13 20:42:02

from my link log —
If multicast is the answer, what was the question?
arxiv.org/abs/2211.09029
saved 2022-11-23 dotat.at/:/K9DVS.html…