Tootfinder

You know what it is though?
It’s just like racism or xenophobia—the lowest level of human assholery.
If you don’t want any to live in a society where other people just exist, or have your children grow up in such a society—why don’t you walk into the ocean?

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

What is your favourite physical book that you want to be seen reading in public? Wrong answers only.
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2025/jun/30/performative-reading-public-tiktok?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other…

How popular media gets love wrong
Now a bit of background about why I have this "engineered" model of love:
First, I'm a white straight cis man. I've got a few traits that might work against my relationship chances (e.g., neurodivergence; I generally fit pretty well into the "weird geek" stereotype), but as I was recently reminded, it's possible my experience derives more from luck than other factors, and since things are tilted more in my favor than most people on the planet, my advice could be worse than useless if it leads people towards strategies that would only have worked for someone like me. I don't *think* that's the case, but it's worth mentioning explicitly.
When I first started dating my now-wife, we were both in graduate school. I was 26, and had exactly zero dating/romantic experience though that point in my life. In other words, a pretty stereotypical "incel" although I definitely didn't subscribe to incel ideology at all. I felt lonely, and vaguely wanted a romantic relationship (I'm neither aromantic nor asexual), but had never felt socially comfortable enough to pursue one before. I don't drink and dislike most social gatherings like parties or bars; I mostly hung around the fringes of the few college parties I attended, and although I had a reasonable college social life in terms of friends, I didn't really do anything to pursue romance, feeling too awkward to know where to start. I had the beginnings of crushes in both high school and college, but never developed a really strong crush, probably correlated with not putting myself in many social situations outside of close all-male friend gatherings. I never felt remotely comfortable enough to act on any of the proto-crushes I did have. I did watch porn and masturbate, so one motivation for pursuing a relationship was physical intimacy, but loneliness was as much of a motivating factor, and of course the social pressure to date was a factor too, even though I'm quite contrarian.
When I first started dating my now-wife, we were both in graduate school. I was 26, and had exactly zero dating/romantic experience though that point in my life. In other words, a pretty stereotypical "incel" although I definitely didn't subscribe to incel ideology at all. I felt lonely, and vaguely wanted a romantic relationship (I'm neither aromantic nor asexual), but had never felt socially comfortable enough to pursue one before. I don't drink and dislike most social gatherings like parties or bars; I mostly hung around the fringes of the few college parties I attended, and although I had a reasonable college social life in terms of friends, I didn't really do anything to pursue romance, feeling too awkward to know where to start. I had the beginnings of crushes in both high school and college, but never developed a really strong crush, probably correlated with not putting myself in many social situations outside of close all-male friend gatherings. I never felt remotely comfortable enough to act on any of the proto-crushes I did have. I did watch porn and masturbate, so one motivation for pursuing a relationship was physical intimacy, but loneliness was as much of a motivating factor, and of course the social pressure to date was a factor too, even though I'm quite contrarian.
I'm lucky in that I had some mixed-gender social circles already like intramural soccer and a graduate-student housing potluck. Graduate school makes a *lot* more of these social spaces accessible, so I recognize that those not in school of some sort have a harder time of things, especially if like me they don't feel like they fit in in typical adult social spaces like bars.
However, at one point I just decided that my desire for a relationship would need action on my part and so I'd try to build a relationship and see what happened. I worked up my courage and asked one of the people in my potluck if she'd like to go for a hike (pretty much clearly a date but not explicitly one; in retrospect not the best first-date modality in a lot of ways, but it made a little more sense in our setting where we could go for a hike from our front door). To emphasize this point: I was not in love with (or even infatuated with) my now-wife at that point. I made a decision to be open to building a relationship, but didn't follow the typical romance story formula beyond that. Now of course, in real life as opposed to popular media, this isn't anything special. People ask each other out all the time just because they're lonely, and some of those relationships turn out fine (although many do not).
I was lucky in that some aspects of who I am and what I do happened to be naturally comforting to my wife (natural advantage in the "appeal" model of love) but of course there are some aspects of me that annoy my wife, and we negotiate that. In the other direction, there's some things I instantly liked about my wife, and other things that still annoy me. We've figured out how to accept a little, change a little, and overall be happy with each other (though we do still have arguments; it's not like the operation/construction/maintenance of the "love mechanism" is always perfectly smooth). In particular though, I approached the relationship with the attitude of "I want to try to build a relationship with this person," at first just because of my own desires for *any* relationship, and then gradually more and more through my desire to build *this specific* relationship as I enjoyed the rewards of companionship.
So for example, while I think my wife is objectively beautiful, she's also *subjectively* very beautiful *to me* because having decided to build a relationship with her, I actively tried to see her as beautiful, rather than trying to judge whether I wanted a relationship with her based on her beauty. In other words, our relationship is more causative of her beauty-to-me than her beauty-to-me is causative of our relationship. This is the biggest way I think the "engineered" model of love differs from the "fire" and "appeal" models: you can just decide to build love independent of factors we typically think of as engendering love (NOT independent of your partner's willingness to participate, of course), and then all of those things like "thinking your partner is beautiful" can be a result of the relationship you're building. For sure those factors might affect who is willing to try building a relationship with you in the first place, but if more people were willing to jump into relationship building (not necessarily with full commitment from the start) without worrying about those other factors, they might find that those factors can come out of the relationship instead of being prerequisites for it. I think this is the biggest failure of the "appeal" model in particular: yes you *do* need to do things that appeal to your partner, but it's not just "make myself lovable" it's also: is your partner putting in the effort to see the ways that you are beautiful/lovable/etc., or are they just expecting you to become exactly some perfect person they've imagined (and/or been told to desire by society)? The former is perfectly possible, and no less satisfying than the latter.
To cut off my rambling a bit here, I'll just add that in our progress from dating through marriage through staying-married, my wife and I have both talked at times explicitly about commitment, and especially when deciding to get married, I told her that I knew I couldn't live up to the perfect model of a husband that I'd want to be, but that if she wanted to deepen our commitment, I was happy to do that, and so we did. I also rearranged my priorities at that point, deciding that I knew I wanted to prioritize this relationship above things like my career or my research interests, and while I've not always been perfect at that in my little decisions, I've been good at holding to that in my big decisions at least. In the end, *once we had built a somewhat-committed relationship*, we had something that we both recognized was worth more than most other things in life, and that let us commit even more, thus getting even more out of it in the long term. Obviously you can't start the first date with an expectation of life-long commitment, and you need to synchronize your increasing commitment to a relationship so that it doesn't become lopsided, which is hard. But if you take the commitment as an active decision and as the *precursor* to things like infatuation, attraction, etc., you can build up to something that's incredibly strong and rewarding.
I'll follow this up with one more post trying to distill some advice from my ramblings.
#relationships #love

Slackpkg: you have two versions of the same file (kernel-generic 6.15.8 & 6.16), what do you want to do?
R (remove) or I (ignore)?
Me: R of course!
Slackpkg: selects both
Me: hits Enter
Reboot: there's no kernel image to be found 🤪
A few minutes later...
Me: reboots into live iso, mount and chroot, reinstall kernel, generate grub, reboot, all good.
There's no limit to my stupidity 😂

A lot of websites have this thing where if you open multiple tabs, *any one of them* can time out and sign you out. Other tabs are not informed of this, and so break in mysterious ways without telling you what's going on.
If this is your website, *fix your fucking system*! Session timeouts belong on the server, not the browser.
This is inexcusably user-hostile design. And happens most with sites where you will want multiple tabs open, of course.

When you want to evaluate a new framework do you have sort of a “petclinic” project that you are using as a foundation? If yes, could you share what the project does?

Why AI can't possibly make you more productive; long
#AI and "productivity", some thoughts:
Edit: fixed some typos.
Productivity is a concept that isn't entirely meaningless outside the context of capitalism, but it's a concept that is heavily inflected in a capitalist context. In many uses today it effectively means "how much you can satisfy and/or exceed your boss' expectations." This is not really what it should mean: even in an anarchist utopia, people would care about things like how many shirts they can produce in a week, although in an "I'd like to voluntarily help more people" way rather than an "I need to meet this quota to earn my survival" way. But let's roll with this definition for a second, because it's almost certainly what your boss means when they say "productivity", and understanding that word in a different (even if truer) sense is therefore inherently dangerous.
Accepting "productivity" to mean "satisfying your boss' expectations," I will now claim: the use of generative AI cannot increase your productivity.
Before I dive in, it's imperative to note that the big generative models which most people think of as constituting "AI" today are evil. They are 1: pouring fuel on our burning planet, 2: psychologically strip-mining a class of data laborers who are exploited for their precarity, 3: enclosing, exploiting, and polluting the digital commons, and 4: stealing labor from broad classes of people many of whom are otherwise glad to give that labor away for free provided they get a simple acknowledgement in return. Any of these four "ethical issues" should be enough *alone* to cause everyone to simply not use the technology. These ethical issues are the reason that I do not use generative AI right now, except for in extremely extenuating circumstances. These issues are also convincing for a wide range of people I talk to, from experts to those with no computer science background. So before I launch into a critique of the effectiveness of generative AI, I want to emphasize that such a critique should be entirely unnecessary.
But back to my thesis: generative AI cannot increase your productivity, where "productivity" has been defined as "how much you can satisfy and/or exceed your boss' expectations."
Why? In fact, what the fuck? Every AI booster I've met has claimed the opposite. They've given me personal examples of time saved by using generative AI. Some of them even truly believe this. Sometimes I even believe they saved time without horribly compromising on quality (and often, your boss doesn't care about quality anyways if the lack of quality is hard to measure of doesn't seem likely to impact short-term sales/feedback/revenue). So if generative AI genuinely lets you write more emails in a shorter period of time, or close more tickets, or something else along these lines, how can I say it isn't increasing your ability to meet your boss' expectations?
The problem is simple: your boss' expectations are not a fixed target. Never have been. In virtue of being someone who oversees and pays wages to others under capitalism, your boss' game has always been: pay you less than the worth of your labor, so that they can accumulate profit and thus more capital to remain in charge instead of being forced into working for a wage themselves. Sure, there are layers of management caught in between who aren't fully in this mode, but they are irrelevant to this analysis. It matters not how much you please your manager if your CEO thinks your work is not worth the wages you are being paid. And using AI actively lowers the value of your work relative to your wages.
Why do I say that? It's actually true in several ways. The most obvious: using generative AI lowers the quality of your work, because the work it produces is shot through with errors, and when your job is reduced to proofreading slop, you are bound to tire a bit, relax your diligence, and let some mistakes through. More than you would have if you are actually doing and taking pride in the work. Examples are innumerable and frequent, from journalists to lawyers to programmers, and we laugh at them "haha how stupid to not check whether the books the AI reviewed for you actually existed!" but on a deeper level if we're honest we know we'd eventually make the same mistake ourselves (bonus game: spot the swipe-typing typos I missed in this post; I'm sure there will be some).
But using generative AI also lowers the value of your work in another much more frightening way: in this era of hype, it demonstrates to your boss that you could be replaced by AI. The more you use it, and no matter how much you can see that your human skills are really necessary to correct its mistakes, the more it appears to your boss that they should hire the AI instead of you. Or perhaps retain 10% of the people in roles like yours to manage the AI doing the other 90% of the work. Paradoxically, the *more* you get done in terms of raw output using generative AI, the more it looks to your boss as if there's an opportunity to get enough work done with even fewer expensive humans. Of course, the decision to fire you and lean more heavily into AI isn't really a good one for long-term profits and success, but the modern boss did not get where they are by considering long-term profits. By using AI, you are merely demonstrating your redundancy, and the more you get done with it, the more redundant you seem.
In fact, there's even a third dimension to this: by using generative AI, you're also providing its purveyors with invaluable training data that allows them to make it better at replacing you. It's generally quite shitty right now, but the more use it gets by competent & clever people, the better it can become at the tasks those specific people use it for. Using the currently-popular algorithm family, there are limits to this; I'm not saying it will eventually transcend the mediocrity it's entwined with. But it can absolutely go from underwhelmingly mediocre to almost-reasonably mediocre with the right training data, and data from prompting sessions is both rarer and more useful than the base datasets it's built on.
For all of these reasons, using generative AI in your job is a mistake that will likely lead to your future unemployment. To reiterate, you should already not be using it because it is evil and causes specific and inexcusable harms, but in case like so many you just don't care about those harms, I've just explained to you why for entirely selfish reasons you should not use it.
If you're in a position where your boss is forcing you to use it, my condolences. I suggest leaning into its failures instead of trying to get the most out of it, and as much as possible, showing your boss very clearly how it wastes your time and makes things slower. Also, point out the dangers of legal liability for its mistakes, and make sure your boss is aware of the degree to which any of your AI-eager coworkers are producing low-quality work that harms organizational goals.
Also, if you've read this far and aren't yet of an anarchist mindset, I encourage you to think about the implications of firing 75% of (at least the white-collar) workforce in order to make more profit while fueling the climate crisis and in most cases also propping up dictatorial figureheads in government. When *either* the AI bubble bursts *or* if the techbros get to live out the beginnings of their worker-replacement fantasies, there are going to be an unimaginable number of economically desperate people living in increasingly expensive times. I'm the kind of optimist who thinks that the resulting social crucible, though perhaps through terrible violence, will lead to deep social changes that effectively unseat from power the ultra-rich that continue to drag us all down this destructive path, and I think its worth some thinking now about what you might want the succeeding stable social configuration to look like so you can advocate towards that during points of malleability.
As others have said more eloquently, generative AI *should* be a technology that makes human lives on average easier, and it would be were it developed & controlled by humanists. The only reason that it's not, is that it's developed and controlled by terrible greedy people who use their unfairly hoarded wealth to immiserate the rest of us in order to maintain their dominance. In the long run, for our very survival, we need to depose them, and I look forward to what the term "generative AI" will mean after that finally happens.

HumbleBundle.com have Usagi Yojimbo bundle.
Those are comic books about Rabbit Rōnin set (mostly) in Edo period (I have no clue what that period was🤦, but it sounds cool 😆)
If you like samurais, old Japan or rabbits, you might like this.
https://www.humblebundle.com/books/us…

LinkedIn tips:
1. You don't have to read the posts.
2. If you don't like a post from someone you follow, then stop following them. You can keep a connection without following them!
3. If you don't like a post from someone you don't follow, then mark it as not interested. Send the signal to inform both the recommendation algorithm, and the people who design the recommendation algorithm, what content you don't want to see.
Whatever other people are…

User request for access to the main SharePoint site I administer. No, you will NOT get access to the main work SharePoint site. Even though many subsites and file repositories are locked with special permissions just knowing what is there isn't something we want everyone to see.
Only a few people have access to the main site and most of them is browse only and is required for their job.

#EroticMusings week 4: Is your MC the kind of person you’d want a relationship with? How would they feel about you?
I would love to have Fabiola as a friend (though without the additional benefits - while I enjoy writing about this kind of relationship, it's not something I personally want. What I'm into when writing and outside of it are actually pretty different things). S…

Subtooting since people in the original thread wanted it to be over, but selfishly tagging @… and @… whose opinions I value...
I think that saying "we are not a supply chain" is exactly what open-source maintainers should be doing right now in response to "open source supply chain security" threads.
I can't claim to be an expert and don't maintain any important FOSS stuff, but I do release almost all of my code under open licenses, and I do use many open source libraries, and I have felt the pain of needing to replace an unmaintained library.
There's a certain small-to-mid-scale class of program, including many open-source libraries, which can be built/maintained by a single person, and which to my mind best operate on a "snake growth" model: incremental changes/fixes, punctuated by periodic "skin-shedding" phases where make rewrites or version updates happen. These projects aren't immortal either: as the whole tech landscape around them changes, they become unnecessary and/or people lose interest, so they go unmaintained and eventually break. Each time one of their dependencies breaks (or has a skin-shedding moment) there's a higher probability that they break or shed too, as maintenance needs shoot up at these junctures. Unless you're a company trying to make money from a single long-lived app, it's actually okay that software churns like this, and if you're a company trying to make money, your priorities absolutely should not factor into any decisions people making FOSS software make: we're trying (and to a huge extent succeeding) to make a better world (and/or just have fun with our own hobbies share that fun with others) that leaves behind the corrosive & planet-destroying plague which is capitalism, and you're trying to personally enrich yourself by embracing that plague. The fact that capitalism is *evil* is not an incidental thing in this discussion.
To make an imperfect analogy, imagine that the peasants of some domain have set up a really-free-market, where they provide each other with free stuff to help each other survive, sometimes doing some barter perhaps but mostly just everyone bringing their surplus. Now imagine the lord of the domain, who is the source of these peasants' immiseration, goes to this market secretly & takes some berries, which he uses as one ingredient in delicious tarts that he then sells for profit. But then the berry-bringer stops showing up to the free market, or starts bringing a different kind of fruit, or even ends up bringing rotten berries by accident. And the lord complains "I have a supply chain problem!" Like, fuck off dude! Your problem is that you *didn't* want to build a supply chain and instead thought you would build your profit-focused business in other people's free stuff. If you were paying the berry-picker, you'd have a supply chain problem, but you weren't, so you really have an "I want more free stuff" problem when you can't be arsed to give away your own stuff for free.
There can be all sorts of problems in the really-free-market, like maybe not enough people bring socks, so the peasants who can't afford socks are going barefoot, and having foot problems, and the peasants put their heads together and see if they can convince someone to start bringing socks, and maybe they can't and things are a bit sad, but the really-free-market was never supposed to solve everyone's problems 100% when they're all still being squeezed dry by their taxes: until they are able to get free of the lord & start building a lovely anarchist society, the really-free-market is a best-effort kind of deal that aims to make things better, and sometimes will fall short. When it becomes the main way goods in society are distributed, and when the people who contribute aren't constantly drained by the feudal yoke, at that point the availability of particular goods is a real problem that needs to be solved, but at that point, it's also much easier to solve. And at *no* point does someone coming into the market to take stuff only to turn around and sell it deserve anything from the market or those contributing to it. They are not a supply chain. They're trying to help each other out, but even then they're doing so freely and without obligation. They might discuss amongst themselves how to better coordinate their mutual aid, but they're not going to end up forcing anyone to bring anything or even expecting that a certain person contribute a certain amount, since the whole point is that the thing is voluntary & free, and they've all got changing life circumstances that affect their contributions. Celebrate whatever shows up at the market, express your desire for things that would be useful, but don't impose a burden on anyone else to bring a specific thing, because otherwise it's fair for them to oppose such a burden on you, and now you two are doing your own barter thing that's outside the parameters of the really-free-market.

What I'd like to have is a todo list that stays on your screen on top of everything else until you're done with everything.
The UI should still allow you to work and do other stuff, of course - what I want is something that a) doesn''t use or require reminders and notifications, and b) annoys me just enough for me to actually do that stuff.
Is there such a wondrous beast?

Imagine you want to produce E-Fuels⚡⛽ but the power company does not want to sell you electricity⚡
That appears to be what potential E-Fuels producers faced in Iceland🇮🇸. The country uses 100% renewable electricity (hydro/geo) & could produce more.
Yet, Iceland's electricity producer Landsvirkjun does not have enough electricity⚡. Building new plants is delayed by slow permitting 📝. Landsvirkjun has therefore set out priorities.

Iceland's E-Fuels Controversy
Hydrogen and E-Fuels companies want to utilize Iceland's abundant renewable energy sources. But Iceland's largest energy company Landsvirkjun does not want to sell electricity to them. E-Fuels producers hope that European authorities will intervene, the EFTA Surveillane Authority investigates.

Y'all were wondering which way the army would break. This is as clear an answer as you're going to get.
This isn't a mistake. It's a message.
Edit: cut out "During drills they were perfectly in time" because I don't have receipts to show. Linking to a longer video in a threads post that shows a bit more intense of a juxtaposition between themselves and the division in front of them. This thread makes the same claim about drills, but I also don't see video.
https://www.threads.com/@davidmorehouse/post/DK7ExrKs5iw?xmt=AQF0w52awa66lUQeIuolzDaz8uSFcMmJLHALm9RZc4P75w
Edit: to clarify a bit, this is one division. The division in front of them in the longer video is in step. This isn't "the whole army is going to refuse" but this may be, "some units are fed up enough to make it clear they don't want to play, which is saying a lot."
Any division that exists needs to be cultivated. The way you cultivate that is absolutely not by lumping them all together. Some of the military voted for Trump, some don't care, some hate him. All of them are being treated like shit right now. All of them swore an oath to defend the constitution. Some of them probably know what that means.
I'm absolutely not a fan of the military, but I will take every opportunity I can to humanize these folks. Look for every opportunity you can to remind them that they are welcome on our side whenever they're ready to actually fulfill their oath, and we will appreciate every subtle bit of resistance they give to those who are violating it in the meantime.

I'm retired, so my visits to LinkedIn are rare but scrolling through today, I came across this nugget. I don't know what Gen AI even is - and not interested in finding out - but why do you want something that you have no clue what it is or does.
#WhatTheCoolKidsAreDoing

Is it just me, or do LLMs have a strong tendency to try and guess what you want to hear and then tell you exactly that, regardless of factual accuracy?
#AI #ML #LLM

Netanyahu suggested that new plans for the forced relocation of refugees to other countries would give Palestinians
the “freedom” to choose.
But what Palestinians actually want is “the freedom to return to the places from which their families were expelled,”
says Peter Beinart, editor-at-large at Jewish Currents. “
"What kind of freedom is it when you have an area where most of the buildings and the hospitals and the schools and the bakeries and the agriculture …

“Freedom to Choose”?: Peter Beinart Slams Trump-Netanyahu Plan for Ethnic Cleansing of Gaza
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is meeting with U.S. President Donald Trump this week in Washington, D.C. Trump and Netanyahu are discussing Israel’s war in Gaza, with Netanyahu suggesting that new plans for the forced relocation of refugees to other countries would give Palestinians the “freedom” to choose. But what Palestinians actually want is “the freedom to return to the places from which their families were expelled,” says Peter Beinart, editor-at-large at Jewish Curre…

"If one uses the word “fascism”, people accuse you of hysteria – but isn’t this precisely what fascism looks like? A minority group is unfairly demonised until public opinion sours sufficiently for lawmakers to impose restrictions on said group"
#TransRightsAreHumanRights

Juno Dawson: I had gender reassignment surgery – then the Supreme Court said I wasn’t a woman
I have the same choices over my life and body that I would want for every single person on earth. I’m not trying to make a statement about what a woman is, I just want to be one, writes Juno Dawson – who appears on The Independent’s Pride list 2025

Finally finished the VSC8512 writeup! Ended up being just a biiiit longer than I had expected but there was a lot to talk about.
I still want to refactor my code a bit to be cleaner and more OO, what I have now is a bit quick-and-dirty, but it works.
https://serd.es/2025/07/04/Switch-proj

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.

You want adonthell's soundtrack, or more specifically Waste's Edge's soundtrack?
What you want is, if you are searching in Debian related channels, the debian package adonthell-data!
Though if you're on the fediverse you wouldn't mind someone made it available to you right here, right?
I won't have time for that cause right now I'm focusing on Wesnoth main soundtrack...if I get time...

Question for any folk that do reader/audience/play testing.
I find that the more fidelity (detail, production value) a project has, the less accurate the user's identification of an issue. I try to interpret accordingly.
Do you know of any studies regarding this or personal experiences (that confirm or refute this)? I have studies on how people don't know what they want, etc. But keen on the connection btw fidelity & inaccuracy
Thank you! :)
Other relate…

Fair Expectations For the Las Vegas Raiders in 2025 https://www.si.com/nfl/raiders/las-vegas-jim-harbaugh-los-angeles-chargers-kansas-city-chiefs

It’s mildly annoying that streaming services present different artists with the same name as one. You can’t just check out an artist but have to build a playlist of the actual relevant albums because it would otherwise just be a weird mix of often wildly different genres (which is fine if that is what you WANT).

Well, my first conclusion after, well, about two weeks of using Linux Mint: mixed.
If you've been using Fedora Linux for years, it's a noticeable step backwards. What runs smoothly under Fedora, where devices are recognized without any problems, requires a little extra help with Mint - and often more time...
Examples: I have a Brother DCP3515 multifunction laser printer. Under Fedora, it is recognized immediately via WLAN and if you want to print something, it can be done…

Homan, who doesn't have a Senate-approved position and no formal authority over any agency, is a giant trial balloon, right?
Not being sarcastic.
I feel like that is his job: say something outrageous ("Of course we stop you for being brown!") and then see how it goes over, walk back what fails.
-- John Pfaff
htt…

@… hello! What plays as frequency source in your power backup setup with the battery of you EV as primary energy source?
I'm no electrician. From my understanding we have something like diesel generator that does not work in sync with the grid, and DC/AC converters that we want to be able to run in sync with the grid and off the grid. And as far a…

Cycling question: trying out saddles, in the UK
UK cycling people, is there somewhere you'd go to sit on different saddles to test if they're comfortable? Is that a thing?
I've worked out that my (default came-with-the-bike) saddle isn't the right shape for me: it's giving me an achy tailbone, as well as I think being a bit too narrow for optimal sit-bone comfort.
For context, I'm an "occasional cyclist for pleasure and/or practical reasons", shall we say. No ambition to be super fast.
Looking around online, I think I want something more like the Rido R2 or one of the Selle ones, shaped to have air under the tailbone area. Or maybe even a noseless one like the Spongy Wonder, though I don't like the look of how the metal frame sticks out at the front of those.
What's the chances a shop would have more than one of those and a willingness to get them out for a test sit? Or, better still, is there a loan scheme anywhere, so you can actually "test drive" them for a bit? Or do people usually just buy and be willing to sell again?
I'm in Nottingham, and I know there are bike shops I could get to, but I'm not seeing "come in and try all these saddles, we'll help you to find the right one" kinds of messaging.
Could also potentially travel elsewhere at some point if it turns out there's some kind of "best place in the country for that question".
Advice welcome!
#cycling #BikeTooter #AskFedi #UK

You know what would be really cool? A #quantifiedself person influence monitor. Say I have a #Fitbit and Joe has a Fitbit, we could have them detect when we are in proximity (if both people agreed) and then it would let us know over time how being around the other person influenced us - e.g. did heart rate variability increase or decrease (do they relax us or cause stress), did we burn more calories (maybe we usually go on hikes together), did we sleep better that night, and so on.
There are definitely people in my life who I'm pretty sure have significant effects on me in both directions, it'd be awesome to quantify them.
It would also be cool if one could do this without data sharing - e.g. maybe one presses a button on ones device to indicate one has entered x's presence and again when one has exited...
Honestly, I'd totally forget to do this...so something passive would be better - e.g. when you want to start tracking the next time you are around someone you press a button and it scans for electronic signatures and identifies Bluetooth etc. uniquely so that when you are around then it auto knows and can record...
The latter raises issues of #consent and #privacy...I'm not sure how/if one could do this in an ethical manner...but I'd like to have it 😂

The new #bergwelten magazine arrived!
I'm looking forward to seeing some good photos and reading some nice articles.
Btw, what do you do with read magazines? I don't want to throw them away but I don't look at them either when I put them into the bookshelf 🤔

#ScribesAndMakers for July 3: When (and if) you procrastinate, what do you do? If you don't, what do you do to avoid it?
I'll swap right out of programming to read a book, play a video game, or watch some anime. Often got things open in other windows so it's as simple as alt-tab.
I've noticed recently I tend to do this more often when I have a hard problem to solve that I'm not 100% sure about. I definitely have cycles of better & worse motivation and I've gotten to a place where I'm pretty relaxed about it instead of feeling guilty. I work how I work, and that includes cycles of rest, and that's enough (at least, for me it has been so far, and I'm in a comfortable career, married with 2 kids).
Some projects ultimately lose steam and get abandoned, and I've learned to accept that too. I learn a lot and grow from each project, so nothing is a true waste of time, and there remains plenty of future ahead of me to achieve cool things.
The procrastination does sometimes impact my wife & kids, and that's something I do sometimes feel bad about, but I think I keep that in check well enough, and for things my wife worries about, I usually don't procrastinate those too much (used to be worse about this).
Right now I'm procrastinating a big work project by working on a hobby project instead. The work project probably won't get done by the start of the semester as a result. But as I remind myself, my work doesn't actually pay me to work during the summer, and things will be okay without the work project being finished until later.
When I want to force myself into a more productive cycle, talking to people about project details sometimes helps, as does finding some new tech I can learn about by shoehorning it into a project. Have been thinking about talking to a rubber duck, but haven't motivated myself to try that yet, and I'm not really in doldrums right now.

@… hello! What plays as frequency source in your power backup setup with the battery of you EV as primary energy source?
I'm no electrician. From my understanding we have something like diesel generator that does not work in sync with the grid, and DC/AC converters that we want to be able to run in sync with the grid and off the grid. And as far a…

Toronto Star: “New numbers reveal 10,000-plus Ontario college layoffs, 600 programs cancelled or suspended over past year”
The bloodbath in our higher education system in Canada has gotten NO press even though provincial governments and likely federal KNOW. This is the first in depth article I have seen. ALL governments micro-manage university and college policy/finances, no matter what they might say to the contrary.
Here are some truths you need to know:
Yes, I am biased as a 25 year employee of a University.
Yes, my University has also had completely unprecedented cuts in the past 12-24 months, with more coming.
Yes, it is because of the loss of International Students and their tuition revenue. Without that loss, many domestic enrollment numbers have actually been growing, but the money per student is orders of magnitude less. (ie. International was a cash cow)
Yes, faculty and even many admin, have been warning about the government downloading funding onto International tuitions for decades.
Yes, government will claim they are “investing more than ever”, but this is usually about Capital expenses (buildings, residences, infrastructure) or meeting contractual increases for staff salaries, *not* operating expenses.
Yes, in BC in the 1980s 80-90% of a University or College operating budget was covered by “base funding” from the province. Now, it is often below 50%. (If this makes you ask… is it still a “public University system”, please do!!)
And finally, yes, if we want to consider ourselves a modern country, we cannot possibly think this kind of contraction in educational opportunity (while domestic tuitions continue to increase!) is at all healthy for our society as a whole.
Toronto Star: #canpoli #cdnpoli #education #internationalEd #immigration #postsecondary #educationShouldBeFree

So I've found my answer after maybe ~30 minutes of effort. First stop was the first search result on Startpage (https://millennialhawk.com/does-poop-have-calories/), which has some evidence of maybe-AI authorship but which is better than a lot of slop. It actually has real links & cites research, so I'll start by looking at the sources.
It claims near the top that poop contains 4.91 kcal per gram (note: 1 kcal = 1 Calorie = 1000 calories, which fact I could find/do trust despite the slop in that search). Now obviously, without a range or mention of an average, this isn't the whole picture, but maybe it's an average to start from? However, the citation link is to a study (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32235930/) which only included 27 people with impaired glucose tolerance and obesity. Might have the cited stat, but it's definitely not a broadly representative one if this is the source. The public abstract does not include the stat cited, and I don't want to pay for the article. I happen to be affiliated with a university library, so I could see if I have access that way, but it's a pain to do and not worth it for this study that I know is too specific. Also most people wouldn't have access that way.
Side note: this doing-the-research protect has the nice benefit of letting you see lots of cool stuff you wouldn't have otherwise. The abstract of this study is pretty cool and I learned a bit about gut microbiome changes from just reading the abstract.
My next move was to look among citations in this article to see if I could find something about calorie content of poop specifically. Luckily the article page had indicators for which citations were free to access. I ended up reading/skimming 2 more articles (a few more interesting facts about gut microbiomes were learned) before finding this article whose introduction has what I'm looking for: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3127503/
Here's the relevant paragraph:
"""
The alteration of the energy-balance equation, which is defined by the equilibrium of energy intake and energy expenditure (1–5), leads to weight gain. One less-extensively-studied component of the energy-balance equation is energy loss in stools and urine. Previous studies of healthy adults showed that ≈5% of ingested calories were lost in stools and urine (6). Individuals who consume high-fiber diets exhibit a higher fecal energy loss than individuals who consume low-fiber diets with an equivalent energy content (7, 8). Webb and Annis (9) studied stool energy loss in 4 lean and 4 obese individuals and showed a tendency to lower the fecal energy excretion in obese compared with lean study participants.
"""
And there's a good-enough answer if we do some math, along with links to more in-depth reading if we want them. A Mayo clinic calorie calculator suggests about 2250 Calories per day for me to maintain my weight, I think there's probably a lot of variation in that number, but 5% of that would be very roughly 100 Calories lost in poop per day, so maybe an extremely rough estimate for a range of humans might be 50-200 Calories per day. Interestingly, one of the AI slop pages I found asserted (without citation) 100-200 Calories per day, which kinda checks out. I had no way to trust that number though, and as we saw with the provenance of the 4.91 kcal/gram, it might not be good provenance.
To double-check, I visited this link from the paragraph above: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022316622169853?via=ihub
It's only a 6-person study, but just the abstract has numbers: ~250 kcal/day pooped on a low-fiber diet vs. ~400 kcal/day pooped on a high-fiber diet. That's with intakes of ~2100 and ~2350 kcal respectively, which is close to the number from which I estimated 100 kcal above, so maybe the first estimate from just the 5% number was a bit low.
Glad those numbers were in the abstract, since the full text is paywalled... It's possible this study was also done on some atypical patient group...
Just to come full circle, let's look at that 4.91 kcal/gram number again. A search suggests 14-16 ounces of poop per day is typical, with at least two sources around 14 ounces, or ~400 grams. (AI slop was strong here too, with one including a completely made up table of "studies" that was summarized as 100-200 grams/day). If we believe 400 grams/day of poop, then 4.91 kcal/gram would be almost 2000 kcal/day, which is very clearly ludicrous! So that number was likely some unrelated statistic regurgitated by the AI. I found that number in at least 3 of the slop pages I waded through in my initial search.

I don't like my reliance on DumbTube...
If you have noticed sometimes I upload videos...
that is sort of like my reaction to DumbTube, I usually don't find what I want in there, some sort of "algorithm" "tries to make things better" while in actually it wastes thousands of good videos that will remain unwatched cause "algo over good reasoning" or whatever.
#DumbTube

AI, AGI, and learning efficiency
My 4-month-old kid is not DDoSing Wikipedia right now, nor will they ever do so before learning to speak, read, or write. Their entire "training corpus" will not top even 100 million "tokens" before they can speak & understand language, and do so with real intentionally.
Just to emphasize that point: 100 words-per-minute times 60 minutes-per-hour times 12 hours-per-day times 365 days-per-year times 4 years is a mere 105,120,000 words. That's a ludicrously *high* estimate of words-per-minute and hours-per-day, and 4 years old (the age of my other kid) is well after basic speech capabilities are developed in many children, etc. More likely the available "training data" is at least 1 or 2 orders of magnitude less than this.
The point here is that large language models, trained as they are on multiple *billions* of tokens, are not developing their behavioral capabilities in a way that's remotely similar to humans, even if you believe those capabilities are similar (they are by certain very biased ways of measurement; they very much aren't by others). This idea that humans must be naturally good at acquiring language is an old one (see e.g. #AI #LLM #AGI