#algorithmic thinkers

[zomb13s]

The Evolving Mind: A Reflection on Intellectual Stagnation and Global Dynamics

In an era dominated by rapidly advancing technologies, artificial intelligence, and shifting global paradigms, the evolution of an individual mind can be seen as both a personal journey and a reflection of larger societal dynamics. This essay focuses on Alfons Scholing, CEO of alfons.design and the creator of the artist platform ikziezombies.com, exploring his desire to grow his intellectual and…

[lightgaswaterelectricityrent]

my dad is quite conservative although I believe that has mellowed significantly in recent years thank god instead of going the other way as many families have been subjected to but my mom has always been ostensibly more liberal than him but then she'll come out with these statements sometimes that put both him and me at a loss for words. at least she doesn't use facebook to post but she does leave instagram comments with some abandon which scares me

[flo-the-hagfish]

The algorithm hates me

-

Normal people with the algorithm: "I like A."

The algorithm: "Sure, here's some A content."

Normal person: "Thank you algorithm. That's just what I wanted."

The algorithm: "I'm happy to serve."

-

Me with the algorithm: "I like X."

The algorithm: "X sounds like S. Here's some S content."

Me: "That is absolutely nothing like what I chose."

The algorithm: "Here's some A content. Learn to like that stuff like a normal person."

Me: "EXCUSE ME?!"

[explode-this]

I wouldn’t be mad about it, tbh

[torpublishinggroup]

Celebrate Pride with Tor Publishing Group!

The Water Outlaws by S. L. Huang

Mountain outlaws on the margins of society, the Bandits of Liangshan proclaim a belief in justice—for women, for the downtrodden, for progressive thinkers a corrupt Empire would imprison or destroy. They’re also murderers, thieves, smugglers, and cutthroats. Together, they could bring down an empire. 

Now available in paperback!

Somewhere Beyond the Sea by TJ Klune

The long-awaited sequel to The House in the Cerulean Sea is a story of resistance, lovingly told, about the daunting experience of fighting for the life you want to live and doing the work to keep it. Welcome back to Marsyas Island—home to six magical and purportedly dangerous children. This is Arthur’s story.

The West Passage by @jpechacek

When the Guardian of the West Passage dies in her bed, the women of Grey Tower feed her to the crows and go back to their chores. No successor is named, and no hand takes up the fallen blade, so the West Passage—the ancient byways of the beast—goes unguarded. This is a weird and delightful journey across a deliriously medieval landscape where decay thrives in abundance and giant Ladies rule a palace the size of a city. 

Blood Debts by Terry J. Benton-Walker

On the thirtieth anniversary of the largest magical massacre in New Orleans history, Clement and Cristina Trudeau mourn their father and care for their sick mother. But their mother isn’t sick, they learn: She’s cursed. Cursed by a member of the same magic council over which she used to preside. Cursed by someone who will come for Clement and Cristina next. 

Now available in paperback!

Bury Your Gays by @drchucktingle

After so many years, Misha’s big Oscar moment is here. All he has to do? Kill off the gay characters in his long-running streaming series, “for the algorithm.” Misha refuses, but that’s hardly the end, because monsters from his old horror movie days have begun to step out from the silver screen and stalk him. 

The Brides of High Hill by Nghi Vo

The Cleric Chih accompanies a young bride to her wedding to Lord Guo, the aging ruler of a crumbling estate, but amid the elaborate courtesies and extravagant banquets, they realize something haunts the shadowed halls. As the big night nears close, Chih will learn that not all monsters dwell in shadows; some hide in plain sight. 

Remedial Magic by Melissa Marr

1) An unassuming librarian falls in love with a powerful witch. 

2) Previous librarian discovers she too is a witch…

3) …and that she must attend magical community college to learn how to save her new world from annihilation. 

Swordcrossed by @fahye

Part-time con artist / full-time charming menace Luca Piere didn’t expect to get blackmailed into teaching a chronically responsible merchant Matti how to wield a sword. He also didn’t expect to find his charge so inconveniently handsome, or to get so entangled in his tale of intrigue, sabotage, and matrimony. 

It’s important to read Swordcrossed because while you’re reading gay fiction, you can also study the blade.

Celebrate Pride with more titles from Tor Publishing Group here!

[srbachchan]

DAY 6273

Jalsa, Mumbai Apr 19, 2025/Apr 20 Sat/Sun 1:12 am

words of wisdom from Shweta , sent to me 👆🏼 .. her repertoire of books and reading is immense .. as is of Navya .. it is such a delight to sit in their presence and company and be educated about aspects of life and the world .. it is astonishing ..

And that is what eats us elders up .. there is the desire to do and be a part of what this GEn thinks and does .. but the limitations of time barricade the impulse and the intent ..

Life did not move so rapidly in our time or in the time of our elders .. now the rapidity is so volatile that the wishes to accomplish all is overwhelming .. you do not want to miss out a single day, in case you miss something that you had wished you would want to do, or be a part of ..

The excitement of what the World does to day and the speed with which it does it is unbelievably attractive .. and one wants so desperately to be a art of it .. or many parts of it .. but time is not with us .. at our age we lament the time .. and we feel let down .. for the wish to be having the time to be involved , to test, to apply, to discover, to invent, to admire and enjoy that spectacle .. is huge ..

But the hugeness hits a wall .. the timeless wall of limitations ..

"एक घड़ी ख़रीद कर, हाथ में क्या बांध ली;

वक़्त पीछे ही पड़ गया मेरे ~ "

पूज्य बाबूजी के शब्द

My wishes as ever .. and the great battle of invention that percolates our lives persists to be in its excel ..

The excel of AI ..

So, I asked and it replied :

"Artificial Intelligence (AI) is the simulation of human intelligence in machines designed to think, learn, and make decisions. It powers technologies like voice assistants, recommendation systems, and autonomous vehicles. AI works through algorithms that process data, recognize patterns, and improve over time through machine learning. It is transforming industries by automating tasks, enhancing productivity, and enabling innovative solutions. From healthcare diagnostics to personalized education, AI’s potential is vast. However, it also raises ethical concerns about bias, privacy, and job displacement. As AI continues to evolve, balancing innovation with responsibility will be key to ensuring it benefits society as a whole."

The clarity of social implications is a massive debate , engaging thinkers and artists and writers and indeed all creative talent ..

For the creative content of a writer are his words .. and if the AI data bank consumes that , as a part of a legacy to be maintained over time infinity, it can be used by ChatGPT to refer or use that extract for its personalised usage .. making it the property of ChatGPT ... NOT the property of the writers or the artists, from where it originally came ..

So the copyright of the artist has been technically 'stolen' , and he or she never gets the benefit of ts copyright, when GPT uses it for its presence .. !!!!

The true value of an artists creation will never be restored to his credit, because technology usurps it .. gulps it down deliciously , with an aerated drink and finalising its consumption with a belch 😜🤭 ... END OF CHAPTER !!!

End of discussion .. !!!

In time there shall be much to be heard and written on the subject ..

Each invention provides benefits .. but also victims ..

बनाये कोई - लाभ उठाए कोई और, जिसने उसे बनाया ही न हो

Love

Amitabh Bachchan

[starwarskawaii]

Annoyance and Empanadas

A Miguel O'Hara fic

Alright, here's that Miguel fic. Dedicated to Lan ( @chaithetics ) for always believing in and encouraging me. Proofread by my husband, @kitsunot . So if I made a mistake, blame him.

A/N: This is self-serving, reader is HEAVILY based on me. No word count because I am lazy.

Edit: possible part 2 if you guys like this one. So make sure to let me know!

CW: disabled reader, possible slightly ooc Miguel, mentions of Miguel's *gestures at his life*, no use of Y/N, second person voice, mentions of mobility aids, disability is not specified but is highly based on my experiences with fibromyalgia, female reader, mentions of brain fog, mentions of safe foods, reader is slightly implied to be autistic, PLEASE LET ME KNOW IF I MISSED ANYTHING

You were annoying. Not annoying like Peter B, who always had a quip and lacked boundaries. Not annoying like Miles, who questioned Miguel constantly. Not even annoying like Hobie, although you were a bit of an anarchist. The first thing you had ever said to Miguel was, "I support women's rights and women's wrongs. I do not, however, support men's rights OR men's wrongs, so I hope you've improved." No, you weren't annoying like any of them. You were annoying like Lyla. You were annoying because you knew him. You knew him entirely too well. Which was quite possibly the worst kind of annoying you could be.

You sauntered in on your purple forearm crutches, thinking of what you could say to piss Miguel off. As much as you'd like to pretend you were a quick thinker, the brain fog made it near impossible to come up with anything on the fly. So as you sauntered in, you thought of what you could do to make those veins pop on his neck and forehead. You liked those veins.

Miguel heard you coming. How could he not? Mobility aids are not stealthy. Not in the least. Miguel knew what was coming, and he braced himself for whatever quip you had up your sleeve. Your quips were worse than a Peter Parker's; you had studied him. You came from a universe Miguel stumbled on accidentally. A world where he and all the other Spiders were just characters in comics and movies. And you happened to be Miguel O'Hara's number one fan (and biggest hater, somehow simultaneously). You had made tons of posts analyzing him on some site, tumbling, maybe? He couldn't remember. He brought you on for a few reasons, but mainly to help the algorithms predict events in the Spider's lives.

"Ohhh, Miiiiiggy!" Came your voice, snapping him out of his thoughts.

"What? I'm a bit busy, you know, " came his reply.

"Too busy for me, Migs?" You pouted and batted your lashes. You knew he couldn't resist that.

Miguel was surprised. No quips yet. That's a first.

"Too busy brooding to listen to your favorite right-hand woman?" There it was. There was the jibe at him. You loved doing that. You were probably worse than Lyla.

Lyla popped up and snickered "He was just brooding, how did you know?"

"Lucky guess. Migs, my love, would you care to tell me why the caf has no empanadas?"

"Aye, you came here to interrupt my ensuring the fate of the Arachno-humanoid poly-multiverse over an empanda?"

"They're your recipe, we all know they're the best in the multiverse" you reasoned with him.

"They're my mother's recipe, technically, and I'll make you some when I take you home." Miguel always took you home. You had a lot of issues with the stupid 2099 high-tech stuff, and it also required use of at least one hand, something you rarely had the luxury of, unless it was a no mobility aid or a wheelchair day. So Miguel made sure you were safe.

"Fine, fine. When are you taking me home, speaking of? Should I just wait here, or should I try to navigate the awful upside down maze you created while I wait for your self-imposed penance for the day to end?" Man you were annoying. Man you knew him well.

"I'll finish up soon. Wait here," his face softened as he looked over at you. You were making yourself comfortable on a chair, placing your aids to the side and getting into that position you liked to sit in. The one that seemed uncomfortable, but you swore was best for your hypermobile joints.

You reminded him a lot of Lyla. Lyla, who Xina had programmed to heckle him. Lyla, who he never had the heart to reprogram. You knew all his buttons. Just like Lyla. Just like Xina... You were also like Gwen. He had initially seen you as much more like Gwen. You had a baby face, so he had assumed you were younger. You had half-shaved hair, which you had actually gotten done because of some singer in your dimension, the year before Spiderverse came out. You had always loved Gwen Stacy, though. It wasn't hard to see why. You were smart, you liked nerds, you were incredibly confident, you were kind of punk, but also hilariously materialistic, not in a fancy clothes way but in a "I have to have this figure or I will cry" way. You were a lot like the Gwen of 120703. You loved that Gwen.

You were very different from all of them, though. He remembered stumbling upon your dimension by accident. A dimension where there were no heroes. A dimension where there were somehow still supervillains. A dimension where, even when faced with a lack of heroes, some people still had hope. You were one of them. He had initially infantalized you. Your mobility aids, your interests, the baby face, the fact that you clearly needed a caregiver, but stubbornly lived on your own all made him see you as younger than you were. You had had many arguments before he finally realized how capable you are. That you're tougher than most Spiders are, save for Sun Spider, who has EDS (you LOVED Sun Spider). That you deal with 24/7 full body pain, work a full-time job, and somehow manage to take care of yourself.

You had shown him so much. Like punk versions of him that you thought were hot. He hated them. He hated that you found that attractive. It made him question for a moment if his appearance was alright. Of course, you would like piercings and tattoos. You had multiple of each. He never really thought much of it before. You had shown him art of him pregnant. You both hated that one. He had learned so much about you. In a way, he had become the caregiver you needed. He made sure you ate, he popped into your dimension to help with your laundry, he helped you on low mobility days, he cooked for you, he helped you set up appointments and refill meds when your brain just wouldn't cooperate. He admired you. He thought you were incredibly strong. He made you empanadas because they're a safe food for you. He secretly loved the way you loved his cooking.

You cared for him. Really, truly, deeply cared. You had listened to his pain and felt it like it was your own. You were so empathetic. He realized that your disabilities and baby face and your being a few years younger didn't matter at all. You were more mature than he was. You knew pain, you lived with pain, you had lost so much and had dealt with it a long time ago. You helped him pick apart his mind, healing what had been broken by grief. He had spent so many nights sitting on the floor of your apartment, next to your couch, pouring his heart out to you. The girl who had fan art of him up on her walls. He was pretty sure he loved you, but too worried he was confusing gratefulness for that painful emotion he hadn't felt in so long that he couldn't bring himself to say anything. You were in love. How could you not be? He let you see him so vulnerable. He was also 6'9, built like a tank, perfect dark skin and hair, newly emotionally open, and had clearly come to genuinely respect you, in a way you struggled to find as a disabled woman. You were much less subtle about your feelings than he was. You flirted constantly. But he was as dense as his muscles.

"Alright, I'm done, cariño," Miguel said. "Time to go back to your dimension, and get you some food. Did you actually eat today?"

"Uhhhh, what answer do you want to that?" You said, only half joking, with a nervous laugh.

"You'll be the death of me, hermosa"

He was used to the quips. He was used to the forgetting to eat. He was used to it all, and he hoped it could stay that way. Miguel O'Hara loved how you annoyed him. And he hoped you would continue to, for at least as long as Lyla has.

[ladybugmania]

To the Republican clickbaiters, rage farmers, and basement-dwelling truth benders.

Let me spell it out slowly, since nuance seems to elude you:

I am not a Democrat. And definitely not Republican.

Not a puppet like y'all, not their pawn, not anyone's programmable echo.

I don't bow to governments. Not left-wing, not right-wing, not the hollow illusion of wings on a beast that never flies. At the moment I can smell a stink that smells as bad as 1933. if you dare research it. But I don't think you can. You're all sucked in the conspiracy theory. Taken in so deep it's like the vortex of a black hole with no return.

I serve no flag but my own mind, no master but my conscience, and clearly, that terrifies you.

What's beautiful, though, truly poetic, is how my so-called “garbage posts” are haunting your timelines like a ghost you can’t exorcise.

Watching how the truth somehow crawls under your skin. The way my words, chaotic, raw, and unfiltered, poke at your fragile egos and rattle your tiny echo chambers. It’s delicious. You hate me, but you can’t look away. That’s art, baby.

So keep twisting in your outrage. Keep clutching your pearl-stained keyboards. Because if what I write disturbs your sleep, good. That means it’s working.

It means I'm creeping under your skin and getting to you. Getting what I want.

My words? They burrow in deep, don’t they?

Crawling past your talking points, nesting in your insecurities, dancing in the cobwebs of your groupthink.

You call it nonsense, yet you can’t stop reading.

You hate it, but you feed on it.

I’m not debating you, I’m dissecting you.

And you feel it.

So go ahead, keep labeling me, keep gasping like fish in your ideological fishbowl.

Just know, I’m not here to fit in your box.

I’m here to rattle it.

And clearly, mission accomplished.

With all the love your hollow souls can’t process,

– The voice under your skin,

the glitch in your algorithm,

the mind you can’t control.

Sincerely, The shadow in your algorithm.

(Not a Democrat, definitely not a Republican.

Just your worst kind of free thinker)

PS. This isn't steered to all Republicans, just the stupid dumb ones. The ones who are blinded and gagged. Taken deep into the MAGA cult. Brainwashed . The ones who bow to their masters, because that's the only way they can survive their hollow existence. Slaves to an ideology from the ORANGE idiot.

[budd-ie]

Desperately need to break down two people and one cup of water because I have like 10 drafts about xianle trio that I Can't Post because they all feed off of conclusions from each of their answers, except we haven't established what those conclusions are yet. So this is where that starts.

I once had a wake up in a cold sweat realization (the first of many) that the three of them represent three different paths in their respective answers, and how these answers give us so much insight into who they really are and how they typically act. And I realize this is probably a very basic and prevalent thing (especially come book 3) but I haven't seen it broken down recently, so I'd like to. But mostly I need it as my context and support for my other future claims or else they might not make any sense haha. So I’ll be relating these answers directly to events in book 3. Let's get into it.

“Two walked the desert, about to die from thirst, and there was only one cup of water. The one who drinks lives, the one who doesn’t dies. If you were a god, who would you give that cup of water to— don’t speak yet, I’ll ask the other two and see how they answer.”

Mu Qing's answer:

“May I ask who those two people are, what their natures are like, and of their merits? A decision can only be made once all the details are known.”

Feng Xin's answer:

“I don’t know! Don’t ask me—tell them to decide amongst themselves!”

Xie Lian's answer:

“Give them another cup."

TLDR:

When faced with a choice such as this...

Xie Lian will try to save both parties at all costs, even if that cost is himself. His sense of justice is the strongest above all and believes that innocent people should never have to suffer.

Feng Xin will put someone else in charge of the choice and act on their behalf. He isn't as good at making decisions, and feels most comfortable standing behind someone else he trusts.

Mu Qing will choose whatever option brings the best/most desirable outcome that is within his control without sacrificing himself. He is a logical thinker above all else and is used to making moral sacrifices to find the optimal yet most realistic outcome of a situation.

(Book 3 and some book 6 spoilers ahead)

We know that Xie Lian's desire to expand the resource is beautiful but impossible, and we know that giving equal amounts of half the cup of water to both people will still leave them both as dead as not giving it at all. We also know that he learned his lesson the hard way and doesn't stop learning it even 800 years later. We know how Xianle fell and we know that it was doomed from the beginning; there was no saving it, but even if there was, he would have to choose between Xianle and Yong'an. Finally, we know that when he has nothing left to give, he will give himself up for the outcome he desires. We spend so much time with Xie Lian that I won't focus on trying to prove what's already been proven. Instead, I'll focus on the other two.

Mu Qing's answer is unpalatable to most people, because it sounds like he accepts being put in charge of answering the question "who deserves to live and who deserves to die?" It's easy to judge him for his willingness to make these kinds of sacrifices, but this is the exact nature of the question, and the exact situation they find themselves in so often. By both this answer and patterns within his actions, I think Mu Qing can best be described as an extremely logical thinker who will choose whatever option brings the best/most desirable outcome without sacrificing himself too far. That doesn't mean he'll never push his luck, but this is the algorithmic way we most often see him thinking.

By the terms of the riddle, the most logical option is that one person gets water and one person doesn’t, and the giver will decide who gets it to avoid conflict. And Mu Qing doesn’t choose randomly, either; he wants to choose based on their characters, their backgrounds, their merits, etc. So the other two may be treating everyone equally, but sometimes that’s just not within your control. Mu Qing is an incredibly logical person, so to optimize the good that can come from this action, he will make the choice. It’s not easy, and could end either way, but at least someone is guaranteed to live. In fact, this is the only outcome in which someone is guaranteed to live. I'll summarize some other examples of his thought process in the future, but I'll focus on the most relevant example for now.

In book 3, Mu Qing is the first one to suggest cursing Yong’an with human face disease in order to save Xianle. A "despicable" choice as they conclude, but Xie Lian, I will add, does thoroughly consider his suggestions before declining, and while the persuasion is ineffective, it isn't 100% ineffective. In the end though, Xie Lian is weighing the option of “people in the capital probably live and the people of Yong’an as well as the dead suffer for it” and he isn’t willing to make this bargain in the end. He doesn’t know if it could backfire and isn’t satisfied with the amount of bad that could come from it. Mu Qing, on the other hand, is adamant about this decision and gets frustrated that Xie Lian won’t make it. He's even excited about his answer, not because he wants people to die, but because he found themselves a viable way out. It feels so easy to him, because he’s weighing the net good of “we fucking live” and “we fucking die.” Turns out living is a lot more appealing than dying, especially for a character who canonically loves his life and is terrified of death. Isn’t this the same mindset as the rest of the common people?

I've established before that Xie Lian is not the common people. Growing up poor though, Mu Qing is like, common people extraordinaire. Unlike Xie Lian, he’s long since accepted that not everybody can be saved, not everybody can be placated, some people are good and nice and some people suck and are not. Mu Qing is used to making sacrifices for the greater good, ignoring morality to a digestible extent, because it’s something that common people have to do to get by. This situation reminds me of this quote from when the townsfolk are getting admonished for mutilating themselves to get rid of human face disease:

“Your Highness is invincible, so of course you'd call us foolish. But aren’t our conditions so desperate that we had no choice but to try foolish methods?!”

And maybe we fixate a lot on “not everybody can be saved” but I think what matters to Mu Qing is more that some people can be saved. Why are we dawdling doing good because it’s not enough good? Don’t we learn from this that just one person enough? Mu Qing understands that in order to have a chance at saving themselves a decision must be made, and he tries to make his point clear when he says the following:

“Before they reach their bad end, we will have already perished! You don’t have a third path and there is no second cup of water. Wake up, Your Highness! You’re running out of time.”

The amount of suffering the common people have endured until now allows the average person to surpass the moral debacle and choose life above all else. Why did Xie Lian try to steal during his first banishment? Because he was so desperate to save himself and his family that morality became the lesser merit. When faced with the threat of human face disease and the solution of killing just one person to save themselves, the people who stab Xie Lian live, and the one who refuses the decision dies a horrible death. Does Mu Qing make a little more sense now? He saw not only a way to survive, but the expected solution to the problem, and he jumped at it. We as the audience can fixate on the moral implications of his decisions because we aren’t the ones making the decisions, nor are we affected by either outcome.

Speaking of a person not making decisions, this is where Feng Xin becomes relevant. His answer is to make no decision at all, leave it up to them to decide who drinks and who doesn't. While he's absolved from the moral quandary, this path doesn't really solve anything. There might be a chance where they choose peacefully who should drink, but it's much more realistic to expect them to slaughter each other over the resource before either of them have the chance to drink it.

So when faced with a major decision like this, what is Feng Xin most likely to do?

Entrust it to someone else, like Xie Lian.

As much as I love him, our poor boy's arrows are a bit sharper than he is. What’s he doing while Xie Lian and Mu Qing talk about curses?

At first, Feng Xin had listened to their argument glumly, and because he couldn’t contribute any better ideas, he didn’t join in.

Not a whole lot. Actually, he stands silently until Mu Qing insults Xie Lian. After that, he shoves Mu Qing back and suddenly starts going off on him, saying things like

“With an apathetic person like him, you don’t usually see any sign that he actually cares about the Kingdom of Xianle. But now suddenly he’s anxious?”

and especially:

“You really think I can’t tell that you think His Highness is a fool? I can tolerate your sarcasm and those rolling eyes, I can tolerate you always standing where you shouldn’t in the Upper Court. You like to show off and it’s hardly the first time you’ve pulled this shit, so fine, go show off, you’re not good enough to wow the heavens anyway. His Highness doesn’t mind, so I don’t give a shit either. But since you’re gonna cross the line, I’m not gonna hold back. Listen up! I’m not surprised you’d leap at the chance to use despicable means, but His Highness is His Highness—no matter what he decides, you better respect it. Don’t you dare be so critical, and don’t forget who the fuck you are!”

This is only an excerpt of the rant because the first part isn't as relevant but this whole scene is so crazy. Crazy because it's so raw (that last line is so jaw dropping to me like actually. If someone said all that to me I’d go rogue) and also because it tells us so much about them.

First, "despicable" is actually a word Xie Lian used earlier when he said the following:

“Absolutely not! Don’t forget what we called them when they attacked the innocent civilians of the capital: despicable. If we do the same thing, won’t we become just as despicable? How would we be any different?”

Which means this isn't completely Feng Xin's own judgment. Right now, he's just using Xie Lian's opinion as an in to justify his own personal rage. Xie Lian isn't even calling Mu Qing despicable; he fully believes in Mu Qing, understands how he came to his conclusion, and doesn't blame him for having a temper (he already knows he's sensitive and prone to it, he defends him saying he’s “just anxious over the current situation”). While we do know it definitely reflects Feng Xin's moral opinion on attacking innocents (“If it really was them, then I’ll lose respect for them. Fight honestly on the battlefield if you have the ability; don’t use shady tricks to harm innocent civilians!”), it's less reflective of his intentions in this specific instance.

Second, this whole rant is fueled by nothing but pent up rage that was sparked by Mu Qing insulting Xie Lian, giving him a hard time, and going against his decision. Feng Xin judges him hard for his "despicable" choice, but Feng Xin doesn't even have any other opinions on how to solve the actual problem at hand. His opinion is whatever Xie Lian decides, for his highness is so smart and virtuous, clearly that must be the right one, especially when compared to that of a humble servant.

But what would Feng Xin do if Xie Lian decided Mu Qing was right? What if Xie Lian decided that they desperately needed to curse all Yong'an citizens to die so Xianle might be able to live? Would this still be a despicable decision to Feng Xin if Xie Lian decided it wasn't so bad? I have reason to believe that his sense of morality, though great, may be slightly lesser than his sense of loyalty (assuming the person he is loyal to is virtuous and acceptable to him, such is Xie Lian). This is supported by how in the revised book 6 scene, Feng Xin doesn’t leave because he’s questioning Xie Lian’s morality, he leaves because Xie Lian relieves him of his duty and he obeys the order. He’s surprised when this happens and seems hesitant, despite it all. While we don’t really have any specific instance testing this hypothetical, my hypothesis is that any moral complications he could have would come after acting on his highness's word, and if Xie Lian said this was the right choice, he would rationalize it (I also think there’s a graph with an intersection between his morality and loyalty after which morality will start surpassing loyalty when the situation is pushed far enough to warrant it). In any case, the consequences of their actions will not fall on Feng Xin's shoulders, so he doesn't think too hard about the implications of the actions, he just excels at following orders from the boss; that's why its so easy for him to make these judgments.

I also think this explains the way he acts during book 1 where he always looks like he has something to say and never chooses to, always looking just a little lost at what he’s supposed to be doing. He’s given a choice of talk to Xie Lian or not talk to him, but he genuinely doesn’t know what he’s supposed to do and can’t figure it out on his own, so he chooses the safe option of doing nothing. He’s always looked towards Xie Lian to make decisions, but he doesn’t have that anymore. We actually see him start getting more confident in decision making as the book goes on, like when he congratulated him for his 3000 lanterns (I like how he doesn’t question where they came from though!).

Anyways, I forgot how important book 3 was for characterization of these three because everything they do can be drawn back here. The number one reason I like this story is the way every single character is so individual and has very specific motivations and personalities that can and will clash in very specific ways with other characters, which is how a lot of the conflicts arise in the first place (instead of throwing people at a plot and hoping they can carry it). It makes it so interesting when you know why they act the way they do. Also, this isn't a complete character summary by any means, there’s obviously more to these fellas that I didn’t talk about. I can think of other instances that support these conclusions, but because this is already such a long post maybe I'll make a masterlist or something and link them when I finish them (thanks!)

[unistaryo]

Could you make headcanons of the Avengers (EmH) with a s/o who is like Princess Luna from MLP (she has moon powers, can enter and manipulate other people's dreams , etc.)?

Avengers: EMH Characters with a S/O Like Princess Luna (headcanons)

Tony Stark/ Iron Man

He studies your powers regularly. 

Hell, I think one of the reasons he fell in love with you was the fact that he needed to see you so often to try and find a scientific reason behind your powers, and well, things progressed from there.

Maybe he would let you in his dreams, for research purposes, of course. But also because he thinks he misses great ideas since he can’t remember them

Letting this aside, he would go on night flies with you (totally not because you made him do it to take a break, he complains the first few minutes)

During those flights, he will show off, most likely trying to compete with you.

He will create a gadget to increase your powers.

He’d definitely have J.A.R.V.I.S. monitor you when you use your powers or create algorithms to study them better.

Steve Rogers/ Captain America

He’d be absolutely baffled by your powers—don’t fight me on this one.

He also loves to admire you from afar or in proximity, especially when you use your powers. He says it’s like a piece of art.

I personally wouldn’t really see him letting you control or enter his dreams, unless it’s something that bothers him and he thinks you will help, but this also only in extreme situations.

Won’t force you to use your powers for strategic purposes, but he will make the proposition.

He loves to take night walks with you, but if you decide to control the moon or something, he will be a little shocked or weirded out at first

He’ll definitely draw you while you use your powers—or sketch things inspired by them. (It’s a personal headcanon of mine that Cap still draws, but keeps them hidden)

You two will talk about moon myths, legends and how real they actually are

Janet Van Dyne/ Wasp

She WILL ask about the team’s dreams, she loves that kind of tea, especially Hank’s

You two fly together during the nighttime almost every day, the only expectations are the extreme cases.

Sometimes, she’ll beg you to mess with the night cycle for the weirdest reasons—or just to prank someone.

Hear me out, you two will definitely wear moon or night-themed matching outfits together, IT’S A MUST FOR HER.

She will let you enter her dreams, she was a little worried the first few times, but now she trusts you completely.

Will also ask you to manipulate her dreams to create different scenarios, or even help her with nightmares

She would also suggest you transform in any way you want, just to inspire her

Hank Pym/ Ant-Man

Another one who will be extremely fascinated by your powers

He will run tests EVERY DAY, your powers must have an explanation

If Tony actually spends time with you outside his working spaces or missions, Hank will most likely not. He’s too invested in his research

You will literally have to drag him out of his lab for a night fly

He is both terrified and intrigued by your ability related to dreams. He will only let you use it on him a few times, but only for research purposes

He will use his powers to mess with you, maybe even shrinking you down just to see what you would do with your powers and to tease you

HE IS TERRIFIED WHEN YOU CONTROL THE MOON. PLEASE DON’T DO THAT AGAIN, DO YOU KNOW WHAT DISASTERS IT CAN CAUSE GLOBALLY?

T’Challa/ Black Panther

The most chill one of the group

He loves to go on night walks/flies with you and finds it extremely therapeutic, especially since you’re one of the people he loves and trusts the most

Surprisingly enough, he lets you enter but isn’t very into the control thing, his dreams. T’Challa most likely trusts you completely, and you two will also most likely interpret the dream together afterwards

He will reach out to you if he needs help regarding his dreams, like if they become too clouded

T’Challa strikes as a deep thinker, so he will love to talk about the symbolism behind your powers

He will compliment you based on your moon powers

Oh, yeah, be prepared for a lot of talks about Wakanda and how you can help the country with your powers, but he won’t force you

Bruce Banner/ Hulk

Bruce would be extremely interested in your powers, while Hulk won’t really care

Bruce, on his day off, will take you fishing with him and you will discuss almost everything, but he will vent a lot. In the end, he will ask you to try and make the day longer (even if you can’t)

Hulk is a lot more reserved around you, but he has his own ways that he shows his love

Night walks or flies aren’t really as regular as Hulk or Bruce would want, but they still occur

Hulk wouldn’t really be very comfortable letting you see his dreams, let alone control them. Maybe with some convincing from Bruce, he will

You’re most likely the only one who can understand Hulk on a deeper level, even Bruce is amazed at this

Thor Odinson

He will compare you to a deity at first, and will also do it later on

He’d regale you with tales of Asgard’s own moon deities and celestial beings, comparing your powers to those of ancient legends.

He loves to fly with you during the night, one of his favourite past times

He will challenge you to friendly spare matches, just to test your powers and tease you afterwards

His Asgardinans friends will hear a lot about you, some of them would even want to meet you in person. Oh yeah, and the Enchantress hates you, no wonder why

He lets you in his dreams without any worry, and he also says you will be there either way

Will ask you to use your dream or moon control powers for missions. Will get a little mad if you don’t

Clint Barton/ Hawkeye

He will ask you jokingly (I hope) to make the night last longer or to just make it shorter to mess with some people or to help him sleep better

He lives for your nightly walks/flies together

He doesn’t let you enter or control his dreams but will suggest you do it with others, especially to find information on the enemy

Will tease you endlessly about your powers

He will sometimes be amazed by them, and other times a little scared, depending on how you feel when you use them

He will throw things at you, just ‘to see if you can use your powers to defend yourself during surprise situations’

He won’t let any S.H.I.E.L.D. agent near you, you're too precious for him

[what-bot]

When I found out Alan's secret online handle was ISOlated thinker my eyes narrowed so hard. Him being vague and evasive when telling Sam about the page hints at him possibly knowing more than he lets on, but the ISO thing cannot be a coincidence.

I think Kevin might have told him some of what was going on with the Grid, in programming terms rather than telling him they were all alive in there, but possibly planning to fully show him once it was ready. And when the ISOs formed he was so excited he couldn't contain himself and told Alan about them, again not them being alive but in terms of "these self-evolving isomorphic algorithms just happened on my system, isn't that so cool!" Alan of course agreed that it was extremely cool and couldn't wait to see, but the grid 'wasn't ready yet'.

And then of course Kevin vanished and the ISOs all got killed and Alan never found out anything more 😭

[nostalgicacademia]

Who decides what's beautiful on social media?

How many times a day do you tap "like" without really looking? How many fleeting images pass before your eyes before you press "save" or scroll past?

In the digital universe, beauty is no longer something we search for — it’s something that’s recommended. The feed curates, the algorithm selects, and hashtags group entire visual worlds into what we now call aesthetics.

This isn’t a neutral process. In the Western tradition, Kant believed beauty was universal and disinterested. But contemporary thinkers like Bourdieu and Susan Sontag have challenged that: taste is learned, shaped by culture, power, and the media. Today, we navigate infinite digital museums where our ways of seeing are subtly guided.

I explore these questions — and the rise of algorithmic taste — in my latest article for The Conversatio:

Who decides what's beautiful on social media?

[estavionpira]

Prodecktorate: An Honest Critique

So the Prodecktorate: Slaughterhouse card pack has been out for a couple weeks now, and I wanted to share my thoughts on the current state of the game.

Gameplay:

The gameplay has always been top-of-the-line in its genre. The rock-paper-scissors dynamic between brutes, blasters and breakers is executed really well, and having most thinkers and shakers act as buffing and debuffers was pulled off, which I didn't expect them to pull off when they announced the game. Masters can be really useful and fun to play as when you use them right; stealing enemy cards or getting to draw from the deck for free is great fun, but pretty unbalanced to play against. Tinkers are conceptually great as a jack-of-all-trades class, but their execution is horribly unbalanced. I'll get to that in Meta though. Strangers having massive evasion and giving intel buffs to their team is useful in concept, but they underperform horrifically in gameplay. I feel like an across-the-board stat buff to most stranger cards could help alleviate this, but there'd need to be a proper look-over for the category to properly solve it.

Meta:

By far the biggest issue with the meta is the absolute dominance of Tinkers. It's been a major problem since the game release, but with the release of Prodecktorate: Slaughterhouse adding the ridiculously overpowered Bonesaw and Defiant cards, it's worse now than it's ever been. Tinkers are meant to be jack-of-all-trades cards, but they're far too powerful in far too many categories that there's really no reason to play anyone but tinkers in most of your deck slots. Bonesaw can summon one of either Murder Rat, Pagoda or Hack Job from the reserve pile per turn without costing a deck slot, which is a ridiculously strong major power to start off with, usually master powers either get hero units that cost deck slots or grunt units that don't; getting hero units that don't cost deck slots would make her an S-tier master by herself, but she also comes with pseudo-brute physicals, pseudo-blaster ranged abilities, and a blanket immunity to master powers, which is absolutely bullshit. You're never going to play against a deck without Bonesaw on it. Defiant is almost as bullshit as she is. The nano-thorn ability would make him an S-tier striker by himself, but he also has pseudo-brute physicals, and the combat prediction algorithms passive he has gives him B or A-tier combat thinker abilities. That's not even to mention the ridiculous boost he gets when deployed alongside Dragon (who's broken in her own way, but she's always been broken, so I won't get into it.)

Overall:

The game's really not in a good state right now. It has good fundamentals, but enough categories are broken or unfun to play against that it really draws down the overall experience, not to mention the utter dominance of tinkers severely limiting what can be played outside the most casual of matches. They'll need to take a serious look at the effect of the recent cards when balancing for the upcoming Prodecktorate: Irregulars if they want to get the game out of the slump it's in.

[max1461]

Thought for a moment in the 2010s that we were entering a new serious era (e.g. 1920s, 30s, 40s), but it seems that we're instead in an increasingly tacky era (50s, 60s, 70s). Like look at the change in YouTube. Well you all are textheads you don't do video, I know that. But like. In 2017 there was ContraPoints. Agree or disagree with her opinions, what she was doing was conceptually and aesthetically serious. Even her early, low-production-value stuff. She was talking about incels and other internet shit, but the internet is part of the real world, that's fine. In fact that's what gave me hope for another serious era, people were finally talking about internet stuff the way 1920s German intellectuals or whatever talked about the cultural trends of their day. Maybe because Contra has half a philosophy PhD and was explicitly influenced by those German intellectuals.

Another example from a totally disjoint cultural niche was Digi a.k.a. Trixie a.k.a. Ygg Studios or whatever they go by now. Drunk, smelly, and unkempt—yes. Or at least so went the persona. Talking seriously about anime—also yes. When they claimed they were the only good anime reviewer on the internet it made a lot of people mad. But they were right!

There were thinkers, we had thinkers. My generation, or roughly my generation, had thinkers. To be clear, when I include Contra here I'm not including all of her ilk, I'm not including the leftist-theory-regurgitators and so on. But Contra herself was a thinker! Digi was a thinker! We had thinkers.

But that era is over now, on YouTube at least. I go on there and it's all algorithmic drivel. I look for anime content and as I've explained it's all about #hype and #epic and how the new season of whatever #hits different and other empty meaningless bullshit. No analysis, no thought, fundementally unserious bullshit. Tacky! It's tacky! The the YouTube thumbnail O-face is fucking 70s-ass fake wood paneling tacky bullshit!

MrBeast. I've never seen a MrBeast video but I hate him for what he represents. I used to watch this channel called Wranglerstar, he made videos about different types of axes and forest fire fighting equipment and various other stuff. "Modern homesteading" I believe was the tagline. And it was always evident that he was a far-right guy but who gives a shit, his videos where good. Serious videos about interesting topics, that a fucking normal guy might watch. Well around 2020 he basically started flooding his channel with covid conspiracy bullshit and "the Chinese are going to attack us any day!" bullshit and other unserious crap. And I had to stop watching. How could I find any of that compelling? It's vapid nonsense.

And I don't know if it's a shift in the algorithm or people becoming more savvy to the algorithm or what, but all of YouTube is like this now. Vapid clickbait empty meaningless bullshit for another tacky commercialized bullshit era.

And you know, I felt like it might just be localized to YouTube for a while, but I started to look around, and it just feels like everything is like this. Backsliding to the tacky times. God I hate tackiness. I hate unseriousness. I'm having a little meltdown. At least SMW kaizo hacks are having a renaissance. People are doing serious shit in that space, serious shit that is also not anachronistic, you know, it's kept up with the modern world. It addresses modern concerns (fun to play hard Mario). But it's serious. People are serious. One of the few serious things happening in my orbit.

Even in science it feels like people aren't serious anymore. You know, standard Sabine Hossenfelder complaint about particle physics. But I don't really know enough about that to say. Get the vibe that biology is still serious these days.

To be clear, everything I'm saying here is pure vibes. I'm just saying shit. I'm just saying shit that I feel. But I'll be deeply disappointed if I have to live my youth in another tacky era, god damn it. Even the 80s seem like they were better than this.

[darkmaga-returns]

By all appearances, a populist revival is sweeping the globe, from rural heartlands to digital spaces and political rallies. It is a movement claiming to reclaim the nation from the grasp of corrupt elites, transnational bureaucracies, and decaying liberal democracies. But look closer, and the image distorts.

What presents itself as grassroots rebellion is often being driven by figures and ideologies that despise the very foundations of populist thought: individual liberty, local self-governance, the rule of law, and constitutional restraint.

The ideological force at work behind this sleight of hand is technopopulism—a mutation of traditional populism incubated in the philosophical engine of the Dark Enlightenment, where thinkers like Curtis Yarvin (aka Mencius Moldbug) reframe democracy not as a safeguard of freedom, but as a failed experiment that must be replaced by algorithmic governance and executive rule.

In this warped mirror, populists are no longer the champions of liberty—they are foot soldiers for a new, data-driven ruling class.

The Bait: Populist Language, Libertarian Aesthetics

Technopopulism emerged through Silicon Valley corridors and NRx blogs, but it found a global audience by weaponizing the language of populism: anti-elite rhetoric, calls to restore “order” and “competence”, and celebrations of “free markets” and “free speech.”

Figures like Peter Thiel, Elon Musk, and Balaji Srinivasan don the populist mantle while proposing visions in which freedom is redefined as submission to optimized systems, where code becomes law, and where traditional political authority is replaced with tech-stack sovereignty.

[arcticdementor]

On "liberalism" and authority

So, Michael Munger says, in this interview on the “Dad Saves America” podcast (at about 20 minutes in):

Liberalism is the actual belief that no one should be in charge… Even I, if I have the chance to be in charge, I should say no, no one should be in charge. Because anyone who’s in charge, it’s like the Ring of Sauron; it will turn you, and it will make you evil.

This is a point I keep coming back to, the same point Tanner Greer made in his posts on the popularity of YA dystopias: that so much of the West has so thoroughly internalized this distrust of human authority that they can no longer even conceive the idea of a good leader, and are deathly afraid of taking charge of anyone or anything — a deep terror of responsibility, of exercising leadership.

But the Schmittian critique of Liberalism, as defined here, still remains. As Yarvin says, sovereignty is conserved. Or as Eric Li says in his Fall 2019 American Affairs article “China and the Rule of Law,”

Among all the misconceptions about the rule of law, the dichotomy of the rule of law versus the rule of man is perhaps the most mislead­ing. As the popular saying goes, the rule of law is impartial and just while the rule of man is arbitrary and unjust. But again, Aristotle reveals that this concept produces more ambiguity than clarity. Aristotle places reason at the center of the rule of law—“the law is reason unaffected by desire.”27 In this telling, because man is necessarily influenced by human passions and biases, the rule of man would make for an unstable or even unjust society. Thus it would be preferable for a society to be governed by general rules set in advance and strictly applied.28 On the other hand, Aristotle also emphasizes that the outcome of the rule of law depends on the quality of judges and, in complex cases, it would be better for laws to be less rigid so that judges could have more discretion.29 This Aristotelian conflict has never been resolved throughout the intel­lectual and practical history of the rule of law. Montesquieu argued against expanding the role of judges for fear that “the life and liberty of the subject[s would be] exposed to arbitrary control.”30 Yet, Montesquieu, more than any other political thinker, was responsible for laying the intellectual foundations for the independence of the judiciary, which necessarily assigns tremendous power to judges. Later on, the likes of Jeremy Bentham and Justice Antonin Scalia railed against such institutional features, arguing that they led to bad laws being made by judges.31 None of these thinkers could get away from the harsh reality that the law does not act or speak by or for itself; all laws must be interpreted and acted upon by human beings.

Man is a political animal; and decisions — political decisions — have to be made. Someone, singular or plural, has to make them.

Someone… or something. When Liberalism says “no one should be in charge,” it means “no human should be in charge.” And across recorded history, human beings have indeed outsourced some decisions — including some pretty important ones — away from human judgement. Auguries, casting lots, examining entrails, baking turtle shells, consulting oracles, reading the skies for signs and portents, shaking the magic 8-ball. All ways of trusting it to a higher power; to the gods, to the spirits, to Fate.

But, while there are times that incorporating a bit of randomness into decision-making can improve outcomes, you can’t govern entirely by divination. So, when modernity and Liberalism came along, the outsourcing strategy was that outlined by Weber: “rationalization” — the replacement of human judgement, now deemed too terrible and corruptible to ever be trusted, by rules and procedure; that is, by algorithms. In Weber’s day, implementing them still required human bureaucrats in all cases, but nowadays, ever more of them can be done by our machines — “software eating the world.”

Thus, the end goal of liberalism, in this formulation, is Machine Rule — hence the singularitarians eager for us to all become the pampered pets of a benevolent god-machine (a monarchy with an immortal, infallible, non-human monarch). If no human, or group of humans, can ever be trusted with the “One Ring” of political authority, but wielded that authority must still be, then the only choice is to build something that can be trusted to wield it. (Hence, the “alignment problem.”)

But I’ll note that all of this is within one side of Sowell’s “conflict of visions” — the Utopian vision, which Pinker calls the “unconstrained” vision. That we can solve every problem, and that we can build a perfect system where no human will ever be corrupted by power.

On the other side, though, there’s the Tragic vision, the “constrained” vision. Perfection is unobtainable, and some problems will always be with us; they cannot be solved, merely endured. Into each life some rain must fall. No matter how much effort we put into our health, we will fall ill from time to time. We will each grow old, and we will die. Accidents happen, things break down, and everything fails eventually.

That’s not to say you shouldn’t try — that you shouldn’t, say, work to stay healthy and fit. But to acknowledge and accept that your efforts will always fall short. That bad things will happen no matter how hard you work to prevent them.

And thus with governments. Bad decisions, bad leaders, corrupt politicians. Try as you might, they’ll always happen from time to time. “What if you get a bad king?” Is the perennial rejoinder us monarchists hear over and over. And yet, so often the parade of horribles held out as the consequences of a “bad king” are all things ostensible “democracies” have done as well. “What if you get a bad democracy? A bad electorate?” (see so many social media posts, here and elsewhere, in the wake of the election).

Bad governments, bad leaders will happen. They’re inevitable. It doesn’t mean you can’t try to make things better — implement checks and balances, competing institutions and social forces, and do what you can to limit such things. But know that you will fail. The only way to end all human wickedness is to end humanity.

And trust that it’s not as bad as Munger’s liberalism would have it. Not all leaders are bad. Even he notes that both George Washington and John Adams weren’t “corrupted” the way the “any power is the One Ring” model would have it. There are bad kings, yes, but also good ones.

I can’t believe I’m the one saying this, but most of you seem to think that, at the personal level, while there are pains and bad times that are inevitable in life, they don’t outweigh the good, not so much as to make it better to end both. You hold that life, in general, is always (or at least usually) worth living.

For most of human history, governments have usually been, if not good, then at least functional enough for most people to generally muddle on. It looks like the good times outweighing the bad has generally held at the collective level. And yet, Munger’s formulation of Liberalism denies this. It looks only at the bad that people can do with authority, and denies the possibility that a human leader could use power for good ends. Even when liberals like him allow for such a possibility in practice, they still argue that the mere probability that someone, somewhere could misuse power inevitably outweighs all those good uses. To analogize to the personal level, this is “euthanasia for a sprained ankle” thinking. That the only good government is one composed of a system of procedures and algorithms — whether implemented on bureaucracy or on silicon — so perfectly designed to align incentives so as to provide the “moral alchemy” to ensure fully virtuous outcomes from even a society of “rational devils.”

But, the Tragic Vision holds, such moral alchemy is not possible. Personnel will always be policy. Power will end up in human hands, and thus the personal virtue of those hands will always matter. Good governance will always be dependent on having good men. So stop "dreaming of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good,” and start cultivating virtue. 

Give me the judgment of balanced minds in preference to laws every time. Codes and manuals create patterned behavior. All patterned behavior tends to go unquestioned, gathering destructive momentum.

—Bene Gesserit character Mother Superior Darwi Odrade, Chapterhouse: Dune, by Frank Herbert.

If the people be led by laws, and uniformity sought to be given them by punishments, they will try to avoid the punishment, but have no sense of shame. If they be led by virtue, and uniformity sought to be given them by the rules of propriety, they will have the sense of shame, and moreover will become good

—Confucius, Analects, chapter 2, translated by James Legge

The Duke Ai asked, saying, "What should be done in order to secure the submission of the people?" The Master replied, "Advance the upright and set aside the crooked, then the people will submit. Advance the crooked and set aside the upright, then the people will not submit."

—Confucius, Analects, chapter 2, translated by James Legge

In fact, a strong case can be made that a strict view of formal legality, as termed by Tamanaha,33 which stipulates the rigid application of the letters of the law with­out human discretion, is contrary to the ideals of the rule of law.34 The rule of law should not be morally and substantively neutral. Procedural justice is not substantive justice and could very much produce the opposite. It takes the interpretive intervention of human beings to ensure that the content and execution of the law actually generate just outcomes. And such interpretive interventions are by necessity contextual and, yes, political.

—Eric Li, "China and the Rule of Law," American Affairs, Fall 2019

(And against the Machine, and the “machine-attitude” which threaten “to usurp our sense of beauty, our necessary selfdom out of which we make living judgments”?)