inositol5dtimemachine

[inositol5dtimemachine]

Testing just now, FUTO keyboard on my Android mostly gets this right, except one word it often thinks is painus - probably not designed for an Australian accent.

Holy **** oh right okay. So I was about to make a post about how using speech to text has already been a game changer for me but as you can see by the line of asterix at the start of this post the bloody thing auto censors swear words. (Yet bloody got through, ig Because it is a description and also British slang.). Hint: the word I was trying to say there starts with F and ends with K.

Oh and guess what else you can't say you can't say? **** [Nipples]. had to type that myself. penis is ok but **** [clitoris] isn't, and all my attempts to say "clit" were Misunderstood, which may just be my speech but at this point I am not willing to give the benefit of the doubt. Vagina is OK too but every time I say it there is a moment when an * shows up on screen first before the full word does. this doesn't happen when I say the word penis.

It is completely heinous. Anybody who needs speech to text is immediately forced to comply with the rules set out by people in a position of power and then enforced by a machine — a machine that is a very powerful accessibility tool. Imagine trying to dictate a letter to a doctor or fill in an E consult with speech to text, only to have words of your anatomy censored as if they are taboo. there is already far too much stigma around genital physical health — and note that I could say genital but can't say **** [clitoris] — for it to be okay for these words to be censored.

And even if somebody just wants to swear In a message to their friends or write smut/**** [pornography], they should be able to. There is no justification for this feature. No reason for it to be default.

I'm trying to find a way around this. There is a settings icon on the little speech to text bar that comes up, but this only gives me options For the speech typing launcher, auto punctuation, and to set the default microphone. it's making me extremely angry

[inositol5dtimemachine]

Goodbye = god be with you.

Bye = be with you = be by yourself

Buh-bye = ???

(I can't decide if "be by yourself" means fuck off to the naughty corner, or take some time for self-care)

Japanese has no word for goodbye. It merely has "sayonara", which means goodbye...

[inositol5dtimemachine]

I dunno, now I can't find videos of pop stars and democrats doing the same gesture, and I also was finding it hard to tell how much they were holding their arm forward vs to the side. This probably would take more research to resolve than what I've done. I did see one of Hitler doing something like it, but I couldn't see well whether he had his hand open with fingers spread when it was on his chest.

I guess where we diverge is that I think the “Musk seig heiled” people *are* saying something true.

they’re very often saying mean things and crying until they win, I don’t disagree with you there. I also agree that that’s very sad and frustrating.

But, in this case, I think they have a point.

Idk why he did it, but to me, it’s very unmistakable. There’s a gif comparing his gesture to historical footage of actual nazis heiling on the front page of reddit rn, and it’s almost identical. personally, my theory is that it was an ill-advised edgy joke, because he’s kinda spergy, but I think he did do it on purpose, just maybe not in a sincere way.

you are missing context. you cannot argue the point that he must have been giving a nazi salute by selecting footage of nazi salutes most like him. you have to explain all the other images of every other politician doing the same "nazi salute" gesture while addressing a crowd.

explain why this has happened dozens of times in the past, a politician was accused of doing a nazi salute because they had a psychological compulsion to send coded messages about how evil they were based on a minor body motion, and how every single one of those accusations was obviously and laughably wrong, but this time when you are doing exactly the same thing for exactly the same reasons with exactly the same evidence and exactly the same theory and exactly the same argument and exactly the same moral certainty of all those other times that were obviously wrong NOW you're certain you're right.

[inositol5dtimemachine]

What? Why are tumblr ads like this? I'm not saying stop.

[inositol5dtimemachine]

I think you've convinced me. The main problem is Nazi's did several different salutes, and the one similar to Musk's isn't the most distinctive. Thinking of "the Nazi salute" was confusing me. I'm probably more thinking of the one-on-one salute they'd do when they say "heil hitler" (I looked this up on YouTube). They wouldn't start with their hand on heart, and their arm would be more forward (vs Musk and Hitler's putting it out to the side more - seems to be something many do in front of an audience).

Another problem is using photos instead of video - that doesn't show the gesture so it's not convincing at all.

I guess where we diverge is that I think the “Musk seig heiled” people *are* saying something true.

they’re very often saying mean things and crying until they win, I don’t disagree with you there. I also agree that that’s very sad and frustrating.

But, in this case, I think they have a point.

Idk why he did it, but to me, it’s very unmistakable. There’s a gif comparing his gesture to historical footage of actual nazis heiling on the front page of reddit rn, and it’s almost identical. personally, my theory is that it was an ill-advised edgy joke, because he’s kinda spergy, but I think he did do it on purpose, just maybe not in a sincere way.

you are missing context. you cannot argue the point that he must have been giving a nazi salute by selecting footage of nazi salutes most like him. you have to explain all the other images of every other politician doing the same "nazi salute" gesture while addressing a crowd.

explain why this has happened dozens of times in the past, a politician was accused of doing a nazi salute because they had a psychological compulsion to send coded messages about how evil they were based on a minor body motion, and how every single one of those accusations was obviously and laughably wrong, but this time when you are doing exactly the same thing for exactly the same reasons with exactly the same evidence and exactly the same theory and exactly the same argument and exactly the same moral certainty of all those other times that were obviously wrong NOW you're certain you're right.

[inositol5dtimemachine]

I'm thinking about that link between impulse control problems, money, crime, and inability to live in a house in a low crime area.

On one hand, reducing the link may increase crime in those areas. On the other, increasing the link may increase housing shortages and homelessness.

But could you maintain the link at the same level, between either crime and exclusion from living in a house in a low crime area, or impulse control problems and exclusion from living in a house in a low crime area, while removing money from the link? E.g. some area says no one that has committed a certain type of crime can own or rent in this suburb. Or no one who hasn't proved their impulse control by earning a university degree (not sure if that's a good measure of impulse control, also it could be very wasteful itself).

To maintain the link at the same level, you'd need to allow low impulse control people (including children) to live in these areas at a similar rate as they can now, and visit their high impulse control friends.

Also to maintain the link at the same level, don't have too many areas have high restrictions like that - maybe there could be different levels of restrictions, like there are different levels of housing price.

I'm also thinking about how opposition to public transport in a local area functions in a similar way - by excluding people who can't drive, they're hoping to exclude criminals without cars and/or unattended low impulse control children, so they can't come and commit crime (and maybe escape afterwards). But they're also excluding drunk people who choose not to drive, older people, disabled people, and others. (Well, drunk people might be risky too - but less so than if they choose to drive).

Is there a crime-neutral way to keep some public transport for everyone who currently has it, but also let safer people travel more places without driving? Especially for older people and disabled people, and for drunk people travelling to their own homes. But I think it could be good for many children too, and for people who could drive but prefer not to.

Both of these are kind of tracking the "good people" and the "bad people" and making sure to treat them differently, I'm a bit wary of that, because it could be overly harsh, it could be abused, and it could be too inaccurate. But the existing systems kind of suck in their own way. They also just seem totally unrealistic but I'm not sure why. Maybe because they'd take a lot of coordination to set up. Maybe because nobody wants crime-neutral. Maybe because the people-tracking and control seems too dangerous.

It's really weird to me when people claim we need like an armed revolution to fix housing in the US. Like, sure, maybe, but surely we should like...try allowing people to build housing in cities first? In large swathes of every major American city, it is literally illegal to build denser housing!

[inositol5dtimemachine]

"Close button"

[inositol5dtimemachine]

For some reason the giant polar bear breaks my suspension of disbelief more than the giant fish, so now I see a polar bear eating a little fish eating a tiny shark.

I guess land animals that can walk are height limited much more than aquatic animals but also I think it's partly the fur. Would a multi-metre tuft of fur look like a scaled up centimetre or inch scale tuft of fur?

What size would the polar bear even be if the shark is a normal large size (or even a normal small shark)?

[inositol5dtimemachine]

It may be possible for third parties to make feeds or blocklists that work like your suggestion, looking at some of people's green lists (either user lists or their follow list) and red lists (moderation lists, maybe one explicitly named "redlist") and then computing a resulting list which can be used for blocking if you choose.

They've got something called "feeds" which are more the opposite of that (post list instead of block list), they run some algorithm and give you a feed of posts to read. E.g. some of them are supposed to show you more posts from the people you're following who don't post as often. They're opt in though, probably lots of people just use the default feeds provided by Bluesky.

once again feeling like everyone is fucked in the head except for me. fucking bluesky??? twitter 2???? does nobody seriously remember that twitter was dogshit on like fucking day 1 and elon musk is not the reason it had such a profoundly negative impact on society? yeah lets all go to the identical clone of twitter, surely there's no structural issues inherent to concept.

[inositol5dtimemachine]

I think this is more interesting if you see how it would be different than the existing system, rather than make it the same. Like obviously Jeff Bezos might choose not to join in the mutual aid, and assuming he'd otherwise pay lots of taxes, that would be a lot less resources than would go through a government system.

But on the other hand, you wouldn't have all the people opposed to mutual aid involved in the system, so the leaders wouldn't have to try and compromised to satisfy both their pro-mutual aid and anti-mutual aid members. The system might try to avoid having paperwork and forms get in the way of people receiving the mutual aid.

You could also look at how the large scale mutual aid interacts with small scale mutual aid. Like if one of my friends is sick and I make them some meals, is that just completely separate? Or do I get some funding for that? Or could I call up the community office and have someone who lives nearer to them do it?

what if we did large-scale mutual aid. like what if everyone in a community contributed, idk, like, a percentage of their annual income into some kind of a mutual aid fund. they could appoint community leaders to allocate funding for community needs like health and other social services, rental aid, transportation to get to work and other places, maybe even for building community spaces that would be free to use. has anyone thought of this

[inositol5dtimemachine]

This software comes haunted by its chatbot ancestors by default and requires exorcism before first use

[inositol5dtimemachine]

interaction i have with shocking regularity is when someone’s complaining abt someone they know and theyre like “ughh they’re 21 and dont have a job and refuse to learn to drive” and then they remember who they’re talking to (me. 21 cant work cant drive) and go like

[inositol5dtimemachine]

So basically it depends how much you like edging

JAVERT. FROM LES MISERABLES.

Please reblog for a larger sample size.

[inositol5dtimemachine]

In retrospect, best serious answer is "twitter". But I can't get "musknet" out of my head.

[inositol5dtimemachine]

I'm a bit distrustful of it even regarding effectiveness. People may find it tempting to use it against republicans more broadly, both diluting its effectiveness and motivating their opponents. Hopefully at least the official campaign sticks to using against actually unpopular attributes/ideas but I doubt everyone will.

I've also seen people referring to "make them lose their shit" like it's a good sign of effectiveness... I dunno, maybe? If that helps with votes and election stuff more than it hurts.

You guys do not understand that for the average person "freak" is already an inherently terrible thing to be, and "weird" only recently became acceptable when its meaning was softened and palatable "weirdness" became marketable alongside "nerd culture". In everyday usage a "weird guy" is still someone you want to avoid, it's a common euphemism for "probable sex offender", and to call someone a freak is about equivalent to calling them a slur. Being visibly mentally ill or visibly homeless is enough for a good portion of the population to believe you don't deserve human rights (although they wouldn't phrase it that way), and having visibly autistic mannerism is enough for people to think you shouldn't be let around kids. LGBT acceptance was won by arguing that gay and trans people are "normal, just like you and me", that they aren't weird, that they aren't freaky sex perverts they just want to love and be who they are. There has never been any kind of broader acceptance towards weirdness qua weirdness or freaks qua freaks, even on the left. It doesn't exist. For the average person, to be weird and gross is to be inhuman, unworthy of life. There is no distinction made between the subjectively disgusting and the morally condemnable; if you are freaky you are bad and that's that.

People calling J. D. Vance a weirdo is not going to come back around to harm LGBT people in some sort of indirect way, because mainstream acceptance of LGBT people is already predicated on the assumption that they are not weird. That's what the last 15 years have been about, convincing mainstream society that LGBT people are "normal", because normalcy is a deeply ingrained prerequisite for acceptance. Obviously I think this is ridiculous and stupid, but I think it's pretty silly to look at Dems calling J. D. Vance "weird" and "freaky" and be like "that's what's doing it". No, it's like attacking a politician by insinuating that they're gay in the 70s or whatever. It sucks that that's something that can be used as an insult but it's the water we're fucking swimming in, it's gonna be years before anyone looks back on it with shame. And a lot of supposedly progressive people are gonna realize they were on the wrong side of history, but that's par for the course.

[inositol5dtimemachine]

When you started with Tolkien and Lewis I was afraid this was going to be lost 20th century technology like the moon landing.

For aro/ace writers:

- you don't have to write sex scenes. Tolkien didn't

- you don't have to write romance. Lewis didn't

- you can write very close friendships that have nothing romantic nor sexual in them. Scott Lynch did

- you can write sexual relationships that don't involve romance. Sapkowski did

- you can write romantic relationships that don't involve sex. Pratchett and Gaiman did

Don't let anyone tell you that some kinds of relationships are impossible or that a story must contain some themes. It's your story, write it the way you want

[inositol5dtimemachine]

usb-c is like a cloaca for computers