stylish-suidae

[stylish-suidae]

[stylish-suidae]

me when i see an animal that is known for being in my area

[stylish-suidae]

I love Stardew Valley, it's such a comfortable game to play, but the plot feels a little light at times. I bet it would be more compelling if the farmer had amnesia, crippling substance dependence and was suffering so much mental degradation that he thought his clothes were speaking to him.

[stylish-suidae]

I'm sure false etymology posts aren't like actually more common than any other type of misinformation on this website, it just happens to be a type of misinformation I'm better at spotting and a type of misinformation that shows up in the type of posts people I follow tend to reblog. but dang false etymology posts sure are common

[stylish-suidae]

some of you aren’t even perverts you just have normal sexual desires that you are ashamed of

[stylish-suidae]

i like when you watch a video essay from 5+ years ago and they make a joke/apologize for how long the video is and the runtime is like. 35 minutes. when we now live in an era of 3 hour intricate breakdowns of bad kids shows being everywhere.

[stylish-suidae]

putting sif in photos pt 1

[stylish-suidae]

Have my baby boy, Galo... you don't understand how much he means to me, I adore him so hard

[stylish-suidae]

Honestly just a subtype of the larger "check the fucking primary source" issue. I've seen people opine on an article where it was clear that the conclusion they'd taken away was the literal exact opposite of what the article said, because they'd incorrectly interpreted the headline and didn't bother to read beyond it. And when I pointed this out I got blocked.

The classic "ChatGPT uses 1-3 bottles of water per query" is 3 links in the citation chain away from the primary source that says "ChatGPT uses 500ml of water per 5-50 queries depending on complexity".

Like people really need to get better at actually clicking through and reading "where is this information coming from" and also just outright asking "is the thing I'm being told is shown here, actually what's being shown here".

There was a reddit post making fun of Gamers for hating on Nvidia for releasing a card with 8GB of VRAM, but deciding that 8 GB is actually okay as soon as AMD said so. But the actual image in the post was just of the article about AMD saying so. Literally nobody's reaction to it was shown, one way or the other. We're shown the article, and told about what the reaction to the article was, but in such a way where the mere existence of the article is meant to be proof of the reaction. Not even to mention that time on the same subreddit that someone claimed that "Widespread games fetishizing incest or rape make it seem more acceptable in society.", and when someone asked for proof, their proof was that "The Coffin of Andy and Leyley exists". But it existing isn't proof that it did anything, it's not proof of anything beyond its own existence.

People provide non-proof "proof" all the time and once you learn to spot it it'll drive you fucking insane with how prevalent it is.

Seeing a thousand "fork found in kitchen" and "believe scientists" and "we all knew about AI" tags on a post with an AI incorrectly summarizing a preprint study advising thoughtful use of AI as "AI is making your brain weak and ineffective" was making me crazy i'm sorry i tried not reblogging it like four times and every time i didn't reblog it it had like an order of magnitude more notes

[stylish-suidae]

much less alarmed by the 'cognitive impact' of LLM use than I am by the fact that so many people apparently believe your brain can atrophy or permanently lose function in the space of four months because you used fancy sparknotes to write a couple of essays

[stylish-suidae]

[stylish-suidae]

(hit the image limit multiple times, check the notes for the full conversation)

[stylish-suidae]

I need y'all to watch this clip

[stylish-suidae]

Apparently, my decision to be silly and make fanart of someone's writing (because I genuinely enjoy the story the person is writing and I was struck with inspiration upon reading a particular scene) has benevolent and wildly unforeseen consequences.

I apparently gained a bit of control of the canon because said writer really loved the art and decided what I drew/draw is canon.

2. Writer put said artwork into the document of his story right below the scene, so now it's IN the story where people who read the story will see it (with a link to me)

3. He sent the artwork to all his friends and people he knows because he was so excited

Wholesome interaction and I watched him do all that in real time, good stuff. However...there are two more consequences I was notified of today...nearly a full week after I gave the artwork.

Seeing the artwork caused his friends to become interested in reading and hearing about his story, which means more people are reading what he's writing and giving him critique on the story (which he actively asks for).

Apparently, upon seeing the art, his writer friends got a sudden second wind to pick back up writing they'd abandoned for a few months. Because, I quote, "seeing that someone enjoyed {his} writing enough to take the time to make art of it gave them the motivation that maybe THEY can write something that will inspire someone to also create something." I have accidentally caused a writing frenzy among his writer friends and my silly idea to make art for someone has had a butterfly effect for people who I don't even know.

Uhh...I'm pretty sure there's a moral here but I am tired and have a great deal of emotions about this.

[stylish-suidae]

[stylish-suidae]

[stylish-suidae]

I don't think porn qua porn is harmful, I don't think there's any harm in watching sex videos or whatever, but from my experience on dating apps and such it does seem to me that the experience of looking for porn encourages you to think of your sexuality in strangely discretized..."Marketed" ways, almost? There's a whole ecosystem of terminology, terminology people choose to get their porn seen, and because porn is so private, many people mostly think about what gets them off in the context of trying to interface with search algorithms and recommendation systems, using these terms. And this can lead to an almost "stereotyped" conception of one's own sexuality? I don't think the underlying sexuality is changing that much due to the porn. But I think it's easy to round off your experiences into a set of porn boxes. Which seems bad, on some "culture critique" level. Like it alienates you from your own desires