#Internet of Things device examples

[sophiamcdougall]

You're a reasonably informed person on the internet. You've experienced things like no longer being able to get files off an old storage device, media you've downloaded suddenly going poof, sites and forums with troves full of people's thoughts and ideas vanishing forever. You've heard of cybercrime. You've read articles about lost media. You have at least a basic understanding that digital data is vulnerable, is what I'm saying. I'm guessing that you're also aware that history is, you know... important? And that it's an ongoing study, requiring ... data about how people live? And that it's not just about stanning celebrities that happen to be dead? Congratulations, you are significantly better-informed than the British government! So they're currently like "Oh hai can we destroy all these historical documents pls? To save money? Because we'll digitise them first so it's fine! That'll be easy, cheap and reliable -- right? These wills from the 1850s will totally be fine for another 170 years as a PNG or whatever, yeah? We didn't need to do an impact assesment about this because it's clearly win-win! We'd keep the physical wills of Famous People™ though because Famous People™ actually matter, unlike you plebs. We don't think there are any equalities implications about this, either! Also the only examples of Famous People™ we can think of are all white and rich, only one is a woman and she got famous because of the guy she married. Kisses!"

Yes, this is the same Government that's like "Oh no removing a statue of slave trader is erasing history :(" You have, however, until 23 February 2024 to politely inquire of them what the fuck they are smoking. And they will have to publish a summary of the responses they receive. And it will look kind of bad if the feedback is well-argued, informative and overwhelmingly negative and they go ahead and do it anyway. I currently edit documents including responses to consultations like (but significantly less insane) than this one. Responses do actually matter. I would particularly encourage British people/people based in the UK to do this, but as far as I can see it doesn't say you have to be either. If you are, say, a historian or an archivist, or someone who specialises in digital data do say so and draw on your expertise in your answers. This isn't a question of filling out a form. You have to manually compose an email answering the 12 questions in the consultation paper at the link above. I'll put my own answers under the fold. Note -- I never know if I'm being too rude in these sorts of things. You probably shouldn't be ruder than I have been.

Please do not copy and paste any of this: that would defeat the purpose. This isn't a petition, they need to see a range of individual responses. But it may give you a jumping-off point.

Question 1: Should the current law providing for the inspection of wills be preserved?

Yes. Our ability to understand our shared past is a fundamental aspect of our heritage. It is not possible for any authority to know in advance what future insights they are supporting or impeding by their treatment of material evidence. Safeguarding the historical record for future generations should be considered an extremely important duty.

Question 2: Are there any reforms you would suggest to the current law enabling wills to be inspected?

No.

Question 3: Are there any reasons why the High Court should store original paper will documents on a permanent basis, as opposed to just retaining a digitised copy of that material?

Yes. I am amazed that the recent cyber attack on the British Library, which has effectively paralysed it completely, not been sufficient to answer this question for you.  I also refer you to the fate of the Domesday Project. Digital storage is useful and can help more people access information; however, it is also inherently fragile. Malice, accident, or eventual inevitable obsolescence not merely might occur, but absolutely should be expected. It is ludicrously naive and reflects a truly unpardonable ignorance to assume that information preserved only in digital form is somehow inviolable and safe, or that a physical document once digitised, never need be digitised again..At absolute minimum, it should be understood as certain that at least some of any digital-only archive will eventually be permanently lost. It is not remotely implausible that all of it would be. Preserving the physical documents provides a crucial failsafe. It also allows any errors in reproduction -- also inevitable-- to be, eventually, seen and corrected. Note that maintaining, upgrading and replacing digital infrastructure is not free, easy or reliable. Over the long term, risks to the data concerned can only accumulate.

"Unlike the methods for preserving analog documents that have been honed over millennia, there is no deep precedence to look to regarding the management of digital records. As such, the processing, long-term storage, and distribution potential of archival digital data are highly unresolved issues. [..] the more digital data is migrated, translated, and re-compressed into new formats, the more room there is for information to be lost, be it at the microbit-level of preservation. Any failure to contend with the instability of digital storage mediums, hardware obsolescence, and software obsolescence thus meets a terminal end—the definitive loss of information. The common belief that digital data is safe so long as it is backed up according to the 3-2-1 rule (3 copies on 2 different formats with 1 copy saved off site) belies the fact that it is fundamentally unclear how long digital information can or will remain intact. What is certain is that its unique vulnerabilities do become more pertinent with age."  -- James Boyda, On Loss in the 21st Century: Digital Decay and the Archive, Introduction.

Question 4: Do you agree that after a certain time original paper documents (from 1858 onwards) may be destroyed (other than for famous individuals)? Are there any alternatives, involving the public or private sector, you can suggest to their being destroyed?

Absolutely not. And I would have hoped we were past the "great man" theory of history. Firstly, you do not know which figures will still be considered "famous" in the future and which currently obscure individuals may deserve and eventually receive greater attention. I note that of the three figures you mention here as notable enough to have their wills preserved, all are white, the majority are male (the one woman having achieved fame through marriage) and all were wealthy at the time of their death. Any such approach will certainly cull evidence of the lives of women, people of colour and the poor from the historical record, and send a clear message about whose lives you consider worth remembering.

Secondly, the famous and successsful are only a small part of our history. Understanding the realities that shaped our past and continue to mould our present requires evidence of the lives of so-called "ordinary people"!

Did you even speak to any historians before coming up with this idea?

Entrusting the documents to the private sector would be similarly disastrous. What happens when a private company goes bust or decides that preserving this material is no longer profitable? What reasonable person, confronted with our crumbling privatised water infrastructure, would willingly consign any part of our heritage to a similar fate?

Question 5: Do you agree that there is equivalence between paper and digital copies of wills so that the ECA 2000 can be used?

No. And it raises serious questions about the skill and knowledge base within HMCTS and the government that the very basic concepts of data loss and the digital dark age appear to be unknown to you. I also refer you to the Domesday Project.

Question 6: Are there any other matters directly related to the retention of digital or paper wills that are not covered by the proposed exercise of the powers in the ECA 2000 that you consider are necessary?

Destroying the physical documents will always be an unforgivable dereliction of legal and moral duty.

Question 7: If the Government pursues preserving permanently only a digital copy of a will document, should it seek to reform the primary legislation by introducing a Bill or do so under the ECA 2000?

Destroying the physical documents will always be an unforgivable dereliction of legal and moral duty.

Question 8: If the Government moves to digital only copies of original will documents, what do you think the retention period for the original paper wills should be? Please give reasons and state what you believe the minimum retention period should be and whether you consider the Government’s suggestion of 25 years to be reasonable.

There is no good version of this plan. The physical documents should be preserved.

Question 9: Do you agree with the principle that wills of famous people should be preserved in the original paper form for historic interest?

This question betrays deep ignorance of what "historic interest" actually is. The study of history is not simply glorified celebrity gossip. If anything, the physical wills of currently famous people could be considered more expendable as it is likely that their contents are so widely diffused as to be relatively "safe", whereas the wills of so-called "ordinary people" will, especially in aggregate, provide insights that have not yet been explored.

Question 10: Do you have any initial suggestions on the criteria which should be adopted for identifying famous/historic figures whose original paper will document should be preserved permanently?

Abandon this entire lamentable plan. As previously discussed, you do not and cannot know who will be considered "famous" in the future, and fame is a profoundly flawed criterion of historical significance.

Question 11: Do you agree that the Probate Registries should only permanently retain wills and codicils from the documents submitted in support of a probate application? Please explain, if setting out the case for retention of any other documents.

No, all the documents should be preserved indefinitely.

Question 12: Do you agree that we have correctly identified the range and extent of the equalities impacts under each of these proposals set out in this consultation? Please give reasons and supply evidence of further equalities impacts as appropriate.

No. You appear to have neglected equalities impacts entirely. As discussed, in your drive to prioritise "famous people", your plan will certainly prioritise the white, wealthy and mostly the male, as your "Charles Dickens, Charles Darwin and Princess Diana" examples amply indicate. This plan will create a two-tier system where evidence of the lives of the privileged is carefully preserved while information regarding people of colour, women, the working class and other disadvantaged groups is disproportionately abandoned to digital decay and eventual loss. Current and future historians from, or specialising in the history of minority groups will be especially impoverished by this.  

[mostlysignssomeportents]

A sexy, skinny defeat device for your HP ink cartridge

Animals keep evolving into crabs; it's a process called "carcinisation" and it's pretty weird. Crabs just turn out to be extremely evolutionarily fit for our current environment:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-do-animals-keep-evolving-into-crabs/

By the same token, all kinds of business keep evolving into something like a printer company. It turns out that in this enshittified, poorly regulated, rentier-friendly world, the parasitic, inkjet business model is extremely adaptive. Printerinisation is everywhere.

All that stuff you hate about your car? Trapping you into using their mechanics, spying on you, planned obsolescence? All lifted from the inkjet printer business model:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/07/24/rent-to-pwn/#kitt-is-a-demon

That GE fridge that won't make ice or dispense water unless you spend $50 for a proprietary charcoal filter instead of using a $10 generic? Pure printerism:

https://pluralistic.net/2020/06/12/digital-feudalism/#filtergate

The software update to your Sonos speakers that makes them half as useful and takes away your right to play your stored music, forcing you to buy streaming music subscriptions? Straight out of the HP playbook:

https://www.wired.com/story/sonos-admits-its-recent-app-update-was-a-colossal-mistake/

But as printerinized as all these gadgets are, none can quite attain the level of high enshittification that the OG inkjet bastards attain on a daily basis. In the world championships of effortlessly authentic fuckery, no one can lay a glove on the sociopathic monsters of HP.

For example: when HP wanted to soften us all up for a new world of "subscription ink" (where you have to pre-pay every month for a certain number of pages' worth of printing, which your printer enforces by spying on you and ratting you out to HP over the internet), they offered a "lifetime subscription" plan. With this "lifetime" plan, you paid just once and your HP printer would print out 15 pages a month for so long as you owned your printer, with HP shipping you new ink every time you ran low.

Well, eventually, HP got bored of not making you pay rent on your own fucking printer, so they just turned that plan off. Yeah, it was a lifetime plan, but the "lifetime" in question was the lifetime of HP's patience for not fucking you over, and that patience has the longevity of a mayfly:

https://pluralistic.net/2020/11/06/horrible-products/#inkwars

It would take many pages to list all of HP's sins here. This is a company that ships printers with half-full ink cartridges and charges more than the printer cost to buy a replacement set. The company that won't let you print a black-and-white page if you're out of yellow ink. The company that won't let you scan or send a fax if you're out of any of your ink.

They make you "recalibrate" your printer or "clean your heads" by forcing you to print sheets of ink-dense paper. They also refuse to let you use your ink cartridges after they "expire."

HP raised the price of ink to over $10,000 per gallon, then went to war against third-party ink cartridge makers, cartridge remanufacturers, and cartridge refillers. They added "security chips" to their cartridges whose job was to watch the ink levels in your cartridge and, when they dip below a certain level (long before the cartridge is actually empty), declare the cartridge to be dry and permanently out of use.

Even if you refill that cartridge, it will still declare itself to be empty to your printer, which will therefore refuse to print.

Third party ink companies have options here. One thing they could do is reverse-engineer the security chip, and make compatible ones that say, "Actually, I'm full." The problem with this is that laws like Section 1201 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) potentially makes this into a felony punishable by a five-year prison sentence and a $500k fine, for a first offense.

DMCA 1201 bans bypassing "an effective means of access control" to a copyrighted work. So if HP writes a copyrighted "I'm empty" program for its security chip and then adds some kind of access restriction to prevent you from dumping and reverse-engineering that program, you can end up a felon, thanks to the DMCA.

Another countermove is to harvest security chips out of dead cartridges that have been sent overseas as e-waste (one consequence of HP's $10,000/gallon ink racket is that it generates mountains of immortal, toxic e-waste that mostly ends up poisoning poor countries in the global south). These can be integrated into new cartridges, or remanufactured ones.

In practice, ink companies do all of this and more, and total normie HP printer owners go to extremely improbable lengths to find third party ink cartridges and figure out how to use them. It turns out that even people who find technology tinkering intimidating or confusing or dull can be motivated to learn and practice a lot of esoteric tech stuff as an alternative to paying $10,000/gallon for colored water.

HP has lots of countermoves for this. One truly unhinged piece of fuckery is to ask Customs and Border Patrol to block third-party ink cartridges with genuine HP security chips that have been pried loose from e-waste shipments. HP claims that these are "counterfeits" (because they were removed and re-used without permission), even though they came out of real HP cartridges, and CBP takes them at their word, seizing shipments.

Even sleazier: HP pushes out fake security updates to its printers. You get a message telling you there's an urgent security update, you click OK, and your printer shows you a downloading/installing progress bar and reboots itself. As far as you can tell, nothing has changed. But these aren't "security" updates, they're updates that block third-party ink, and HP has designed them not to kick in for several months. That way, HP owners who get tricked into installing this downgrade don't raise hell online and warn everyone else until they've installed it too, and it's too late:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/11/ink-stained-wretches-battle-soul-digital-freedom-taking-place-inside-your-printer

This is the infectious pathogen business model: one reason covid spread so quickly was that people were infectious before they developed symptoms. That meant that the virus could spread before the spreader knew they had it. By adding a long fuse to its logic bomb, HP greatly increases the spread of its malware.

But life finds a way. $10,000/gallon ink is an irresistible target for tinkerers, security researchers and competitors. Necessity may be the mother of invention, but the true parent of jaw-dropping ingenuity is callous, sadistic greed. That's why America's army of prisoners are the source of so many of the most beautiful and exciting forms of innovation seen today:

https://pluralistic.net/2021/06/09/king-rat/#mother-of-invention

Despite harsh legal penalties and the vast resources of HP, third-party ink continues to thrive, and every time HP figures out how to block one technique, three even cooler ones pop up.

Last week, Jay Summet published a video tearing down a third-party ink cartridge compatible with an HP 61XL:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0ya184uaTE

The third-party cartridge has what appears to be a genuine HP security chip, but it is overlaid with a paper-thin, flexible, adhesive-backed circuit board that is skinny enough that the cartridge still fits in an HP printer.

This flexible circuit board has its own little microchip. Summet theorizes that it is designed to pass the "are you a real HP cartridge" challenge pass to the security chip, but to block the followup "are you empty or full?" message. When the printer issues that challenge, the "man in the middle" chip answers, "Oh, I'm definitely full."

In their writeup, Hackaday identifies the chip as "a single IC in a QFN package." This is just so clever and delightful:

https://hackaday.com/2024/09/28/man-in-the-middle-pcb-unlocks-hp-ink-cartridges/

Hackaday also notes that HP CEO Enrique J Lores recently threatened to brick any printer discovered to be using third-party ink:

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2024/01/hp-ceo-blocking-third-party-ink-from-printers-fights-viruses/

As William Gibson famously quipped, "the future is here, it's just not evenly distributed." As our enshittification-rich environment drives more and more companies to evolve into rent-seeking enterprises through printerinisation, HP offers us a glimpse of the horrors of the late enshittocene.

It's just as Orwell prophesied: "If you want a picture of the future, imagine a HP installing malware on your printer to force you to spend $10,000/gallon on ink – forever."

Tor Books as just published two new, free LITTLE BROTHER stories: VIGILANT, about creepy surveillance in distance education; and SPILL, about oil pipelines and indigenous landback.

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/09/30/life-finds-a-way/#ink-stained-wretches

Image: Jay Summet https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0ya184uaTE

[techgeeg]

What Is The Internet Of Things and Its Applications

What Is The Internet Of Things and Its Applications Introduction: What Is The Internet Of Things and Its Applications – In the age of digital transformation, the Internet of Things (IoT) has emerged as a game-changing technology that is redefining the way we live and work. IoT is a network of interconnected devices, objects, and systems that communicate and share data with each other, enhancing…

[lets-try-some-writing]

Do you think that the autobots or decepticons might find any aspects of human technology interesting? it is technically less advanced, but it's also so drastically different that several kinds of power source exist for their machines, I imagine it would at least draw Shockwaves intrigue

I doubt they would find any one thing all that wild. After all, the internet is nothing new to them, nor is most of the tech humanity uses. However, with that said, I do think Cybertronians as a whole would be astounded by the stuff humans came up with an either used to hilarious/frightening effect or did not use due to the sheer wildness of it.

Example one: Spy cats with listening devices implanted into their skulls to allow operators to pick up conversations from targets without suspicion. To a Cybertronian, the idea makes perfect sense on paper. Get a beastformer, a minicon, or a cassette. Have them act more beast like and hang around to listen. Easy enough right? Well that's what they would think until they actually get to know Earth fauna. At which point I can see them becoming wildly confused with the entire idea and similar ones like it.

I do think the Autobots in particular would find radio waves to be fun. Largely because they can pick up no it and mess with it easy peasy. Bumblebee could use it to make voice clips, meanwhile the rest of the team just mess with the radio to be nuisances. Ratchet might use them on occasion to listen in to his favorite stations while out and about. Arcee and Bulkhead would find them fun for music reasons. And since Optimus is the way he is, he'd likely listen to country music or chime in to various police stations just to keep tabs while out driving.

As for the cons? I can see them finding humanity's attempt at building weaponry to be funny. Minus MECH, humans haven't been very effective at cutting them down. So I do imagine it is less of an awe thing and more mockery as they gaze down at the US Navy and their silly little boats. Or the US Airforce and their slow as slag jets. Starscream might have fun picking a few apart just to see why they suck so bad (in his optics at any rate).

[stickthisbig]

"But Sabine," I have been asked, and I genuinely have been asked this, this isn't just a rhetorical device, "you've studied so much about cults, you'd never join a cult, right?"

You are correct that I know an unreasonable amount about cults and cult psychology. That's why I need you to know this:

You are not immune to a cult.

First off, "cult" is a post hoc description, not a productive category. You don't register as a cult somewhere. Some people do start off to start a cult, I'm not gonna lie and say that's never happened, but if it says Join Our Cult on the flyer, it's probably an improv show or a LARP. You think you know what a cult looks like, but all the things you'd name would be negatives that you associate with things you don't like. There are loads of very devout Christian churches who believe things that you hate, and they're not cults. Other people disagree with me about this, but not all MLMs are cults; a pyramid scheme and a cult aren't the same thing (until they are). You find these people distasteful and you think they're harmful, so you associate malfeasance with them. If they're tacky and gross, must be a cult.

It also means that some of y'all literally wouldn't recognize a cult if you walked into one. When people are talking about getting great results through group living and you like what you see, they're just an organization with good ideas. Did you know I was taking a government management training in the year of our Dark Lord 2025 and it held up a Synanon youth center as one of its examples??? I felt like I was going fucking crazy, and the instructor clearly just didn't know he had anything to worry about.

A cult is never just some people you don't agree with. A cult is always about coercion and control, and it is insidious by its very nature. What's gonna happen when it's that cool barista who wants you to come to this meeting? What's gonna happen when it's just some nice ladies from your mom's church who want you to come and have tea? What's gonna happen when it's just a rabbit hole you fall down on the internet, but man, it sure makes a lot of sense, doesn't it?

Don't fucking convince yourself knowing what happened at Waco is gonna save your life. Learn some actual signs, which you should just be following so you're not a fucking chump in general:

Does everyone you meet understand you? It's fine to think you can see yourself among a group of people, but do they think the same thing immediately?

Do they want to introduce you to their leadership right now?

Do they want you to commit to a lot really quickly? Does it seem like they don't want you to leave the premises?

Do they have secrets about the world that you only really glimpse? Do they answer your questions about their faith/exciting business opportunity/social club in generalities when you're asking for specifics?

Are they asking for money? Are they giving you a lot of free materials? Does it seem like the materials aren't really free, but a ploy to ask for money?

Are these all the same steps not to get screwed at a car dealership? (Yes)

Are they offering psychiatric or addiction services but it sure doesn't seem like there's a doctor around here anywhere? Do they say they have a natural cure? (Still very bad at a car dealership)

In a real social organization that's just folks having a good time, at least one person isn't gonna like you, or they're gonna be cold, or they're gonna acknowledge you and move on. The vast majority of legit religions will just give you the tenets of their faith flat out and/or explain their worldview to you, and if they have hierarchies or advanced mysteries, most people who follow that religion can at least say something like "yeah idk you have to go to classes for that I think, those guys are a little weird but good for them".

Stop thinking that book learning and judgmental looks will save you when the question requires street smarts. You are not immune to cults for the exact same reason that you are not immune to propaganda. Your sense of security in your moral superiority is like delicious catnip to manipulative people in general and to cults in specific. You don't want to join a cult? You're better off just learning to doubt people's motives than reading yet another book about fucking Scientology. You already know what Scientology does. You probably won't have a huge problem avoiding that one.

Shit, if I avoid a cult, it'll almost certainly because I was so damn deep into the Southern Baptist church that it ruined my ability to experience faith in any meaningful way, not because I watch a lot of documentaries.

And we're not even gonna discuss the time I was forced to go to AA

(My favorite book about this is the graphic novel anthology American Cult, it will change your mind about everything you thought you knew about cults and their victims)

[cripplecharacters]

Hello! Rather new to your blog so I don't know if this has been touched on before but I have a blind character, a few things I was wondering was a) what are fundamentals you shouldn't forget when writing a blind character so I can make her writing a bit more accurate and b) what else can blind people do for entertainment besides reading in braille? Thank you in advance!

Hello!

Your first question is very broad and I'd suggest taking a look at the pinned post for some links to helpful posts. Under the "specific disabilities" section is a list for blind characters. I believe you'll find those helpful.

For your second question, there's so many options out there!

Something to remember is that most blind people have some remaining vision and many can still read print books, especially if they have access to large print versions or E-books with adjustable text sizes. My eyes aren't great but I'm still able to read regular sized print books if the font size is standard and clear. I can also read books with smaller print with the help of magnifying glasses. Depending on your character's level of vision, this could be something to consider.

For indoor/chill activities similar to reading, many are already accessible to blind folks or can easily be made accessible.

Watching TV/films, for example -- with or without audio description. Nowadays with streaming services and the internet, there is more availability of audio description. That said, it's still not always available. There are also some genres of shows/movies that are easy to follow along with even without audio description. I find that sitcoms such as New Girl or Modern Family are easier to follow compared to crime or medical dramas such as NCIS or House.

Listening to content without a visual aspect such as audiobooks, podcasts, and video essays (to a degree) can also be an option.

Playing cards/boardgames is another one. There are braille playing cards that you can buy and many classic board games (such as Scrabble or Monopoly) have braille versions available -- though usually unofficially. You can also get braille or otherwise tactile pieces custom made.

Braille labels are also a thing so games like poker, checkers, etc. can easily be made accessible too. Or, if you're cheap like me, the dollar store has those little raised stickers. My vision is especially bad in bright light so I've spent summers playing checkers and backgammon with little raised flower stickers on top of all the white pieces.

Art and sports also exist. Though blind people can paint and draw, there are also other forms of art that are more tactile such as sculpting, origami, jewelry making, etc. Many solo sports also wouldn't need any major accommodations either -- such as kayaking, hiking, rock climbing, skating, sledding, jogging, etc.

I can go on and on and on listing hobbies/activities -- herping, bird-watching, traveling, theatre, writing, music, dance, video games, cooking/baking, animal training, Dungeons and Dragons -- but my point is: most hobbies/activities can be made accessible for your character.

One piece of advice I'd offer for this: don't choose your character's hobbies based on what would be the most accessible/easiest for them to do. Pick your character's hobbies based on what they'd be most likely to be interested in/enjoy and then go from there to figure out how they can do it.

This would go a long way in preventing your character from falling into certain problematic tropes/stereotypes and can also help you develop your character further.

When figuring out how your character can partake in their hobbies, consider the following questions:

What do they want to get out of the hobby? Is it something they do to relax? To stay in shape? To learn/develop a skill?

What kind of means do they have at their disposal? Are they able to afford/access actual assistive tools/technology/devices such as a braille labeler, audible ball (for sports such as football, soccer, etc.), or braille cards or do they have to DIY something?

How much time/money do they dedicate to this hobby? Is it just a passing interest or is it a passion of their's?

Do they have friends/family members with the same hobbies? Do they share materials with them? Do they do the hobby together?

Is there a disability community for the hobby?* Are they involved in the community?

*Some hobbies such as parasports have a more close-knit community and, depending on where your character's located, there may be recreational leagues for parasports they could join. There are also many artists collectives specifically for disabled artists/writers.

Cheers,

~ Mod Icarus

[nobodyfamousposts]

Here's a Thought About Harry Potter...

Okay, so you have bigoted Wizarding children who look down on muggles and muggleborns and put big emphasis on wizarding lineage and whatnot. Big example in canon was Draco and his open use of the derogatory word "Mudblood".

So let's ignore the blatant favoritism where he and others are free to bully and be overtly cruel with no punishment or consequence.

Let's also pretend the teachers actually do their jobs and issue appropriate punishment.

What would happen if one of said teachers decides that the best way to curb Draco's blatant discrimination would be to have him learn about muggles?

So Draco ends up transferred to Muggle Studies.

Draco: This is a waste of time! Name one thing muggles have accomplished that Wizards haven't. Go ahead. I'll wait— Teacher: They've been to the moon. Draco: Wait—what? Teacher: Six times. Draco: WHAT?!

Where he is forced to...(shudder) learn about how muggles live!

Oh nooooooooo.

So he learns about muggle inventions.

Muggle Student1: So there's this square device called a "cell phone" that's compact enough that we can carry around in our pockets. We can also use it to send messages within seconds, chat with people across the world, play games, and look at pictures of cats. Draco: Don't think you can fool me! Like I would fall for something so insane! Muggle Student2: (Sarcastically) Oh no, he caught us.

Muggle contraptions.

Draco: What do you mean they don't use quills? How do they write? Teacher: With pens. Draco: Where do they get the ink from? Teacher: It's IN the pen. Draco: (Stares) …how?

Muggle hobbies.

Malfoy: What is "internet"? Muggleborn Student1: ….oh you sweet summer child. Muggleborn Student2: Don't tell him. I don't think his brain could handle it.

He also ends up falling into the muggleborn black market.

Which comes with the revelation that there IS, in fact, a muggleborn black market at Hogwarts. Because I'm hard pressed to believe that kids in the modern era would just abandon their modern comforts completely.

Muggleborn Student1: Hey, just because electronics don't work at Hogwarts doesn't mean we have to leave everything behind. Muggleborn Black Market Dealer: I have a new stock of Cadbury chocolates, KitKat bars, and Fruit Pastilles. Muggleborn Student1: YES! Draco: (Scoff) There's nothing here I would want. Muggleborn Black Market Dealer: I have one set of "Slytherin" gel pens in black, silver, and bright green. One set of glitter gel pens. And a spiral notebook with a holographic cover. Draco: (Slams money on the counter) GIMME!

And Draco ends up learning a lot.

After all, a Slytherin is supposed to be cunning and ambitious.

It would be remiss of him to not take advantage of such opportunity as it presents itself.

[goodbyeyellowbrickcloset]

Call It What You Want: The T Chain, Taylor’s Castle, and the Art of Hiding in Plain Sight

A necklace is just a necklace… unless you're Taylor Swift.

When Taylor stepped out at the Grammys, the internet zeroed in on her "T" initial leg chain, instantly taking it as a sweet, romantic nod to Travis Kelce. Then, seven days later, she wore it again—this time at the Super Bowl, the single most-watched event in the world. Same chain, different body placement, different setting, even more eyes on her.

For many, this was confirmation: The T is for Travis. Case closed. But for those who have followed Taylor’s patterns—her Easter eggs, her use of symbols, and her tendency to weave multiple truths into a single image—this was an invitation to look deeper.

And that’s exactly what I'm going to do.

Jewelry as Symbolism in Taylor’s Work

Taylor has consistently used jewelry as a storytelling device, embedding meaning into her accessories. A few of many examples: the locket in Begin Again, Paper Rings, and the evolution of friendship bracelets on the Eras Tour. In Taylor’s world, jewelry is rarely just decoration—it’s a symbol, a message, a clue. And now, with the "T" necklace, one song in particular stands out:

"I want to wear his initial on a chain 'round my neck… Not because he owns me, but 'cause he really knows me." — Call It What You Want (2017)

This lyric, taken from Reputation, was written during Taylor’s most private, hidden relationship—one she spent years shielding from public view. A relationship that was misunderstood by outsiders. A relationship she had to protect.

Sound familiar?

At face value, Call It What You Want was widely assumed to be about Joe Alwyn. But does that assumption actually hold up? Because Joe wasn’t someone Taylor needed to hide—if anything, he was an active participant in maintaining her privacy. More than that, the song itself plays like a closeting anthem—someone deeply in love but forced to frame it differently for the public.

And then there’s the phrasing: "Not because he owns me, but 'cause he really knows me."

This line implies a kind of understanding that goes beyond conventional romance. To "know" someone in this context suggests trust, protection, and shared secrecy rather than possession. It aligns with the idea of someone who understands the truth of her identity, the reality of her situation, and supports her in keeping it guarded—which would fit a long-term bearding arrangement far more than a standard love song about a boyfriend.

That distinction makes more sense when we look at this through the lens of secrecy and protection. In a public-facing relationship where one person’s identity (or truth) needs shielding, "knowing" is the ultimate form of trust. He doesn’t claim her, he guards her secret. He’s not a romantic "owner," but rather a protector of her true self.

And because I can’t keep my mouth shut about it—the song basically says Karlie like a hundred times. Karlie What You Want To... The double entendre queen just let that one totally slip by on accident with no meaning at all? (Okay, moving on. Haha.)

Any who, now, in 2025, she’s suddenly bringing this lyric back into the conversation.

A Castle of Secrets: What’s Taylor Protecting?

Taylor’s use of castle imagery has been a long-standing metaphor for power, isolation, and protection.

“I could build a castle out of all the bricks they threw at me.” (New Romantics, 2014)

"The castle crumbled overnight." (Call It What You Want, 2017)

"Castles crumbling down." (Castles Crumbling, 2023)

The Bejeweled music video: Leaving the prince, keeping the castle.

If Taylor's castle is her empire, the thing she has worked tirelessly to construct, then what is she protecting? Her privacy? Her secrets? Her true self?

By wearing the T necklace at the most public event of the year, she’s putting the symbol front and center, just like she did in Reputation—an era built on hiding, reinvention, and carefully controlling what the world sees.

She isn’t just wearing a chain, especially to two subsequent events. She’s challenging us to question what the chain actually means.

The Castle Motif & The Public vs. Private Struggle

If we accept that she’s been building a castle out of the bricks thrown at her, does wearing the “T” necklace in public symbolize that she’s still guarding something behind castle walls?

This theme isn’t new.

She’s alluded to it in New Romantics ("we built a castle out of all the bricks they threw at me")—a song with explicit queer-coded themes. She visualized it in Bejeweled, where she ghosts the prince but keeps the castle (and now, two of her Bejeweled costars were with her at the Super Bowl). And let’s not forget Castles Crumbling, released in 2023, which is explicitly about watching an empire she built slowly fall apart.

Now, with Call It What You Want re-entering the conversation, we’re once again seeing Taylor reference the struggle of maintaining privacy, perception, and protection.

The Super Bowl: The Biggest Stage, The Loudest Message

The Super Bowl was not just a moment. It was the moment. A place where she knew every move, every detail, would be dissected under the world's microscope.

So why wear the necklace here?

If she truly wanted to keep things private, she could have left it at home. But instead, she chose to re-wear it in a setting where it would be analyzed and assigned meaning.

She is telling the world exactly what she wants them to see.

To Hetlors, it’s a clear confirmation of her love for Travis. To Gaylors, it’s a calculated nod to a song about secrecy and protection. To both, it’s an invitation: Call it what you want. ;)

Is Taylor Still Telling the Same Story?

Here’s where things get interesting.

If Call It What You Want was originally about hiding a relationship, and she’s now bringing that lyric back into the public eye, does that mean she’s still navigating secrecy in her love life?

And if Travis is her endgame, why would she need to lean into lyrics about secrecy, protection, and misunderstood love?

Could it be that the real love story—the one that truly "knows" her—is still hidden behind castle walls?

Final Thoughts: Call It What You Want, But Don’t Call It Coincidence

Taylor does not do things by accident.

She knew exactly what she was doing by wearing that necklace again at the Super Bowl—just like she knew exactly what she was doing when she wrote Call It What You Want in 2017.

A necklace is never just a necklace. An initial is never just an initial. And a Taylor Swift lyric is never just about one thing.

So, go ahead. Call it what you want.

But don’t say she didn’t tell us.

[literaryvein-reblogs]

Do you have any tips writing a character with technophobia?

Writing Notes: Technophobia

Technophobia - fear of technology

Many individuals fear technological devices in modern society.

For example, some individuals look with fear upon computers, highly technical telephone answering systems, and even videocassette recorders.

Some individuals become very anxious when faced with a set of instructions that are supposed to be easy for the average individual to follow.

Another aspect of technophobia is the fear that machines will be able to do what people do now.

Fear of robots is part of this fear.

Mechanophobia - fear of machinery; somewhat related to fears of technical things, such as computers.

Prosophobia - fear of progress; may be related to fears of novelty, newness, and innovation, and to technophobia and computer phobia.

Cyberphobia - fear of computers, computerization, or things related to computers; involves fear, distrust, or hatred of computers.

However, some experts, such as Mark Kenwright and Isaac Marks, M.D., have used computers to help individuals become desensitized from the things they fear, as discussed in the British Journal of Psychiatry in 2004.

In this study, experts used computer-aided help over the Internet with 10 patients with phobia and panic. (The study is small and larger studies should be performed in the future.)

The patients improved significantly at a one-month follow-up, and their gains were clinically significant. Kenwright and his colleagues said the Internet users were generally satisfied, although 3 of them said they would have preferred face-to-face help.

Said Kenwright et al., “Computer-aided self-exposure guidance using the internet [sic] at home, with brief advice from a clinician on a live helpline, may help some people with phobia or panic disorders to overcome barriers to treatment such as the scarcity of qualified therapists and having to travel to see the therapist in person.”

Obviously those who are computer-phobic could not use the Internet to deal with their phobias. Some individuals who are faced with the need to learn to use computers or to learn new programs on their computers will show symptoms of classic phobia, such as:

nausea,

dizziness,

cold sweat, and

high blood pressure.

Many computer phobics hide their fears because of heavy work and peer pressure to make efficient use of computers.

Individuals who fear computers can overcome their phobia by gradually exposing themselves to electronic calculators, games, and eventually to simple computer programs.

Coaching and feedback (from an expert) are good ways to improve the learning curve for mastering electronic devices.

Technophobia Trope

Characters or groups who are afraid of technology and the evils that can arise from their use.

Covers technology in general as the primary motivator.

Sometimes this arises from an event that happened in a person or nation's past, but often is just a result of fear of the unknown.

Sometimes, these individuals or groups are concerned for the future if these advances go unchecked.

This trope can also be brought on as a result of religious teachings or as a result of a dichotomy such as Magic vs Technology (e.g., The Darksword Trilogy) or Nature vs Technology (e.g., FernGully: The Last Rainforest or Avatar).

Evil Luddite is an extreme example of this trope. This is a lot milder and often applies to some of the protagonists to create tension. Can be related to New Technology Is Evil and Science Is Bad tropes.

Aversion of a specific type of technology (such as Doesn't Like Guns) might be Sub-Tropes. Technologically Blind Elders is a subtrope.

Examples:

The Twilight Zone (1959): In "A Thing About Machines", Bartlett Finchley despises all machines, even more than he hates people, and destroys his appliances if he can't get them to work. For instance, he kicked in the screen of his television and threw his radio down the stairs.

The Twilight Zone (1985): In "Quarantine", the survivors of World War III in 2043 came to distrust and despise technology because nuclear weapons had wiped out 80% of the world's population. They abandoned machines in favor of improving humanity through genetic engineering and achieving harmony with the natural world.

In the Anita Blake series, it's mentioned by Anita that really old vampires can be technophobes. They just aren't used to it and don't trust or understand new technology.

Sources: 1 2 ⚜ More: Notes & References ⚜ Writing Resources PDFs

Choose which of these references would work well with your specific character, and story as a whole. You can also find more examples of the trope for inspiration in the links above, alter as needed/desired. Hope this helps with your writing!

[lemotmo]

https://www.tumblr.com/lemotmo/778664610713747456/they-really-are-watching-an-entirely-different

They really never learn. Even without watching the episode. Tim himself said it wasn’t them shutting the ship down. Like the interviewer went very hard in the pro Tommy try to paint buddie as over and buddie shippers as a problem (and it came off very awkward) and Tim himself shut them down instead. I think he finally learned that with that man’s cult you just can’t leave any opening for them to latch on to. Like with how he answered here. Or how he said that Bucks not in love with Tommy. Or how Buck didn’t call Tommy later on.

Yeah it's pretty clear that Tim is OVER this Tommy/Lou bullshit that has been going on for the last year. Everyone is exhausted at this point, so he is doing his best to point out that BT is officially done. It's also obvious that no one else, in any of the interviews, really talks all that much about Tommy or Lou anymore. But Buddie (+ Oliver and Ryan) is mentioned a lot. It's everywhere.

They are actively pushing the Buddie narrative at this point, making it clear that Tommy was just a plot device and he wasn't all that important in the long run.

We also know he will be back to plot device some more, because Tim said this in one of his interviews:

The way Tim describes it here? Yeah, he is once again hammering it home that Tommy is only there to fly a helicopter, because that's his skill. And the way he says 'bed buddy'? LOL! I mean... this makes it very obvious that when BT hooked up in 8x11 it was just that... a badly thought out one night stand with an ex. 🤷‍♀️🤭

And we also know from another interview that Buck never called Tommy after Maddie agreed that he should. I mean... I don't know what Tim can say anymore at this point.

Buck and Eddie could be French kissing in 8x15 and declare their undying love for one another while Tommy stands there awkwardly witnessing the whole thing and the Tommies would still find some way to explain the Buddie away and make it all about BT.

No matter what Tim says in these interviews, it won't have any effect. They are locked into this mass delusion that BT is endgame and that Lou will get his own main role in 911. 🤷‍♀️🤷‍♀️🤷‍♀️

It's like I said yesterday. I am done caring about it. As long as they stay in their own little part of the Internet, I say let them be happy and celebrate whatever it is they think they should be celebrating for. As long as they don't bother me and the rest of our fandom, I don't care anymore. The show, Tim, the actors, the social media team are all actively ignoring them. We should follow their example and ignore them too.

It's clear that the Buddie writing is on the wall. I'm choosing to focus on that right now.

WE ARE GOING CANON AND WE SHOULD ALL GET REALLY EXCITED ABOUT THAT!!! 🥳🥳🥳

[geese-in-a-frock-coat]

What's your evidence for Watts and Murdoch being autistic? (I totally agree btw)

Hello, internet stranger. Buckle up cause I've thought too hard about this.

Ok disclaimer I have not really sat down and watched the whole thing for a hot minute. Its past nine, you're just gonna have to trust me this one.

Credentials: Mega autisitc

Murdoch:

Does not understand social conventions. Like this ones pretty obvious. He doesn't understand why people keep dogs. Raises his kid in a completely non traditional way. Frequently doesn't get why people care about something that he sees as not being worth it (sports and popular trends and so forth).

Doesn't like small talk

Cares about justice NOT the law. The thing that really makes me think he's autistic is that he cares about things being just and is prepared to break the rules to do so. The main example being he lets that woman out of prison depsite the fact that he could go down for it. He turns a blind eye to Watts and lets Giles go even though they're both criminals in the eyes of the law. And on the flipside he sends George to prison because I think that's what he percieves as justice (if anyone's seen the bridge this really reminds me of Saga at the end of season 2)

Sees through hierarchy. There are so many epsiodes that play out like "I think Mr X is the killer." "But Mr x is extrememly important and influential!" "I don't care he killed her."

Interest in science and inventing. Look I know we joke about stereotypes but like, its a stereotype for a reason. He builds things with an autistic brain. He uses pattern repition through learning about previous inventions and applying them to his own devices.

Visual learner. This is not autism exclusive but he solves cases in such a unique way that it screams ND to me. Murdoch often literally builds a case. They make a joke about clue/cludo but he literally has to make the model of a house to picture where everyone is. He makes all those model of the ladies that were covered in metal. And let us not forget his famous chalk board.

Buzzkill. I say this as a long-term sufferer of leaves parties at 8:45 syndrome. He does 'boring hobbies' which autistic people often have because we don't feel the need to take up traditional ones.

Remember that scene where he attempts to read out his and Julia's book and just absolutely cannot tell that no one gives a single toss about anything he's saying.

Wears the same thing for nearly 20 years. If it ain't broke don't fix it.

Refused to let his wife cut his hair because he didn't want to change from the lady who used to do it.

breather. Part 2: watts.

Cannot read social cues: Frequently insults other station house four people. Pretty sure he called someone's baby ugly but I might have hallucinated that. "You're face is symetrical." Got chucked out of station house because he didn't get on with any of them

Disregard for societal norms: doesn't feel the need to be polite or tactful with anyone or to really follow police protocol. Acts very 'improper' a lot of the time. Only got one shoe shined that one time because that was all he needed. Puts his feet on the sofa, lies on the desk and leans over tables.

Makes limited eye contact.

The man will fidget with anything: Look this is clearly a character decision from Daniel Maslany but its an autistic character decision if ever I saw one. We're talking pencils, cups, fabric, anything. If it is on the set, he will find a way to play with out. And I don't normally like to assign autistic traits onto behaviour implemented by actors but it's basically stimming at this point. I dare you to keep an eye on this man's hands for any scene and I garuntee you they will not stay still.

Disorganised, but not: He always has tiny bits of paper and whatnot in his pockets but always seems to know where everything is. organised but doesn't have to time to be tidy. Same whenever we see his flat, it's equally disorganised. as an autistic person I find things end up all over the place because I don't have the capacity to keep them in order.

Bad handwriting and can't spell

Physicality: Most autistic people will have some sort of problem with co-ordination. He walks uneavenly. He has an odd posture. I always think about that scene where he steps in sick and moves around like a dear on ice. He's clumsy, can't sit straight and has a strange posture.

can't think when being interrupted

can't focus on two things at once.

George realised he'd been possessed by aliens because he was acting normally.

pretzels: dare i say safe food. If not, they're bland, usually the same everytime and take little mental effort to consume.

Strong sense of justic: see william murdoch.

SPECIAL MENTIONS:

Dr Emily Grace: didn't become a doctor becuase she didn't want to adopt a 'cheerful bedside manor.'

Dr Julia Ogden: Married to Murdoch (like calls to like) and sees through the bullshit of victorian society.

Susannah Murdoch: has those two as parents and I have the full confidence of genetics on this one.

In conclusion:

There's probably so much more I could talk about that I just don't remember because there is a lot more of this show than most others. But anyway. Murdoch is autistic because he has to be for the show to work and becuase he often comedic-foils far too close to the sun. And Watts is autistic because there is no way on God's green earth a man who stands like that is neurotypical.

Thank you, internet stranger, I am here all week.

[mostlysignssomeportents]

Apple fucked us on right to repair (again)

Today (September 22), I'm (virtually) presenting at the DIG Festival in Modena, Italy. Tonight, I'll be in person at LA's Book Soup for the launch of Justin C Key's "The World Wasn’t Ready for You." On September 27, I'll be at Chevalier's Books in Los Angeles with Brian Merchant for a joint launch for my new book The Internet Con and his new book, Blood in the Machine.

Right to repair has no cannier, more dedicated adversary than Apple, a company whose most innovative work is dreaming up new ways to sneakily sabotage electronics repair while claiming to be a caring environmental steward, a lie that covers up the mountains of e-waste that Apple dooms our descendants to wade through.

Why does Apple hate repair so much? It's not that they want to poison our water and bodies with microplastics; it's not that they want to hasten the day our coastal cities drown; it's not that they relish the human misery that accompanies every gram of conflict mineral. They aren't sadists. They're merely sociopathically greedy.

Tim Cook laid it out for his investors: when people can repair their devices, they don't buy new ones. When people don't buy new devices, Apple doesn't sell them new devices. It's that's simple:

https://www.inverse.com/article/52189-tim-cook-says-apple-faces-2-key-problems-in-surprising-shareholder-letter

So Apple does everything it can to monopolize repair. Not just because this lets the company gouge you on routine service, but because it lets them decide when your phone is beyond repair, so they can offer you a trade-in, ensuring both that you buy a new device and that the device you buy is another Apple.

There are so many tactics Apple gets to use to sabotage repair. For example, Apple engraves microscopic Apple logos on the subassemblies in its devices. This allows the company to enlist US Customs to seize and destroy refurbished parts that are harvested from dead phones by workers in the Pacific Rim:

https://repair.eu/news/apple-uses-trademark-law-to-strengthen-its-monopoly-on-repair/

Of course, the easiest way to prevent harvested components from entering the parts stream is to destroy as many old devices as possible. That's why Apple's so-called "recycling" program shreds any devices you turn over to them. When you trade in your old iPhone at an Apple Store, it is converted into immortal e-waste (no other major recycling program does this). The logic is straightforward: no parts, no repairs:

https://www.vice.com/en/article/yp73jw/apple-recycling-iphones-macbooks

Shredding parts and cooking up bogus trademark claims is just for starters, though. For Apple, the true anti-repair innovation comes from the most pernicious US tech law: Section 1201 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).

DMCA 1201 is an "anti-circumvention" law. It bans the distribution of any tool that bypasses "an effective means of access control." That's all very abstract, but here's what it means: if a manufacturer sticks some Digital Rights Management (DRM) in its device, then anything you want to do that involves removing that DRM is now illegal – even if the thing itself is perfectly legal.

When Congress passed this stupid law in 1998, it had a very limited blast radius. Computers were still pretty expensive and DRM use was limited to a few narrow categories. In 1998, DMCA 1201 was mostly used to prevent you from de-regionalizing your DVD player to watch discs that had been released overseas but not in your own country.

But as we warned back then, computers were only going to get smaller and cheaper, and eventually, it would only cost manufacturers pennies to wrap their products – or even subassemblies in their products – in DRM. Congress was putting a gun on the mantelpiece in Act I, and it was bound to go off in Act III.

Welcome to Act III.

Today, it costs about a quarter to add a system-on-a-chip to even the tiniest parts. These SOCs can run DRM. Here's how that DRM works: when you put a new part in a device, the SOC and the device's main controller communicate with one another. They perform a cryptographic protocol: the part says, "Here's my serial number," and then the main controller prompts the user to enter a manufacturer-supplied secret code, and the master controller sends a signed version of this to the part, and the part and the system then recognize each other.

This process has many names, but because it was first used in the automotive sector, it's widely known as VIN-Locking (VIN stands for "vehicle identification number," the unique number given to every car by its manufacturer). VIN-locking is used by automakers to block independent mechanics from repairing your car; even if they use the manufacturer's own parts, the parts and the engine will refuse to work together until the manufacturer's rep keys in the unlock code:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/07/24/rent-to-pwn/#kitt-is-a-demon

VIN locking is everywhere. It's how John Deere stops farmers from fixing their own tractors – something farmers have done literally since tractors were invented:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/05/08/about-those-kill-switched-ukrainian-tractors/

It's in ventilators. Like mobile phones, ventilators are a grotesquely monopolized sector, controlled by a single company Medtronic, whose biggest claim to fame is effecting the world's largest tax inversion in order to manufacture the appearance that it is an Irish company and therefore largely untaxable. Medtronic used the resulting windfall to gobble up most of its competitors.

During lockdown, as hospitals scrambled to keep their desperately needed supply of ventilators running, Medtronic's VIN-locking became a lethal impediment. Med-techs who used donor parts from one ventilator to keep another running – say, transplanting a screen – couldn't get the device to recognize the part because all the world's civilian aircraft were grounded, meaning Medtronic's technicians couldn't swan into their hospitals to type in the unlock code and charge them hundreds of dollars.

The saving grace was an anonymous, former Medtronic repair tech, who built pirate boxes to generate unlock codes, using any housing they could lay hands on to use as a case: guitar pedals, clock radios, etc. This tech shipped these gadgets around the world, observing strict anonymity, because Article 6 of the EUCD also bans circumvention:

https://pluralistic.net/2020/07/10/flintstone-delano-roosevelt/#medtronic-again

Of course, Apple is a huge fan of VIN-locking. In phones, VIN-locking is usually called "serializing" or "parts-pairing," but it's the same thing: a tiny subassembly gets its own microcontroller whose sole purpose is to prevent independent repair technicians from fixing your gadget. Parts-pairing lets Apple block repairs even when the technician uses new, Apple parts – but it also lets Apple block refurb parts and third party parts.

For many years, Apple was the senior partner and leading voice in blocking state Right to Repair bills, which it killed by the dozen, leading a coalition of monopolists, from Wahl (who boobytrap their hair-clippers with springs that cause their heads irreversibly decompose if you try to sharpen them at home) to John Deere (who reinvented tenant farming by making farmers tenants of their tractors, rather than their land).

But Apple's opposition to repair eventually became a problem for the company. It's bad optics, and both Apple customers and Apple employees are volubly displeased with the company's ecocidal conduct. But of course, Apple's management and shareholders hate repair and want to block it as much as possible.

But Apple knows how to Think Differently. It came up with a way to eat its cake and have it, too. The company embarked on a program of visibly support right to repair, while working behind the scenes to sabotage it.

Last year, Apple announced a repair program. It was hilarious. If you wanted to swap your phone's battery, all you had to do was let Apple put a $1200 hold on your credit card, and then wait while the company shipped you 80 pounds' worth of specialized tools, packed in two special Pelican cases:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/05/22/apples-cement-overshoes/

Then, you swapped your battery, but you weren't done! After your battery was installed, you had to conference in an authorized Apple tech who would tell you what code to type into a laptop you tethered to the phone in order to pair it with your phone. Then all you had to do was lug those two 40-pound Pelican cases to a shipping depot and wait for Apple to take the hold off your card (less the $120 in parts and fees).

By contrast, independent repair outfits like iFixit will sell you all the tools you need to do your own battery swap – including the battery! for $32. The whole kit fits in a padded envelope:

https://www.ifixit.com/products/iphone-x-replacement-battery

But while Apple was able to make a showy announcement of its repair program and then hide the malicious compliance inside those giant Pelican cases, sabotaging right to repair legislation is a lot harder.

Not that they didn't try. When New York State passed the first general electronics right-to-repair bill in the country, someone convinced New York Governor Kathy Hochul to neuter it with last-minute modifications:

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2022/12/weakened-right-to-repair-bill-is-signed-into-law-by-new-yorks-governor/

But that kind of trick only works once. When California's right to repair bill was introduced, it was clear that it was gonna pass. Rather than get run over by that train, Apple got on board, supporting the legislation, which passed unanimously:

https://www.ifixit.com/News/79902/apples-u-turn-tech-giant-finally-backs-repair-in-california

But Apple got the last laugh. Because while California's bill contains many useful clauses for the independent repair shops that keep your gadgets out of a landfill, it's a state law, and DMCA 1201 is federal. A state law can't simply legalize the conduct federal law prohibits. California's right to repair bill is a banger, but it has a weak spot: parts-pairing, the scourge of repair techs:

https://www.ifixit.com/News/69320/how-parts-pairing-kills-independent-repair

Every generation of Apple devices does more parts-pairing than the previous one, and the current models are so infested with paired parts as to be effectively unrepairable, except by Apple. It's so bad that iFixit has dropped its repairability score for the iPhone 14 from a 7 ("recommend") to a 4 (do not recommend):

https://www.ifixit.com/News/82493/we-are-retroactively-dropping-the-iphones-repairability-score-en

Parts-pairing is bullshit, and Apple are scum for using it, but they're hardly unique. Parts-pairing is at the core of the fuckery of inkjet printer companies, who use it to fence out third-party ink, so they can charge $9,600/gallon for ink that pennies to make:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/11/ink-stained-wretches-battle-soul-digital-freedom-taking-place-inside-your-printer

Parts-pairing is also rampant in powered wheelchairs, a heavily monopolized sector whose predatory conduct is jaw-droppingly depraved:

https://uspirgedfund.org/reports/usp/stranded

But if turning phones into e-waste to eke out another billion-dollar stock buyback is indefensible, stranding people with disabilities for months at a time while they await repairs is so obviously wicked that the conscience recoils. That's why it was so great when Colorado passed the nation's first wheelchair right to repair bill last year:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2022/06/when-drm-comes-your-wheelchair

California actually just passed two right to repair bills; the other one was SB-271, which mirrors Colorado's HB22-1031:

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240SB271

This is big! It's momentum! It's a start!

But it can't be the end. When Bill Clinton signed DMCA 1201 into law 25 years ago, he loaded a gun and put it on the nation's mantlepiece and now it's Act III and we're all getting sprayed with bullets. Everything from ovens to insulin pumps, thermostats to lightbulbs, has used DMCA 1201 to limit repair, modification and improvement.

Congress needs to rid us of this scourge, to let us bring back all the benefits of interoperability. I explain how this all came to be – and what we should do about it – in my new Verso Books title, The Internet Con: How to Seize the Means of Computation.

https://www.versobooks.com/products/3035-the-internet-con

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/09/22/vin-locking/#thought-differently

Image: Mitch Barrie (modified) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Daytona_Skeleton_AR-15_completed_rifle_%2817551907724%29.jpg

CC BY-SA 2.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/deed.en

--

kambanji (modified) https://www.flickr.com/photos/kambanji/4135216486/

CC BY 2.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/

--

Rawpixel (modified) https://www.rawpixel.com/image/12438797/png-white-background

[valtsv]

hi hello! i recall you talking about how you used to have an unhealthy dependence on attention you got from the internet a while ago, and was wondering if you had any tips on how to help with that? i recently found myself sorta relying too much on the affirmation i get from Numbers Going Up and i wanna nip it in the bud before it becomes a Thing. thank you! ^^

i found that the best way to curb the addiction was to wean myself off it bit by bit. start with something small and achievable, like setting a time limit for how long you spend online in one sitting (set a timer to help you if necessary), or setting aside specific free periods in the day when you can check your notifications or whatever, then gradually limit it further until you've reached a point you're comfortable with. you'll find that the more you stick to the goals you've set for yourself, the more it'll start to feel like a reward and substitute for the affirmation you get from number go up (and you'll start to pay more attention to how you spend your limited time and what are the best ways to do so).

place your phone or laptop or whatever device you use for social media out of sight while doing other activities, so that you have to make the conscious effort to seek them out (and thus consider whether you really want to do it) (if i'm trying to concentrate on something, for example, i'll put my phone in a drawer or in my bag/pocket, and make sure i can't hear or see any notification messages). if you feel you can, turn off or temporarily mute your notifications - that works wonders for me.

use the free time you've created for yourself to seek out things you've always wanted to do but never felt like you had the time for. read the book you've been putting off, write something, draw something, get into that crafting hobby, or go for a walk and feed some birds at the pond, go out and challenge yourself to take a photo of something eyecatching to share with your friends, go to a cafe, meet up with a friend, try out that recipe you saved because you thought it sounded nice, look into social groups, events and clubs that cater to your interests/hobbies in your local area - even make use of the time you'd normally spend on social media to do something else online, like wikipedia deep diving, watching a show, or replying to that person you forgot to get back to.

above all, don't beat yourself up along the way. take each day as it comes and each relapse as motivation to keep pushing forwards and make it a little longer between the next one. don't blame yourself for what you can't change (the past) but try to focus on what you can (the future).

[oddlittlestories]

Oh also re internet censorship.

Screenshot shit. Include the date and the website if you can.

Denialism is a lot harder when you can whip out your device and go “nope! I have a clip of the inauguration. nope! I have a screenshot of the executive order from the White House website.”

I have a formerly leftist older family member who for some reason suddenly got super into Trump denialism so I have some real life examples for you!

“That’s just how the media spun it. The context matters!”

Nope! Starting now I’ll have the context!

“I didn’t read his twitter page. I read articles about his twitter page.”

Well I did! And I’ll be screenshotting relevant things and sorting them for the future.

Look. I guarantee you there will be attempts at suppressing news articles - anything that goes against what Trump and other US politicians want you to believe. It’s already happening.

There will be edits of web pages or posts and claims that it was that way the whole time. (Like how Amazon says you totally bought that thing at that price even though you have a gut feeling, repeatedly, that they didn’t. And then the lump purchase items differently than they charged them so it’s nearly impossible to sort out what cost what.)

And preserving the truth? It matters.

A few years back, one of the UCs paid a TON to have google suppress search results for cops pepper spraying unarmed, seated protesting students. But students saved that image, shared and circulated it.

When UC Santa Cruz had a strike in 2019-2020, there were whispers they would be pepper sprayed.

That image was circulated - not just to students but to faculty, staff, community members, and family across the country. A reinforced narrative of “Santa Cruz students are so chill they’ll never do anything to provoke that,”

This is probably why UCSC students were never pepper sprayed.

These things can have real, material impact. Immediately. Not in the future, not when we’re rolling all this back. Now. Today. That’s why they’re working so hard to suppress it.

[creature-wizard]

How Project Monarch fails the "Six Ways To Debunk Any Conspiracy Theory" sniff test

The 2017 article Six Ways To Debunk Any Conspiracy Theory lists six characteristics of conspiracy thinking that break down with a small amount of critical thinking. (I recommend reading the whole thing for yourself!)

If we compare the claims made about Project Monarch to the six items on this list, we can see that they meet five of the six items all six items, including:

No Leaks: The type of programming methods associated with Project Monarch have allegedly been practiced for at least seventy years in numerous countries (including but not limited to the US, the UK, Canada, Germany, and France) in all levels of society, yet no documents containing evidence proving its existence (such as documents containing alter scripts, programming and ritual protocols, programming session notes, alter access codes, and various memos) has ever been leaked.

Evidence Gap: Investigations of cases where we might expect to find evidence of Monarch-style programming have never found any such thing. If this was happening in the way people claim, we should expect at least some criminal investigations (including but not limited to investigations of child abuse, drug possession, and murder) to also uncover the aforementioned document types. We should also expect the more obvious programming tools and props (such as human-sized cages, ETC devices, ritual sites done up to look like UFOs or whatever, programming tapes and audio files, etc) to turn up in conjunction with such documents. And of course, we should be finding a lot more animal and human remains, with all of the ritual sacrifices they're supposedly performing.

Inconsistent Capabilities: Believers claim that programming cults are so hypercompetent that can hide or destroy all physical evidence of their existence, and apparently never place any digital literature on unsecure devices or file servers. Yet they are somehow also so inept that they can't stop all of these alleged victims from telling everything to their therapists, writing and publishing books, and from posting online. (They've apparently never heard of stalkerware, or at least not allowing someone to use the Internet without heavy supervision.)

Prediction Horizon: The alleged triggers that supposedly force different alters to front or activate specific programming are often extremely commonplace stimuli, including (but not limited to) simple colors, patterns, and images (for example, the image of a specific flower), common phrases (for example, "I called to see how you're feeling") and common gestures (for example, clasped hands).

It would be impossible for programmers to prevent their victims from coming across many of these triggers by pure happenstance, because they simply can't predict or control other people's behavior on a large enough scale. They can't know or control, for example, when the pop song they've used as a trigger will play on the radio in a store, or when the neighbor will suddenly decide to plant a bed of daisies, or when a bank teller will wear a blue silk shirt. And considering some of the roles alters are allegedly programmed for, things would get really awkward really fast.

Method-Goal Mismatch: Monarch-type programming is still allegedly practiced today because numerous cults and abusive groups want perfectly compliant, obedient people. But the methods they are claimed to use are both extraordinarily risky and effort-intensive, and ultimately do not appear to be more rewarding than conventional methods of indoctrination, manipulation, and generally limiting a person's capacity to exercise autonomy (such as deprivation of education, funds, and legal papers).

Unfalsifiable: Failure to locate hard evidence of Project Monarch or Monarch-like practices are attributed to the alleged hypercompetence of the cultists, government agents, etc. When the question of why neighbors, teachers, doctors, etc. didn't notice anything strange comes up, believers claim they're all cultists or agents. Records that contradict claims of ritual abuse are claimed to be falsified. Obviously impossible events described by patients are simply chalked up to confusion from drugged states. Numerous books in favor of this conspiracy theory assures us that denying abuse or admitting to your therapist that you fabricated your claims is further evidence of programming.

In conclusion, while we know that Project MK-Ultra existed, claims of Project Monarch's existence and the widespread, even systemic practice of the techniques it alleged developed are easily demonstrated as nothing more than conspiracy theories.