#algorithm distortion | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

jcmarchi · 9 months ago

Text

Breakthrough in AR: Miniaturized Display Paves Way for Mainstream AR Glasses

New Post has been published on https://thedigitalinsider.com/breakthrough-in-ar-miniaturized-display-paves-way-for-mainstream-ar-glasses/

Breakthrough in AR: Miniaturized Display Paves Way for Mainstream AR Glasses

Augmented Reality (AR) technology has been capturing imaginations for years, promising to blend digital information seamlessly with our physical world. By superimposing computer-generated images onto real-world views, AR has the potential to drastically change how we interact with our environment. From enhancing gaming experiences to assisting surgeons in operating rooms, the applications of AR seem boundless.

However, despite its immense potential, AR technology has faced significant hurdles in achieving widespread adoption. Current AR systems often rely on bulky headsets or goggles, limiting their practicality for everyday use. These devices can be cumbersome, with limited fields of view and less-than-ideal image quality. Moreover, the power requirements and heat generation of these systems pose additional challenges for prolonged use.

Another critical limitation has been the difficulty in miniaturizing AR displays without compromising image quality or field of view. As consumers increasingly demand sleeker, more discreet AR devices, the industry has been grappling with the complex task of shrinking optical components while maintaining performance.

The Quest for Compact AR Displays

The drive towards miniaturization in AR technology is not merely about aesthetics or convenience. Compact AR systems have the potential to integrate seamlessly into our daily lives, much like smartphones have done. Imagine AR capabilities built into a pair of ordinary-looking glasses, providing real-time information, navigation assistance, or even professional tools without the need for obtrusive hardware.

However, shrinking AR systems presents a multitude of technical challenges. Traditional AR displays typically employ a four-lens system to project images onto the user’s field of view. Reducing the size of these optical components often results in a significant degradation of image quality and a narrower field of view. This trade-off between size and performance has been a major stumbling block in the development of mainstream AR glasses.

Moreover, as AR systems become smaller, issues such as heat dissipation and power efficiency become increasingly critical. Balancing the need for high-quality displays with the constraints of compact form factors requires innovative approaches to both hardware and software design.

The miniaturization quest also involves addressing challenges related to user comfort and social acceptance. AR glasses need to be lightweight and unobtrusive enough for extended wear, while also being stylish enough to be worn in public without drawing unwanted attention.

Despite these hurdles, the potential benefits of compact AR displays continue to drive research and development in this field. From enhancing productivity in various industries to revolutionizing personal communication and entertainment, the promise of seamlessly integrated AR technology remains a compelling goal for innovators and tech enthusiasts alike.

A Novel Hybrid Approach

On this front, researchers have developed a new approach to AR display technology that combines multiple optical technologies into a single, high-resolution system. This novel hybrid design integrates a metasurface, a refractive lens, and a microLED screen to create a compact AR display that could potentially fit into a standard pair of eyeglasses.

The metasurface, an ultrathin film etched with a specific pattern, serves as the initial shaping and focusing mechanism for light emitted from the microLED screen. This light then passes through a refractive lens made from a synthetic polymer, which further refines the image by reducing aberrations and increasing sharpness.

What sets this system apart is not just its hardware components, but also its innovative use of computer algorithms. These algorithms play a crucial role in identifying and correcting minor imperfections in the optical system before the light leaves the microLED. This preprocessing step significantly enhances the final image quality, pushing the boundaries of what’s possible with miniaturized AR displays.

American Chemical Society

Prototype Performance and Testing

To put their innovation to the test, the research team integrated their hybrid AR display into a prototype pair of eyeglasses. The results were impressive, with the system achieving less than 2% distortion across a 30-degree field of view. This level of performance is comparable to current commercial AR platforms that use much larger, four-lens systems.

In one particularly striking demonstration, the team projected an image of a red panda using their new system. After applying their computer preprocessing algorithm, the reprojected image showed a 74.3% structural similarity to the original – a 4% improvement over the uncorrected projection.

These results suggest that the new hybrid approach could potentially match or even exceed the performance of larger AR systems, all while fitting into a form factor suitable for everyday eyewear.

Applications and Future Prospects

While gaming and entertainment often dominate discussions about AR, the potential applications of this technology extend far beyond. With more compact and efficient AR displays, we could see transformative impacts in fields such as medicine and transportation.

In surgery, for instance, AR could provide real-time, three-dimensional visualizations of a patient’s anatomy, superimposed directly onto the surgeon’s field of view. This could enhance precision and potentially improve outcomes in complex procedures.

In the automotive industry, AR could revolutionize the driving experience. Imagine windshields that display navigation information, highlight potential hazards, or provide crucial data for self-driving systems – all without obstructing the driver’s view of the road.

Looking ahead, the researchers aim to extend their system to support full-color displays, which would significantly broaden its potential applications. However, challenges remain on the path to mainstream adoption. These include further miniaturization, improving power efficiency, and addressing potential social and privacy concerns associated with widespread AR use.

The Bottom Line

This breakthrough in AR display technology represents a significant step towards making AR glasses a practical, everyday reality. By combining innovative optical technologies with clever computational approaches, researchers have demonstrated that it’s possible to create high-quality AR displays in a form factor suitable for regular eyewear.

As this technology continues to evolve, we may be on the cusp of a new era where digital information seamlessly integrates with our physical world. From enhancing how we work and learn to transforming how we interact with our environment, the implications of widespread, accessible AR technology are profound.

While there are still hurdles to overcome, this research provides a tantalizing glimpse into a future where AR is not just a novelty, but an integral part of our daily lives. As development continues, we may soon find ourselves looking at the world through a new lens – one that bridges the gap between the digital and physical realms in ways we’re only beginning to imagine.

0 notes

rtw4e · 1 year ago

Text

“The third party could be a paying sponsor that desires to persuade a user to buy a product or service, or to believe a piece of propaganda, ideology, or misinformation.”

0 notes

mostlysignssomeportents · 1 month ago

Text

The meritocracy to eugenics pipeline

I'm on a 20+ city book tour for my new novel PICKS AND SHOVELS. Catch me in PDX on Jun 20 at BARNES AND NOBLE with BUNNIE HUANG. After that, it's LONDON (Jul 1) and MANCHESTER (Jul 2).

It's kinda weird how, the more oligarchic our society gets, the more racist it gets. Why is the rise of billionaires attended by a revival of discredited eugenic ideas, dressed up in modern euphemisms like "race realism" and "human diversity"?

I think the answer lies in JK Galbraith's observation that "The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."

The theory of markets goes like this: a market is a giant computer that is always crunching all kinds of "signals" about what people want and how much they want it, and which companies and individuals are most suited to different roles within the system. The laissez-faire proposition is that if we just resist the temptation to futz with the computer (to "distort the market"), it will select the best person for each position: workers, consumers, and, of course, "capital allocators" who decide where the money goes and thus what gets made.

The vast, distributed market computer is said to be superior to any kind of "central planning" because it can integrate new facts quickly and adjust production to suit varying needs. Let rents rise too high and the computer will trigger the subroutine that brings "self-interested" ("greedy") people into the market to build more housing and get a share of those sky-high rents, "coming back into equilibrium." But allow a bureaucracy to gum up the computer with a bunch of rules about how that housing should be built and the "lure new homebuilders" program will crash. Likewise, if the government steps in to cap the price of rents, the "price signal" will be silenced and that "new homebuilders" program won't even be triggered.

There's some logic to this. There are plenty of good things that market actors do that are motivated by self-interest rather than altruism. When Google founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin developed their Pagerank algorithm and revolutionized internet search, they weren't just solving a cool computer science problem – they were hoping to get rich.

But here's the thing: if you let Larry and Sergey tap the capital markets – if they can put on a convincing show for the "capital allocators" – then the market will happily supply them with the billions they need to buy and neutralize their competitors, to create barriers to entry for superior search engines, and become the "central planners" that market theory so deplores. If your business can't get any market oxygen, if no audience ever discovers your creative endeavors, does it matter if the central planner who decided you don't deserve a chance is elected or nominated by "the market"?

Here's how self-proclaimed market enthusiasts answer that question: all Larry and Sergey are doing here is another form of "capital allocation." They're allocating attention, deciding what can and can't be seen, in just the same way that a investor decides what will and won't be funded. If an investor doesn't fund promising projects, then some other investor will come along, fund them, get rich, and poach the funds that were once given to less-successful rivals. In the same way, if Google allocates attention badly, then someone will start a better search engine that's better at allocating attention, and we will switch to that new search engine, and Google will fail.

Again, this sounds reasonable, but a little scrutiny reveals it to be circular reasoning. Google has dominated search for a quarter of a century now. It has a 90% market share. According to the theory of self-correcting markets, this means that Google is very good at allocating our attention. What's more, if it feels like Google actually sucks at this – like Google's search-results are garbage – that doesn't mean Google it bad at search. It doesn't mean that Google is sacrificing quality to improve its bottom line (say, by scaling back on anti-spam spending, or by increasing the load of ads on a search results page).

It just means that doing better than Google is impossible. You can tell it's impossible, because it hasn't happened.

QED.

Google wasn't the first search engine, and it would be weird if it were the last. The internet and the world have changed a lot and the special skills, organizational structures and leadership that Google assembled to address the internet of the 2000s and the 2010s is unlikely to be the absolute perfect mix for the 2020s. And history teaches us that the kinds of people who can assemble thee skills, structures and leaders to succeed in one era are unlikely to be able to change over to the ideal mix for the next era.

Interpreting the persistent fact of Google's 90% market-share despite its plummeting quality as evidence of Google's excellence requires an incredible act of mental gymnastics. Rather than accepting the proposition that Google both dominates and sucks because it is excellent, we should at least consider the possibility that Google dominates while sucking because it cheats. And hey, wouldn't you know it, three federal courts have found Google to be a monopolist in three different ways in just a year.

Now, the market trufans will tell you that these judges who called Google a cheater are just futzers who can't keep their fingers off the beautiful, flawless market computer. By dragging Google into court, forcing its executives to answer impertinent questions, and publishing their emails, the court system is "distorting the market." Google is the best, because it is the biggest, and once it stops being the best, it will be toppled.

This makes perfect sense to people who buy the underlying logic of market-as-computer. For the rest of us, it strains credulity.

Now, think for a minute of the people who got rich off of Google. You have the founders – like Sergey Brin, who arrived in America as a penniless refugee and is now one of the richest people in the history of the human species. He got his fortune by building something that billions of us used trillions of times (maybe even quadrillions of times) – the greatest search engine the world had ever seen.

Brin isn't the only person who got rich off Google, of course. There are plenty of Googlers who performed different kinds of labor – coding, sure, but also accountancy, HR, graphic design, even catering in the company's famous cafeterias – who became "post-economic" (a euphemism for "so rich they don't ever need to think about money ever again") thanks to their role in Google's success.

There's a pretty good argument to be made that these people "earned" their money, in the sense that they did a job and that job generated some money and they took it home. We can argue about whether the share of the profits that went to different people was fair, or whether the people whose spending generated that profit got a good deal, or whether the product itself was good or ethical. But what is inarguable is that this was money that people got for doing something.

Then there's Google's investors. They made a lot of money, especially the early investors. Again, we can argue about whether investors should be rewarded for speculation, but there's no question that the investors in Google took a risk and got something back. They could have lost it all. In some meaningful sense, they made a good choice and were rewarded for it.

But now let's think about the next generation. The odds that these billionaires, centimillionaires and decimillionaires will spawn the next generation of 1%ers, 0.1%ers, and 0.0001%ers are very high. Right now, in America, the biggest predictor of being rich is having rich parents. Every billionaire on the Forbes under-30 list inherited their wealth:

https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/forbes-billionaires-under-30-inherited-203930435.html

The wealthy have created a system of dynastic wealth that puts the aristocratic method of primogenitor in the shade. Every scion of every one-percenter can have their own fortune and start their own dynasty, without lifting a finger. Their sole job is to sign the paperwork put before them by "wealth managers":

https://pluralistic.net/2021/06/19/dynastic-wealth/#caste

Yes, it's true that some of the very richest people on Earth got their money by investing, rather than inheriting it. Bill Gates's investment income growth exceeds even the growth of the world's richest woman, L'Oreal heiress Liliane Bettencourt, who never did anything of note apart from emerging from an extremely lucky orifice and then simply accruing:

https://memex.craphound.com/2014/06/24/thomas-pikettys-capital-in-the-21st-century/

But Bill Gates's wealth accumulation from investing exceeds the wealth he accumulated by founding and running the most successful company in history (at the time). Doing work never pays as much as allocating capital. And Gates's children? They can assume a Bettencourtian posture on a divan, mouths yawning wide for the passage of peeled grapes, and their fortunes will grow still larger. Same goes for their children, and their children's children.

Capitalism's self-mythologizing insists that the invisible hand owes no allegiance to yesterday's champions. The mere fact that the market rewarded you for allocating capital wisely during your tenure does not entitle your offspring to continue to allocate wealth in the years and centuries to come – not unless they, too, are capital allocators of such supremacy that they are superior to everyone born hereafter and will make the decisions that make the whole world better off.

Because that's the justification for inequality: that the market relentlessly seeks out the people with the skill and foresight to do things and invest in things that improve the world for all of us. If we interrupt that market process with regulations, taxes, or other "distorting" factors, then the market's quest for the right person for the right job will be thwarted and all of us will end up poorer. If we want the benefits of the invisible hand, we must not jostle the invisible elbow!

That's the justification for abolishing welfare, public education, public health, affirmative action, DEI, and any other programs that redistribute wealth to the least among us. If we get in the way of the market's selection process, we'll elevate incompetents to roles of power and importance and they will bungle those roles in ways that hurt us all. As Boris Johnson put it: "the harder you shake the pack the easier it will be for [big] cornflakes to get to the top":

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/nov/28/boris-johnson-iq-intelligence-gordon-gekko

Which leaves the servants and defenders of the invisible hand with a rather awkward question: how is it that today, capital allocation is a hereditary role? We used to have the idea that fitness to allocate capital – that is, to govern the economy and the lives of all of the rest of us – was a situational matter. The rule was "shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in three generations": "The first generation makes it, the second generation spends it, and the third generation blows it."

That's the lesson of the rags to riches story*: that out there, amongst the teeming grubby billions, lurks untold genius, waiting to be anointed by the market and turned loose to make us all better off.

In America, these stories are sometimes called "Horatio Alger" stories, after the writer who penned endless millionaire-pleasing fables about urchins who were adopted by wealthy older men who saw their promise and raised them to be captains of industry. However, in real life, Horatio Alger was a pedophile who adopted young boys and raped them:

https://newenglandhistoricalsociety.com/horatio-alger-hundred-year-old-secret/

Perhaps your life was saved by a surgeon who came from humble origins but made it through med school courtesy of Pell Grants. Perhaps you thrilled to a novel or a film made by an artist from a working class family who got their break through an NEA grant. Maybe the software you rely on every day, or the game that fills your evenings, was created by someone who learned their coding skills at a public library or publicly funded after-school program.

The presence among us of people who achieved social mobility and made our lives better is evidence that people are being born every moment with something to contribute that is markedly different, and higher in social status, than the role their parents played. Even if you stipulate that the person who cleans your toilet has been correctly sorted into a toilet-cleaning job by the invisible hand, it's clear that the invisible hand would prefer that at least some of those toilet-cleaners' kids should do something else for a living.

And yet, wealth remains stubbornly hereditary. Our capital allocators – who, during the post-war, post-New Deal era were often drawn from working families – are now increasingly, relentlessly born to that role.

For the wealthy, this is the origin of the meritocracy to eugenics pipeline. If power and privilege are inherited – and they are, ever moreso every day – then either we live in an extremely unfair society in which the privileged and the powerful have rigged the game…or the invisible hand has created a subspecies of thoroughbred humans who were literally born to rule.

This is the thesis of the ultra-rich, the moral justification for rigging the system so that their failsons and faildaughters will give rise to faildestinies of failgrandkids and failgreat-grandkids, whose emergence from history's luckiest orifices guarantees them a lifelong tenure ordering other people around. It's the justification for some people being born to own the places where the rest of us live, and the rest of us paying them half our salaries just so we don't end up sleeping on the sidewalk.

"Hereditary meritocracy" is just a polite way of saying "eugenics." It starts from the premise of the infallible invisible hand and then attributes all inequality in society to the hand's perfect judgment, its genetic insight in picking the best people for the best jobs. If people of one race are consistently on top of the pile, that's the market telling you something about their genomes. If men consistently fare better in the economy than women, the invisible hand is trying to say something about the Y chromosome for anyone with ears to hear.

Capitalism's winners have always needed "a superior moral justification for selfishness," a discreet varnish to shine up the old divine right of kings. Think of the millionaire who created a "Nobel Prize sperm-bank" (and then fraudulently fathered hundreds of children because he couldn't find any Nobelists willing to make a deposit):

https://memex.craphound.com/2006/09/07/nobel-prize-sperm-bank-human-tragicomedy-about-eugenics/

Or the billionaire founder of Telegram who has fathered over 100 children in a bid to pass on his "superior genes":

https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/26/tech/pavel-durov-telegram-profile-intl

Think of Trump and his endless boasting about his "good blood" and praise for the "bloodlines" of Henry Ford and other vicious antisemites:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/05/22/trump-criticized-praising-bloodlines-henry-ford-anti-semite/5242361002/

Or Elon Musk, building a compound where he hopes to LARP as Immortan Joe, with a harem of women who have borne his legion of children, who will carry on his genetic legacy:

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/29/business/elon-musk-children-compound.html

Inequality is a hell of a drug. There's plenty of evidence that becoming a billionaire rots your brain, and being born into a dynastic fortune is a thoroughly miserable experience:

https://pluralistic.net/2021/04/13/public-interest-pharma/#affluenza

The stories that rich people tell themselves about why this is the only way things can be ("There is no alternative" -M. Thatcher) always end up being stories about superior blood. Eugenics and inequality are inseparable companions.

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/2025/05/20/big-cornflakes-energy/#caliper-pilled

#pluralistic #eugenics #meritocracy #phrenology #good blood #oligarchy #hereditary meritocracy #lucky orifices

496 notes · View notes

the-most-humble-blog · 1 month ago

Text

Not a flex. A containment protocol.

Most writers are trying to get seen.

I’m trying to leak just enough power so Tumblr doesn’t treat my post like it triggered a DEFCON alert.

Scrolltrap isn’t a genre. It’s a hazmat level.

#blacksite literature™#scrolltrap #writing #writing community #viral writing #content suppression #writer problems #funny because it’s true #tumblr blaze #platform distortion #literary weaponry #algorithm warfare #timeline disruption #truth in humor #words that scare the system #writeblr #art #lit

14 notes · View notes

valeisaslut · 3 months ago

Text

ᖭི༏ᖫྀ ₊˚┊the fireflies' album.ᐟ

moodboard .ᐟ

LOUDER THAN FATE

Spotify playlist – Click to hear .ᐟ

ıllı1 PHYSCO

.lılı2 HEART-SHAPED BOX

.ılıı3 HYSTERIA

ıllı4 HAYLOFT

.lılı5 ANEURYSM

.ılıı6 R U MINE?

ıllı7 WHY GO?

.lılı8 CRYING LIGHTNING

.ılıı9 MY OWN SUMMER (SHOVE IT)

ıllı10 FOR YOUR LOVE

.lılı11 THIS IS WHY

.ılıı12 FIGURE IT OUT

ıllı13 I BET THAT YOU LOOK GOOD ON THE DANCE FLOOR

.ılıı14 FELL IN LOVE WITH A GIRL

.lılı15 KILLING IN THE NAME

ıllı16 ABOUT A GIRL

.ılıı17 SEE YOU SOON

(click on each song to hear it)

The Fireflies' Louder Than Fate Just Gave Rock Its Pulse Back

By Philip Norman

In a musical landscape shaped by fleeting trends and algorithmic formulas, The Fireflies have done something radical: they made an album that demands to be felt. Louder Than Fate, their third studio release, didn’t just make noise—it reshaped the conversation.

At this year’s Grammys, the record swept Album of the Year, Best Rock Album, Best Rock Performance, and Best Rock Song for the explosive, unrelenting Why Go?—a song that has already cemented itself as a modern rock staple. But more than the accolades, Louder Than Fate is a statement: rock isn’t dead, and The Fireflies are here to make damn sure no one forgets it.

A Band That Plays Like They Bleed for It

Seattle-bred and forged in the kind of friendship that outlasts fame, Ellie Williams (vocals, guitar), Dina Woodward (bass), and Jesse Kim (drums) have been making music together since high school. That bond is the core of Louder Than Fate—a record that feels both reckless and intentional, like it might combust at any moment but refuses to fall apart.

Unlike so much of what clutters today’s charts, Louder Than Fate isn’t designed to be consumed in pieces. It’s an album in the truest sense—17 tracks that pull you under and don’t let go. From the feverish intensity of Physco to the aching restraint of See You Soon, from the firestorm of Killing In The Name to the soul-baring wreckage of My Own Summer, each track feels like a different vein of the same open wound.

“We weren’t trying to make something polished,” says Woodward, whose basslines serve as the album’s steady, smoldering core. “We wanted something real. Something messy. Something that hits like a memory you can’t shake.”

And it does. Louder Than Fate isn’t a collection of songs—it’s a body of work that lives and breathes, roars and fractures. It’s loud, it’s raw, it’s deeply personal. And above all else, it refuses to be ignored.

Ellie Williams: A Legacy Rewritten

Of course, rock is in Ellie Williams’ blood. The daughter of legendary outlaw rocker Joel Miller, Williams grew up in the shadow of a man whose name still echoes through the industry like folklore. But she’s not just living up to that legacy—she’s rewriting it.

Her guitar work is as vicious as her voice, solidifying her as one of the most formidable guitarists of her generation. Her solos blaze through Louder Than Fate like wildfire—calculated but untamed, technical but full of heart. The way she wields her instrument while delivering gut-wrenching vocals is a rare, electrifying talent, one that separates good from legendary.

“Ellie doesn’t just play—she makes you feel every note,” says Dina Woodward, who’s spent years watching her best friend command the stage. “There’s this rawness to the way she moves between riffs, like she’s pulling it straight from her fucking soul.”

Her voice is a weapon, serrated with conviction, sorrow, and the kind of rage that feels earned. It cuts through walls of distortion, wielding melody like a blade. She doesn’t just sing—she demands to be heard.

“We wanted this album to feel alive,” Williams told Rolling Stone backstage at the Grammys. “Not just alive—but unpredictable. Uncontrolled. Like it could break apart—or break you—at any moment.”

And that volatility—that undeniable force—is exactly what makes this album feel so seismic.

The Pen Is Hers Too

While The Fireflies are a fiercely collaborative force on stage and in the studio, some of their most piercing songs share one key signature: Ellie Williams’ alone.

Tracks like For Your Love, I Bet That You Look Good on the Dancefloor, Fell in Love With a Girl, See You Soon, and R U Mine? all feature Williams as the sole credited songwriter—a distinction that hasn’t gone unnoticed by fans or critics. These aren’t just bangers; they’re emotionally charged, finely crafted statements, wired with obsession, yearning, and the kind of lust that lingers long after the last chord fades.

Each song offers a different vantage point into that inner world: the slow-burn ache of For Your Love, the breathless bravado of Dancefloor, the sugar-rush crash of Fell in Love, the nostalgic haze of See You Soon, and the seductive, manic tension of R U Mine? Together, they form a canon within the band’s discography—Ellie at her most unfiltered, raw, and narratively sharp.

Unsurprisingly, there’s no shortage of speculation about who those songs might be about.

The name on the everyone’s lips? Y/N.

Though neither artist has ever confirmed it outright, the timeline—and the intensity—have only fueled the theories. Especially with the release of She, a standalone duet between the two that set the internet ablaze and gave fans a little less to guess about.

Whether autobiographical or simply evocative fiction, there’s no denying that Ellie writes like someone who’s lived every word. And when the guitars wail and the crowd screams the lyrics back at her, it’s clear: this isn’t just storytelling. It’s exorcism. It’s worship. It’s truth, distorted through a Fender and a fuzz pedal.

A Tour That Shook the World

If the album was the spark, the Louder Than Fate World Tour was the explosion. Spanning 20 countries and selling out in minutes, the tour has become the stuff of legend: no gimmicks, no elaborate stage theatrics—just three musicians, their instruments, and a crowd that sings back every lyric like gospel.

“There’s nothing like that moment when you hear thousands of voices scream your words back at you,” says Kim, who drives every track with a drumming style that is both surgical and primal. “It reminds you why you started. Why you fought for this.”

The Fireflies didn’t just fill arenas—they set them on fire. The shows were chaotic, sweat-soaked, and deeply intimate, proving that rock music doesn’t need to be nostalgic or diluted to sell out stadiums. It just needs to be true.

Louder Than Fate: A New Standard

Rock has had its supposed resurrections before. But this? This feels different. The Fireflies aren’t just rockstars. They aren’t just the future of the genre.

They’re the present.

They came, they played, they bled for it. And now? Now, rock’s last great hope has a name—The Fireflies.

And they just proved they’re louder than fate itself.

taglist (tysm for supporting, hope you enjoy <333): @st0nerlesb0 @willurms @vahnilla @mancyw1214 @rxreaqia @laceyxrenee @antobooh @annoyingpersonxoxo @haithone @lofied @sunflowerwinds @xojunebugxo @reidairie @piscesthepoet @elliewilliamskisser2000 @pariiissssssss @mxquelo @elliesbabygirl @xx2849 @kiiramiz @mikellie @brooks-lin @lovely-wisteria @marscardigan @elliesanqel @lovelaymedown @gold-dustwomxn @ilovewomenfr @seraphicsentences @mascspleasegetmepregnant @raindroprose23 @creepyswag @jujueilish @elliesgffrfr @kirammanss @liztreez @catrapplesauces @livvietalks @furtherrawayy @thatchosen1 @kanadadryer @littlerosiesthings @eriiwaiii2 @firefly-ace @redlightellie @elliepoems @sabrinathewitchh982 @shady-lemur @jubileexoxo @l0velylace @look-me @adoringanakin @daughterofthemoons-stuff @st4r-b3rries @liasxeatt @desiretolive @rios-st4rs @miajooz @hotpinkskitties

see ya'll soon, stay tuned ;)

255 notes · View notes

hermajestyimher · 10 days ago

Text

I think one aspect of social media’s impact that we don’t talk about enough is how fatiguing it can be just to use it daily. And I’m not just referring to harmful or negative content, sometimes even harmless things like memes or lifestyle posts can start to feel repetitive, overwhelming, or mentally draining. It’s easy to assume that mindlessly scrolling for entertainment has no real consequences, but I’ve noticed that even passive use subtly affects our brain chemistry.

We become more compliant with the culture of online personas. We absorb too much information too quickly, without time to process it. Our brains get overstimulated, and over time, it makes us feel tired without realizing why. There’s also an unspoken pressure to perform, to curate, to present, to keep up.

I’m not someone who villainizes social media (I use it as a creative outlet), but as I grow older, I’ve realized how important it is to build stronger boundaries and use it with intention. That means opening apps with purpose, setting time limits, and being mindful of how often I check them. It also means releasing myself from the pressure to perform or chase milestones online, especially when people’s attention spans are short and online praise is fleeting. It rarely holds lasting meaning.

I want to live fully in the present. I want to enjoy the world around me without needing to filter it through a camera lens or constantly compare my life to others. I want to reclaim my attention span and heal from the subconscious programming I may have picked up from hateful comments, toxic content pushed by the algorithm, or distorted views of reality I internalized without realizing it.

Doom scrolling is poison for the mind and soul, yes, but even mindless scrolling can be a slow, silent drain on our time, energy, and self-awareness.

#things ive learned #boundaries #growth mindset #social media

181 notes · View notes

glitchedember · 1 year ago

Text

Hiya!

So we all know that AI generators like Midjourney, Stable Diffusion, DALL.E, Sora.AI, etc. have stolen the work from artists online to train their AI and since AI is starting to get quite scary, I've decided I'm going to start protecting my work via Nightshade, but I want to also talk about it with you and link to the official sites to Glaze and Nightshade, so you can get either of these programs to try.

First off, we'll start with Glaze AI.

What Glaze aims to do is to act on the defensive against AI. Glaze will scramble their generators by placing a “protective glaze” over your work, and what this will do, is when your work is fed into the AI, it'll trick the AI into thinking your work is something entirely different from what it is, simply by making small changes that only the AI will pick up on

To quote the official site “Glaze is a system designed to protect human artists by disrupting style mimicry. At a high level, Glaze works by understanding the AI models that are training on human art, and using machine learning algorithms, computing a set of minimal changes to artworks, such that it appears unchanged to human eyes, but appears to AI models like a dramatically different art style.”

I've tried using Glaze, but it's a very big program and my computer can't handle that, but I do highly recommend trying it out if you have the space for it.

If you wanna try it out, the link to the site can be found here.

Second is Nightshade.

Nightshade is aimed to “attack” the AI your work is being fed into. Like Glaze, Nightshade puts a protective “glaze” over your work, but it poisons your work and tricks the AI into messing up the user's prompt.

To quote the official site “Nightshade works similarly as Glaze, but instead of a defense against style mimicry, it is designed as an offense tool to distort feature representations inside generative AI image models. Like Glaze, Nightshade is computed as a multi-objective optimization that minimizes visible changes to the original image. While human eyes see a shaded image that is largely unchanged from the original, the AI model sees a dramatically different composition in the image.”

This program is also pretty big, but it's what my laptop is able to handle, so from here on out I'll be protecting my work with this. I'll also go back and protect my older works even if it's not as appealing as my newer works.

If you wanna try it out, the link to the site can be found here.

Keep in mind, these are only temporary solutions while we wait for more permanent ones.

But even if it's temporary, it's better than having no protection against the AI bros.

#glitch talks #fuck ai art #fuck ai all my homies hate ai #nightshade #glaze #protect your art #ai art is theft

828 notes · View notes

naamahdarling · 7 months ago

Text

I'm probably going to piss some people off with this, but.

The use of AI and machine learning for harmful purposes is absolutely unacceptable.

But that isn't an innate part of what it does.

Apps or sites using AI to generate playlists or reading lists or a list of recipes based on a prompt you enter: absolutely fantastic, super helpful, so many new things to enjoy, takes jobs from no-one.

Apps or sites that use a biased algorithm (which is AI) which is not controllable by users or able to be turned off by them, to push some content and suppress others to maximize engagement and create compulsive behavior in users: unethical, bad, capitalism issue, human issue.

People employing genAI to create images for personal, non-profit use and amusement who would not have paid someone for the same service: neutral, (potential copyright and ethics issue if used for profit, which would be a human issue).

People incorporating genAI as part of their artistic process, where the medium of genAI is itself is a deliberate part of the artist's technique: valid, interesting.

Companies employing genAI to do the work of a graphic designer, and websites using genAI to replace the cost of stock photos: bad, shitty, no, capitalist and ethical human issue.

People attacking small artists who use it with death threats and unbelievable vitriol: bad, don't do that.

AI used for spell check and grammar assistance: really great.

AI employed by eBay sellers to cut down on the time it takes to make listings: good, very helpful, but might be a bad idea as it does make mistakes and that can cost them money, which would be a technical issue.

AI used to generate fake product photos: deceptive, lazy, bad, human ethical issue.

AI used to identify plagiarism: neutral; could be really helpful but the parameters are defined by unrealistic standards and not interrogated by those who employ it. Human ethical issue.

AI used to analyze data and draw up complex models allowing detection of things like cancer cells: good; humans doing this work take much longer, this gives results much faster and allows faster intervention, saving lives.

AI used to audit medical or criminal records and gatekeep coverage or profile people: straight-up evil. Societal issue, human ethical issue.

AI used to organize and classify your photos so you don't have to spend all that time doing it: helpful, good.

AI used to profile people or surveil people: bad and wrong. Societal issue, human issue, ethical issue.

I'm not going to cover the astonishingly bad misinformation that has been thrown out there about genAI, or break down thought distortions, or go into the dark side of copyright law, or dive into exactly how it uses the data it is fed to produce a result, or explain how it does have many valid uses in the arts if you have any imagination and curiosity, and I'm not holding anyone's hand and trying to walk them out of all the ableism and regurgitated capitalist arguments and the glorification of labor and suffering.

I just want to point out: you use machine learning (AI) all the time, you benefit from it all the time. You could probably identify many more examples that you use every day. Knee-jerk panicked hate reflects ignorance, not sound principles.

You don't have beef with AI, you have beef with human beings, how they train it, and how they use it. You have beef with capitalism and thoughtlessness. And so do I. I will ruthlessly mock or decry misuse or bad use of it. But there is literally nothing inherently bad in the technology.

I am aware of and hate its misuse just as much as you do. Possibly more, considering that I am aware of some pretty heinous ways it's being used that a lot of people are not. (APPRISS, which is with zero competition for the title the most evil use of machine learning I have ever seen, and which is probably being used on you right now.)

You need to stop and actually think about why people do bad things with it instead of falling for the red herring and going after the technology (as well as the weakest human target you can find) every time you see those two letters together.

You cannot protect yourself and other people against its misuse if you cannot separate that misuse against its neutral or helpful uses, or if you cannot even identify what AI and machine learning are.

370 notes · View notes

n1pp · 5 months ago

Text

A Guide to Disconnecting With a Digital Detox Challenge

In our hyper-connected world, smartphones and other devices have become extensions of ourselves. Although convenient, there are times when it’s beneficial to disconnect and go on a digital detox challenge

While the internet has revolutionized the way we live, work, and play, it has also led to an increase in digital dependency, distracting us from paying attention, disrupting our sleep patterns, and affecting our mental health. A digital detox challenge offers a structured way to break free from digital dependency, re-evaluate our relationship with technology, and rediscover the joy of living in the present.

The Pitfalls of Hyper-Connectivity

In the age of digital abundance, hyper-connectivity and the incessant consumption of digital content have become pervasive, shaping behaviors and influencing mental health in profound ways. Although there are many benefits of being connected online, it’s also important to understand the issues and recognize the need for a balanced digital diet.

Hyper-connectivity refers to the state of being constantly connected to devices and the internet, making it virtually impossible to disconnect. While it offers unparalleled access to information and socialization, it also causes many challenges:

Information Overload: Constant exposure to a stream of information can overwhelm the brain, making it difficult to process information effectively and leading to decision fatigue.

Decreased Productivity: The myth of multitasking on digital platforms can actually hamper productivity, as the brain switches between tasks, reducing efficiency and increasing mistakes.

Emotional Exhaustion: The need to be always available and responsive on various communication platforms can lead to burnout and emotional exhaustion.

Overconsumption of Content

The digital world offers an infinite stream of content, from news and entertainment to social media updates. Overconsumption of this content can have several negative impacts

Attention Span: Continuous scrolling and content consumption can reduce the ability to focus on a single task for extended periods, affecting learning and comprehension.

Echo Chambers: Algorithms designed to show users content that aligns with their views can create echo chambers, limiting exposure to diverse perspectives and contributing to social polarization.

Addictive Behaviors: The design of many platforms, aimed at maximizing user engagement, can lead to addictive patterns of behavior, making it difficult for individuals to limit usage.

Influence of Social Media

While social media has transformed the way we connect and share with others, its overuse has been linked to several negative outcomes

Mental Health: Excessive social media use has been associated with increased rates of anxiety, depression, and loneliness, particularly among adolescents and young adults.

Distorted Reality: Social media platforms often portray idealized versions of life, leading to unhealthy comparisons and feelings of inadequacy or jealousy.

Sleep Disruption: The use of social media before bedtime can interfere with sleep quality, due to both the stimulating effects of screen light and the emotional engagement with content.

The Benefits of a Digital Detox

A digital detox involves a period during which a person refrains from using tech devices such as smartphones, computers, and social media platforms. The goal is to reduce stress, focus on social interactions in the physical world, and engage more deeply with the immediate environment.

Mental Health: Constant notifications and the pressure to be always "on" can lead to anxiety and stress. Disconnecting helps in reducing these symptoms, enhancing overall emotional well-being.

Enhanced Focus: Without the constant distractions of digital devices, you can focus better on tasks, leading to improved productivity and efficiency in both personal and professional endeavors.

Better Sleep: Screen time, especially before bed, can interfere with sleep quality. A digital detox can help normalize sleep patterns, leading to more restful and restorative sleep.

Improved Relations: Spending less time on devices allows more time for face-to-face interactions, strengthening relationships with family, friends, and colleagues.

Increased Creativity: Stepping away from digital screens provides the mental space to think more deeply and creatively, fostering new ideas and solutions to problems.

Enhanced Wellness: Reducing screen time can encourage self-care and inspire a more healthy lifestyle, especially decreasing the risks associated with sedentary living.

More Gratitude: Disconnecting from the digital world helps in cultivating a greater appreciation for the little things in life, enhancing mindfulness and gratitude for the present moment.

Higher Self-Esteem: Social media can often lead to comparisons that affect self-esteem negatively. A detox can help in breaking this cycle, improving confidence and happiness.

Reduced Dependency: Taking regular breaks from digital devices helps in reducing dependency, making it easier to enjoy downtime without feeling the need to check in online.

Enhanced Privacy: Stepping back from online spaces can also protect personal privacy by reducing the amount of personal information shared on the internet, decreasing exposure to potential data breaches and privacy invasions.

Plan Your Digital Detox Challenge

SET CLEAR GOALS

Begin by defining what you want to achieve with your digital detox. Is it to reduce stress, improve sleep, or spend more time with loved ones? Having clear goals will help guide your process.

START SMALL

If the idea of completely disconnecting feels overwhelming, start small. Designate certain times of the day as tech-free, such as during meals or an hour before bed.

INFORM YOUR CIRCLE

Let your friends, family, and colleagues know about your digital detox challenge. This helps set expectations and reduces the anxiety of missing out.

REMOVE TEMPTATIONS

Uninstall social media apps or use tools to limit your screen time. The less accessible your devices are, the easier it will be to resist the temptation.

PLAN ALTERNATIVES

Identify activities to fill the time you would typically spend on devices. Whether it's reading a book or hosting a dinner party, find something that enriches you.

During the Digital Detox Challenge

EMBRACE BOREDOM

Boredom sparks creativity and self-reflection. Allow yourself to feel bored without reaching for your phone as an easy escape.

ENGAGE IN MINDFULNESS

Use this time to engage in activities that require your full attention and presence, such as meditation, cooking, or gardening.

CONNECT WITH NATURE

Spending time in nature can have a profound effect on your mental and physical well-being. Take walks, go for hikes, or simply spend time in a local park.

REFLECT AND JOURNAL

Use this period to reflect on your relationship with technology. Consider keeping a journal to document your experiences, thoughts, and feelings.

After the Digital Detox Challenge

EVALUATE YOUR EXPERIENCE

After completing your digital detox, take time to evaluate the experience. What did you learn? What habits do you want to change moving forward?

SET NEW BOUNDARIES

Based on your detox experience, set new boundaries for your digital device use. This might include designated tech-free times or days, limiting social media use, or turning off notifications.

ENHANCE YOUR ROUTINE

Make digital detoxing a part of your daily routine. Regularly unplugging, even if just for a few hours, can help maintain the benefits of your detox.

The challenges posed by hyper-connectivity, overconsumption of content, and excessive social media use highlight the importance of digital detoxes and mindful engagement with technology. By recognizing these issues and taking proactive steps to manage our digital consumption, we can mitigate the negative impacts on our mental health, productivity, and personal relationships.

173 notes · View notes

thebreakfastgenie · 6 months ago

Note

I'm not anti-vote or anything, but I think some of the liberals on here greatly overrate how much damage a bunch of bored kids (most of whom probably can't even legally vote) talking shit on social media can actually do to the Democrats. So what if they turn out braindead "Genocide Joe" memes by the thousands per week? No meaningful voter would pay attention to those, and anyone who does never had a vote worth chasing in the first place.

The problem is that it's not just a bunch of bored kids. It feeds a larger social media ecosystem. Remember "cancel culture?" Remember how that became a right wing talking point that conservatives whined about in mainstream settings? That has its roots on tumblr. If you ever doubted that fringe social media movements affect mainstream politics, 2024 should have been the final nail in the coffin. JD Vance has very signifcant (and, frankly, underreported) ties to online far right communities (known as "groypers" to the terminally online) and it absolutely influenced his campaign and now he's bringing those interests to the vice-presidency. Elon Musk (the owner of twitter) and Vivek Ramaswamy want to run a government office named DOGE after a meme. We're sharing the internet with the people in power; we're all playing with live ammo. It's often a ripple effect or butterfly effect, so it's very difficult to predict what memes and posts from "bored kids" will make it to real life politics and how they'll be transformed along the way. Because it's so hard to predict, we need to be aware of the possibility and act with care. "Genocide Joe" memes contributed to a general feeling of dissatisfaction with Biden that, intentionally or not, played into the Trump campaign's "everyone hates Biden" narrative. A similar thing happened with Hillary in 2016.

Elections are also won and lost on the margins. Campaigns spend billons on ground games that persuade a very small percentage of voters, but it's better to persuade that percentage than not to. If you don't know if something is going to make a difference, you act as if it is when the stakes are high. Is the drag from a constant negative social media narrative going to hurt a campaign? Maybe, and either way it's definitely not going to help, so it's better not to have it. 2016 and 2024 were both very close elections.

Liberals also tend to interpret bored kids' posts as statements of action. If someone says they don't want a Democrat to win, will try to stop it, and will tell other people not to vote for that candidate, liberals are going to object to that.

It's usually not "meaningful voters" who decide elections. It's low-information swing voters who make up their minds on the way to the voting booth. These voters are, consciously or unconsciously, often influenced by perceived popular opinion. A lot of people don't have deeply held values that they've spent time examining, but have moral compasses more akin to "if everyone I know thinks this, it must be right." The danger of social media is that is also distorts the meaning of "everyone I know." Your meme about how you hate Joe Biden finds its way into an algorithmically-generated bubble and someone says "gee, it seems like everyone I know hates Joe Biden, I generally trust my social circle, he must be really bad." And it's self-reinforcing. They start sharing it or making similar posts of their own and it spreads to their contacts in their own bubbles.

I don't think the exact mechanisms or limits or this phenomenon are fully understood yet because social media is still too new, but it's very real.

197 notes · View notes

and-then-there-were-n0ne · 1 year ago

Text

I read this week that Instagram is pushing “overtly sexual adult videos” to young users. For a Wall Street Journal investigation, journalists created accounts that could belong to children, following young gymnasts, cheerleaders and influencers. The test accounts were soon served sexual and disturbing content on Instagram Reels, alongside ads for dating apps, livestream platforms with “adult nudity” and AI chatbots “built for cybersex”. Some were next to ads for kids’ brands like Disney.

This is something I’ve been trying to get across to parents about social media. The problem is not just porn sites. They are of course a massive concern. Kids as young as nine are addicted. The average age to discover porn is now 13, for boys and girls. And many in my generation are now realising just how much being raised on porn affected them, believing it “destroyed their brain” and distorted their view of sex.

But the problem is bigger than that. Porn is everywhere now. TikTok is serving up sex videos to minors and promoting sites like OnlyFans. The gaming platform Twitch is exposing kids to explicit live-streams. Ads for “AI sex workers” are all over Instagram, some featuring kids’ TV characters like SpongeBob and the Cookie Monster. And there’s also this sort of “soft-porn” now that pervades everything. Pretty much every category of content that kids could stumble across, from beauty trends to TikTok dances to fitness pages, is now pornified or sexualised in some way for clicks.

I think this does a lot of damage to Gen Z. I think it desensitises us to sex. I think it can ruin relationships. But beyond that, I also believe a major problem with everything being pornified is the pressure it puts on young girls to pornify themselves. To fit the sex doll beauty standard; to seek validation through self-sexualisation, and potentially monetise all this like the influencers they’re inundated with.

Which, of course, puts girls at risk of predators. Predators who are all over TikTok, Instagram and Snapchat. Predators whose algorithms helpfully deliver them more content of minors and steer them towards kids’ profiles. Predators who are taking TikToks of underage girls and putting them on platforms like Pornhub.

And this is even more terrifying because adolescent girls are especially vulnerable today. They are vulnerable anyway at that age—but today they have far less life experience than previous generations of girls did. They are extremely insecure and anxious, and much less resilient. Combine this with the fact that they are now more easily exposed to predatory men than ever before in history, and served to strangers by algorithms. And another thing: girls are also able to look way older now. They have AI editing apps to sexualise themselves. TikTok filters to pornify their bodies. And access to every kind of make-up and hair and fashion tutorial you can think of to look sexier and more mature. I don’t think enough parents realise how dangerous this situation is.

Which is why I find it so frustrating to see some progressives downplay the dangers of all this. Those that dismiss anyone concerned about the pornification of everything as a stuffy conservative. And somehow can’t see how the continual loosening of sexual norms might actually empower predatory men, and put pressure on vulnerable girls? That seems delusional to me.

Let’s just say I have little patience for those on the left who loudly celebrate women sexualising themselves online, selling it as fun, feminist and risk-free, but are then horrified to hear about 12 year-olds doing the same thing. C’mon. No wonder they want to.

But I also find it frustrating to see some on the right approach this with what seems like a complete lack of compassion. I don’t think it helps to relentlessly ridicule and blame young women for sexualising themselves online. I don’t think it’s fair either. We can’t give girls Instagram at 12 and then be surprised when as young women they base their self-worth on the approval of strangers. We can’t inundate kids with sexual content all the time and be shocked when they don’t see sex as sacred, or think sex work is just work! We can’t give them platforms as pre-teens where they are rewarded for sexualising themselves and presenting themselves like products and then shame them for starting an OnlyFans. We can’t expose them to online worlds where everything is sexualised and then be confused why some of Gen Z see their sexuality as their entire identity.

And again, on top of these platforms, girls are growing up in a culture that celebrates all of this. They are being raised to believe that they must be liberated from every restraint around sex and relationships to be free and happy, and many have never heard any different. Celebrities encourage them to be a slut, get naked, make/watch porn and make money! Mainstream magazines teach them how to up their nude selfie game! Influencers tell millions of young followers to start an OnlyFans, and pretend it’s about empowering young girls to do whatever they want with their bodies! I can’t say this enough: their world is one where the commodification and sexualisation the self is so normalised. It’s heartbreaking. And cruel that anyone celebrates it.

So sure, young women make their own choices. But when we have children sexualising themselves online, when girls as young as 13 are using fake IDs to post explicit content on OnlyFans, when a third of those selling nudes on Twitter are under the age of 18, I think it’s safe to say we are failing them from an early age.

I guess what I’m trying to get across is this: it’s tough for girls right now. It’s tough to be twelve and anxious and feel unattractive and this is how everyone else is getting attention. It’s tough to constantly compare yourself to the hyper-sexualised influencers that the boys you’re interested in are liking and following and thinking you have to compete. It’s tough to feel like the choice is sexualise yourself or nobody will notice you. The sad reality is we live in a superficial, pornified culture that rewards this stuff, and in many ways punishes you if you’re modest and sensitive and reserved, and a lot of girls are just trying to keep up with it.

We need serious cultural change. We need to wake up to how insane this all is, how utterly mental it is that we allow young girls anywhere near social media, and how we’ve let the liberalising of sexual mores escalate to the point where pre-teens are posing like porn stars and are lied to that it’s liberation. And where we need to start is with an absolute refusal from parents to let their kids on these platforms.

So please. If the relentless social comparison and obliteration of their attention span and confusion about their identity wasn’t enough, this has to be. Don’t let your daughters on social media.

#social media #freya #freya india

949 notes · View notes