#like. that one? that elon musk?

[lynxgirlpaws]

I don’t understand your joke about Turks and Romanians being cissy. What do they have to do with cis?

Transylvania -> Cisylvania Transcaucasia -> Ciscaucasia Trans just means across, and so there's tons of regions named after being... across a mountain range or other region. Like Transylvania, being across .. well this one is across the woods [I had assumed an area of the Carpathians was named Sylvania, although apparently that just means 'the woods' or something of that matter] ... meaning Cisylvania would just be. On the same side of the woods that whoever named it is from. Same with Transcaucasia being the name for countries on the other side of the Caucasus mountains, Ciscaucasia would be on the same side of the Caucasus as whoever named it. Although I had assumed it was the Romans that named it [meaning 'our side' would be in Turkiye/Anatolia] but apparently after a quick google search Ciscaucasia is actually the NORTH Caucasus, meaning it'd be the Russian side. The same with Italy. Transalpine is north of the Alpine mountains, Cisalpine is south of the Alpine mountains. For the South African bit, there was the province of Transvaal in South Africa which was... across the Vaal river. And so - Cisvaal would be south of the Vaal river. If I remember the post I said it on, it was someone saying that Cis is a slur... but like. That is just the word for 'on this side' in latin. And there are places... just. Named that. Because it's "on this side" of whatever power named the region. Hope this is mildly helpful 👍

[accursedvoid]

Things are completely normal on the bird hellsite

[amiacalvas]

The funniest thing to me about the blue checkmark thing is that for most previously verified Twitter users $8 is a fart in the wind of their wealth and they still wouldn’t pay it and rightfully so because it’s such a dumb fucking idea

[multi-lefaiye]

something about a gameshow where the goal is "get second place" is just so funny. this season is off to an amazing start

[destielmemenews]

Neuralink reportedly killed at least a dozen monkeys during the animal testing of the implants. Despite this, Musk has announced that Neuralink is ready to begin human trials.

source 1 (content warning for graphic descriptions of animal injury and death)

source 2

source 3

[tanadrin]

#Day 1: write “Elon Musk run over by self driving cybertru-” for legal reasons I probably shouldn't continue

I think if the worst person you can think of in the world right now is Elon Musk, you suffer either from a severe lack of imagination, or are unduly focused on the proximate kulturkampf.

[joeb91]

Xbox got rid of the feature a few months ago too.

Last I checked the Switch still has it, but who knows how long that'll last.

[manofmanymeats]

This guy is literally such a creep

[crinkle-eyed-boo]

I know we’re like shitposting about the apparent and imminent demise of Twitter but I can’t help but feel like a library is on fire. So much fandom history is potentially going to be lost. I know screen shots and all that are forever and there are tumblr master posts but there’s also something about physically going to Louis’ account and seeing AIMH right there. Or Liam’s snake habitat tweet. Or Niall’s last night was a great night but no one talk to me tweet. All of baby Larry’s lovesick nonsense. IDK man. It’s fucking depressing.

[captainjonnitkessler]

It is becoming increasingly clear to me that many people on this site get their opinions on the apparent scourge of edgy far-right atheists not from actually talking to any atheists, but from just assuming that any random edgelord they see online is an atheist and forming their opinions from there

[pink-psychic]

For anyone wondering what’s going on with Imane Khelif now that she won gold:

Bonus (lmao):

[andthespidersfrommars]

the amount of love, admiration and respect I hold for imane khelif

[viridescenttemple]

I SOMETIMES WONDER IF I SHOULD MAKE A TWITTER MAIN AGAIN TO POST MY ART IN, BUT EVERYTIME I THINK ABOUT IT A NEW UPDATE THAT FUCKS UP THE SITE HAPPENS AND MY DESIRE TO DO GOES BELOW 0 LMAO

[brasiliangp]

gagged him a bit

[batwynn]

Hello. So I have a genuine, honest question as someone who isn't an artist. I saw you made a post about AI art floating around Tumblr lately. How does one differentiate between AI-created art vs. ACTUAL art? Some things have been easier to notice than others (ie: YouTube videos and like, moodboards and the opening to Secret Invasions) but for art specifically, are there any key things to look out for that make it obvious it's AI generated? I do not support AI in any fashion but in this day and age I do find it increasingly more difficult to tell the difference between something that was created by AI vs. created by an actual person.

Hi anon! So, heads up this might be a bit long of a post but I wanted to point out some things that I don't see frequently mentioned in other posts about A.I stuff.

First things first: Look at their other 'art' pieces. If they have a generally consistent style, a consistent type of work (Realism vs ink art for example), characters you see more than once and from different angles, character sheets, etc. You're going to notice if someone suddenly switches from little ink doodles to fully colored and realistically rendered 'art'. Now, this doesn't mean everyone switching styles or mediums is A.I, but it means to take a closer look if you notice something vastly different than their usual stuff. More A.I. clues below!

For things to look for, there's a lot of different clues but generally you're going to notice a certain new car shine to everything. Everything will be a little too clean, even if the style they are ripping off is sketchy. Sketches will have crosshatching that doesn't really make sense or random lines in a place that an artist probably would not put there. That being said, here's some examples where that isn't as noticeable:

Here you've got your usual body/anatomy problems. (Plus some elements I'll talk about later as well. This one's got it all!)

Glitchy foot, glitchy hands. glitchy eyes. Strange proportions for legs that don't exactly fit a stylization, but more of an glitch. Now, of course an artist can draw 'glitchy' things like this either by accident or intentionally, but you really only see these types of things in A.I vs actual art of a similar style. Realism artists are generally not adding extra fingers or varying sized fingers, they're not rendering the foot to only have too many toes, missing toes, and the foot also... sort of part shoe. Unless art artist is otherwise intentionally including these elements, it's generally a clear cut example of A.I stuff. (For example: Different body types and disabilities exist, and there are people with different shaped hands, shorter/longer fingers etc. But you will also usually find some kind of info with the post about the person/character that will tell you about them that can clue you in on if it's A.I vs real art.) If the artists are drawing in a style with 'exaggerated' anatomy, you can almost always see that as a persistent and intentional STYLE in their art. If they aren't, this is something you'll really notice in A.I vs realism. It can be especially true with people who fully render realistic art because it's not in line with the style, and the relevant elements of rendering art this way. Artists who do realistic rendering at this level generally know their anatomy very well, and are going for realism in all elements of the art. Some stuff like the exaggerated long legs in women are kind of everywhere, but the hands, the foot, the lopsided winky eyes (I don't know how to describe it) are not things a professional artist rendering realistic art would generally do. It's just not in line with the style, or the ability/skill that the artist has worked on. (Again, unless completely intentionally and in line with the person/character.)

For 'real' life items like the tables below, you've really just got to ask yourself: Is this physically possible? Do all the elements make sense and actually work together in a real way?

Sometime it's hard to know if you don't have any experience with, for example, acrylic and wood table making. But there are things that just don't work in real life, and there are things that maybe someone can do, but even in the provided examples it just doesn't make sense to do. For example, the little 'tree' hanging from the bottom of the left table. Would that be possible? Probably. Would someone do that? Probably not. If you're really stumped, sometimes just looking up videos of people making that type of thing can give you a better idea of what actually works together, how it's made, etc.

Here's something that really helps when you're really struggling and zooming in for every detail: TANGENTS

Ok, so tangents in art are when you're drawing a thing, like hair, and it's lining up with a different object to the point where the visual line continues from one part of art to another and it looks really unrealistic/weird. Most artists figure out how to avoid this on their own just from noticing it and feeling uncomfortable with how it looks, while others learn via the internet etc. It can happen in anyone's art at any skill level, but the amount that it happens in A.I stuff is HUGE. It's almost every single image, and you can really notice it in places where something overlaps like hair or, from the above image with the money: there's two bills that just kind of bleed together. From the same image, you can also see how her hair bleeds into the wrinkles of her jacket in an unnatural way. Comparatively, you can see in the Hela art I did below that there are overlapping elements like the hair and the ribbons behind it that do not mesh or bleed together.

Something else to look at: Symmetrical elements that don't work right. So, this is kind of getting harder to see depending on what they're generating as a subject matter and the style they are using. As always, there is a disclaimer for this. Art does not always have perfect symmetrical elements in it.

For example: in the real world, this dude's coat would have more clean symmetrical elements. As it is a sketchy doodle, they're there but they're not 100% symmetrical. With a LOT of A.I stuff, you'll notice that something meant to be mirrored on the other side of the clothing, room design, etc. is actually completly wonky/incorrect or not even there at all.

For example, in this A.I we have missmatching elements on both sides. Not only in things that could be designed to be asymmetrical, but also things that 100% should be mirrored. The left side under the buckle on the shoulder has a diamond shape. The right has a weird spikey thing. The little leaf pattern on the gold lapel area appears to be just blobs on the right side. The left shoulder area has a button and additional little detail under the buckle area. It is not there on the right side. And, again, some of this can be intentional with real art. Her arm bands could be intentionally different, for example. But elements that clearly should be reflected on the other side and are very clearly not are generally a good clue that it's A.I. A few last moment things to look out for:

Styles that are recognizable someone else's whole thing. Example: The monstrosity that someone just generated that is supposedly Calvin and Hobbs. It's pretty easy to tell because it looks like shit right now, but generally if someone is ripping off a distinct style of someone famous, it's probably A.I or at least worth double checking.

Did they suddenly start doing ______? This could be anything, backgrounds, drawing horses, full color, etc. But if they're suddenly, overnight just BOOM they're 'drawing' in a whole other style, it's suddenly really rendered, and/or there's no 'growing pains'/work shown that they've started working on drawing the thing they never drew before... It's time to take a closer look. Last but not least, look for the language they use around the stuff they're putting out. A.I people are often... a certain type. They use a lot of that NFT bro lingo that can tip you off. The tags might be all over the place for styles, or tagging certain famous artist's styles, etc. They also can be a bit more blatant in the tags and just outright tag A.I or NFTs somewhere in there. And, in the end, if you really can't tell and you really love the thing and want to share it: Ask an artist. Or just don't share it.

Thanks for reading, and I hope this is helpful in some way!

[thenonbinarydetective]

There's something that always bothers me about people saying "Barbara going back to being disabled" doesn't matter if it's positive, negative, or neutral. It's the "going back" part because it's just not true. She wouldn't be going back, she would just be without assistive medical technology.

In the closest real-life example, not everyone who uses similar technology is considered "cured" as the removal of the device would mean they are no longer enabled. In only a few cases have I ever seen "cured" but that's potentially dependent on injury/cause of disability where it was possible the device just made recovery easier and there are many different causes to SCIs/paralysis/similar conditions. Others have no chance of recovery but have a chance of being enabled. But still not fully becoming an able-bodied person. Even some of the ones who recovered their ability to walk were still limited in what they were capable of (and therefore still disabled)

So honestly now, it's just coming to me how bad representation the chip is of similar realistic treatment and disabled people who use that treatment. Before anyone is like "But Barbara's isn't real" I know that, but now I'm literally seeing people say the same shit about REAL PEOPLE who have had nearly THE SAME TREATMENT because they're letting poor representation in a comic book determine how they view this course of medical treatment.

TLDR: No Barbara Gordon wouldn't "go back" to being disabled without the chip. Writers and fans aren't good at writing disability and it shows