#self-serve infrastructure

[atozofsoftwareengineering]

Introducing Data Mesh

Check out my latest video on #DataMesh - an emerging approach to data architecture that is revolutionizing data ownership and management. #DataArchitecture #DecentralizedData #DataOwnership

Please do not forget to subscribe to our posts at www.AToZOfSoftwareeEgineering.blog. Listen & follow our podcasts available on Spotify and other popular platforms. Have a great reading and listening experience!

[dailyadventureprompts]

Monsters Reimagined: Bandits

As a game of heroic fantasy that centers so primarily on combat, D&D  is more often than not a game about righteous violence, which is why I spend so much time thinking about the targets of that violence. Every piece of media made by humans is a thing created from conscious or unconscious design, it’s saying something whether or not its creators intended it to do so. 

Tolkien made his characters peaceloving and pastoral, and coded his embodiment of evil as powerhungry, warlike, and industrial. When d&d directly cribbed from Tolkien's work it purposely changed those enemies to be primitive tribespeople who were resentful of the riches the “civilized” races possessed. Was this intentional? None can say, but as a text d&d says something decidedly different than Tolkien. 

That's why today I want to talk about bandits, the historical concept of being an “outlaw”, and how media uses crime to “un-person” certain classes of people in order to give heroes a target to beat up. 

Tldr: despite presenting bandits as a generic threat, most d&d scenarios never go into detail about what causes bandits to exist, merely presuming the existence of outlaws up to no good that the heroes should feel no qualms about slaughtering. If your story is going to stand up to the scrutiny of your players however, you need to be aware of WHY these individuals have been driven to banditry, rather than defaulting to “they broke the law so they deserve what’s coming to them.”

I got to thinking about writing this post when playing a modded version of fallout 4, an npc offhndedly mentioned to me that raiders (the postapoc bandit rebrand) were too lazy to do any farming and it was good that I’d offed them by the dozens so that they wouldn’t make trouble for those that did. 

That gave me pause, fallout takes place in an irradiated wasteland where folks struggle to survive but this mod was specifically about rebuilding infrastructure like farms and ensuring people had enough to get by. Lack of resources to go around was a specific justification for why raiders existed in the first place, but as the setting became more arable the mod-author had to create an excuse why the bandit’s didn’t give up their violent ways and start a nice little coop, settling on them being inherently lazy , dumb, and psychopathic.   

This is exactly how d&d has historically painted most of its “monstrous humanoid” enemies. Because the game is ostensibly about combat the authors need to give you reasons why a peaceful solution is impossible, why the orcs, goblins, gnolls (and yes, bandits), can’t just integrate with the local town or find a nice stretch of wilderness to build their own settlement on and manage in accordance with their needs. They go so far in this justification that they end up (accidently or not) recreating a lot of IRL arguments for persecution and genocide.

Bandits are interesting because much like cultists, it’s a descriptor that’s used to unperson groups of characters who would traditionally be inside the “not ontologically evil” bubble that’s applied to d&d’s protagonists.   Break the law or worship the wrong god says d&d and you’re just as worth killing as the mindless minions of darkness, your only purpose to serve as a target of the protagonist’s righteous violence.  

The way we get around this self-justification pitfall and get back to our cool fantasy action game is to relentlessly question authority, not only inside the game but the authors too. We have to interrogate anyone who'd show us evil and direct our outrage a certain way because if we don't we end up with crusades, pogroms, and Qanon.

With that ethical pill out of the way, I thought I’d dive into a listing of different historical groups that we might call “Bandits” at one time or another and what worldbuilding conceits their existence necessitates. 

Brigands: By and large the most common sort of “bandit” you’re going to see are former soldiers left over from wars, often with a social gap between them and the people they’re raiding that prevents reintegration ( IE: They’re from a foreign land and can’t speak the local tongue, their side lost and now they’re considered outlaws, they’re mercenaries who have been stiffed on their contract).  Justifying why brigands are out brigading is as easy as asking yourself “What were the most recent conflicts in this region and who was fighting them?”. There’s also something to say about how a life of trauma and violence can be hard to leave even after the battle is over, which is why you historically tend to see lots of gangs and paramilitary groups pop up in the wake of conflict. 

Raiders:  fundamentally the thing that has caused cultures to raid eachother since the dawn of time is sacristy. When the threat of starvation looms it’s far easier to justify potentially throwing your life away if it means securing enough food to last you and those close to you through the next year/season/day. Raider cultures develop in biomes that don’t support steady agriculture, or in times where famine, war, climate change, or disease make the harvests unreliable. They tend to target neighboring cultures that DO have reliable harvests which is why you frequently see raiders emerging from “the barbaric frontier” to raid “civilization” that just so happens to occupy the space of a reliably fertile river valley. When thinking about including raiders in your story, consider what environmental forces have caused this most recent and previous raids, as well as consider how frequent raiding has shaped the targeted society. Frequent attacks by raiders is how we get walled palaces and warrior classes after all, so this shit is important. 

Slavers: Just like raiding, most cultures have engaged in slavery at one point or another, which is a matter I get into here. While raiders taking captives is not uncommon, actively attacking people for slaves is something that starts occurring once you have a built up slave market, necessitating the existence of at least one or more hierarchical societies that need more disposable workers than then their lower class is capable of providing. The roman legion and its constant campaigns was the apparatus by which the imperium fed its insatiable need for cheap slave labor. Subsistence raiders generally don’t take slaves en masse unless they know somewhere to sell them, because if you’re having trouble feeding your own people you’re not going to capture more ( this is what d&d gets wrong about monstrous humanoids most of the time). 

Tax Farmers: special mention to this underused classic, where gangs of toughs would bid to see who could collect money for government officials, and then proceed to ransack the realm looking to squeeze as much money out of the people as possible. This tends to happen in areas where the state apparatus is stretched too thin or is too lighthanded to have established enduring means of funding.  Tax farmers are a great one-two punch for campaigns where you want your party to be set up against a corrupt authority: our heroes defeat the marauding bandits and then oh-no, turns out they were not only sanctioned by the government but backed by an influential political figure who you’ve just punched in the coinpurse.  If tax farming exists it means the government is strong enough to need a yearly budget but not so established (at least in the local region) that it’s developed a reliably peaceful method of maintaining it.  

Robber Baron: Though the term is now synonymous with ruthless industrialists, it originated from the practice of shortmidned petty gentry (barons and knights and counts and the like) going out to extort and even rob THEIR OWN LANDS out of a desire for personal enrichment/boredom. Schemes can range from using their troops to shake down those who pass through their domain to outright murdering their own peasants for sport because you haven’t gotten to fight in a war for a while.  Just as any greed or violence minded noble can be a robber baron so it doesn’t take that much of a storytelling leap but I encourage you to channel all your landlord hate into this one. 

Rebels: More than just simple outlaws, rebels have a particular cause they’re a part of (just or otherwise) that puts them at odds with the reigning authority. They could violently support a disfavoured political faction, be acting out against a law they think is unjust, or hoping to break away from the authority entirely. Though attacks against those figures of authority are to be expected, it’s all too common for rebels to go onto praying on common folk for the sake of the cause.  To make a group of rebels worth having in your campaign pinpoint an issue that two groups of people with their own distinct interests could disagree on, and then ratchet up the tension. Rebels have to be able to beleive in a cause, so they have to have an argument that supports them.

Remnants: Like a hybrid of brigands, rebels, and taxfarmers, Remnants represent a previously legitimate system of authority that has since been replaced but not yet fully disappeared. This can happen either because the local authority has been replaced by something new (feudal nobles left out after a monarchy toppling revolution) or because it has faded entirely ( Colonial forces of an empire left to their own devices after the empire collapses). Remnants often sat at the top of social structures that had endured for generations and so still hold onto the ghost of power ( and the violence it can command) and the traditions that support it.  Think about big changes that have happened in your world of late, are the remnants looking to overturn it? Win new privilege for themselves? Go overlooked by their new overlords?

Art

[deadpresidents]

On the cliffs of Normandy, in a small holding area, the President of the United States was looking out at the English Channel. It was only six weeks ago, on the 80th anniversary of the D-Day landings, and President Biden had just finished his remarks at the American cemetery atop Omaha Beach. Guests had been congratulating him on the speech, but he didn't want to talk about himself. The moment was not about him; it was about the men who had fought and died there. "Today feels so large," he told me. "This may sound strange -- and I don't mean it to -- but when I was out there, I felt the honor of it, the sanctity of it. To speak for the American people, to speak over those graves, it's a profound thing." He turned from the view over the beaches and gestured back toward the war dead. "You want to do right by them, by the country."

Mr. Biden has spent a lifetime trying to do right by the nation, and he did so in the most epic of ways when he chose to end his campaign for re-election. His decision is one of the most remarkable acts of leadership in our history, an act of self-sacrifice that places him in the company of George Washington who also stepped away from the presidency. To put something ahead of one's immediate desires -- to give, rather than to try to take -- is perhaps the most difficult thing for any human being to do. And Mr. Biden has done just that.

To be clear: Mr. Biden is my friend, and it has been a privilege to help him when I can. Not because I am a Democrat -- I belong to neither party and have voted for both Democrats and Republicans -- but because I believe him to be a defender of the Constitution and a public servant of honor and of grace at a time when extreme forces threaten the nation. I do not agree with everything he has done or wanted to do in terms of policy. But I know him to be a good man, a patriot and a president who has met challenges all too similar to those Abraham Lincoln faced. Here is the story I believe history will tell of Joe Biden. With American democracy in an hour of maximum danger in Donald Trump's presidency, Mr. Biden stepped in the breach. He staved off an authoritarian threat at home, rallied the world against autocrats abroad, laid the foundations for decades of prosperity, managed the end of a once-in-a-century pandemic, successfully legislated on vital issues of climate and infrastructure and has conducted a presidency worthy of the greatest of his predecessors. History and fate brought him to the pinnacle in a late season in his life, and in the end, he respected fate -- and he respected the American people.

It is, of course, an incredibly difficult moment. Highs and lows, victories and defeats, joy and pain: It has been ever thus for Mr. Biden. In the distant autumn of 1972, he experienced the most exhilarating of hours -- election to the United States Senate at the age of 29. He was no scion; he earned it. The darkness fell: His wife and daughter were killed in an automobile accident that seriously injured his two sons, Beau and Hunter. But he endured, found purpose in the pain, became deeper, wiser, more empathetic. Through the decades, two presidential campaigns imploded, and in 2015 his son Beau, a lawyer and wonderfully promising young political figure, died of brain cancer after serving in Iraq.

Such tragedy would have broken many lesser men. Mr. Biden, however, never gave up, never gave in, never surrendered the hope that a fallen, frail and fallible world could be made better, stronger and more whole if people could summon just enough goodness and enough courage to build rather than tear down. Character, as the Greeks first taught us, is destiny, and Mr. Biden's character is both a mirror and a maker of his nation's. Like Franklin Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan, he is optimistic, resilient and kind, a steward of American greatness, a love of the great game of politics and, at heart, a hopeless romantic about the country that has given him so much.

Nothing bears out this point as well as his decision to let history happen in the 2024 election. Not matter how much people say that this was inevitable after the debate in Atlanta last month, there was nothing foreordained about an American President ending his political career for the sake of his country and his party. By surrendering the possibility of enduring in the seat of ultimate power, Mr. Biden has taught us a landmark lesson in patriotism, humility and wisdom.

Now the question comes to the rest of us. What will we the people do? We face the most significant of choices. Mr. Roosevelt framed the war whose dead Mr. Biden commemorated at Normandy in June as a battle between democracy and dictatorship. It is not too much to say that we, too, have what Mr. Roosevelt called a "rendezvous with destiny" at home and abroad. Mr. Biden has put country above self, the Constitution above personal ambition, the future of democracy above temporal gain. It is up to us to follow his lead.

-- "Joe Biden, My Friend and an American Hero" by Jon Meacham, New York Times, July 22, 2024.

[bobbile-blog]

Okay so I've finally gotten to Jessicalter's Oprec and now feel qualified to talk about Come Catastrophes or Wakes of Vultures. holy shit. This went straight into my list of top Arknights events. Fantastic event, spoilers will be under the cut so I HIGHLY RECOMMEND reading the event first. It's really good and worth your while.

Anyway, what follows is a scattered mess of thoughts about this event and things that stuck out to me.

First off, plot stuff! I'll probably cover this when I do my next plotline recap post, but what I took away from the end is that Clip Cliff seems to want to make Blacksteel independent, or at least more self-determining than it is now. He seems to be gathering resources and assets like mobile city plates and investing in long-term infrastructure like merc training, so he definitely has a long game he's pushing for. I don't think we know enough go speculate about his goals, but we'll definitely be coming back here again. After all, Tila has an infection monitor in her art, which probably means she's going to be playable at some point in the future.

Next, having looked into this a little on my own, I was interested in some of the previous places Raythean has shown up. Specifically, the ones that stood out were the drones in the Kazimierz Major and arming Silverash's forces in Kjerag, which might be referring to the Tschäggättä. It's not just notable for their apparent level of technology, but also as a faint connecting thread between three separate capitalism plotlines. I don't know if that's going to be meaningful in the future, but I found it interesting enough that I thought I'd bring it up.

Now on to more narrative things. While I love Liskarm and Franka, I do think it was the right choice to give them less screen time in this event. They're both (for the most part) fully-realized characters who understand their own motivations and morals. This is above all else an event about Jessica learning to stand on her own as an adult, so it makes sense that they're more here to support her than they are to play their own roles in the story.

Speaking of said roles, I liked the event's commentary on cops. It pointed out an interesting distinction that I wouldn't really have ever thought of, that between mercenaries and cops. To start: cops exist to protect property, not people. The police exist to protect things and do not have an obligation to err on the side of people over things, and in fact are supposed to do the opposite. This event understands that, and that role os the core of how the bank treats the Blacksteel mercs. CV, however, raises an interesting point that mercenaries are bound by the letter of a contract and not the larger obligation to property cops are, so they can actually raise moral objections and point to their contracts, sort of a Lawful Evil/Lawful Neutral to cops' Neutral Evil. The independence of their position with respect to cops allows for more of an independent morality than you'd get in a cop story and I like that, I think it's a really smart direction to take your writing in.

On a (mostly) separate note, holy shit Arknights is really good at writing cowboy stories. Between this and chapter 9 (and I would argue An Obscure Wanderer), Arknights has repeatedly made it clear that they Do Not Fuck Around with their cowboy stories and I'm surprised I haven't heard more people talking about it. It kinda has everything:

- It takes place in a rural, working-class setting undergoing a larger imminent societal shift that can inform the larger narrative, and deals with a semi-mythologized past that is rapidly disappearing.

- It has a protagonist and an antagonist that serve as foils, both very heavily affected and defined by the (same) violence in their past that they've both had different reactions to. Our protagonist has come to terms with the violence as a tool to maintain order, while our antagonist has used it for personal gain and in some ways lost control of it.

- It's a story about community, and heavily emphasizes local and personal community over larger artificial corporate "community". That's my reading of the recurring motif of the cold btw, warmth represents the close, personal community Davistown used to have and the cold that now pervades it comes from how the bank has systematically dismantled that community.

- And, I'd argue most importantly, it understands the narrative power of a bullet. The Showdown at the end of a cowboy story is powerful because we've spent the entire runtime of our story with these characters, and they are now facing each other down with the intent to end one of their collective two stories. The entire weight of the narrative so far comes to rest on a single moment of tension. It's really hard to gather up the kind of narrative momentum you need to make that hit like it does in CV. For example, it requires a really light hand with actual action in the story, so that it really does feel like it's an even standoff between our protagonist and antagonist. On the other hand, though, you do actually have to establish the relative skill of both parties and actually sell the danger of the moment to the audience. It's really hard to toe the line between tension and actual action in a way that makes for a satisfying resolution, and CV does it extremely well.

Honestly, Arknights just seems really good at getting the vibes of American media right. This is something I noticed in DV and Lonetrail too, and I haven't really been able to put my finger on what it is about them, but the vibes are just really on-point. I want to write more about this at a later point once I actually figure out what it is that I'm feeling, but maybe it's the setting, maybe it's the cast, maybe it's the plot points, maybe it's something in between — it just seems to understand the spirit of period cowboy stories in a way that I can't describe. Good shit.

Finally, I wanna end this with where Jessica is now. The events of CV take place In between the events of Loneterail and Ideal City, so the current "now" of the story is a few months ahead. Jessica left for the frontier along with Woody, Helena, and Miles. They live together in a small new settlement, building the place from the ground up with Woody and Jessica acting as town sherrifs. At the point we're at now, rhe town is fairly well-established and Woody has temporarily left on other business, leaving Jessica the sole sherrif of their new settlement. However, she's risen to her new station, and is growing into a stronger person than she ever was before.

[f-ckingawful]

a vice president nominee has fallen from the coconut tree and your local autistic motherfucker is here to summarize Tim Walz's wikipedia page!

democrat (obv) from minnesota

worked in blue collar manufacturing and served in the army reserve national guard after graduating high school, then worked as a social studies teacher

policies as MN governor include free school meals, increased state infrastructure spending, codifying abortion rights, free college tuition for low income families, and gun background checks

GERMAN IMMIGRANT FAMILY LETS FUCKING GOOOOOO ME TOO BUD

IN 1999 HE WAS THE FACULTY ADVISOR FOR THE FIRST GSA AT THE HIGH SCHOOL HE TAUGHT AT!

volunteered for a democratic candidate in the 04 election because when he tried to attend a bush rally, the security staff harassed his students because one of them had a sticker on their wallet for a dem candidate

advocates for veterans rights

co sponsored a bill to raise minimum wage

supported by planned parenthood, aclu, american immigrant lawyers organization, and national organization for women, to name a few

ranked in 2013 as 7th most bipartisan member of congress

advocated and legalized recreational weed in MN

voted against 2008 bill to offer 14 billion in loans for automobile manufacturer bailouts

denounced the nra after parkland and in 2023 signed MN laws that established universal background checks and red flag laws

supporter of labor/workers rights + public school staff rights

public supporter of the queer community and our rights, including banning conversion therapy and protecting gender affirming care in MN

condemned the oct 7 hamas attacks, but has since voiced that he supports the protestors, palestine's right to self defense, and the idea of ceasefire

supports abortion rights as stated multiple times. the national right to life committee (presumably pro life guys) rated him 0% and planned parenthood rated him 100% (these ratings are presumably "how much does this guy align with our organization's views")

DON'T GIVE UP! VOTE! THERE SEEMS TO BE A GENUINELY PROGRESSIVE VP NOMINEE! WE BALL

[nextstop-fixationstation]

OK analysis time! Matt said that Marcy's affection towards Sasha was more surface level than Anne's, which was described as "complicated." People might assume that this means that Marcy's affection for Sasha wasn't deep, or that their relationship wasn't.

If we're being honest here they weren't presented as having depth to their relationship so much as having acts and services. They're on the level with each other and can interpret each other's needs for a plan but they are lacking somehow when it comes to each other's emotional needs. This is something Darcy touches upon when they say they might not have ever been friends at all, and might be a core conflict between Sasha and Marcy. It's also a good example of why Anne is the actual Heart of their friendship. She connects and makes their dynamic deeper. While Marcy is desperate to keep people together and hates being alone, she admits she lacks a core understanding of emotional intelligence and this is something she admires in Anne. Marcy treats herself as a tool and mostly makes friends by doing things for them and complimenting them. She's kind of the perfect POV character for a journal that gives lore specifically because she's very attentive to things like strengths and weaknesses and team synergy, but isn't necessarily attuned to emotional intelligence. She kind of blocks herself off from feeling certain things too keenly or doubting herself, and masks it using this peppy overachiever persona.

Maybe if Marcy were more emotionally self aware, she would have been even more openly hurt by how dismissive Sasha is of her interests (even though Sasha clearly does like nerdy things), or she would have noticed that her friends don't really care for RP (etc). But in the series what we see is a Marcy so afraid of being left alone that she'll hide every emotion and every hurt aside from what she thinks will make people stay - she delivers compliments, improves infrastructure, says all the right things to earn trust. She's a great twist antagonist! Admitting that her friends don't or can't reciprocate her interests or desires is important to her arc, because it serves as a lesson to her that friendship is more than just doing things together or doing things for each other. Marcy and the others aren't just tools in schemes and plans.

We hear from Anna that Sasha has difficulty knowing when to bring other people to the table, so for someone like Marcy who thinks that she needs to earn everything through acts/upgrades, it makes sense that their relationship remained very surface level. Neither of them pushes the other to see things differently, while Anne does. Anne can acknowledge where people hurt and hurt her, and can acknowledge that this doesn't mean they aren't friends or significant to each other. Anne notes the complexity! It's why she's so compelling.

So, Marcy acknowledging how hurt she is that her friends don't want to do what she wants is significant because she also says, "I believe in you." Love goes beyond the stuff we do for each other. There's a bit of faith, too. What she did isn't right either. Being hurt isn't an excuse.

Darcy isn't just "evil Marcy," the Core is also every temptation for Marcy. Escapism, distraction, perfect friends who go on quests with her whenever she wants. There's a darkness to this kind of insecure attachment that Darcy reveals. Fear of inadequacy and irrelevance. Fear of loss. Fear of change. Fear of what is deeper than skin deep. Maybe my friends will forget me if I move. Maybe I'm just their nerd, just like Sasha's just cool. So their relationship isn't surface level to us, because this nuance is communicated to us through the subtleties of the show's execution. It's a really well acted, well boarded, well written show with fantastic music! It's really amazing!

Sasharcy IS very complicated! But it's complicated because they never dig deeper with each other until it's too late. It's also why it's significant that Sasha is the one to ask, "Can we save this friendship?"

Why is friendship with Marcy so easy? Is it because they got along and there's mutuality here, or is it because they didn't let themselves get any deeper than what was easy? It's so easy for them to just be the controller and the executor.

Forgiveness is hard. Forgiveness takes time. It takes a lot of thought, discussion, and work. Friendship in the long term, deep enough to mean something and hurt when it's gone, is similar. It's not just sentimentality and acts of appeasement.

aaaaand that's what i think matt meant when he was like "marcy's affection for sasha was kind of surface level"! I will admit I was like noooo Matt noooo don't say it was surface level whyyyy but like i had time to think abt it so i'm fine now lol lmk ur thoughts💙

smth i didn't add to my original tweet thread is that i DO find it interesting that marcy appears to specifically empathize with the experience of lonely people who grow up a certain way or doing things a certain way to protect themselves from loneliness. she seems to have an intuitive understanding of people fitting into groups via niches, but is drawn to people who already seem like outcasts as opposed to being able to identify it when someone is surrounded by people they seem to easily connect with. Marcy has this fundamentally insecure and lonely viewpoint that makes her very interesting to read and analyze, and I suspect it also contributes to her popularity. I mean, clearly *I* love her

[possumcollege]

NOBODY needs to be defending these people. Major publishers, studios, streaming services, Tesla, Apple, Adobe, Amazon, social media companies- there isnt a single altruistic bone caught in their teeth. Profit from the output of exploited and captive labor IS their product now. When their contacts look like the one in question, the company is clearly stating that shareholders are the customers, not us!

Why else would it be anything but a stupid idea for Amazon to just nuke the majority of Comixology's self-published titles when they consolidated their services? If our experience was really foremost in their minds, why would they repeatedly purge, censor, demonitize, bury, and delete popular accounts with robust followings if not to allay the moral brainworms of shareholders and investors?

Forfeiting rights to our IP is not a "shitty deal," it's surrendering any potential ability to make money off of your own creative work. It's selling your property to a board of accountants to pitch into a portfolio. It's theirs to trot out as long as it's profitable and bury the instant its projected profit dips too close to the cost of maintenance. Hell, we've seen services drop popular series just because their projected profits started to flatten out! Mothballing it also has the added bonus of removing it from the market to further minimize potential competition. Like how there just weren't spider man movies for ages because the owner of the property didn't think it was worth developing but worth too much to sell.

They will make more money from suing you for trying to reclaim IP they mothballed than you did selling it to them in the first place. I guaranteee their budget for lawsuits is a lot deeper than the one they pay their "original" artists from.

By virtue of being a big, profitable, corporation, "their" IP is going to have an astronomically higher value in a court of law than any individual creator. The financial "damage" will be higher for infringing on their copyrights than any amount you can claim on your own. When it becomes theirs, their connections, their infrastructure, their reputation makes it an asset with much more value than you or I can possibly claim. So if you try to steal a bite back from them it's a bite of a *potentially* multimillion-dollar series. In their eyes, they bought the totality of your work, which you agreed was worth the price they gave you. It's value becomes more dependent on who owns it than whether it's even good.

You may not have the same potential to become flash-in-the-pan, short-term succesful without their resources, but you will still own your rights to distribute, alter, preserve, promote, and negotiate your share if you still own your work. That is worth everything as a creator who is passionate about what you've made and committed to protecting it.

The most effective power we can exercise as artists is our ability to say, "no" when someone else wants to pay us a disadvantageous fraction of our worth. You may lose potentially lucrative opportunities but "opportunities" presented by companies like Facebook or Twitter, whose real product is a platform for ads and data collection, with content as bait, are not opportunities to thrive on as independent artists. This specifically is an opportunity for the company to acquire property.

The myth that the publisher's strength is something for us to exploit, without them getting the lion's share is a trap that they feed from at will.

People like the poster up top are opportunists who see the process as a pipeline towards trading low-investment content for financial treats and maybe a share of ad revive. They're stalking horses for companies to exploit more talented but less experienced artists who are facing a daunting and overwhelming market where their work becomes harder and harder to show, let alone sell. A quick deal may feel like a win but it's selling the cow to save money on bottling the milk. Artists like this serve the publisher by making it seem like signing away your rights are just a necessary part of the game. However it's a game they are playing with exceedingly cheap stakes that weren't going to succeed on their own merit. So what if Mr. Business Perspective loses rights to his sexy Mario Bros. parody to a huge company? The point was always to unload it because it's a product, a bartering chip, a trinket. He's a Business Man, so he sees tactics that maximize profits to the business as maximizing their ability to buy whatever shiny tripe he cranks out. The business is his customer, not the reader. The business is his ally, not the creative community. Fuck him and fuck anyone who tells you the exposure is worth a damn if you don't retain rights to your work.

[mostlysignssomeportents]

"Open" "AI" isn’t

Tomorrow (19 Aug), I'm appearing at the San Diego Union-Tribune Festival of Books. I'm on a 2:30PM panel called "Return From Retirement," followed by a signing:

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/festivalofbooks

The crybabies who freak out about The Communist Manifesto appearing on university curriculum clearly never read it – chapter one is basically a long hymn to capitalism's flexibility and inventiveness, its ability to change form and adapt itself to everything the world throws at it and come out on top:

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch01.htm#007

Today, leftists signal this protean capacity of capital with the -washing suffix: greenwashing, genderwashing, queerwashing, wokewashing – all the ways capital cloaks itself in liberatory, progressive values, while still serving as a force for extraction, exploitation, and political corruption.

A smart capitalist is someone who, sensing the outrage at a world run by 150 old white guys in boardrooms, proposes replacing half of them with women, queers, and people of color. This is a superficial maneuver, sure, but it's an incredibly effective one.

In "Open (For Business): Big Tech, Concentrated Power, and the Political Economy of Open AI," a new working paper, Meredith Whittaker, David Gray Widder and Sarah B Myers document a new kind of -washing: openwashing:

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4543807

Openwashing is the trick that large "AI" companies use to evade regulation and neutralizing critics, by casting themselves as forces of ethical capitalism, committed to the virtue of openness. No one should be surprised to learn that the products of the "open" wing of an industry whose products are neither "artificial," nor "intelligent," are also not "open." Every word AI huxters say is a lie; including "and," and "the."

So what work does the "open" in "open AI" do? "Open" here is supposed to invoke the "open" in "open source," a movement that emphasizes a software development methodology that promotes code transparency, reusability and extensibility, which are three important virtues.

But "open source" itself is an offshoot of a more foundational movement, the Free Software movement, whose goal is to promote freedom, and whose method is openness. The point of software freedom was technological self-determination, the right of technology users to decide not just what their technology does, but who it does it to and who it does it for:

https://locusmag.com/2022/01/cory-doctorow-science-fiction-is-a-luddite-literature/

The open source split from free software was ostensibly driven by the need to reassure investors and businesspeople so they would join the movement. The "free" in free software is (deliberately) ambiguous, a bit of wordplay that sometimes misleads people into thinking it means "Free as in Beer" when really it means "Free as in Speech" (in Romance languages, these distinctions are captured by translating "free" as "libre" rather than "gratis").

The idea behind open source was to rebrand free software in a less ambiguous – and more instrumental – package that stressed cost-savings and software quality, as well as "ecosystem benefits" from a co-operative form of development that recruited tinkerers, independents, and rivals to contribute to a robust infrastructural commons.

But "open" doesn't merely resolve the linguistic ambiguity of libre vs gratis – it does so by removing the "liberty" from "libre," the "freedom" from "free." "Open" changes the pole-star that movement participants follow as they set their course. Rather than asking "Which course of action makes us more free?" they ask, "Which course of action makes our software better?"

Thus, by dribs and drabs, the freedom leeches out of openness. Today's tech giants have mobilized "open" to create a two-tier system: the largest tech firms enjoy broad freedom themselves – they alone get to decide how their software stack is configured. But for all of us who rely on that (increasingly unavoidable) software stack, all we have is "open": the ability to peer inside that software and see how it works, and perhaps suggest improvements to it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBknF2yUZZ8

In the Big Tech internet, it's freedom for them, openness for us. "Openness" – transparency, reusability and extensibility – is valuable, but it shouldn't be mistaken for technological self-determination. As the tech sector becomes ever-more concentrated, the limits of openness become more apparent.

But even by those standards, the openness of "open AI" is thin gruel indeed (that goes triple for the company that calls itself "OpenAI," which is a particularly egregious openwasher).

The paper's authors start by suggesting that the "open" in "open AI" is meant to imply that an "open AI" can be scratch-built by competitors (or even hobbyists), but that this isn't true. Not only is the material that "open AI" companies publish insufficient for reproducing their products, even if those gaps were plugged, the resource burden required to do so is so intense that only the largest companies could do so.

Beyond this, the "open" parts of "open AI" are insufficient for achieving the other claimed benefits of "open AI": they don't promote auditing, or safety, or competition. Indeed, they often cut against these goals.

"Open AI" is a wordgame that exploits the malleability of "open," but also the ambiguity of the term "AI": "a grab bag of approaches, not… a technical term of art, but more … marketing and a signifier of aspirations." Hitching this vague term to "open" creates all kinds of bait-and-switch opportunities.

That's how you get Meta claiming that LLaMa2 is "open source," despite being licensed in a way that is absolutely incompatible with any widely accepted definition of the term:

https://blog.opensource.org/metas-llama-2-license-is-not-open-source/

LLaMa-2 is a particularly egregious openwashing example, but there are plenty of other ways that "open" is misleadingly applied to AI: sometimes it means you can see the source code, sometimes that you can see the training data, and sometimes that you can tune a model, all to different degrees, alone and in combination.

But even the most "open" systems can't be independently replicated, due to raw computing requirements. This isn't the fault of the AI industry – the computational intensity is a fact, not a choice – but when the AI industry claims that "open" will "democratize" AI, they are hiding the ball. People who hear these "democratization" claims (especially policymakers) are thinking about entrepreneurial kids in garages, but unless these kids have access to multi-billion-dollar data centers, they can't be "disruptors" who topple tech giants with cool new ideas. At best, they can hope to pay rent to those giants for access to their compute grids, in order to create products and services at the margin that rely on existing products, rather than displacing them.

The "open" story, with its claims of democratization, is an especially important one in the context of regulation. In Europe, where a variety of AI regulations have been proposed, the AI industry has co-opted the open source movement's hard-won narrative battles about the harms of ill-considered regulation.

For open source (and free software) advocates, many tech regulations aimed at taming large, abusive companies – such as requirements to surveil and control users to extinguish toxic behavior – wreak collateral damage on the free, open, user-centric systems that we see as superior alternatives to Big Tech. This leads to the paradoxical effect of passing regulation to "punish" Big Tech that end up simply shaving an infinitesimal percentage off the giants' profits, while destroying the small co-ops, nonprofits and startups before they can grow to be a viable alternative.

The years-long fight to get regulators to understand this risk has been waged by principled actors working for subsistence nonprofit wages or for free, and now the AI industry is capitalizing on lawmakers' hard-won consideration for collateral damage by claiming to be "open AI" and thus vulnerable to overbroad regulation.

But the "open" projects that lawmakers have been coached to value are precious because they deliver a level playing field, competition, innovation and democratization – all things that "open AI" fails to deliver. The regulations the AI industry is fighting also don't necessarily implicate the speech implications that are core to protecting free software:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/04/remembering-case-established-code-speech

Just think about LLaMa-2. You can download it for free, along with the model weights it relies on – but not detailed specs for the data that was used in its training. And the source-code is licensed under a homebrewed license cooked up by Meta's lawyers, a license that only glancingly resembles anything from the Open Source Definition:

https://opensource.org/osd/

Core to Big Tech companies' "open AI" offerings are tools, like Meta's PyTorch and Google's TensorFlow. These tools are indeed "open source," licensed under real OSS terms. But they are designed and maintained by the companies that sponsor them, and optimize for the proprietary back-ends each company offers in its own cloud. When programmers train themselves to develop in these environments, they are gaining expertise in adding value to a monopolist's ecosystem, locking themselves in with their own expertise. This a classic example of software freedom for tech giants and open source for the rest of us.

One way to understand how "open" can produce a lock-in that "free" might prevent is to think of Android: Android is an open platform in the sense that its sourcecode is freely licensed, but the existence of Android doesn't make it any easier to challenge the mobile OS duopoly with a new mobile OS; nor does it make it easier to switch from Android to iOS and vice versa.

Another example: MongoDB, a free/open database tool that was adopted by Amazon, which subsequently forked the codebase and tuning it to work on their proprietary cloud infrastructure.

The value of open tooling as a stickytrap for creating a pool of developers who end up as sharecroppers who are glued to a specific company's closed infrastructure is well-understood and openly acknowledged by "open AI" companies. Zuckerberg boasts about how PyTorch ropes developers into Meta's stack, "when there are opportunities to make integrations with products, [so] it’s much easier to make sure that developers and other folks are compatible with the things that we need in the way that our systems work."

Tooling is a relatively obscure issue, primarily debated by developers. A much broader debate has raged over training data – how it is acquired, labeled, sorted and used. Many of the biggest "open AI" companies are totally opaque when it comes to training data. Google and OpenAI won't even say how many pieces of data went into their models' training – let alone which data they used.

Other "open AI" companies use publicly available datasets like the Pile and CommonCrawl. But you can't replicate their models by shoveling these datasets into an algorithm. Each one has to be groomed – labeled, sorted, de-duplicated, and otherwise filtered. Many "open" models merge these datasets with other, proprietary sets, in varying (and secret) proportions.

Quality filtering and labeling for training data is incredibly expensive and labor-intensive, and involves some of the most exploitative and traumatizing clickwork in the world, as poorly paid workers in the Global South make pennies for reviewing data that includes graphic violence, rape, and gore.

Not only is the product of this "data pipeline" kept a secret by "open" companies, the very nature of the pipeline is likewise cloaked in mystery, in order to obscure the exploitative labor relations it embodies (the joke that "AI" stands for "absent Indians" comes out of the South Asian clickwork industry).

The most common "open" in "open AI" is a model that arrives built and trained, which is "open" in the sense that end-users can "fine-tune" it – usually while running it on the manufacturer's own proprietary cloud hardware, under that company's supervision and surveillance. These tunable models are undocumented blobs, not the rigorously peer-reviewed transparent tools celebrated by the open source movement.

If "open" was a way to transform "free software" from an ethical proposition to an efficient methodology for developing high-quality software; then "open AI" is a way to transform "open source" into a rent-extracting black box.

Some "open AI" has slipped out of the corporate silo. Meta's LLaMa was leaked by early testers, republished on 4chan, and is now in the wild. Some exciting stuff has emerged from this, but despite this work happening outside of Meta's control, it is not without benefits to Meta. As an infamous leaked Google memo explains:

Paradoxically, the one clear winner in all of this is Meta. Because the leaked model was theirs, they have effectively garnered an entire planet's worth of free labor. Since most open source innovation is happening on top of their architecture, there is nothing stopping them from directly incorporating it into their products.

https://www.searchenginejournal.com/leaked-google-memo-admits-defeat-by-open-source-ai/486290/

Thus, "open AI" is best understood as "as free product development" for large, well-capitalized AI companies, conducted by tinkerers who will not be able to escape these giants' proprietary compute silos and opaque training corpuses, and whose work product is guaranteed to be compatible with the giants' own systems.

The instrumental story about the virtues of "open" often invoke auditability: the fact that anyone can look at the source code makes it easier for bugs to be identified. But as open source projects have learned the hard way, the fact that anyone can audit your widely used, high-stakes code doesn't mean that anyone will.

The Heartbleed vulnerability in OpenSSL was a wake-up call for the open source movement – a bug that endangered every secure webserver connection in the world, which had hidden in plain sight for years. The result was an admirable and successful effort to build institutions whose job it is to actually make use of open source transparency to conduct regular, deep, systemic audits.

In other words, "open" is a necessary, but insufficient, precondition for auditing. But when the "open AI" movement touts its "safety" thanks to its "auditability," it fails to describe any steps it is taking to replicate these auditing institutions – how they'll be constituted, funded and directed. The story starts and ends with "transparency" and then makes the unjustifiable leap to "safety," without any intermediate steps about how the one will turn into the other.

It's a Magic Underpants Gnome story, in other words:

Step One: Transparency

Step Two: ??

Step Three: Safety

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5ih_TQWqCA

Meanwhile, OpenAI itself has gone on record as objecting to "burdensome mechanisms like licenses or audits" as an impediment to "innovation" – all the while arguing that these "burdensome mechanisms" should be mandatory for rival offerings that are more advanced than its own. To call this a "transparent ruse" is to do violence to good, hardworking transparent ruses all the world over:

https://openai.com/blog/governance-of-superintelligence

Some "open AI" is much more open than the industry dominating offerings. There's EleutherAI, a donor-supported nonprofit whose model comes with documentation and code, licensed Apache 2.0. There are also some smaller academic offerings: Vicuna (UCSD/CMU/Berkeley); Koala (Berkeley) and Alpaca (Stanford).

These are indeed more open (though Alpaca – which ran on a laptop – had to be withdrawn because it "hallucinated" so profusely). But to the extent that the "open AI" movement invokes (or cares about) these projects, it is in order to brandish them before hostile policymakers and say, "Won't someone please think of the academics?" These are the poster children for proposals like exempting AI from antitrust enforcement, but they're not significant players in the "open AI" industry, nor are they likely to be for so long as the largest companies are running the show:

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4493900

I'm kickstarting the audiobook for "The Internet Con: How To Seize the Means of Computation," a Big Tech disassembly manual to disenshittify the web and make a new, good internet to succeed the old, good internet. It's a DRM-free book, which means Audible won't carry it, so this crowdfunder is essential. Back now to get the audio, Verso hardcover and ebook:

http://seizethemeansofcomputation.org

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/2023/08/18/openwashing/#you-keep-using-that-word-i-do-not-think-it-means-what-you-think-it-means

Image: Cryteria (modified) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:HAL9000.svg

CC BY 3.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/deed.en

[hussyknee]

it’s rare to find a sinhalese person (online atleast) who is supportive of tamil self-determination. genuine question: among leftist circles in sri lanka, how common is such a stance?

I don't know whether I'm a reliable source to answer this question because I'm very jaded about this in general. A couple of days ago, someone on the Sri Lanka Reddit started up discourse about Maitreyi Ramakrishnan's choice to reject identifying with the country that tried to genocide her people, which I'm still chewing wire about. I'm a very isolated person with a very small social circle of like-minded leftist friends. They're mostly not SinBud and anti SinBud nonsense, but none of them are Tamil and I'm the one who really convinced them about Eelam I think. The people I learned from, who are out there doing the work of building inter-ethnic dialogue and overturning Sinhalese propaganda, might have a more hopeful view.

Thing is, there's no one "leftist" faction here because "left" doesn't mean the same thing as it does in the West. The Rajapaksas' party SLPP is socialist, a legacy of their ancestor the SLFP who was the party aligned with the USSR. They and their voters and their saffron terror acolytes (Buddhist priesthood) are all for public infrastructure they can rob blind and central government they can use to crush minorities, and build on the nationalist fervour of genocidal Sinhalese Buddhism that's served both major parties independence. There's quasi-communists, descendants of the ethnonationalist Marxist JVP that rose in opposition to the class corruption of ethnonationalist USSR-aligned socialist SLFP and enthonationalist US-aligned neoliberal UNP. They've since distanced themselves from their ethnic myopia, possibly due to suffering much of the same state terrorism as minorities via militarisation and policies like the draconian Prevention of Terrorism Act. They're the most vocal about the abolition of the executive presidency, the defunding of military and police, and restructuring and executing the long-mismanaged socialist infrastructure. These are usually the working class and university students, but their base has been growing in other demographics too, since we "held our noses and voted" for the Yahapalana government in 2015 and it ended up fucking us over. But despite their sympathy with the suffering of Tamils and Muslims and favouring the devolution of power, most still cling to the idea that Sinhalese majoritarianism is a fair result of democracy.

The kind of pro-LGBT, anti-racist, feminist liberals that would pass muster with the western left otoh, are a minority of urban, English-speaking professionals. Their panacea for enthofascism is voting for the neoliberal party, whose idea of reducing corruption and increasing efficiency is privatizing everything, are against racism because it's bad for tourism, and coasts on the promise of never actively feeding ethnosupremacy, even if they won't do anything about it either. Both these groups hate each other but are equally deeply uncomfortable with if not entirely resistant to the idea that the North and East are Tamil lands colonized by the Sinhalese. Both groups are aware of the corruption and complicity of the Buddhist priesthood and are prepared to do exactly nothing about it.

What I'm trying to say is that Sinhalese Buddhist ethnosupremacy is baked in to the Sri Lankan political fabric. "Left" means jack shit when it comes to whether Tamils have rights, in much the same way that the western left agrees on everything except Palestine. It's a political no man's land everyone tries not to look at.

The fundamental problem is that Sinhalese people who know enough about 1958, 1983, or the full scope of genocide perpetrated against Tamils during the last push of the war, let alone all 26 years of it, are very much in the minority. It takes a particular education to understand that "Sri Lanka" is a post-colonial invention that took over from "Ceylon", which was nothing but a construct for the ease of British administration. As far as I know, this education is confined to activist organizations and whoever followed my sociology program. So my kind of anarchist leftism that calls the war a Tamil genocide with their whole chest and the priesthood saffron terrorists and recognises Eelam is, afaik, vanishingly small.

To be honest, I never really questioned the propaganda and narrative we've been spoon fed myself until I went to Canada when I was 23 to complete my anthro degree (became disabled and dropped out after). One thing that struck me was how racist the Sinhalese diaspora was. I was raised SinBud, my school didn't admit any non-Sinhalese, half my uncles were in the military, but these people that had left the country decades ago still hated Tamils and Muslims in a way that nobody else I knew did. I wondered whether this was what it had been like when it had all started; whether this hatred that seemed to have been preserved in amber was a true taste of what had ignited Black July. Suddenly the attitude of the Tamil diaspora towards the Sri Lankan government and Sinhalese people didn't seem so unreasonable.

Then, later in the same uni term, I went to an art exhibition of a white artist who travelled the world collecting information about their genocides and made art about them, and found a painting depicting Sri Lankan Tamils in 2008. Promptly had a meltdown. Went to the lady and told her tearfully that it was all propaganda, we didn't really hate Tamils, not even my uncles in the army hated Tamils, it was a war, the LTTE had terrorized us for my whole lifetime. Bless the woman, she didn't fight me, just let me cry at her and patted my hand and pretended to take me seriously. This made it easier for me to really think about what I knew once I'd stopped wailing and stamping. It prompted a years-long self-interrogation and fact finding that made me unearth how much brainwashing had been done to us by everyone, from our families to our school textbooks to news media. It's like the air we breathed was propaganda. And I still didn't know a fraction of what life had been like for Tamils (or Muslims) and the scope of atrocities perpetrated by the Sinhalese until I began my Society and Culture degree at the Open University when I was 30. The first year textbooks were only broadstrokes facts, but at last I found out about Gnananth Obeysekera, Prageeth Jeganathan, Stanley Thambaiya, Malithi DeAlwis. Their work on nation-making, ethnicity, historical revisionism, genocide and ethnic conflict and state terrorism...everything I should have been taught as a child. The chapters on the rapes and murders and shelling and war crimes and IDP camps were..indescribable. That was what properly radicalised me about Tamil self-sovereignty, because there's clearly no possible way the Tamil people will ever be safe and safeguarded under a Sinhalese majoritarian government.

I had to drop out of that programme too because of my health. But during the mass protests against the government in 2022, I learned even more about Tamil indigeneity, the extent of JR Jayawardena's crimes, and the persecution of Marxists and victims of the '71 and '89 insurrections. So much of the protests and their encampments were directed and galvanized by social media, that organised online and in-person lectures, teach-outs, and live discussions that anyone and everyone could attend right alongside the protests. I've never seen that kind of truly democratized, free, egalitarian civic education and discourse before. That was the very first time I saw academics, survivors, refugees and human rights activists being given a respectful platform, the masses hearing firsthand accounts from people of the North and East and witnesses of Black July. April to July 2022 was a truly golden bubble of time where I saw people finally start listening, believing, and challenging all their convictions. It was the closest we ever came to realising the hope that things could be different; that we could, as a society, understand how Sinhalese ethnosupremacy had been the black rot killing this country from the first, stop being racist Sinhala-first cunts and actually hold any of these murderers accountable.

Teach us to hope, I guess.

But I suppose it's no small thing that I learned about the Tamil resistance and struggle and taught all my friends about it. I'm sure they're informing their own circles in small ways too. These tendrils are hard to see, but they exist and grow. Especially with the fall of the Rajapaksas and their Bhaiyya contingent, more people can see ethnosupremacy for the grift that it is, and the younger generations are less defensive, more willing to listen and eager for justice and change. So I guess the answer is: not very common, but less uncommon than it used to be.

[martyreasemymind]

been thinking about the disparity in the fandom reaction to gator and billy when both have a history of racism and violent behavior, particularly when you can observe the contrast in a single individual (i.e. people who hate billy but love gator).

thinking about how gator's racism and violence is part of a larger, careful depiction and condemnation of a horrific political movement which has half the nation in a stranglehold. how it's woven into the overall narrative and is an integral piece of gator's past, present, and future in the story. how it's depicted as one dimension of a pervasive, poison ideology and infrastructure that is far, far larger than he is but that he undeniably plays a major part in perpetuating.

thinking about how billy's racism and violence is a vehicle for the writer's own egos and self-serving desire to depict themselves as caring about social justice by making a racist boogeyman. how it exists in a vacuum and is never spoken of again. how it exists to give the audience a reason to hate billy and nothing more. how it traumatizes black audience members so white audience members can feel good for hating it. how it is ABOUT the white characters and therefore the white writers and audience members who love to hate it instead of the black character and audience who are brutalized to make it happen.

thinking about how y'all hold sympathy and make excuses for gator but not for billy.

about y'all seeing a 27-year old man who is an active, integral part of a large-scale, violent right-wing militia as somehow more sympathetic than a 17-year-old boy who is lashing out in bigoted ways because he's getting hit in a bigoted household.

y'all hated billy because his racism was easier to see and it made you feel good about yourselves for hating it. y'all love gator because you have to squint to see his racism so you've decided that you can excuse it.

billy's racism affected characters you liked and therefore you, so it was a problem. gator's racism hasn't, so it isn't. it isn't an obstacle to your sympathy because you risk nothing by extending it. there are black men working for gator's father so you have decided that is evidence enough that the bigotry gator holds is not prohibitive. there are no convenient poc under threat to form your moral superiority around 'protecting', so it's an unfortunate character flaw instead of fundamental moral failing.

y'all will gladly gush over and rally behind the redemption of a grown man deliberately and willingly following a fascistic megalomaniac wife beater because his trauma has set him up to do nothing else. y'all will gladly celebrate the death of a teenager trapped in an abusive home who behaves violently and with bigoted motivations because his trauma has set him up to do nothing else.

the only difference between the two is the racism of one inconveniences you to consider and the other doesn't.

[atozofsoftwareengineering]

Data Mesh: Principles, Benefits, Drawbacks, and Best Practices

Check out my latest blog on #DataMesh - an emerging approach to data architecture that is revolutionizing data ownership and management. Learn about the principles, benefits, drawbacks, and best practices for implementing this innovative approach. #DataAr

In recent years, the concept of data mesh has gained a lot of attention in the data engineering community. The term was coined by Zhamak Dehghani, a principal consultant at ThoughtWorks, in a blog post published in May 2020. Since then, data mesh has become a popular topic in the data engineering world, with many organizations exploring its potential benefits. Data mesh is a new approach to data…

[riacte]

hope you don't mind me asking, but how do you write/characterise ren?

Hi, thanks for the ask!

For me, Ren has a very distinct character voice, so usually I put in a few words from the Rendog language post and it does like 70% of the work if it's nothing too serious. Hit the dialogue with the Rendogification beam! I know there's a post of people Rendogifying DSMP quotes and it's hilarious. Add a "my dude" before/ after his dialogue and it'll usually work. And maybe pepper in some "get in line"s. Or "outrageous!", "geez", "freakin'".

For HC Ren / Ren in general, I put him as like... a friendly, enthusiastic, charismatic guy who's very supportive of his friends and he's always eager to help. He is kind and sees the best in everyone. He's also very dramatic and unashamed of his dramatic tendencies (singing out loud, posing, twirling). And of course he flirts. He flirts with everything. He's probably flirted with someone's houseplant. He wants everyone to get in line for him. He makes a lot of inappropriate jokes (check my #the rd difference tag) which is greeted with complete silence.

But underneath that, I think he's a guy who tends to look down on himself / self deprecating and he is soooooo self sacrificial. He's gonna be good at something then go "I've never been good at anything 🥺". And he is genuinely so eager to sacrifice himself at all times; he'll probably throw himself in front of his friends to save them. And I think Ren is terrified of being lonely which is why he's clingy. If you leave him to his devices for too long he'll literally burn / blow up his base (Last Life, HC 7). Ren is fantastic with words, he's optimistic and naturally good at bringing people together, but he's also just a doggy who wants company.

Ren is quite talkative and he can ramble about random topics forever. But he also occasionally asks questions to his friends so they can contribute to the conversation. And I think he's fantastic as a storyteller because not only is he a master at "yes, and", he also likes including his friends and subtly inviting them to roleplay with him.

Ren is highly sentimental and remembers a lot of memories. He's not afraid to go sappy and sincere and vulnerable, but then again there's his fear of being a burden. Ren has a tendency to trail after competent, snarky, and mildly intimidating people (insert Ren's greens: Doc, Iskall, Martyn, False, etc) and enjoys being lovingly bullied and lovingly used as a punching bag. He lovesssss being a pathetic lil guy. He loves acting sad and soggy. And he kinda loves being beheaded and beheading his friends.

Ultimately, I think Ren greatly values company and loyalty, and always desires a tightknit group of people to belong to, maybe to even lead (Knights of the Square Table, Dogwarts, etc). And he wants to be useful and not be a burden, leading to his self sacrificial tendencies. He is so eager to serve and offer his services to the rest of the server— in HC, he likes selling / providing food in the early days (HC 4 he made a farm, HC 9 Gigapies) and then proceeds to build infrastructure for everyone to enjoy (HC 6 Hermit Railway Network), or come up with detailed "game" systems (HC 5 Hermitron (?) and HC 9 Hermit Quests). In that way, despite his theatrics, Ren is quite practical and down to earth. Give the man something to manage and he'll be happy.

I don't read a lot of HC fics nowadays but I don't think I've seen like, really severe mischaracterisation of Ren. Probably because Ren RPs a lot so he can RP as a lot of characters which decreases OOC-ness, maybe? Ren's a bit pathetic but he's not a coward, he will literally die for his friends. And while Ren might be a bit of a "derp", he has decent strategies (sometimes) which is mostly him accumulating resources + building a secure fortress (evident in Life series).

For Life series Ren, it's similar but more... guarded and cautious. Still desires a tight knit group of allies (usually his top priority). Still loves gathering his resources and building his defenses. Is kind and forgiving to the point he's taken advantage of (this behaviour decreases in latter series). And he loves his allies with all of his life and would die for them.

Oops, this got long lol. Hope this was helpful! :D

[lena-in-a-red-dress]

Nuanced Foil Lena AU Pt 3

After Lena's mic drop outside L-Corp, CatCo is aflurry by the time Kara arrives. During the morning's pitch meeting, James wants an official interview as soon as possible. Half the room turns to Kara, but she remains quiet, saved only by Nia volunteering herself as tribute.

"I'll reach out to her team," she offers. "Any particular angle you're looking for?"

James shakes his head. "We'll let her guide us on that-- make that clear to her people and it might get us in the door faster."

"On it."

---

To Kara's surprise, Lena accepts the interview offer with Nia almost immediately, and more than that, agrees to a fully televised interview at CatCo HQ. On the day of, Kara doesn't need to be there-- in fact, she's sure Lena would prefer if she wasn't. But she lurks in a corner of the studio with a handful of other reporters, watching as the finishing make up touches are made and the mic packs are given their final adjustments.

Her heart beats loudly in her chest as the room quiets, and the countdown starts.

"Thank you for being with us tonight, Miss Luthor." Nia's tone is rich and professional, betraying nothing of the relatively friendly conversation they'd shared before the cameras started rolling. "As I'm sure you can imagine, a lot of people have been asking questions following your comments earlier this week."

Lena smiles self-deprecatingly. "Of course-- Has another Luthor lost their mind? More at eleven."

She chuckles at herself, but where others might have seemed disingenuous in doing so, it only serves to make Lena more approachable. Nia's responding grin is a testament to that, with some of her first-big-interview jitters easing off, allowing her to relax just a little.

"But can you blame them? A Luthor speaking out against a Super certainly carries some heavy baggage."

Lena nods. "It does, unfortunately."

"So let's get the big question out of the way, shall we? Are you, Lena Luthor, denouncing Supergirl?"

"No, not at all," Lena delivers, her smile still in place. Historically, Lena's smiles in public interviews are a little too perfect to be real, but tonight the one she wears is warm, gentle, and humanizing.

"Yet you claimed Supergirl was a burden," Nia digs a little.

"I did. I do. Since her first appearance three years ago, National City's infrastructure has been overbudget to the tune of 1.6 billion dollars overall. That's a lot of money that the city simply doesn't have. It's money that its *citizens* don't have."

Nia nods thoughtfully. "But as a scientist, wouldn't you agree that corellation doesn't always equal causation?"

"Sometimes that's the case, and it can absolutely be said that equal or greater damage wouldn't have occurred without Supergirl in the mix. I'm certain studies are currently taking place to determine the true relationship, but really, the whole thing simply sheds light on the greater issue at hand."

"Which is?"

"Tell me, Miss Nal-- if you step out into the street and get hit by a car, what happens?"

Nia's eyes widen slightly. "Go to the hospital, hopefully!"

There's a laugh in her voice, and Lena joins in, waving her off. "Yes, of course! You're fine, maybe a few broken bones. But it's still an ER visit, maybe even an ambulance ride to get there. So who pays for all that?"

"My insurance, I would think. Or theirs."

"Bingo." Lena leans in, suddenly more intense. "Now let's say it wasn't a car that hit you. A hero pulls you out of the way, breaking your wrist in the process. They don't mean to, of course, but accidents happen. It may not even be a result of their speed or strength, just the wrong amount of pressure applied the wrong direction. What happens then?"

Nia blinks. She doesn't respond right away, which gives Lena the opportunity to continue.

"Do heroes have insurance that would cover medical bills? Could you take a hero to court and sue for damages?"

Kara's stomach clenches, and she has to fight every urge she has to not to interrupt, to rescue her protegee from the offensive Lena is suddenly on.

"What if Supergirl is investigating a crime, and believes there is relevant evidence inside your home. Do heroes have the burden of obtaining a warrant before entering your residence? If she gets the house number wrong, and enters an entirely different home by accident, what recourse do those homeowners have to get repaid for property and emotional damages?"

The studio is so quiet, one could hear a pin drop. But where everyone else seems stunned, Nia looks thoughtful.

"Are you saying that heroes shouldn't do what they do to help protect the public?"

Lena eases back in her chair a little bit, shaking her head. "I think it's clear by now that without heroes, National City wouldn't be here. It certainly wouldn't be the same city it is today, at the very least."

"So what are you suggesting?"

"Oversight. Legislation. Regulation." Lena shrugs. "Think about it-- every other position within our judicial system, as flawed as it is, requires demonstrable qualifications. Lawyers have the bar, police officers undergo months of training... to what standards do we hold a hero?"

"It's sounding a little like you're calling for registration," Nia hedges.

Lena lifts her hands. "I understand that's a slippery slope when it comes heroes, or really anyone with special abilities. I won't speak to that. And honestly, I'm not claiming to have all the answers. I'm just asking the questions."

Shifting in her seat, Nia glances at her notepad. "And what would you say to those concerned that you're following in your brother's footsteps? As you say, it can be a slippery slope."

Taking a deep breath, Kara watches Lena consider her answer. For a moment, Lena's gaze unfocuses as she thinks, looking inward, before sharpening with resolve.

"I would say... you're right to be concerned. I certainly was, making the decision to say anything on the matter. In a lot of ways, I don't feel like I have the right to ask these questions. But if not me, then who? Who has the platform or the privilege to ask and actually be heard?"

"So you have responsibility."

Lena smiles again, close-lipped and sweet.

"I'd say we all do, don't you think?"

[yokowan]

The bus is late. You tug uncomfortably at the mask of your pressure suit. This isn't your first time wearing one by any means, but it certainly doesn't help make the walls of the city leaning in around you feel any less stifling. An old man lowers himself onto the bench next to you. "Y'on't look like yer from here. Mariner Valley?" You reflexively jump in your seat a little, alarmed by the unprompted attempt at conversation. "Y-yeah. How could you tell?" "Ah, all you communists look the feckin same." You open your mouth as if to speak, before electing not to respond.

WELCOME TO MARS MOTHERFUCKERS

It is two hundred and fifty-odd years in the future. Mars, once a cold dead husk, is now a developed world with bustling industry and a contested legal status that hasn't become a problem yet because everyone chooses to ignore it. The planet has slowly been gaining a breathable atmosphere, not through any concerted terraforming effort, but instead because oxygen is produced as a byproduct of many metal refining processes. After over a century of heavy industry, the parts of the planet's surface at low elevation have a high enough atmospheric pressure that crops can be grown in the open air, and humans can survive without needing a pressure suit.

Which parts of the planet become breathable first has a huge impact on Martian socioeconomics, leading me to perhaps my strangest science fiction writing project yet:

THE REGIONAL STEREOTYPES OF MARS

EAT MY TAINT YOU GODDAMN MARINER HIPPIES

Hellas

Hellas is a large impact basin surrounded by the southern highlands. Its very low elevation means it was one of the first parts of the Martian surface to have arable land, and provided the majority of the planet's food before most agriculture moved north. The height of the surrounding terrain traps in moisture, resulting in it being the most lush part of Mars, containing its only wild grasslands. Hellas is the most populous region of Mars, and is home to the planets colonial administrative capital of Badwater.

Hellas' habitability and developed infrastructure means it is the region of Mars most frequently visited by outsiders. Its culture and general appearance have become Earth's main conception of the planet.

Hellas is positioned on the opposite side of the planet to Mars' other major population centers, so overland travel is inconvenient and uncomfortable. This has made it quite culturally isolated, with much of the planet seeing the region's citizens as stuck up, backwards, and blind to the plight of the average Martian. Having the planet's oldest settlements, Hellas' residents view themselves as being the "real" Martians, and hold some resentment towards the rest of the planet for being so weak-willed and forgetting their roots.

Chryse

Chryse is a large, flat plain in the northern hemisphere. Its elevation is mostly not low enough to be habitable to humans without pressure suits, but genetically modified plants thrive in the nutrient-rich alluvial soil. Though Chryse's population is quite small, only having a couple of dense towns located in deep craters, it provides a majority of the planet's food.

Chryse's inhabitants are commonly perceived as easygoing, hospitable and a bit simple-minded. That is, if they are perceived at all. Despite its importance, the region is often forgotten in discussions of Mars.

As its exports are mostly local to Mars and occasionally to the outer solar system, the region finds itself largely isolated from Earth politics. This is a point of pride for its inhabitants, who consider themselves for this reason to be truest Martians, embodying a spirit of independence and self-reliance.

Mariner Valley

Mariner Valley is a system of rift valleys near Mars' equator. Its higher elevation means that it became habitable slightly later than Hellas, but the moderate climate and abundant water make it highly desirable as a place of habitation. Originally it served as a staging point for people and cargo moving to and from mining settlements on Tharsis, but it slowly evolved into a highly developed center for manufacturing and industry.

The region's value as a manufacturing hub which is easily accessible to the outer solar system makes it highly desirable to Earth corporations, who have long been vying for political influence in the area. This is met with resistance from many of the locals, upset that the fruits of their labor are largely spent on the interests of Earth instead of bettering their own planet. Mariner Valley is the nucleus of a socialist independence movement, and is currently under partial administration by the Martial Coalition. This is allowed to exist as it serves to take some administrative burden off of the colonial government and doesn't inconvenience them, though any acknowledgment of its existence is completely informal and under very vaguely defined terms.

Depending on who you ask, Mariner Valley is either a place for well-meaning but starry-eyed and unrealistic idealists, or a rotting trench full of communists. Its anyone's guess, really. Broadly, Mariner Valley sees itself as the future of Mars: real, red-blooded Martians who truly believe in their people.

Tharsis

Tharsis Rise, often simply "the rise", is a massive plateau around the Martian equator. Its high altitude and harsh winds render it uninhabitable. Its valuable deposits of highly accessible ore minerals mean that people live there anyways. A pressure suit is needed to be outside here. At moderate altitudes, a partial counterpressure suit to assist with breathing is sufficient. In the mountains, full body pressures suits are necessary to prevent bodily fluids from flash boiling.

Settlements in this region are largely run by Earth corporations and structured entirely around resource extraction. Despite the huge value of the area's resources, it remains among the planet's poorest. Escaping poverty proves particularly difficult when your boss sets the price of oxygen. Public perception is largely divided, with some people seeing the struggles of Tharsis as a symbol of Mars' oppression, and others seeing it as their just comeuppance for being lazy and reliant on handouts from Earth.

The population of Tharsis is spread out, and apart from a few large settlements with good transportation, isolated from the rest of the planet. They are not linked by kinship nor ideology, but are together in their misery. They're born in the dirt, they work in the dirt, and they die in the dirt. In the dirt, they're one people, and what's more truly Martian than that?

All elevation maps were made with MOLA data using JMARS

[darkmaga-retard]

A New Russia Has Emerged

Paul Craig Roberts

Dmitry Trenin reports that Russia has come to its senses and, as I have long recommended, turned her back on the West, a morally debauched, socially dysfunctional, and politically disunited and disintegrating polity.

For years Russia was handicapped by its pro-Western intellectuals, but the West’s demonization of Russia has forced them to change their spots or to leave. Free of the former influence of these Russian traitors, everyone of whom Stalin or Lenin would have shot, Russia has emerged as the leader of the world majority that is tired of Western bullying.

The fools in Washington, instead of undermining Russia in the interest of US hegemony, have created their replacement by Russia as world leader.

The fools in Washington fail to comprehend that a country blinds itself when it curtails freedom of speech, discredits truth in the interest of self-serving agendas, and destroys the patriotism and security of its ethnic base.

All across America and its empire everything is failing. Schools and universities are propaganda centers against white Americans, the military is a disunited tower of babel, massively expensive weapons systems are problem-plagued, the social and economic infrastructure is disintegrating, health care has been turned into a profit machine–at the public’s expense–for Big Pharma. Both water and food are polluted. Government bureaucracies have taken control over children away from parents. Economic opportunity is shrinking. Integrity cannot be found. People who insist on truth in place of propaganda are persecuted.

It is difficult to believe that 20 years ago Russia looked to the West with hope.

[fatehbaz]

A devastating rail crash that left almost 300 people dead has refocused international attention on the importance of railways in the lives of Indians.

Indeed, to many Western observers, images of men and women crammed into overcrowded cars serve as a metaphor for modern India. Take, for example, a report by German newspaper Der Spiegel on India’s population surpassing China’s. Published just weeks before the accident in Odisha province on June 2, the now much-criticized cartoon depicted a shabby Indian train crammed with passengers rushing past a streamlined Chinese train with only two people in it.

Where does this enduring image in the West of Indian railways – and of India – come from? As a scholar of Indian history and author of 2015 book “Tracks of Change: Railways and Everyday Life in Colonial India,” I believe the answers lie in the gigantic infrastructure projects of the 19th century – forged at the intersection of colonial dictates and capitalist demands.

---

A carrier of freight, not people

Railways remain the backbone of passenger traffic in India, transporting some 23 million people daily. In the pre-pandemic 2018-19 financial year, 7.7 billion passenger journeys in India. [...] Yet, when first planned in the 1840s, India’s railways were intended to primarily transport freight and livestock, not people. Indians were thought unlikely to become railway passengers by directors of the English East India Co., a merchant monopoly that gradually annexed and administered large parts of India under U.K. crown control. [...] However, early colonial railway policy was driven by pervasive Orientalist imaginings of a people rendered immobile by poverty, living in isolated villages [...]. The trope interlocked with colonial thinking that railways would foster greater industrialization which in turn would further a capitalist economy. They also aligned with the practical needs of a colonial trading monopoly which needed raw materials for English industries, such as cotton, to be moved swiftly and efficiently from India’s interiors to port towns [...].

---

Despite the doubters, the new Indian railways attracted an increasing number of passengers. The half-million passengers recorded in 1854 when tracks became operational increased to 26 million in 1875. By 1900, annual passenger figures stood at 175 million and then almost trebled to 520 million by 1919-20. By the time of the partition of India in 1947 it had risen to more than 1 billion passenger journeys annually. Indeed, images of overcrowded trains came to epitomize the upheaval of partition, with the rail system used to carry swaths of uprooted peoples across the soon-to-be Pakistan-India border. Third-class passengers, overwhelmingly Indians, comprised almost 90% of this traffic. These escalating figures did not, however, generate a lowering of fares. Nor did they result in any substantial improvements in the conditions of [...] travel. [...]

---

The generally British railway managers seemed disinclined to remedy systematic overcrowding, which included transporting passengers in wagons meant for livestock. Rather, they insisted that such overcrowding was caused by the peculiar habits and inclinations of Indian passengers: their alleged [...] inclination to follow one another “like sheep” into crowded carriages. These attributes were soon rendered into a more public narrative, especially among Western mindsets. Journalist H. Sutherland Stark, writing for the industry publication Indian State Railways Magazine in 1929, stated that though “unversed” in railway administration and traffic control, he knew railway facilities were not the problem. Rather, Indian passengers lacked the mental preparedness, “self-possession” and “method” necessary to travel like “sane human beings.” Stark suggested passenger education as a solution to the perceived problem, making railway travel a tool for “self-composure and mass orderliness.” [...]

---

More than a century later, this depiction endures, though, ironically, it now serves as a foil to understanding contemporary India. In a piece published in The New York Times on March 12, 2005, the author lauded the then-new Delhi metro, emphasizing that it had “none of the chaotic squalor of hawkers and beggars that characterizes mainline railroads in India, nor do desperate travelers hang from the sides of the trains.” As the debate rages on whether safety has taken a back seat to “glossy modernization projects” in India – early analyses suggest signaling failure might have caused June 2, 2023, accident – railways continue to represent India’s history.

In the heyday of empire, they were deemed the technology through which Britain would drag India into capitalist modernity. In 1947, they became a leitmotif for the trauma of the partition that accompanied the independence of India and Pakistan. As the coverage of Odisha accident reminds us, it continues to be a metaphor in the West for evaluating contemporary India.

---

Headline, image, caption, and all text above by: Ritika Prasa. “Overcrowded trains serve as metaphor for India in Western eyes -- but they are a relic of colonialism and capitalism.” The Conversation. 9 June 2023. [Bold emphasis and some paragraph breaks/contractions added by me.]