#technical article writing company

[forkanmahmud]

★What is freelancing?

★Why do you freelance?

★What does it take to be a freelancer?

★What can I learn from freelancing?

★Advantages and disadvantages of freelancing

The simple answer is to make money online. It's a free, independent profession that allows you to work from home, anywhere in the world. If you have good experience, you will find remote job opportunities in many companies.

The first thing I said was freedom. At present, there is no job market and there is no proper salary. There is no salary cap here. But that's not a problem with freelancing. If you are good at a certain skill, you can earn enough money with that skill. It has no limitations.

Skills require a willingness to learn, a willingness to learn, patience, and hard work. All you need is a computer/laptop and a good internet connection. Many people fall into the trap of freelancing with mobile. But if you are planning to take on freelancing in the long term, then you definitely need a desktop/laptop.

What can I learn from freelancing?

Don't aim too high. Take a small step. First of all, what are you most interested in? Do you like to write/code? Then you take a web design / cyber security course. If you are interested in design, you can learn graphic design/logo design. At present, there is a need for more work. Among them are:

Search engine optimization (SEO)

Video editing

Article Writing

The management of social media

Software development

There are many other good sectors. Go with anything. In the name of digital marketing, don't start with a multi-plug.

It's also good to blog if you want.

I have already spoken about it earlier. an independent profession. If you don't want to work, don't. You can earn whatever you want.

And the difficulty is—a lot of hard work—everything is not as easy as you think. A lot of hard work and perseverance are required. A lot of people don't make money in two or three years. Many start earning in a couple of months. You can't lose courage. You have to stick. Either you win or you lose. But you'll get there eventually.

#freelancing#freelancer#freelancinglife#tips#tipsandtricks#onlinemarketing#income#WhatIsFreelancing#FreelancingCourse#freelancingtipsforbeginners

[mostlysignssomeportents]

Richard R John’s “Network Nation”

THIS SATURDAY (July 20), I'm appearing in CHICAGO at Exile in Bookville.

The telegraph and the telephone have a special place in the history and future of competition and Big Tech. After all, they were the original tech monopolists. Every discussion of tech and monopoly takes place in their shadow.

Back in 2010, Tim Wu published The Master Switch, his bestselling, wildly influential history of "The Bell System" and the struggle to de-monopolize America from its first telecoms barons:

https://memex.craphound.com/2010/11/01/the-master-switch-tim-net-neutrality-wu-explains-whats-at-stake-in-the-battle-for-net-freedom/

Wu is a brilliant writer and theoretician. Best known for coining the term "Net Neutrality," Wu went on to serve in both the Obama and Biden administrations as a tech trustbuster. He accomplished much in those years. Most notably, Wu wrote the 2021 executive order on competition, laying out a 72-point program for using existing powers vested in the administrative agencies to break up corporate power and get the monopolist's boot off Americans' necks:

https://www.eff.org/de/deeplinks/2021/08/party-its-1979-og-antitrust-back-baby

The Competition EO is basically a checklist, and Biden's agency heads have been racing down it, ticking off box after box on or ahead of schedule, making meaningful technical changes in how companies are allowed to operate, each one designed to make material improvements to the lives of Americans.

A decade and a half after its initial publication, Wu's Master Switch is still considered a canonical account of how the phone monopoly was built – and dismantled.

But somewhat lost in the shadow of The Master Switch is another book, written by the accomplished telecoms historian Richard R John: "Network Nation: Inventing American Telecommunications," published a year after The Master Switch:

https://www.hup.harvard.edu/books/9780674088139

Network Nation flew under my radar until earlier this year, when I found myself speaking at an antitrust conference where both John and Wu were also on the bill:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VNivXjrU3A

During John's panel – "Case Studies: AT&T & IBM" – he took a good-natured dig at Wu's book, claiming that Wu, not being an historian, had been taken in by AT&T's own self-serving lies about its history. Wu – also on the panel – didn't dispute it, either. That was enough to prick my interest. I ordered a copy of Network Nation and put it on my suitcase during my vacation earlier this month.

Network Nation is an extremely important, brilliantly researched, deep history of America's love/hate affair with not just the telephone, but also the telegraph. It is unmistakably as history book, one that aims at a definitive takedown of various neat stories about the history of American telecommunications. As Wu writes in his New Republic review of John's book:

Generally he describes the failure of competition not so much as a failure of a theory, but rather as the more concrete failure of the men running the competitors, many of whom turned out to be incompetent or unlucky. His story is more like a blow-by-blow account of why Germany lost World War II than a grand theory of why democracy is better than fascism.

https://newrepublic.com/article/88640/review-network-nation-richard-john-tim-wu

In other words, John thinks that the monopolies that emerged in the telegraph and then the telephone weren't down to grand forces that made them inevitable, but rather, to the errors made by regulators and the successful gambits of the telecoms barons. At many junctures, things could have gone another way.

So this is a very complicated story, one that uses a series of contrasts to make the point that history is contingent and owes much to a mix of random chance and the actions of flawed human beings, and not merely great economic or historical laws. For example, John contrasts the telegraph with the telephone, posing them against one another as a kind of natural experiment in different business strategies and regulatory responses.

The telegraph's early promoters, including Samuel Morse (as in "Morse code") believed that the natural way to roll out telegraph was via selling the patents to the federal government and having an agency like the post office operate it. There was a widespread view that the post office as a paragon of excellent technical management and a necessity for knitting together the large American nation. Moreover, everyone could see that when the post office partnered with private sector tech companies (like the railroads that became essential to the postal system), the private sector inevitably figured out how to gouge the American public, leading regulators to ever-more extreme measures to rein in the ripoffs.

The telegraph skated close to federalization on several occasions, but kept getting snatched back from the brink, ending up instead as a privately operated system that primarily served deep-pocketed business customers. This meant that telegraph companies were forever jostling to get the right to string wires along railroad tracks and public roads, creating a "political economy" that tried to balance out highway regulators and rail barons (or play them off against each other).

But the leaders of the telegraph companies were largely uninterested in "popularizing" the telegraph – that is, figuring out how ordinary people could use telegraphs in place of the hand-written letters that were the dominant form of long-distance communications at the time. By turning their backs on "popularization," telegraph companies largely freed themselves from municipal oversight, because they didn't need to get permission to string wires into every home in every major city.

When the telephone emerged, its inventors and investors initially conceived of it as a tool for business as well. But while the telegraph had ushered in a boom in instantaneous, long-distance communications (for example, by joining ports and distant cities where financiers bought and sold the ports' cargo), the telephone proved far more popular as a way of linking businesses within a city limits. Brokers and financiers and businesses that were only a few blocks from one another found the telephone to be vastly superior to the system of dispatching young boys to race around urban downtowns with slips bearing messages.

So from the start, the phone was much more bound up in city politics, and that only deepened with popularization, as phones worked their ways into the homes of affluent families and local merchants like druggists, who offered free phone calls to customers as a way of bringing trade through the door. That created a great number of local phone carriers, who had to fend off Bell's federally enforced patents and aldermen and city councilors who solicited bribes and favors.

To make things even more complex, municipal phone companies had to fight with other sectors that wanted to fill the skies over urban streets with their own wires: streetcar lines and electrical lines. The unregulated, breakneck race to install overhead wires led to an epidemic of electrocutions and fires, and also degraded service, with rival wires interfering with phone calls.

City politicians eventually demanded that lines be buried, creating another source of woe for telephone operators, who had to contend with private or quasi-private operators who acquired a monopoly over the "subways" – tunnels where all these wires eventually ended up.

The telegraph system and the telephone system were very different, but both tended to monopoly, often from opposite directions. Regulations that created some competition in telegraphs extinguished competition when applied to telephones. For example, Canada federalized the regulation of telephones, with the perverse effect that everyday telephone users in cities like Toronto had much less chance of influencing telephone service than Chicagoans, whose phone carrier had to keep local politicians happy.

Nominally, the Canadian Members of Parliament who oversaw Toronto's phone network were big leaguers who understood prudent regulation and were insulated from the daily corruption of municipal politics. And Chicago's aldermen were pretty goddamned corrupt. But Bell starved Toronto of phone network upgrades for years, while Chicago's gladhanding political bosses forced Chicago's phone company to build and build, until Chicago had more phone lines than all of France. Canadian MPs might have been more remote from rough-and-tumble politics, but that made them much less responsive to a random Torontonian's bitter complaint about their inability to get a phone installed.

As the Toronto/Chicago story illustrates, the fact that there were so many different approaches to phone service tried in the US and Canada gives John more opportunities to contrast different business-strategies and regulations. Again, we see how there was never one rule that governments could have used if they wanted to ensure that telecoms were well-run, widely accessible, and reasonably priced. Instead, it was always "horses for courses" – different rules to counter different circumstances and gambits from telecoms operators.

As John traces through the decades during which the telegraph and telephone were established in America, he draws heavily on primary sources to trace the ebb and flow of public and elite sentiment towards public ownership, regulation, and trustbusting. In John's hands, we see some of the most spectacular failures as more than a mismatch of regulatory strategy to corporate gambit – but rather as a mismatch of political will and corporate gambit. If a company's power would be best reined in by public ownership, but the political vogue is for regulation, then lawmakers end up trying to make rules for a company they should simply be buying giving to the post office to buy.

This makes John's history into a history of the Gilded Age and trustbusters. Notorious vulture capitalists like Jay Gould shocked the American conscience by declaring that businesses had no allegiance to the public good, and were put on this Earth to make as much money as possible no matter what the consequences. Gould repeated "raided" Western Union, acquiring shares and forcing the company to buy him out at a premium to end his harassment of the board and the company's managers.

By the time the feds were ready to buy out Western Union, Gould was a massive shareholder, meaning that any buyout of the telegraph would make Gould infinitely wealthier, at public expense, in a move that would have been electoral poison for the lawmakers who presided over it. In this highly contingent way, Western Union lived on as a private company.

Americans – including prominent businesspeople who would be considered "conservatives" by today's standards, were deeply divided on the question of monopoly. The big, successful networks of national telegraph lines and urban telephone lines were marvels, and it was easy to see how they benefited from coordinated management. Monopolists and their apologists weaponized this public excitement about telecoms to defend their monopolies, insisting that their achievement owed its existence to the absence of "wasteful competition."

The economics of monopoly were still nascent. Ideas like "network effects" (where the value of a service increases as it adds users) were still controversial, and the bottlenecks posed by telephone switching and human operators meant that the cost of adding new subscribers sometimes went up as the networks grew, in a weird diseconomy of scale.

Patent rights were controversial, especially patents related to natural phenomena like magnetism and electricity, which were viewed as "natural forces" and not "inventions." Business leaders and rabble-rousers alike decried patents as a federal grant of privilege, leading to monopoly and its ills.

Telecoms monopolists – telephone and telegraph alike – had different ways to address this sentiment at different times (for example, the Bell System's much-vaunted commitment to "universal service" was part of a campaign to normalize the idea of federally protected, privately owned monopolies).

Most striking about this book were the parallels to contemporary fights over Big Tech trustbusting, in our new Gilded Age. Many of the apologies offered for Western Union or AT&T's monopoly could have been uttered by the Renfields who carry water for Facebook, Apple and Google. John's book is a powerful and engrossing reminder that variations on these fights have occurred in the not-so-distant past, and that there's much we can learn from them.

Wu isn't wrong to say that John is engaging with a lot of minutae, and that this makes Network Nation a far less breezy read than Master Switch. I get the impression that John is writing first for other historians, and writers of popular history like Wu, in a bid to create the definitive record of all the complexity that is elided when we create tidy narratives of telecoms monopolies, and tech monopolies in general. Bringing Network Nation on my vacation as a beach-read wasn't the best choice – it demands a lot of serious attention. But it amply rewards that attention, too, and makes an indelible mark on the reader.

Support me this summer on the Clarion Write-A-Thon and help raise money for the Clarion Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers' Workshop!

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

https://pluralistic.net/2024/07/18/the-bell-system/#were-the-phone-company-we-dont-have-to-care

[thatfrenchacademic]

OK so about this "34, unmarried and childless" article about Taylor Swift. Let me tell you about Scam Academia.

TL;DR: some mediocre dude had a half baked opinio nabout Taylor Swift that everyone hated, but like Mother Nature I let nothing go to waste.

Here is the take you have not heard yet, about this opinion: this guy is actually a good case study on how to develop your academic literacy, aka how to recognize a true academic from a scammer who presents themselves as an academic, but is just a crook. In a world of pseudoscience and pretend experts that have enough resources to organize their flat earth conference, let me walk you through the world of Scam Academic, where for a few thousand dollars, you too can claim to be a researcher with a doctorate! Follow me down a rabbit hole that I hate with my whole heart!

Preamble: I have zero skin in the TS game. I don't get the hype, the lore, the obsession with those 2000s bracelet or dissecting every single line or every single song.

But then. Some guy had to write an op-ed stating Taylor Swift was not a good role model for girls ("in the US and beyond"), and it is a terrible take on so many level, but here is the thing. Whiny conservative think-pieces about highly successful women who should get back to the kitchen and think of the children are nothing new. But this one is different.

This one is fucking terribly written. It's just an abysmally written blog post. Genuinely one of the worst thing I have ever read, and I read hundreds of undergrad essays every year for a living. It contradicts its own arguments in every paragraph. It over-explains concepts like it's a high school essay and he's trying to meet the word count. It says "this is a valid question worth asking" but does not actually explain why it is worth asking. It is so, so, so bad.

Conservative writers are usually more the "high brow, drowning you in grandstanding" kind of writers. They are, usually, good technical writers - it's the one thing that helps make their talking point sound legit and palatable. So an abysmally bad conservative writer? Ok, I am intrigued.

The author is one John Mac Ghlionn. I look up the guy on Google and...

Oh.

Oh no, John.

Spewing conservative bullshit at women AND a researcher? You're in my turf now, John. You could have continued to cover UFC Pillow Fight Championships, or alien technology and other riveting subjects, but you had try to connect two brain cells to argue a thing, and slap "researcher" on top of it. Now I'm offended, as a researcher.

1. I am sorry, researcher WHERE?

Ok so if one is a "researcher", it means one conduct "research". and contrary to what backyard conspiracy theorists think, "researcher" is an actual job. It is an actual professional occupation. You get an actual contract, and you are paid actual money. By an actual employer: public (University), private (Think tank, private company), or a mix of both (at Unviersity, but on a privately funded project, for example).

So where does our John Mc Ghlionn work?

Well. Nowhere, as far as I can tell.

John does not list any affiliation. Usually, when they write, academics will state their exact position (Researcher, Doctoral Researcher, Associate Professor, Chief Engineer, Head of Department, Research Director...) and where they work. For example:

That's what it is supposed to look like.

But John? Nope, no affiliation anywhere, on anything he ever published. That's a pretty massive read flag. Research takes ressources: at the very least, time and access to database and documentation, even in social sciences in humanities. You may not need a lab, but you sure as hell need money and full access to JStore at least.

So I thought he was just one of these "I google therefore I research" kind of dude. But then, out of nowhere:

I am sorry. He has a WHAT.

2. I am sorry, a Doctorate from WHERE?

So. One thing to claim to be a researcher when you are just a professional yapper. Another to claim a DIPLOMA.

And not any diploma. A doctorate.

Let's pause. "Doctorate" is actually a really broad umbrella term of all doctoral-level degrees. The most famous (and most prestigious, for better and worse) is the PhD, but a PhD is technically just one of many Research Doctorate of, theoretically, the same level (cue this helpful reddit post). A second category of doctorates are the Applied Doctorates, and while there is Discourse on where they sit vis-a-vis PhD, the easiest is to consider that they are not research-oriented. They are hands-on, practice-oriented degrees. For example: you can practice medicine with an MD. You don't need a PhD. You can still call yourself a doctor, though.

Alright, so which of these does our friend Johnnie has? Or is currently enrolled in? And in which University?

You will notice that John does not go by "John Mac Ghlionn PhD" or even "Dr John Mac Ghlionn", when you just KNOW he is the sort of person that would but that shit everywhere. And no shade here, because I, for one, do put that shit everywhere. Maybe he is just currently enrolled in a program and has not graduated. Fair.

Since John does not list affiliation, I had to switch from academic to internet sleuth, and dig out this article:

But we learn that in 2021, John was a "PhD Scholar" in "Parkmore Institute". "PhD Scholar" is not a title I am sued to, but it's also not raising any red flag: ongoing PhD researchers can be "PhD students", "PhD fellows", "PhD researchers"... It varies from country to country and from institution to institution, so why not "PhD Scholar".

Let's check out the Parkmore Institute.

Ok, they are not a traditional university, but they appear to be more of a postgraduate institution: offering only higher level degrees, not undergrad courses. Once again, not necessarily a red flag. They are usually very heavily research focused, and embrace the "research" side of academia more than the "teaching" side. In Germany, the Max Planck Institutes are research-only institutions who deliver PhDs. They conduct cutting edge research, in part because their researchers rarely have to spend time teaching.

But that is NOT the Parkmore Institute. First of all, let's see what programs they offer:

None of them are legit.

And I mean, none of them are recognize as even Applied/Professional Doctorate by the National Science Foundation (US based). And while a PhD in Human sexuality would be perfectly valid, but I'm going to on a limb and say I have some serious doubts about "Bodymind Healing" as an academic field.

These are not legit academic degrees.

What they are, is an excellent money-making opportunity for anyone working at the Parkmore institute. Students will pay, at the very least:

And 60% of this goes to their " faculty mentor". The Parkmore institute provides no research fund, no desk or office space (they are entirely digital), no access to any resources or library, not even a Zoom account. There is also no mention of any timeline: how long a PhD take to complete? Who knows. 6 months ? A year ? 5 years? What are the requirements to graduate ? Who knows ! And I would need to pay $200 to get in touch with them, so I sure as fuck won't know any time soon!

But let's get back to our friend John. Remember that he stated, in that 2021 publication, he was a "PhD Scholar" at Parkmore ? Well that's a shame because Parkmore does not deliver PhDs. Ain't that a bitch.

ALSO. Parkmore helpfully has page with all their Doctoral Recipients! And guess who is NOT HERE ! That's right, our Johnnie !

How can this be ? Well, three possibilities:

John is still not done with a PhD. After 4 years ? In a crank university where I am pretty sure I can submit the first draft of a litt review and graduate ? Nah

John never completed the thing. Boo, that would mean that John is lying, when he says he has a doctorate. Bad, bad.

John did graduate, and obtained his doctorate in [scrolls back to check] psychosocial studies, and then was not put on the website or was withdrawn some time before today, as Parkmore institute ended their affiliation with him, as per this bit in their application form

A shame, really. If John had been affiliated with the Parkmore Institute, it would give a shred of legitimacy to anything he writes to anyone just skimming.

Now, I would love to get in touch with the Parkmore Institute and ask to see John's doctoral work, which they DO have, since the application for also has this very interesting section:

(definitely very legit, very normal).

But I am not sure how I would even phrase that request without transparently going

"hey, would love to see what bullshit research is being done over there, since one of your graduate decided to go all Handmaid's tale for the last 2 years".

If anyone feels like sending that email, I am begging you to keep me in the loop.

3. Back up, back up, what's up with that article?

Remember the article where he was listed as a "PhD Fellow"?

Well, about that... No. Welcome to the world of predatory publishing, one more cog in the Bullshit Academic ecosystem.

First: not at article. It's a "commentary". Could be worth something ia good journal, but still would not be a piece of research. But that is the least of its sins.

Its sins are being published in a journal called "Sociology and Criminology-Open Access", by a publisher called "Longdom". Longdom publishing has a bunch of journals on a lot o different fields, with the particularly of being predatory; they will publish absolutely anything you send them, as long as you pay their Article Processing Charges:

There are entire lists of Predatory journals on the web, you can find on here and another here , Longdom Publishing is in both.

This is how John can publish this last minute, Redbull-and-weed-induced essay in an actual journal, with an abstract that, I kid you not, finishes with "Please find the paper attached." He slapped together a shitty essay about people in India are poorer and therefore more likely to exhibit psychopathic traits and therefore engage in corruption, purely base on vibes. It does not even deserve be given any consideration, not even to be debunked. There is nothing to be debunked. This would be a failing grade for a 1st year intro class.

CONCLUSION

On the surface, John Mac Ghlionn is the poster boy of failed edgelords who really wish they were Jordan Peterson, but unfortunately are just Doug, the guy for 10th grade who failed the Literature class and decided it was because litterature was too woke today anyway.

Beneath the surface, John is a case study in Scam Academia, and the proof that no matter how bad actual academia is, Scam Academia can always get worse.

A quick checklist to go through whenever someone claims be a researcher, an academic, a fellow, a doctor, a PhD or anything of the sort:

What is their affiliation? Is this a legitimate organization?

Do they have a PhD? Another doctorate degree? From where?

Have they published ? Where is it published?

[dduane]

hi, i have a bit of a basic question about picket lines. is it only writers who could theoretically cross the picket lines, by writing? or is anyone doing any work for these companies technically crossing these picket line? there’s a lot of jobs in film and tv - do you need everyone’s support by striking? if not, what can people who do other work in the industry do to help writers right now?

I need to take a moment to clarify terms before getting into this. I’m using “crossing picket lines” to mean the act of moving through actual, physical lines of people walking in front of studios or entertainment companies. Differing from that is the act of writing for a struck company at this time, which is referred to as “strikebreaking.”

As I understand it, the answers to your questions about actual picket lines depend on who you are and who you work for.

If you’re employed in one of the “allied crafts”, your reaction to being met with a physical picket line is going to depend on your contract with your employer and your agreement with your own union. See this article at Variety and this article at the Hollywood Reporter for some details.

As for strikebreaking: If you’re a Guild writer, you’re under Guild strike rules now, and these are most specific about your responsibilities. There’s an FAQ on the subject here, and the rules proper are here.

The Strike Rules are careful to emphasize that the Guild has no power to enforce the behavior of non-Guild writers (or others). But at the same time, Guild members are required to inform the Guild of anyone they discover to be strikebreaking. And should such strikebreakers ever want to join the Guild at some later date, they will never be allowed to.

Finally: people doing other work in the industry who also want to support the Guild should get in touch with their own labor or union reps to see what they recommend.

HTH!

ETA: Via @jayblanc, with thanks: "I'd also note that the closing statement from the Variety article has been outpaced by events. There was a cross-union meeting last-night in LA and NY simultaneously where IATSE, DGA and SAG-AFTRA leadership showed up to give support. And also the Teamsters. And also all the other unions involved with Big Media, including Plasterers’ and Cement Masons."

Link to the Holllywood Reporter article:

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/wga-holds-massive-solidarity-rally-with-hollywood-labor-allies-1235479365/

[cfiesler]

Elon Musk did not create an AI trained on your fanfiction.

Hi, AI ethicist + fanfiction expert here. (This is one of those times where I feel uniquely qualified to comment on something...)

I’m seeing this weird game of telephone about the Sudowrite AI that I think started out pretty accurate, but now has become “Elon Musk created an AI that is stealing your fanfiction” (which frankly gives him far too much credit). I can probably say more about this, but here are a few things that I want to clarify for folks, which can be boiled down to “Elon Musk has nothing to do with this” and “this is nothing new”: Elon Musk is not involved in any way with Sudowrite, as far as I can tell. Sudowrite does, however, use GPT-3, the widely-used large language model created by OpenAI, which Elon Musk co-founded. He resigned in 2018, citing a conflict of interest due to Tesla’s AI development. It wasn’t until after he left that OpenAI went from being a non-profit to a capped for-profit. Elon Musk doesn’t have anything to do with OpenAI currently (and in fact just cut off their access to Twitter data), though I can’t find anything that confirms whether or not he might have shares in the company. I would also be shocked if Elon actually contributed anything but money to the development of GPT-3.

Based on Sudowrite’s description on their FAQ, they are not collecting any training data themselves - they’re just using GPT-3 paired with their own proprietary narrative model.  And GPT-3 is trained on datasets like common crawl and webtext, which can simplistically be described as “scraping the whole internet.” Same as their DALL-E art generator. So it’s not surprising that AO3 would be in that dataset, along with everything else (e.g., Tumblr posts, blogs, news articles, all the words people write online) that doesn’t use technical means to prohibit scraping. 

OpenAI does make money now, including from companies like Sudowrite paying for access to GPT-3. And Sudowrite itself is a paid service. So yes, someone is profiting from its use (though OpenAI is capped at no more than 100% return on investment) and I think that the conversations about art (whether visual or text) being used to train these models without consent of the artist are important conversations to be having.

I think it’s possible that what OpenAI is doing is legal (i.e., not copyright infringement) for some of the same reasons that fanfiction is legal (or perhaps more accurately, for reasons that many for-profit remixes are found to be fair use), but I think whether it’s ETHICAL is a completely different question, and I’ve seen a huge amount of disagreement on this.

But the last thing I will say is that this is nothing new. GPT-3 has been around for years and it’s not even the first OpenAI product to have used content scraped from the web.

[kaizsche]

in my dreams, you love me back

a starlight/homelander fic set during s3e06, a missing scene (kind of) inspired by red velvet's in my dreams.

warning: delusions. angst. more delusions and more angst.

note: thank you thank you thank you so much to DelightfullySad and @finnismyoriginalsin for being the numero uno numba one enabler. if it weren't for them i wouldn't be here writing for starlander. i owe them my life. period.

crossposted on ao3

He felt the absence of her presence like a phantom limb. 

They have been inseparable the past few weeks. Ashley had coordinated their schedules to accommodate their PR relationship stunt. Where he went, Starlight naturally followed. Silly interviews about their relationship and public appearances were staged. 

He even began to enjoy her company despite her corpse-like enthusiasm. The moment he realized this, he began seeking more of her. His lips lingered long after their perfunctory kisses and his hands, he found, if not at the small of her back, were either wrapped around her waist or intertwined with the softness of her hands.

There was an odd moment of embarrassment but also smug satisfaction when a reporter wrote an article about them. How sweet! Homelander can’t keep his hands off his girl!

John supposed his recent business venture as the new CEO of Vought made him forget about everything else. He was lost in the technicalities and in turn had lost sight of what was important. 

Starlight. Annie.

To make matters worse, Soldier Boy rose from the dead, his appearance a cause for immediate concern. Nobody at this moment would be able to make the connection that Soldier Boy was behind all the explosions but the instant someone did would be ruining everything he worked hard for. 

Before that could happen, he needed to kill Soldier Boy. Fast. 

That was when he remembered. 

“Don’t you think that maybe the best way to handle this is to find him?”

If there was anyone who had information about Soldier Boy, it was Annie. Though, if it had been a day since she hadn’t reported back to him on the matter, maybe she wasn’t better off.

Her apartment was empty, much to his confusion. He was under the impression that she was scheduled to shoot an advertisement for a skincare company and yet her costume sat idling inside her walk-in-closet. 

For a moment, his traitorous mind entertained her connection to Soldier Boy’s reemergence. 

What did you expect, you fucking idiot! A distant voice in his mind screamed for attention. You killed her ex, you think she wouldn’t retaliate?

John whimpered, But she did it first. 

Just shut the fuck up and let me think.

He spied his gleaming reflection off a white telephone and dialed Ashley’s office.

She answered on the first ring. “Starlight? Where the fuck are you—”

“Where’s Starlight?” He questioned, ignoring the sudden spike of her heartbeat at the sound of his voice echoing from Starlight’s telephone. In Starlight’s room.

Ashley answered with a long suffering sigh, “I don’t know, Sir. She just took off without informing anybody.”

He drummed his fingers in silent contemplation, his eyes taken to examining every intimate detail of her room and stopped, glaring lasers at the offending image positioned right next to her bed.

“Alright. Call me when she comes in.”

He left the comfort of her room not before accidentally bumping into her framed picture with Hughie.

You’re acting like a spoiled brat. 

John dismissed the voice as he retreated to his quarters. It continued to whisper nasty things in his ear that Annie was likely an accomplice. He knew how much Butcher and his skinny side-kick Hughie (who happened to be her boyfriend) detested him. John wouldn’t put it past them to summon Soldier Boy in an attempt to level the playing field.

The voice grew louder, snapping insults in his ear about his weakness—that he had too much humanity in him. That it was disgusting and he was absolutely embarrassed to be him. 

He grabbed for the remote blindly in an effort to distract himself. 

“...he children had all signed a letter thanking Starlight and Homelander for their generous donation to the hospital. Starlight met with patients with kidney failure whose lives were dependent on machines. They are on dialysis three times a week for four hours — until they can have a transplant. The process, however, takes years because of a shortage of donors.”

Annie sat cross legged, surrounded by children. She held a children’s book in her hand, reading to them in silly voices. Different camera shots of children bursting into laughter at her antics flashed through the screen, some of it even catching teary-eyed parents. 

The scene changed. Annie was speaking to a kid with sunshine locks and blue eyes. 

“Dominic for instance has been…”

A lump formed in his throat at the sight of her arms around the boy. The screen transitioned to another shot of Annie cradling him in her arms like a babe as she spoke with a doctor. 

What the fuck? Get your shit together, man!

He closed his eyes, lost in the image of Annie and the boy.

John you fucking halfwit! Get back here! I’m not done with you yet! JOHN! YOU MOTHERFUCKER—

He stirred to the faint sensation of being rocked to consciousness. 

“Dad!” The voice screamed. “Wake up! I’m going to be late for my recital!”

John stuffed his head deeper in the sinking softness of his pillows. A hand snatched it out of his chin, his forehead making contact with the headboard in a loud bang.

“Wha…” A woman mumbled beside him. 

“The fuck?!” He exclaimed.

“Mooooommm! Dad said a swear word!” Before he could recover from the damage upon his forehead, there was another blow to his head—too soft to ever bruise him but a hit that took him off guard.

He rose to meet the attacker, the heat of his lasers igniting the low rage simmering within him. 

And stopped at the peculiar yet welcome sight of Annie’s bed head and her legs tangled in cream sheets. A smaller figure dressed in pajamas blocked his figure, meeting his rage with a smug smirk so reminiscent of his own. 

“Pay up!”

He blinked. His throat was so dry he was simply unable to respond. Bewildered, he sought Annie’s help. 

She frowned, but complied nonetheless. Annie laid a hand on the girl’s shoulder, her voice raspy in the quiet morning. 

He was unable to follow their conversation for he had been occupied with the room he seemed to have been sleeping in. It was a modest bedroom, he noted, filled with mementos. There was a compilation of images of his unlived life with Annie.

His temple throbbed with the effort of remembering. A continuous ringing occupied his hearing the more he examined each picture. Memories flickered in his mind like sifting sand through a screen.

What is reality and what is not?

At the center of the images was a baby girl swaddled in his colors. 

Something itched at the back of his head, a memory long forgotten.

“Wendy?” He tested.

His daughter faced him with a beaming smile, her lips thinly pursed like his own but she had her mother’s nose. 

“Are you—”

John tackled the two of them in a tight hug, dotting kisses to whatever part of their faces he could reach. Twin echoes of shrill laughter brightened the morning as they struggled against his sudden display of affection.

“Dad, stop! It tickles!” His daughter cried, short of breath. 

He pulled away, reluctant to not be within her presence but remembered the urgency of the situation. “Chop chop, ladies! We don’t want to be late for the recital!” 

Annie smiled at him with a question in her eyes once Wendy left to go prepare for the big day. 

“What was that all about?” 

He leaned to press a gentle kiss against her lips but moved to her cheek at the last second. Somehow he knew she didn’t like to kiss with morning breath. 

“It was nothing.”

Her soft fingers gripped his wrist, “Are you sure?”

John chewed on the inside of his cheek in contemplation. Should he tell her the truth? That he wasn’t the man she married but a fraud? A momentary lapse of insanity to give peace to his troubled mind? But doing so would be akin to ruining the dream. 

John wasn’t quite sure he was ready to face the world just yet.

And so, he said, “I love you.”

“I love you t—”

His consciousness spoke to him in loud banging noises. Like what he did as a child when he begged for any scrap of attention. 

Welcome back, you fucking pussy. I’ve taken the liberty of actually getting our shit together. This’ll be the last time you do this to me. Do you hear me, you absolute piece of—

John heard her before he saw her. He had locked on to the gentle cadence of her heartbeat drowning all but the sound of her.

Annie sat down, sighed, and cleared her throat.

He moved without knowing, driven by the remains of his dreams, seeking her touch. The comfort, the soothing balm she alone could provide. 

“I’m really glad you’re here.” 

When all he wanted to say was, “I love you.”

He continued, driven by the questioning look in her eyes so reminiscent of the wife in his dreams. 

“I missed you.”

When he wanted to tell her, “In my dreams, you love me back.”

[ollieofthebeholder]

Hi! I know you do NaNo every year and are quite involved with it; have you seen their new AI policy? And what are your thoughts on it?

https://nanowrimo.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/29933455931412-What-is-NaNoWriMo-s-position-on-Artificial-Intelligence-AI

Hi!

So first off, nonnie: My involvement with NaNoWriMo has, uh, declined significantly in the last year. I was an ML through last November, and there were...a lot of problems that all culminated in me (and my co-ML ) not only making the decision to step down as MLs, but disaffiliate our region from NaNo altogether. We're not stopping people from participating, just taking the groups we manage independent and starting our own, localized version. Global communities are great, but when you get to as big as NaNo got and start having to implement rules and make them apply to wildly diverse regions - and then have absolutely no policies in place for people in those specific regions to adapt those policies - it stops being fun, frankly. For organizers and participants.

All of which is to say, no, I hadn't seen this until now.

My thoughts are that, like so many other things NaNo has tried to do since November, it's well-intentioned (probably) but poorly thought out and even more poorly executed. It's also too broad and overencompassing. And it violates the spirit of the program they've been belaboring us with for the last 25 years.

AI - Artificial Intelligence - covers a lot of ground. Spellcheckers are technically AI. Speech to text programs could be construed as AI. Predictive text is AI. ChatGP and its ilk is essentially an advanced form of predictive text, at least at this point. And if you had suggested five years ago that someone might write a novel entirely based on predictive text, the official NaNoWriMo stance would have been "I mean, sure, you CAN do that, we can't really stop you, if that's what you're happy with." If your goal is just to have 50,000 words, do whatever you want. I guess from their wording, they're saying that this is in general, not specifically for NaNoWriMo, but this is still a pretty bizarre stance for an organization that pushed for years for everyone to start on November 1 with a blank document and not a single word written ahead of time.

Arguing that "opposition to AI is classist and ableist" is the kind of reductive bullshit I expect from Tumblr, not a major organization that is supposed to promote literacy. I especially don't get the "not everyone has access to all resources" bit. Yeah...that's true...but if you have access to AI, you have access to everything you need to participate in NaNoWriMo, i.e. a computer with a keyboard and an internet connection. If you just want the fifty thousand words to get the prize and don't care if they're good, just fucking write "banana" over and over again until you hit it. Boom, you're a winner, and you've done just as much work as someone prompting ChatGPT, and it'll probably make about as much sense.

Also, most AI programs in existence use up a ridiculous amount of energy and resources, and encouraging their use is kind of an iffy stance for any company to take, let alone one that's been making this much of an effort to be sustainable.

Frankly, I think this policy is just one more sign that NaNo has gotten a) too big to be sustainable and b) too far from what it was originally meant to be, and I'm honestly debating if I'm even going to participate in the global one this year.

[hedgehog-moss]

[1] `there are often translations available in other languages long before English ones` This is really interesting! I'm familiar with translation in games, where english is often a very early target (a small game might get 0-5 translations, depending on amount of text) because the size of the market is larger.

[2] Do you happen to know why this is different for books? Is it faster to come to a deal about publication rights for some other languages to get started on the translation? Is translation to english harder (at least from French) than to say, Spanish?

The literary translation situation has long been very dismal in the English-speaking world! I don’t know a lot about video games, but are localisations provided by the company that makes the game? Because if that's the case it makes sense that games would get translated into English as a priority. For literary translations which are imported rather than exported, other countries have to decide to translate a foreign author and anglo countries (US, UK and Canada at least) are not very interested in foreign literature. There's something known as the "3% rule" in translation—i.e. about 3% of all published books in the US in any given year are translations. Some recent sources say this figure is outdated and it’s now something like 5% (... god) but note that it encompasses all translations, and most of it is technical translation (instruction manuals, etc). The percentage of novels in translation published in the UK is 5-6% from what I’ve read and it’s lower in the US. In France it's 33%, and that’s not unusually high compared to other European countries.

I don't think it's only because of the global influence of English* and the higher proportion of English speakers in other countries than [insert language] speakers in the US, or poor language education in schools etc, because just consider how many people in the US speak Spanish—I just looked it up and native Spanish speakers in the US represent nearly 2/3rds of the population of France, and yet in 2014 (most recent solid stat I could find) the US published only 67 books translated from Spanish. France with a much smaller % of native Spanish speakers (and literary market) published ~370 translations from Spanish that same year. All languages combined, the total number of new translations published in France in 2014 was 11,859; in Spain it was 19,865; the same year the US published 618 new translations. France translated more books from German alone (754) than the US did from all languages combined, and German is only our 3rd most translated language (and a distant third at that!). The number of new translations I found in the US in 2018 was 632 so the 3% figure is probably still accurate enough.

* When I say it’s not just about the global influence of English—obviously that plays a huge role but I mean there’s also a factor of cultural isolationism at play. If you take English out of the equation there’s still a lot more cultural exchange (in terms of literature) between other countries. Take Olga Tokarczuk’s Drive Your Plow Over the Bones of the Dead; it was published in 2009, and (to give a few examples) translated in Swedish 1 year later, in Russian & German 2 years later, in French, Danish & Italian 3 years later, in English 10 years later—only after she won the Nobel. I’m reminded of the former secretary for the Nobel Prize who said Americans “don't really participate in the big dialogue of literature” because they don’t translate enough. I think it's a similar phenomenon as the one described in the "How US culture ate the world" article; the US is more interested in exporting its culture than in importing cultural products from the rest of the world. And sure, anglo culture is spread over most continents so there’s still a diversity of voices that write in English (from India, South Africa, etc etc) but that creates pressure for authors to adopt English as their literary language. The dearth of English translation doesn’t just mean that monolingual anglophones are cut off from a lot of great literature, but also that authors who write in minority languages are cut off from the global visibility an English translation could give them, as it could serve as a bridge to be translated in a lot more languages, and as a way to become eligible for major literary prizes including the Nobel.

Considering that women are less translated than men and represent a minority (about 1/3) of that already abysmally low 3% figure, I find the recent successes of English translations of women writers encouraging—Olga Tokarczuk, Banana Yoshimoto, Han Kang, Valeria Luiselli, Samanta Schweblin, Sayaka Murata, Leila Slimani, of course Elena Ferrante... Hopefully this is a trend that continues & increases! I remember this New Yorker article from years ago, “Do You Have to Win the Nobel Prize to Be Translated?”, in which a US small press owner said “there’s just no demand in this country” (for translated works); but the article acknowledged that it’s also a chicken-and-egg problem. Traditional publishers who have the budget to market them properly don’t release many translations as (among other things) they think US readers are reluctant to read translated foreign literature, and the indie presses who release the lion’s share of translated works (I read it was about 80%) don’t have the budget to promote them so people don’t buy them so the assumption that readers aren’t interested lives on. So maybe social media can slowly change the situation by showing that anglo readers are interested in translated books if they just get to find out about them...

[whencyclopedia]

10 Years of Ancient History Encyclopedia

Ancient History Encyclopedia's CEO Jan van der Crabben writes about the organization's 10-year history.

Ancient History Encyclopedia just turned ten! On 25 August 2009, we officially launched the Ancient History Encyclopedia website by submitting ancientopedia.com (its first domain) to search engines. We have come a long way and it has been an amazing journey for everyone involved. Congratulations to the team and thank you to all our members, donors, supporters, and readers!

How Did We Get Here?

Whenever we speak at conferences, people want to know how we got where we are now. How did a home-brew website grow to become one of the world's biggest and most-read history websites, completely bootstrapped without any investment?

We are not business gurus and we do not have a recipe for success that would work for everyone. Still, we have some idea of what we did right along the way, which we will talk about in this article. I believe it is a combination of luck, technical know-how, great content, and a dedicated and passionate team that made it all happen.

Luck is always important. We launched at the right time when rising in search rankings was a lot easier and there were fewer high-quality websites. Had we launched five years later, our growth would have been slower.

Technical know-how allowed us to build a website that was optimized for search engines from the start, built for historical data. We had a good idea of how to build a website, integrate it with other services, and optimize it for search. We were also always able to quickly adapt to changing needs.

Great content is the key to any publication. We always focused on quality, and our standards rose with time. Even if we could have earned more money with sponsored articles or spammy ads, we never compromised, for example.

Great teams are what make or break companies. I have found that you should not hire people for their qualifications but for their personal attitude and whether they are a cultural fit. We have got a great team that is passionate about what we do. We all work remotely from home; without an office where people have to show up, you have to love what you do!

Continue reading...

[smolsleepyfox]

My current job is listening to tapes with radio programs while they're being recorded in an audio program. They're being digitized before the tapes themselves are destroyed so they need to be sure the recordings are intact. The oldest tape I had was from 1956, just after the broadcasting company I work at became independent.

Most spoken word programs I've been listening to are from the late 90s and early 2000s, from the time I was technically alive but blissfully unaware of what was going on in the world. Some things I've learned so far:

There are a lot of topics, especially political, that sound like they could be from this week said in somewhat outdated language. It's alarming how much hasn't changed in over 20 years.

The other lot of things sound completely incredible, because it's hard to fathom that that was considered normal back then. So much has changed and improved in the last twenty years.

It took a while to get used to hearing and converting the old currency.

I am being reminded daily that I am dogshit at remembering the historical heads of state in my country, let alone knowing what they did.

It's interesting to hear technical innovation we take for granted discussed as new. There's also a lot of bad ideas lol

The food report program also offers weekly recipes over the air. At the end they give an address you can send a return envelope to if you want the recipe and couldn't write it down. The later programs just barely start offering the internet as an alternative

I can't tell you if it's just this one person or early 2000s dieticians in general but a solid 9/10 of those recipes I wouldn't want to be in the same room as. For a hot summer day they offered a kefir-herb-fizzy water drink as an alternative to lemonade. Whatever she's smoking, I want some.

Very interesting to compare early 2000s food advice to today. I read an article this morning saying you shouldn't eat carbs because they can increase inflammation. A program I listened to from 2000 just went "bread is good for you" with no more nuance. I've heard about 50 different tips for healthy eating against my will and they all contradict each other.

Fun to see how cutting choices based on the material translate into the show. Quite literally, because I can hear the little ksk sound of the scotch tape where a cut was made.

It is so satisfying being able to push a big fat button and make the machine go ka-THUNK when it starts playing.

[forkanmahmud]

Freelancing Tips And Tcicks

★What is freelancing?

★Why do you freelance?

★What does it take to be a freelancer?

★What can I learn from freelancing?

★Advantages and disadvantages of freelancing

The simple answer is to make money online. It's a free, independent profession that allows you to work from home, anywhere in the world. If you have good experience, you will find remote job opportunities in many companies.

The first thing I said was freedom. At present, there is no job market and there is no proper salary. There is no salary cap here. But that's not a problem with freelancing. If you are good at a certain skill, you can earn enough money with that skill. It has no limitations.

Skills require a willingness to learn, a willingness to learn, patience, and hard work. All you need is a computer/laptop and a good internet connection. Many people fall into the trap of freelancing with mobile. But if you are planning to take on freelancing in the long term, then you definitely need a desktop/laptop.

What can I learn from freelancing?

Don't aim too high. Take a small step. First of all, what are you most interested in? Do you like to write/code? Then you take a web design / cyber security course. If you are interested in design, you can learn graphic design/logo design. At present, there is a need for more work. Among them are:

Search engine optimization (SEO)

Video editing

Article Writing

The management of social media

Software development

There are many other good sectors. Go with anything. In the name of digital marketing, don't start with a multi-plug.

It's also good to blog if you want.

I have already spoken about it earlier. an independent profession. If you don't want to work, don't. You can earn whatever you want.

And the difficulty is—a lot of hard work—everything is not as easy as you think. A lot of hard work and perseverance are required. A lot of people don't make money in two or three years. Many start earning in a couple of months. You can't lose courage. You have to stick. Either you win or you lose. But you'll get there eventually.

#freelancing#freelancer#freelancinglife#tips#tipsandtricks#onlinemarketing#income#WhatIsFreelancing#FreelancingCourse#freelancingtipsforbeginners

[oldfuckeditor]

“=⌕ INFORMATION //﹫

name:  Charles Munroe  alias:  Charlie, Chief   age / d.o.b.:  58; February 5th  gender, pronouns & sexuality:  Cis Male, He/Him, Pansexual  hometown:  Yonkers, New York  affiliation:  Media  job position:  Editor-in-Chief at the New York Times  education:  2 years of community college, no further education as he started interning for the Times  relationship status:  Single   children:  Mary/Marie, his daughter

— personality  🖋

personality type: ENTJ  moral alignment: True Neutral   positive traits:  Adaptable, Supportive, Confident, Efficient, Honest  negative traits: Workaholic, Avoidant, Confrontational, Arrogant, Inflexible  religion:  Agnostic  

— appearance  🖋

faceclaim: William Fichtner  hair colour: Grey  eye colour: Deep Blue   scars: He sliced the top of his hand working with a paper guillotine in the 80s, Old and healed over cigarette burns that he won’t talk about  tattoos: Charlie has a few tattoos, “all on his ass” but the location of them is unknown to anyone but his dead wife.  piercings:  None 

— skills  🖋

languages:  English  technical:  Knows how to bind a book, Can read up to 600 words per minute, types up to 50 words per minute.  

— other  🖋

smokes: A pack a day, used to be worse  drinks: Almost every evening, keeps scotch under his desk  drugs: Used to, not anymore  injuries/medical: Not Yet 

— biography  🖋 TW: drugs, gang violence, media bribery, character death 

Growing up in the 70s with a typical Air Force pilot for a father and a neater than scotch whiskey no ice housewife for a mother, it wasn't exactly the worst thing in the world, but it wasn't entirely mundane, either. Charles Munroe grew up in the All-American home, meaning no drugs, no girls, no rock and roll, and no stepping out of line. The family went to church every Sunday, and by the evening he was getting high and hanging out with his group of friends. He was never about the American pie life, he wanted more substance, and more intrigue. Charlie ran with a more adventurous and wild crowd than his parents might have liked. This caused a great rift between them and he left home as soon as he was able.

Which he found, upon entering college, that was exactly what college was for. Escaping the dichotomy of regular life, finding your home away from home, and partying without the parents around. For him, college was just an excuse and a means to leave, he was never one for classrooms, curriculums, and teachers, they were just old folks 2.0 and he wanted nothing to do with it. The first time his buddies mentioned a road trip around the country, he bought a van and never looked back. He partied at the biggest bashes of the century, he tried most of the drugs in that day and age, and most importantly, he WROTE about his adventures. Sold them to some publishing company and lived off the checks for a while.

Until one day, he lands back in New York. No cash, no place to go, no education to speak of, and an itch to write. The Times Editor in Chief at the time found him about a week into searching for a writing gig, having read his articles on East to West Coast and Desert bonfires gone horribly wrong when drinking and copious amounts of drugs were involved, it was the late 80s and no one tended to blink at that sort of thing. Charlie started at the very bottom of the company, but his impressive writing skills and ties with the boss made his climb to the top more like a rocket. Within a few years, he was writing articles for page one and on the Chief's close personal circle of editors.

That's when he learned about shady ties to the Times and some underhanded cash flowing in, an incentive to write nothing on certain goings on in the city or a personal smear campaign against those the "donators" didn't like. Charles wasn't a prude; he liked money and didn't mind avoiding topics whenever he was paid handsomely and not told where the money came from; it only bothered him when he put in the work, and it would end up in the shredder. On one fateful evening, he had done just that, he wasn't happy about it, his "magnum opus" he called it, spat in the Chief's face about how he was jealous of the younger's talents and how he just wanted Charlie to be smothered, a dim candle at his side.

He'd regret those words for the rest of his days. The next morning, his Chief was all over the pages, shot in the head right in front of his condo, no suspect for his murder, and he was buried in the ground a week later. Charlie was handed the reigns of Editor in Chief the next day. He had been high or drunk when he got the call, because all he had to gumption to do was curse and tell them to call him back on Monday. Whatever this would entail for him, he would meet it with a stiff lip and an aggressive disposition. Landing himself to be one of the harshest and more dedicated Editors the Times had ever seen.

— wanted connections 🖋

His daughter, Mary/Marie!!! A girl of 30, you can decide on how she feels about him, but his wife/her mother died around ten years ago, and they’ve been on short terms since then. He’s a workaholic and often prioritized work over his family. He loved his girls though, kept a roof over their heads, bought them both gifts, almost never forgot a birthday or anniversary, tried his best in the beginning but the promotions kept taking him away and journalism was always his passion above all else. He calls his daughter almost every week, just to check in, whether she likes this, or even answers, is completely up to you. He’s trying to bridge the relationship, though.  

[bookishtheaterlover7]

PSST: here’s some insight for you.

I work in marketing for a non-entertainment industry.

My job is content creation which means:

I write copy for social media, webinars, marketing emails, campaigns, videos, website content, and more. A huge part of my job is making sure what we say aligns with PR and legal approval.

This means, sometimes what we DON’T say means more than what we do.

It can be a bit of a thankless job because when we write something on social media or on behalf of our CEO, we have to say a lot but can’t lie but also stretch the truth just enough to sound exciting but not get us sued. And yes, we often ghostwrite on behalf of higher ups but their names are the ones quoted. Even if they do give us a soundbite, with permission we can sometimes edit it and rewrite. So even actual quotes aren’t always 100%.

Basically….wordplay.

“My wife is from PT.” - truth, but non specific. Doesn’t say a name but basically alludes to what everyone is thinking based on process of elimination.

“I had kinda two ceremonies, one on the east coast, one in PT.” - truth, but non specific. The tabloids ran with conflicting stories like ceremony 1 was held in two different areas, in one state on the east coast. But he doesn’t say specifically which one which means he’s not lying but he’s only not specifying. Plausible deniability.

“I find silence in my husband.” - no names, no confirmation but also sort of confirming.

“My dog” - same as above.

CE’s GQ article where he mentions a non descriptive girlfriend - then a line is inserted by the journalist “he got married to Xyz” not quoted by him.

Same thing with RDJ’s spread and his wife saying “CE’s wedding” - and the magazine inserts the wedding to xyz.

None of these are direct quotes from the people themselves. It’s just implied.

Scarlett in an interview says she “attended a wedding” in sept - again, non descriptive.

All of these context clues are pretty commonly done in content strategy. It’s basically to say stuff to say it for promotion reasons but also making sure we cover our asses. We didn’t SAY he said it, we just added it as an afterthought and if for some reason it’s questioned well at least we didn’t quote him on it.

For example: my company has an office outside of a major city. But we can’t say “our San Francisco office” because it’s technically not SF. It’s in the Bay Area, so we can say Bay Area/Northern California office - but not get too specific. This way we’re not LYING but we’re also kinda keeping it “vague.” Cover our asses 101.

I can’t tell you how many times I have to say things like “nearly a decade of experience” - but in reality it was 8 years and five months. When I say it like this, it makes it sound like MORE rather than less.

“Over a year” - makes it sound like wow it’s been over a year but we’re not telling you just how long because we just want you to focus on the OVER part.

Marriage = stability. If you ignore the person and the pairing, it just looks like oh wow he finally got married! Good for him. Now his Wikipedia won’t show he’s just single forever because God forbid somebody turns 42 and still isn’t married. 🙄

The next time you see anything related to these two, or if you want to chance reading old articles about them - check for those little nuances in the tabloid articles. I bet a bunch of them are purposely contradicting and use “anonymous sources” as the quote to magnify the situation and hype it up to be more intense than it actually is.

Because if an anonymous source says “CE is so in love and happier than ever” - gushes a close friend of the actor, it’s not tech libel or lying because the quote is coming from a mysterious source, not CE. But the intention is inferred. You are to assume he told them this. But if someone were to directly call that out, he could simply say I don’t know who I said that to and the anonymous source won’t have or need to be confirmed. Because if it is a lie at least nobody quoted him as saying it. Nobody will be asking for a retraction.

Lastly. In marketing I often have to hype up things and use flowery language. Everything always has to be “a huge success and totally a blast” - even if the pictures we get at the events show three people standing in a booth looking bored. LOL.

“The private couple looked so in love and were all smiles!” - meanwhile the accompanying photo was two people walking in silence, one doing an Arthur fist and basically grimacing. Nobody looking at each other.

The power of wordplay, y’all. And yes, we hype everything up for a reason. And the reality is often very far from what’s being presented. It’s just business though.

(Hope you find this helpful!)

And if anyone wants to fact check my knowledge, please feel free. I have nothing to hide.

Thank you, Marketing An🫶n!

This whole thing is definitely confusing, but it's nice to know that, a. It's all business, and b. How the business works.

This is all helpful, and really quite interesting 😊 so, once again thank you, and I hope you don't mind if I and a few others will call in to ask the next time something drops 😅

[alica-tech]

a guide on behavioral interviews💼

ok i've got a behavioral interview coming up so decided to make this quick guide on how i prepare for these if it helps anyone else trying to land internships or full-time jobs in the tech industry!

the process

1. ⭐ Introduction (10-15 min)

The interviewer wants to know more about you, your career goals, skills, and how you align w/ the company's mission.

Like a compelling essay, you want a strong hook or opening statement. The first question asked is often "Tell me about yourself" and this should be a brief elevator pitch (30 seconds) that highlights your current status (student, major, study area), your relevant experience, why you're interested in the company/why you're a good fit for the company, and what you're looking for (in a job). Practice this in front of a mirror if you have to!

Doing company research is really important for the whole interview! You want to look informed and interested. You can use sites such as:

Twitter Linkedin Glassdoor company website (blogs/news/about/careers page) any press releases/news articles to find info about what the company is focused on or what they care about most.

Find things that are genuinely interesting to *you* and write it down on a separate notepad to remember it

Review the job posting you applied to and review where you meet their expectations (your strengths) and be aware of your weaknesses (be ready to answer like "I'm working on improving my..." or "I hope this company can give me more experience in..")

Top questions: Tell me about yourself, why do you want to work for us, what are your strengths? Why should we hire you?

2. ⭐ Situational Questions (15-30 min)

This is where you use the STAR method to craft your responses to questions about your communication, work ethic, and collaboration style

STAR: Situation, Task, Action, Result

Here's a guide + sample questions that you can encounter in any type of interview!

Also, prepare 5-6 solid situations that you can use to anchor your STAR responses. These can come from your resume, where each project can be something you can tie back to another soft/technical skill the company is looking for.

For example, for my hackathon experiences, i can relate it to any collaboration / communication / time crunch / meeting deadlines question. for my research experience, i can relate it to analytical skills / experimental / problem-solving questions.

For me, I put all my projects/experiences on a google doc, and then I write additional bullet points on things I did, problems I solved, challenges, skills I gained, etc. It's kind of like a super expanded resume. It's a great reference at a glance! Reflecting on your experiences/projects is very important as well, whether large or small.

3. ⭐ Closing (5 - 10 min)

This is your opportunity to end on a strong note, re-iterating what makes you a good fit for the company and asking questions that show you've done your research on the role/company!

What are good questions? Questions that aren't easily answerable on the company site, questions that will help YOU make a decision if you want to work for them

Here's some good ones: What is your current work from home / hybrid / in-person policies? What are the most exciting challenges facing your company in the next 6 months? What's the next step in the interview process / when can I expect follow-up? Is there support for junior / entry-level developers (such as mentorship)? How does the company support work-life balance? Can you share any recent projects / initiatives the company has taken on that you're excited about?

Here's some to AVOID: Avoid asking about salary / benefits unless you absolutely need this information before moving forward, Avoid asking questions you can google easily or know by reading the job description, avoid questions that are clearly outside of your interviewers area of expertise

phew, maybe i shouldve broken this into multiple posts, for now this is a quick overview, hope this helps!

----

additional (free) resources:

interviewbit - variety of questions listed for behaviorals

tech interview handbook - more details on preparing for STAR and example responses

handshake blog post - list of questions you can ask at the end of any interview

exponent's blog post - FAANG interviewing, focusing on company values, finding peer-to-peer mock interviews

pramp.com - practice mock interviews with peers

[mariacallous]

When bizarre and misleading answers to search queries generated by Google’s new AI Overview feature went viral on social media last week, the company issued statements that generally downplayed the notion the technology had problems. Late Thursday, the company’s head of search, Liz Reid, admitted that the flubs had highlighted areas that needed improvement, writing, “We wanted to explain what happened and the steps we’ve taken.” Reid’s post directly referenced two of the most viral, and wildly incorrect, AI Overview results. One saw Google's algorithms endorse eating rocks because doing so “can be good for you,” and the other suggested using nontoxic glue to thicken pizza sauce.

Rock eating is not a topic many people were ever writing or asking questions about online, so there aren't many sources for a search engine to draw on. According to Reid, the AI tool found an article from The Onion, a satirical website, that had been reposted by a software company, and it misinterpreted the information as factual.

As for Google telling its users to put glue on pizza, Reid effectively attributed the error to a sense of humor failure. “We saw AI Overviews that featured sarcastic or troll-y content from discussion forums,” she wrote. “Forums are often a great source of authentic, first-hand information, but in some cases can lead to less-than-helpful advice, like using glue to get cheese to stick to pizza.”

It’s probably best not to make any kind of AI-generated dinner menu without carefully reading it through first.

Reid also suggested that judging the quality of Google’s new take on search based on viral screenshots would be unfair. She claimed the company did extensive testing before its launch and that the company’s data shows people value AI Overviews, including by indicating that people are more likely to stay on a page discovered that way.

Why the embarassing failures? Reid characterized the mistakes that won attention as the result of an internet-wide audit that wasn’t always well intended. “There’s nothing quite like having millions of people using the feature with many novel searches. We’ve also seen nonsensical new searches, seemingly aimed at producing erroneous results.” Google claims some widely distributed screenshots of AI Overviews gone wrong were fake, which seems to be true based on WIRED’s own testing. For example, a user on X posted a screenshot that appeared to be an AI Overview responding to the question “Can a cockroach live in your penis?” with an enthusiastic confirmation from the search engine that this is normal. The post has been viewed over 5 million times. Upon further inspection, though, the format of the screenshot doesn’t align with how AI Overviews are actually presented to users. WIRED was not able to recreate anything close to that result.

And it's not just users on social media who were tricked by misleading screenshots of fake AI Overviews. The New York Times issued a correction to its reporting about the feature and clarified that AI Overviews never suggested users should jump off the Golden Gate Bridge if they are experiencing depression—that was just a dark meme on social media. “Others have implied that we returned dangerous results for topics like leaving dogs in cars, smoking while pregnant, and depression,” Reid wrote Thursday. “Those AI Overviews never appeared.”

Yet Reid’s post also makes clear that not all was right with the original form of Google’s big new search upgrade. The company made “more than a dozen technical improvements” to AI Overviews, she wrote.

Only four are described: better detection of “nonsensical queries” not worthy of an AI Overview; making the feature rely less heavily on user-generated content from sites like Reddit; offering AI Overviews less often in situations users haven’t found them helpful; and strengthening the guardrails that disable AI summaries on important topics such as health.

There was no mention in Reid’s blog post of significantly rolling back the AI summaries. Google says it will continue to monitor feedback from users and adjust the features as needed.

[tallaxia]

Death Machine article with director Stephen Norrington, Brad Dourif & Ely Pouget

Cinefantastique #26 - 1995

Brad Dourif creates the mother of all rampaging robots.

The mother of all psycho robots roamed the corridors of Pinewood Studios, England from September 2, 1993, for 12 weeks. But the 20-foot tall, cable-controlled star of DEATH MACHINE mav look vaguely familiar. Like a giant metallic version of the Alien from Rid¬ ley Scott’s 1979 science-fiction classic? "Well sort of,” replied director Stephen Norrington adding, "It’s like ROBOCOP, TERMINATOR and HARDWARE too! That’s why it got financed in the first place. But while DEATH MACHINE is in the same area as all of those genre movies, it has emerged from that place with a unique style and humor to become its own separate entity.” Trimark Pictures has picked up the film’s U.S. video and technical rights for release later this year.

Norrington makes his directorial debut with this selfpenned chiller after years of gaining a formidable reputation as one of Britain's best special effects masters. He began as Rick Baker’s runner on GREYSTOKE and has since worked on numerous blockbusters including ALIENS, RETURN TO OZ and YOUNG SHERLOCK HOLMES. "After GREMLINS 2 I began losing interest in effects,” explained Norrington. "I started writing scripts with effects twists and the third one I came up with was DEATH MACHINE.” By 1990 however, Norrington hadn't got very far in attracting any financial interest in his new ambition so he joined the ALIEN special effects crew “just to keep my hand in” and then accepted an offer to supervise SPLIT SECOND. While working on that futuristic actioncr, producer Laura Gregory showed interest in one of Norringlon’s other scripts. SPEEDER, as a possible sequel for Rutger Hauer. (The script: Norrington’s TERMINATOR meets A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET, is now planned as a follow-up to DEATH MACHINE.) The interest led Norrington to meet future DEATH MACHINE producer Vic Bateman (Japan's Victor Company head), who handled the world sales for SPLIT SECOND.

Noted Dominic Anciano, who produced DEATH MACHINE with Bateman and had a massive European success with Peter Medak’s THE KRAYS, "Vic thought Norrington ’s writing and ideas were very commercial and urged me to take him seriously. Because SPEEDER was apparently all tied up with Laura Gregory, I asked Stephen what else he had written and was given DEATH MACHINE. I thought it was so unusual for a British writer to be that succinct in his writing, that passionate about directing, 1 felt I had to give him the chance and let him make it his way. DEATH MACHINE is the sort of movie audiences worldwide want to see and we seem to have a commercial knack for making them in Britain.”

Co-financed by Japan’s Victor Company and Britain’s Entertainment Film Distributors (the latter produced SLIP STREAM), the $3 million DEATH MACHINE is set in the 21st century and focuses on nightmare events taking place behind the closed doors of the Chaank Weapons Corporation. The company has appointed a new female Chief Executive, Hayden Cale (Ely Pouget), to ensure they remain the leader of the techno-armament pack. But she wants to fire their number one asset Jack Dante, a neo-hippie whose dark genius for weaponry design is the envy of the industry. However, Dante is a childlike psychopath incapable of making the distinction between right and wrong after years of watching hardcore cartoon violence on television and decides he isn’t going without a fight. The result is the invention of his most destructive instrument ever…the unstoppable DEATH MACHINE.

Norrington pointed out, "It’s a hybrid of a million things I love; maniacs, actor Brad Dourif [who plays Dante], psycho robots, corporate nightmares, DIE HARD action and huge hi-tech sets. And that’s only naming a few. It’s your average ‘Crazed cyborg on the rampage menacing great looking people' saga!” Added Norrington more seriously, "While DEATH MACHINE is grim with some blood and gore, it isn't a splatter movie. Underneath the surface it’s about losing one’s innocence and how you become dehumanized if you are involved in an industry dealing with destruction. Do such inventors ever think about what they’re doing in real terms? Does their judgment have a guilty edge? This is about that turning off point taken to the most horrifying extreme.”

It was this edge in Norrington’s script which stirred Brad Dourif’s stomach a little. "And when that happens, it’s a sign of good material,” noted the voice of Chucky from the CHILD’S PLAY movie series and star of BODY PARTS and GRAVEYARD SHIFT. "The main point of interest for me was the cartoon connection. Dante is so tuned into animation and the mass media, he mimics everything he sees. I m taking a lot of acting risks playing this part because his responses are all so unreal and based on recognizable things. Dante responds more to TV than people. He’s a villain but a hard one to hate."

Many of the crew have noted how Dourif’s on-screen identity resembles Norrington's own off-screen look. Dourif nodded sagely, "There arc numerous similarities between Dante and Stephen. It’s his personal story about the problems we will all face when the world becomes even more industrialized. 1 can honestly say that Stephen is the best director I’ve ever worked with. It’s the era of first-timers and I've had an incredible run of them. Stephen is better equipped than most to direct this sort of movie because of his visual eye, love of the genre and his special effects background."

For Ely Pougct, the attraction was the weird twisted logic of DEATH MACHINE. The actress who appeared in the recent DARK SHADOWS TV series noted, “In Hayden’s backstory, she was responsible for the death of a child. So hunting and trying to kill the ‘childlike’ Dante causes her major psychological traumas. However, I'm definitely the tough Sigourney Weaver figure in DEATH MACHINE. Despite the script's hard as nails exterior, Stephen has put in a softness, an underlying sadness allying it more to KING KONG and FRANKENSTEIN than the obvious hi-tech equivalents.”

“The fine acting from Brad and Ely has made DEATH MACHINE less derivative than I expected in truth,” admitted Norrington on the Pinewood soundstage where the glass Chaank offices have been created. He added, “Their unique characterizations have added some real potent surprises above those contained in the script. It's less reliant on hard-tech gimmicks than I anticipated and far more bizarre than I ever imagined. I see it as a more thoughtful cross between Sam Raimi horror slapstick and James Cameron energetic action."

Norrington loves those two directors. It’s the reason he included them in a script peppered with familiar names for the leading characters; Scott Ridley, Carpenter and, of course, Dante are other examples. Plagiarism as an art form!” said Norrington. "I wrote the script when I was still a frothing fan boy. Then someone pointed out Fred Dekker had done exactly the same thing in NIGHT OF THE CREEPS. How uncool! 1 ditched a few references after finding that out.”

Responsible for the special effects in Norrington’s feature debut is Creature Effects (CFX for short) an all-British outfit consisting of Dave Elsey, Cliff Wallace, Alan Hedgecock and Brendan Lonergan who together and separately have worked on numerous high profile movies including NIGHTBREED, RETURN OF THE JEDI and WHO FRAMED ROGER RABBIT. Norrington chose CFX mainly because he knew them, and their work, personally.

Constructing the Death Machine fell to Animated Extras, the prosthetic/ mechanics company owned by Daniel Parker and Nick Williams who worked on the Indiana Jones film scories, ENEMY MINE and MARY SHELLEY’S FRANKENSTEIN. They worked from Norrington’s design marquette for the killer robot. "The fullsize construction was so big and heavy it needed 12 people on the controls to make it move,” said Parker.

So was directing harder or easier than Norrington expected? He gave a wry smile and said, “I’d directed some award winning commercials and promos before DEATH MACHINE. Anyone could do it. I’m living proof that directing, in the words of the immortal, god-like James Cameron, is criminally easy. The only challenge I’ve faced had to do with time and money: staying at a consistently high quality on such a short schedule.”