#technology transition

[unbfacts]

[digitalyogii]

Musk places remaining Twitter-branded items up for auction.

Elon Musk has again decided to organize a garage sale this time to clear out leftover items, from the Twitter brand at the X headquarters. The ongoing auction features more than 600 items, including eye-catching neon signs that showcase the Twitter bird, a hashtag, and the iconic @ symbol. The collection includes Twitter-branded furniture like a coffee table shaped like the Twitter bird and a…

[zadokthepriest]

by Anton Hangschlitt

[bioethicists]

it's quite offputting to me when ppl can't disentangle their hatred for capitalism from a hatred for... new technological innovation? the ways in which capitalism has shaped the development of certain technologies has been deeply negative, not to mention that imperialism ensures that new technology is usually produced via extractive relationships with both the planet + ppl in the global south.

but this weird tying of capitalist impact on innovation (+the idea of what is/is not innovation) to hatred of innovation itself (or even more disturbing valorization of "the good old days"/implications that technology is causing social degeneracy) is baffling to me. perhaps it is impossible to achieve specific technologies without unconscionable resource extraction practices, in which case they should not be pursued. but so many ppl act like there is something inherently morally suspect in pursuit of tech such as autonomous vehicles or AI or automation, independent of the material conditions that produced them/that they may produce.

tesla is evil because they exploit ppl for profit + participate in an economy built on the exploitation of the global south + use 'innovation' as a marketing tool to mask serious safety concerns. they're not evil bcuz they want to make vehicles that move on their own. there are actually a great deal of fantastic applications for vehicles which move on their own? equating technology with moral decay is not a radical position; you need a material analysis of why technological innovation has become characterized by harmful practices.

[astrologylunarfish]

Let’s talk about some major generational transits coming and how it could affect us:

The outer planets- Pluto, Neptune and Uranus are considered generational planets. They affect things over a long period of time and shift generations. They do not move into new signs often. It is rare that all 3 are shifting within about 7 months of each other. This points to some major shifts coming.

Pluto has already moved in Aquarius - going to see huge shifts on technology, think AI, using technology to get ahead. Fake information and images will be more and more widespread. This is because technology is ahead of humanity. How much will technology change? It may become more and more obsolete and we may need new ways of getting accurate information. How we use technology will shift.

Neptune moving into Aries 3/30/2025 - this will be a big shift. It has been in Pisces since 2011, it added a huge spiritual awakening- think how much astrology, tarot, the occult has become more open and prevalent since before 2011. People have been interested in working on themselves spiritually. It also introduces a lot of misinformation and illusion. Fast forward to Neptune moving into Aries. The shift will turn towards action, courage, revolution, creativity. The illusionary aspect goes away. People are going to want straight forward, authentic information.

And owwwweww now in July of 2025 you will then have Uranus leave Taurus and enter gemini. Having Uranus in Gemini will add to advances in how we communicate and think.

Overall we can see that generationally over the next 5-10 years we are straddling a very new chapter. Where communication, technology and information become central focus. We will see our platforms for information change. We may have to create new platforms in order to receive quality news or communication. There will be a strong need for authenticity while technology continues advancing.

Thoughts?

[utmoved]

🤍🖼️🤍

[focsle]

I hate websites I hate managing websites so much. I'm always clenching my fists waiting for the day GTW completely breaks. I just wanna draw comics man.

[solarpunkbusiness]

Since 2011, the StEnSea (Stored Energy in the Sea) project has been exploring the possibilities of using the pressure in deep water to store energy in the short-to-medium term, in giant hollow concrete spheres sunken into seabeds, hundreds of feet below the surface.

An empty sphere is essentially a fully charged storage unit. Opening its valve enables water to flow into the sphere, and this drives a turbine and a generator that feed electricity into the grid. To recharge the sphere, water is pumped out of it against the surrounding water pressure using energy from the grid.

Each hollow concrete sphere measures 30 ft (9 m) in diameter, weighs 400 tons, and will be anchored to the sea floor at depths of 1,970 - 2,625 ft (600 - 800 m) for optimal performance.

[pixel404]

Wayne Edson Bryan, I Wouldn’t Recommend It, 2025, digital collage/study for painting created with 26.1.0 Adobe Photoshop. No generative ai tools were used.

In a world increasingly filtered through screens, I create images that hover between presence and illusion. 

My work is a collision of analog and digital - paint, pixels, collage, and code - layered to form dense, hybrid spaces where meaning fragments and reforms. I draw from the noise of the everyday: outsider art, advertising, punk energy, glitch logic. These elements don't just coexist - they clash, dissolve, and recombine. I'm interested in what happens at these points of friction: where abstraction absorbs representation, where authorship slips, and where the viewer is invited not just to look, but to question their relationship with the image. 

Using digital photo-editing tools alongside hand-drawn marks and photographs, I construct visual surfaces that feel tactile yet untouchable - illusions of depth and form that ultimately reveal themselves as constructs. These are not paintings in the traditional sense, nor are they purely digital artifacts. They are something in between - transitional objects for a transitional age. 

My work is rooted in the belief that art should challenge perception, resist categorization, and mirror the fragmented, fast-moving world we now inhabit.

https://www.instagram.com/wayneedsonbryan/

[librarycards]

The term “social transition” has a non-trans history in the psychology of adolescence. In the 1980s, it was an operative metaphor for describing adolescence through the American trope of a rocky period of self-making, what one psychologist in 1978 termed “the difficulty of adolescence as a transitional period.” The primary “transition” that concerned psychologists at the time was school, where social shifts in friend groups and hierarchies from middle school to high school affected a young person’s self-esteem and mental integrity, resulting either in positive self-actualization or, if the social transition went poorly, “problem behavior.”³

The term “social transition” was only later adopted by psychologists and psychiatrists looking to powerfully expand their jurisdiction over trans youth to include entirely non-medical practices that often spur parents to reject or harm their kids: wearing a dress, cutting or growing out hair, wearing a binder or a bra, wearing makeup, or adopting a new name and pronouns. Making those banal but concrete practices of changing gender into psychiatric events was intended to convince anxious and angry parents that they shouldn’t put down their children. By the same token, tying practices of clothing and self-description to healthy development overinflated them with a pathological degree of significance, upping the ante and creating a lucrative target, both for parents of trans youth who wanted to stop their children from transitioning and, now, politicians.

I don’t mean to imply that psychiatry directly caused HB 2885, just that it clearly holds one part of the blame for inventing the root vulnerability that Gragg has taken advantage of in Missouri. If anything, the attachment of sex offender felonies to a teacher complimenting a teenager’s haircut exposes, once and for all, how fraudulent the medicalization of transition has been all along. Gragg can claim the right of the state to control children’s dress and speech (masquerading as the rights of parents) through teachers and counselors, in part, because psychiatry and medicine first claimed the right to regulate trans youth’s practices of transition.

Still, the causal events that led to HB 2885 run far deeper than the shallow history of “social transition” as an especially foolish psychiatric fiction. Here lies the far bigger problem raised by this bill. Not only will psychiatrists prove to be the least effective political allies of trans youth in Missouri, but contemporary queer and transgender culture’s elevation of the private right to dress as the sine qua non of politics is also quite useless as a political strategy.

Part of what I gather stuns in bills like HB 2885 is their audacity. The law would target the most conservative, least politically subversive of all transgender practices: individual style, identification, and language-use. In the case of minors, “social transition” is also a cheap compromise offered to young people who are refused blockers and hormones by disapproving parents and doctors, but that compromise is offered in a broader queer and transgender culture that has elevated self-identification through style as the ultimate arbiter of being transgender, making it much harder to advocate for a genuine right to transition for anyone, teenager or adult.

[...]

Students have very limited First Amendment rights on school campuses, meaning that they cannot present themselves as private individuals enjoying the right to dress as they please.⁷Their self-expression is governed from the outset by a competing set of custodians, from parents to schoolteachers, to psychiatrists and doctors, to the Missouri House of Representatives. Trans youth’s interests are therefore materially extraneous to the mainline of contemporary queer and transgender culture, whose architects were wealthy, college-educated adults whose prior enjoyment of full-citizenship was the very reason they demanded only the affirmation of a right to dress.

I suspect that part of the genuine shock of bills like HB 2885 is that most people reasoned that LGBT liberalism’s elevation of the private individual over all other political concerns would inoculate dress and language from state interference. It evidently has not. What perhaps has been misunderstood, then, is how the state exercises power. The law cannot prohibit being transgender, for there is no such state of being. The state has no need to target people’s interior selves, either, for the law can seize people where it always has, in concrete social practices that it simply declares are the undesirable traits of transgender people—namely, practices of transition.

Jules Gill-Peterson, The Unimportance of Wearing Clothes. [emphasis added]

[sayhoneysiren]

WHAT PLUTO ENTERING AQUARIUS MEANS FOR US

[zadokthepriest]

by Maciej Drabik

[allgremlinyaps]

stop arguing the existence of forklifts in the atla comics under my post you guys. there was an honest to god truck in Day Of Black Sun

[jocrudedispatches]

INHUMAN INTELLIGENCE

Is there an inhuman intelligence here?

The tramlines move

Their speakers speak

And they carry us.

So large they could obliterate us in an instant

To say nothing of the systems that enable them!

Electricity

Radio

Internet

Consuming more in an instant than we can in a lifetime

And we say we are our masters

That we have created them

Are we not the masters of animals?

Has the Sorceror's Apprentice lost control of His powers?

All that is solid melts into air

All that is holy is profaned

Is there an inhuman intelligence here?

I'm so afraid.

God help me, I'm afraid.