#user input validation

[robomad]

Django Form Validation Techniques

Learn how to validate forms in Django with built-in methods, custom validation, and best practices. Ensure data integrity and improve user experience with robust form validation techniques.

Introduction Form validation is a crucial aspect of web development, ensuring that the data submitted by users is accurate and safe. Django provides a comprehensive form handling framework, including robust validation mechanisms that help maintain data integrity and security. This guide will walk you through various techniques for validating forms in Django, covering built-in methods, custom…

[phandillion]

[felixcloud6288]

Some of the Death Note's rules are really funny if you think of them as clarifications for users, necessary fixes to address exploits, or bugs that the Shinigami king isn't going to fix.

If a Death Note owner accidentally misspells a person's name four times, that person will be free from being killed by the Death Note. -> patch to fix exploit where users would attempt to brute force killing someone by writing every possible name in the Death Note

However, if the Death Note owner intentionally misspells the name four times, the owner will die. -> Patch fix to stop exploit where users would try to grant themselves immunity

The person whose name was misspelled four times on purpose will not be free of death by a Death Note. -> Necessary clarification because users thought they could grant someone else immunity

If the same name is written in two or more Death Notes within 0.06 seconds, the entry is regarded as simultaneous; the Death Notes will not take effect and the individual will not die. -> Rare bug related to When the same name is written in two or more Death Notes, the Note which was used first will take effect, regardless of the time of death. Root cause is server requests first check if the same existing request was already made. Simultaneous requests assume the other request is valid and delete themselves. Will Not Fix. Bug is rare and fixing it could result in new exploits related to repeatedly writing a person's name in the Death Note.

When you write multiple names in the Death Note and then write down one cause of death within 40 seconds of writing the first victim's name, the cause will take effect for all the written names. Also, after writing the cause of death, even if the conditions of death are written within six minutes and 40 seconds in the human world, the conditions will apply only to the victims for whom they are possible. Those for whom the conditions are not possible will simply die from the specified cause. -> Code bug caused by undefined and ambiguous input syntax. Will Not Fix.

Once the victim's name, cause of death, and conditions of death have been written down in the Death Note, the death will take place even if that Death Note, or the part of the note used, is destroyed before the stated time of death. -> Clarification to stop users from pointlessly destroying the Death Note

The Death Note will not affect those less than 780 days old. -> A patch added to get around various cultural arguments related to when something is considered "Human"

You cannot kill humans who are more than 124 years of age with the Death Note. -> Added in reference to a Shinigami meme

You cannot kill humans with less than 12 minutes of life left (in human calculations). -> Patch that addresses undefined behavior from edge cases where the victim dies naturally before the Death Note can normally take effect or during the window the user can write additional details to the cause of death.

[whinyskeleton]

Haven’t seen this yet so I’m gonna talk about it. The majority of people Elisabeth/Sue talk to throughout the movie are men. Elisabeth talks to women 1) on the set of her job before she gets fired and 2) when a waitress asks for her order. Every influencing voice and relationship she has is men.

Her boss telling her she’s too old to be in the business anymore, the other substance user who turns her on to it, her old classmate from high school who she turns to for a last ditch grab at validating her self worth. Her dealer on the phone is also a male voice.

Underlying her deep rooted self hatred is a desperate grab for male validation. When she’s Sue, her boss will do anything to keep her on the show. Society even reinforces his decision to fire Elisabeth by rewarding him with higher ratings. The men around her are obsessed with her to a comical degree (the line read on “youre even more beautiful than before” is practically goofy) while in Elisabeth, they either ignore her or treat her with disdain, even going so far as to get unnecessarily violet (what even was that reaction from the motorcycle guy?)

But despite all of this, in BOTH bodies, she hardly speaks. Men talk at her, not to her. The majority of her lines are when she’s alone, to herself or to the voice on the phone. When decisions are made, it’s without her input. The biggest source of control she has is choosing to take the substance and how she uses it.

All of this really made the movie feel like, to me, a depiction of the gruesome things women do to themselves in an attempt to chase male approval, whether or not they realize that male validation is the thing they are chasing. Elisabeth was chasing an impossible beauty standard that she herself spent her life perpetuating, and it was men at the top deciding what that beauty standard was.

It felt like a reflection of the countless arguments I’ve seen across many a social platform- “I wear makeup every day because /I/ want to” “I don’t think there’s anything wrong with my nose shape, I just don’t like how it looks on /my/ face” - but who taught you these things? what put those ideas in your mind in the first place? Who was influencing the person who was influencing you?

Because yes, it was Elisabeth’s decision to take the substance. But would she have taken it at all if she wasn’t a part of the hollywood beauty industry- one that specifically focuses on what women’s bodies are “supposed” to look like?

[the-crystal-femmes]

Hello! We wanted to make this post in regards to the banning of TikTok in the United States, and the potential influx of TikTok users onto Tumblr! We've heard that individuals may be curious as to what a physical alterhuman is, and as a system who is bodily physically alterhuman, we are more than happy to explain it by revamping our original explanation.

So, that being said

What is a physical alterhuman?

// pt: what is a physical alterhuman //

A physical alterhuman, as the namesake implies, is someone who identifies as alterhuman on a physical level. There is NO set experience for this, just like every other way of experiencing alterhumanity.

Examples of this include, but aren't limited to;

Being able to transform into an alterhuman being, a headmate in a system who may see the body as a physical alterhuman when they front, the "human" appearance being a veil or a glamor, the body simply being alterhuman, etc

Personally, we fall under the category of believing our body's "human" appearance is a veil, and we speculate we are, in reality, a shapeshifter.

A common misconception that's around the alterhuman communities are that ALL physical alterhumans are delusional. And your first instinct may be to try to defend by saying "not all of them are delusional!"

Well, I wanted to say that, even if someone's physical alterhumanity is caused or influenced in any way by delusions, they are still 100% valid and shouldn't be shunned away due to experiencing something like this.

Someone being physically alterhuman for ANY reason doesn't give anyone the right to try to "reality check" them, identity police them, ridicule them, or hate on them. Even if you're trying to do these things in "good intent", you're most likely doing more harm than good! You're talking to a stranger on the internet that you don't know the full story of, and you definitely don't know what's on their kind.

And you may be uncomfortable with physical alterhumans, but if you are, then just steer clear of us! No one is forcing you to be around us, and your discomfort doesn't give you a right to try to push us out of the community. You may think we are "scary" or "too weird", and to that, I say open your eyes.

If you want to discuss this post, civil discussion is your key to go, so please remain civil in the reblogs and replies! And if you have any corrections, input is appreciated.

- Lemon (it/her/him) and Dewdrop (she/zem)

.

[Dividers by cafekitsune]

[cripplecharacters]

is it valid to make a character use a wheelchair because of autism? i have an idea that she uses a powerchair because walking sometimes overstimulates her, all this muscles moving and clothes touching her calves and everything else...

Hello asker,

I'm going to start my answer with a question that I'm going to ask you to hold in the back of your mind as you read my response: Why don't you want her to be physically disabled?

Now, onto the rest of the answer.

This isn't very realistic. Starting with the fact that a wheelchair user will still wear clothes that will touch them and that might overstimulate them, so the powerchair isn't actually serving the purpose of taking that stimuli away. And on top of that, powerchairs themselves provide a lot of sensory input. A chair that you sit on? That is sensory input. When you roll over somewhere gravelly and the vibrations pass through the chair? That is sensory input.

You also mention the muscles moving. I don't know anyone who gets overstimulated from just their muscles moving; that doesn't mean it doesn't happen whatsoever. But: walking is not the only thing you use muscles for. Talking, eating, waving, using sign language, dancing, writing, holding things, etc, all use muscles. Does this overstimulate her, too? Have you researched if this is someone's life experience and how they deal with it?

Also, a powerchair isn't cheap nor particularly easy to get. Your character would most likely need to qualify for one and then obtain it. It might be more realistic for your character to use an adult stroller, but again, this also provides sensory input, and would need someone to push her.

This all does not mean that your character cannot be an autistic character with a power wheelchair. Many autistic people are! However, this would likely be due to physical disabilities they have.

These might be comorbidities often seen with autism, like severe dyspraxia or cerebral palsy, or movement disorders, or seizure disorders. Or they might be comorbidities not necessarily related to autism, but people can have multiple conditions at a time. Your character could have multiple sclerosis, or muscular dystrophy, or a TBI, or a spinal cord injury. These are all real and pretty common reasons people use wheelchairs, and they are all possible along with autism. You don't have to abandon the aspect of 'autism' to make your character a power wheelchair user.

I want to end with a note that "validity" isn't the point. I appreciate you caring enough to send this ask and wanting to know what we think. But my concern here is not validity. My concern here is that not considering reasons further than just 'autism' for your character to use a powerchair can sort of lead to you using these aesthetics of physically disabled people without taking into consideration their life and realities.

Hope this helps,

– mod sparrow

[centrally-unplanned]

I might be a bit of a weirdo in this regard so I am a bit biased, but I think a fundamental problem AI Companion Apps like lets say Friend.com are going to have in "replacing socializing" is that socialization is instrumental and that instrumentality lies in the real. The ad copy for this product and so many of its various clones is a normal-looking everyman just chatting with their companion, making comments about the weather or how their hiking is going, etc. Treating it like a friend and talking to it like a friend does.

The rub there is that not many people do those behaviors for the reasons presented. They are treated as somehow "inherently" enjoyable, that you just love talking to ~something~ about the weather and anything that can pantomime the right responses is going to do it for you. That isn't how it works for most people; the point is the other person. The words themselves, divorced from the speaker being a breathing human you have a relationship with, are not very interesting. Instead it is about building rapport, signalling care, a human-connected daily ritual. Sometimes it is positive, but it is negative sometimes too! You put up with Kyle's 18th story about his dog's health woes because, look, it's boring as shit, but Kyle needs to rant about it and if this is the price of admission to his amazing saturday brunch parties you are going to pay up.

Even interesting-in-their-own-right convos are normally not like wow, you taught me some amazing new fact; it is hearing your friend's interesting take or experiences. There is this whole structural undercurrent here, this person is admirable or kind or you have a lot of history with them or they are really hot and so their words are contextualized into an emotional experience of connection or curiosity or wanting to impress them and a million other things around that structure.

When you shed all of that, when it is an AI that you know is just programmed to listen, that you can turn off at will, that you can just override and ask it for directions or to switch over to spotify or to sext you catgirl pics, there isn't anything left. These conversations are useless - what is the point? Why would I tell my phone how tired I am? Those are empty words, I am immediately bored and will flip over to YouTube instead.

Obviously there are niche applications. Porn and its adjacencies of course, where the fiction is the point. Specifics like a daily journal that interacts with you a bit? Sure, that would work for some. One-offs and curiosities of course, "Siri+" because that is a functional tool. But none of these are the same thing.

Now there are already, and have been for years, successful apps like Replika or Character.AI. The people on those clearly seem to enjoy talking to a digital friend, right? And I agree with you, humans are diverse, for some people this stuff works. Now for many, even possibly the majority depending on how you count it, these things are just the above categories though; a porn bot, a curiosity, a "man look how far AI has come" exploration. But I agree there are users who truly treat these tools as their friend or partner

And I have looked at the conversations those people have with their friend or partner. And...look. These tools suck. They do not, in any way, believably mimic a human conversation. By design they do not, endlessly accommodating and affirming, with shallow personalities and infinite flexibility. They are not friends, they are boxes to stuff inputs into and get validations out of, no human conversation works this way. Some people want that, no worries. Some people need that, maybe, I get it. But most people don't. These conversations would, if treated as an actual companion to most people, be incredibly cringe. They are not a sign that AI friends for everyone are right around the corner, if only we boost the specs. They are a niche product for a certain kind of person that does not mass scale at all.

You can sell people the "illusion" of a friend, even a nearly perfect one, and it might sell - as the stage show it is. Like a video game, something you explore, experience, and discard. Because it's not a person; I can just drop it if I want and it won't feel anything. That is what makes it an illusion and not magic; it is a trick that I see through over time. And making whatever implementation of Claude your little bluetooth-on-a-necklace runs have 10% higher fidelity or "able to pass the Turing Test" isn't going to change that. Maybe it will work as a product - video games sell after all. But it won't be a social revolution.

Then again these Friend.com guys apparently spent 2/3rds of their seed money on buying the web domain for Friend so they might have other problems to worry about.

[fearfulfertility]

CONFIDENTIAL ETHICS REPORT

DRC, Internal Affairs Division, Ethics & Compliance Command

To: Operations Oversight Committee

From: Chief Operating Officer [REDACTED], Ethics Compliance Officer

Date: [REDACTED]

Subject: Comprehensive Review of the Ethics Training Program

Executive Summary

This report reviews the current Ethics Training Program (ETP) across all operational paternity compounds. The program, originally designed to instill a sense of moral discipline, professional integrity, and emotional detachment, has encountered significant challenges in achieving its objectives. 

Despite mandatory completion rates of [REDACTED]%, on-the-ground observations indicate that ethical lapses remain persistent. This review aims to identify existing weaknesses in the training framework and propose enhancements to ensure staff uphold DRC values of compliance, efficiency, and emotional neutrality.

Key Findings

I. Declining Ethical Compliance

Despite repeated training modules emphasizing professional distance, a recent audit found:

[REDACTED]% of staff exhibited unnecessary physical engagement with surrogates, ranging from [REDACTED] to unauthorized [REDACTED].

[REDACTED]% of handlers reported experiencing "existential guilt episodes" after prolonged surrogate interactions.

[REDACTED]% of new recruits required retraining after expressing---

[SYSTEM RESPONSE]

[AUTHENTICATION PROTOCOL ENGAGED]

[SECURITY LEVEL]: [HIGH]

[USER IDENTIFICATION]: [Executive Level-01A]

[CREDENTIAL AUTHENTICATION IN PROGRESS...]

[ENTER PASSWORD]: [***************]

[PROCESSING INPUT...]

[VALIDATING PASSWORD...]

[█░░░░░░░░░░░░] 10%

[███░░░░░░░░░░] 30%

[███████░░░░░░] 60%

[███████████░░] 90%

[█████████████] 100%

[PASSWORD ACCEPTED]

[ACCESS GRANTED]: [HIGH CLEARANCE MODE ACTIVATED]

[SECURITY OVERRIDES]: [Enabled]

[REDACTED DATA]: [Unlocked]

II. Inappropriate Surrogate Relations

Despite the introduction of the Male Paternity Regulation and Evaluation Guide (MPREG), security audits and surveillance reviews have uncovered multiple incidents in which staff have failed to maintain appropriate boundaries with surrogates. These violations undermine the core principles of surrogate management and jeopardize operational efficiency by fostering unhealthy emotional dependencies and encouraging surrogate non-compliance.

Documented Breaches:

Unauthorized Physical Contact

Multiple reports indicate staff members engaging in “excessive belly-rubbing” under the guise of "medical check-ups," with some employees spending prolonged periods tracing stretch marks and remarking on the “impressive elasticity” of surrogate skin.

In one instance, an employee was observed resting his forehead against a surrogate's abdomen, citing an attempt to "listen for movement patterns."

Security footage captured a handler providing “unsanctioned belly massages” of seven late-term surrogates (immobile due to the size of pregnancies), commenting on the "firmness" and "size" even when surrogates protested the contact.

Surrogate Statement

"I kept telling him it wasn't necessary, but he just kept running his hands over my belly, saying he was 'checking for ripeness.' It felt weird—like he wasn’t even listening to me. I couldn’t move much, and he took advantage of that." — Surrogate S138-908-M, 30 days gestation with tridecuplets (13)

Employee Statement

"Listen, the bigger they get, the more we need to monitor things up close. You can’t just eyeball this stuff—you must feel it and assess how the skin’s stretching. If I rest my head on their stomach, it’s just to check fetal movement. Some of these guys have so many in there, it’s hard to tell what’s going on otherwise." — Handler, Employee ID# HS-138-033

Excessive Engagement During Lactation Sessions

Instances have been documented where staff members linger beyond their allotted monitoring times during surrogate lactation cycles, citing the need to "ensure maximum output."

Reports detail employees offering unsolicited physical contact during surrogate pectoral care, including lotion applications that fall outside their scope of responsibilities.

One employee was reprimanded after being discovered providing “oral collection,” allegedly to "maximize output," despite explicit prohibitions against direct interference.

Surrogate Statement

"He was supposed to check the pumps, but he just stood there watching… way too long. Then he started helping me put lotion on without asking. I told him I could do it myself, but he kept saying it was 'part of the procedure.' It made me really uncomfortable, but what am I supposed to do? I can’t exactly get up and leave." — Surrogate S111-334-L, 28 days gestation with dodecuplets (12)

Employee Statement

"I was just making sure he was comfortable! These guys leak all day; you wouldn’t believe the state of their skin. If I stay a little longer to make sure the lotion is applied evenly, it’s because I care about their well-being." — Lactation Technician, Employee ID# HS-111-115

Compromising Language 

Audio logs indicate staff addressing surrogates using inappropriate language, such as: 

Overripe

Milk Machines

Fetus Factories

Human Brooders

Staff have been overheard offering unnecessary commentary during routine examinations, with remarks such as” 

A gut full of government property…

All belly, no brains…

His womb is bigger than his future…

That belly’s in its own zip code…

Push or pop, your choice…

I’ve seen parade floats smaller than him…

Surrogate Statement

"They act like we’re not even people. One called me a ‘baby factory’ right to my face. They joke about us like we’re nothing but our wombs and pecs. It’s humiliating. I hear them laughing, saying stuff like, ‘Another day, another pop and drops.’" — Surrogate S119-501-R, 23 days gestation with Octodecuplets (18)

Employee Statement

"It’s just harmless fun. You see the same thing every day. You gotta lighten the mood. Yeah, we joke around a bit—what’s the harm? We don’t mean anything by it. If calling them ‘overripe’ gets us to relax, then what’s the problem?" — Compound Attendant, Employee ID# HS-119-187

Misuse of Medical Equipment:

Several staffers were found to be conducting authorized medical check-ups, recording or imaging surrogates, raising concerns that these materials are being used for personal gratification or unauthorized sale.

Surrogate Statement

"I noticed one of the nurses recording me... at first I thought it was a medical checkup but then he followed me into the showers. They’re not checking for my health—they’re keeping it for themselves. It’s disturbing. I don’t know who’s looking at me." — Surrogate S127-672-N, 25 days gestation with Quattuordecuplets (14)

Employee Statement

"Look, sometimes you see something interesting, and you want to study it later. These guys carry huge loads, and it’s fascinating from a medical perspective. I may have saved a few pictures, but it’s strictly professional… mostly. If some of the guys take a peek after hours, well, that’s their business." — Medical Technician, Employee ID# HS-127-087

III. Rising Moral Hesitations

Data collected from exit interviews indicate an alarming decline in ethical standards across multiple paternity compounds, with widespread reports of staff failing to uphold professional boundaries in their interactions with surrogates. 

Despite the implementation of the Male Paternity Regulation and Evaluation Guide (MPREG), surrogates have expressed discomfort and frustration with these breaches, noting that staff often dismiss or minimize their concerns. Meanwhile, employees continue to rationalize their actions, citing the unique challenges of surrogate management as justification for their behavior. The increasing frequency of these incidents signals a systemic failure to enforce ethical training and disciplinary measures, necessitating immediate corrective action to restore professional integrity and safeguard surrogate welfare.

IV. Proposed Ethics Training Enhancements

To mitigate these issues and strengthen staff resilience against ethical drift, the following measures are proposed:

Mandatory Hands-Off Policy Enforcement with Physical Barriers

A revised "Look, Don't Touch" policy will be implemented to combat the persistent issue of unauthorized physical contact. Staff will also undergo regular "hand discipline" exercises, reinforcing professional restraint techniques.

Behavioral Detachment Conditioning Program

Employees will participate in an intensive desensitization curriculum to mitigate emotional attachments and unhealthy fixations. Daily affirmations such as “Submission, Not Compassion” and “Productivity Over Personal” will be recited to reinforce emotional neutrality.

Milking Procedure Automation Initiative

In response to the growing concern of excessive lactation engagement, compounds will explore the use of fully automated milking stations, eliminating the need for staff to intervene manually. Advanced monitoring tools will ensure accurate data collection without physical oversight. Employees lingering in lactation zones will face immediate reassignment to less surrogate-focused duties.

Conclusion

The proposed enhancements to the ETP, including stricter enforcement measures, behavioral conditioning, and technological interventions, aim to address these concerns through deterrence, accountability, and operational improvements.

By implementing a robust hands-off policy, reinforcing professional detachment through targeted training, and introducing automation to reduce unnecessary interaction, the DRC can work towards restoring ethical discipline within the workforce. Ultimately, the success of these measures will depend on leadership commitment, ongoing surveillance, and a willingness to adapt training strategies to the evolving challenges of surrogate management.

[SYSTEM RESPONSE]

[AUTHENTICATION PROTOCOL ENGAGED]

[SECURITY OVERRIDES]: [Disabled]

[REDACTED DATA]: [Locked]

----------------

Sending...

Sending...

Sending...

Read...

----------------

To: Chief Operating Officer [REDACTED], Ethics & Compliance Command

From: Director [REDACTED]

Date: [REDACTED]

Subject: RE: Comprehensive Review of the Ethics Training Program

While I acknowledge the concerns outlined in your report regarding ethical lapses, I must emphasize that operational productivity remains our primary focus. The reality is that our quotas are being met—exceeded, in fact—and that should be our key metric of success, not a handful of staff engaging in what I can only describe as “overenthusiastic” surrogate monitoring.

The bottom line is this: as long as the babies are born on schedule and our quotas are satisfied, I see no pressing need to disrupt compound operations with redundant policy enforcement and additional training.

Frankly, the incidents described—while colorful—reflect the unique demands of our workforce. Staff working closely with surrogates day in and day out are bound to find creative ways to “stay engaged,” and quite honestly, if a little belly rubbing keeps morale high and output consistent, I see no reason to intervene. After all, we're running a high-pressure operation, not a monastery.

I trust that my position on this matter is clear.

Continue monitoring for any gross misconduct that may threaten productivity, but let’s not get bogged down policing every lingering glance or overzealous stretch mark examination.

Director [REDACTED]

----------------

Click Here to return to DRC Report Archives

[clemymimi]

So uh I kinda platonically ship Kokuzan, do you think that’s way for that to work while trying to be as non-toxic as possible lol?

— ♠️ anon (claiming a sign off cuz I felt like it lol)

Absolutely! Letting you in on a secret: I ship them too ;)

The small crumbs of their dynamic in kimetsu no yaiba is only really shown through information we receive from the official fanbooks: that muzan views kokushibo as a business partner, that they get along, that kokushibo finds it relieving that muzan can read his mind because there won't be any misunderstandings between them, that kokushibo has no intention of betraying muzan.. then of course the fact that muzan offered michikatsu demonhood and behaved rather gentlemanly when he did so (which one could of course chalk up to muzan wanting to turn a breathing user into a demon but.. he also could have gone about it in a less friendlier manner too) and the fact that kokushibo canonically states that muzan and he killed all of the sun Breathers and worked together on that + muzan knows yoriichis name (the only person who could have told him about yoriichi is kokushibo) which hints at the fact that muzan told kokushibo about his confrontation with yoriichi + there is also this tidbit about kokushibo killing the ubuyashiki of his time and presenting the head to muzan.

Aside from that we don't get to see much about these two in kimetsu no yaiba. But the foundation that these small snippets offer us is very strong! Kokushibo is also the only upper moon whose death muzan actually addresses in some way. Because they have so little screen time as a duo in the manga directly, there is a lot of room for different interpretations so shipping them in whatever way you'd like is totally valid! I'd even argue and say that their bond - no matter how you want to ship them - is always going to be canon compliant because we don't get to see them interact directly aside from muzan making kokushibo that offer ;)

And don't even get me started on kimetsu gaikuen! These two are SO in sync with each other. Let me just share a few of my favourite moments:

1. Kokushibos devotion is fully visible during the pumpkin balloon chapter in kimetsu gaikuen

Kokushibo ready to literally kill a man just so that he can win the contest and get the tickets to find ubuyashikis' weakness because he finds muzans bad moods heartwrenching (he literally states this in a manga panel) and wants to help muzan 😭🙌

2. Protective kokushibo

Kokushibo instinctually stepping forwards to protect muzan although he's muzans secretary, NOT his bodyguard. He has no obligation to protect muzan. The fact that muzan let's him step closer? As though perfectly used to it? Kokushibo has likely done this before

3. The drum throw incident

Canon muzan is characterised by his fear of mortality.. and yet here we have a very much mortal muzan putting his life into kokushibos hands (literally!) As though it is as easy as breathing. Literally demanding kokushibo throw him 😭🙌 and kokushibo doing so without question??? Kdnsndn

4. Shared scary aura

Ah just them scaring the living hell out of muzans employees with their shared menacing aura. They're so in sync

5. In sync head turn

The way they even turn their heads around at the exact same time 😭🙌

6. Muzans switch up as soon as kokushibo opened his mouth

Muzan ready to throw douma out of his office until kokushibo speaks up and vouches for douma. Muzan is grumpy about it but changes his mind because of kokushibos input.

There are so many other moments I could list to be honest but I think I've brought my point across! Whether it is kimetsu gaikuen or kimetsu no yaiba what kokushibo and muzan share with each other is indeed special, no matter how you want to look at it. As for a way for it to work without it being toxic? Well I don't think they're toxic in the canon verse either.

It's a tricky path because muzan IS a rather toxic person/has many toxic traits but it is possible for a person that has toxic traits to have a healthy-ish relationship with a person. because the difference between muzans dynamic with kokushibo and muzans dynamic with other demons is all about kokushibo.

Kokushibo doesn't mind muzans invasive nature, he finds comfort in it. Finally there is someone who understands him and there won't be any misconceptions between them. This turns muzans trait into a strength because muzan gives kokushibo precisely what he needs + and feels comfortable with and even wants = complete understanding.

Kokushibo has no intention of betraying muzan, he has nothing to hide. He has no issue with muzans paranoid nature.

Another thing about them is that as a former hashira, kokushibo knew precisely WHAT he was getting himself into when he accepted muzans offer. He knew what becoming a demon would entail, was aware of all of the pros and cons and he did it anyways. The fact that muzan really actually did give him a choice is also rather telling as well. Kokushibo wanted this. He knew what he was getting himself into and he consented to this knowing all of the perimeters.

The things other demons have issues with (the mind reading, obeying orders) are things that kokushibo feels perfectly comfortable with and even likes.

And we can't forget their deal: kokushibo gets to perfect his techniques through immortality, muzan gets a demon who uses breathing techniques. They both get what they wanted out of this agreement.

So if they both get what they want? If they both chose this? If they're both happy with this? Could it truly be called toxic?

[santae-salt]

it's funny that in one of these posts someone suggested that disgruntled users create their own pet site, and then the comments were all people saying why it was too hard, and that it took too much time, money, and effort, and they couldn't do it.

Look, I think the way CJ is handling some things is pretty terrible, but can we at least level set that running a site like this is HARD? I mostly agree with all the criticism that's been brought up here, but what I don't see much is an acknowledgement that everyone wants to be pleased, when there is literally no pleasing everyone. This is an opinionated and vocal community, and even in the posts on this blog there are clearly very different opinions on any given topic. I'm not giving him a pass by any means, just pointing out that it's a hard role to do well, and not many have done it well.

I think the best thing that can happen for the site is for CJ to step back and act as a true leader; delegate and let others who have skills and expertise do the work they are skilled in. He can still set the overall creative vision, give input, and on occasion, engage with the community. But trying to do everything himself and micromanaging everything is biting him in the ass. He needs to empower a strong community manager and his senior admins to make decisions using their best judgement, within the rules of Santae. The fact that mods have to check with him for everything is absolutely idiotic. You either trust your team or you don't. Clearly, he has lost the trust of the community, and the only way to gain that back now is to be less prominent and earn respect back by showing good decision-making. I understand santae is a business and needs to make money. Even if he doesn't give a single shit about the community, the best business decision is to step back. Nobody likes CEOs or business owners. By design, they are directly blamed for everything, whether warranted or not! If CJ wants to be a hero to us, which I believe he does, then he has to accept that he hasn't been handling things well, and admit that, and focus on the things he's good at (and whatever your thoughts on him, he has managed to put this site together, so he's clearly skilled and capable in many areas). But he's not a business guy. It's one thing to conceptualize this world and bring it to life, and a completely different skill set to market it, make money, and grow your customer base.

The second thing that needs to happen is to take the site out of Beta if we're no longer in a culture where user feedback is welcome. I actually think it's fine to launch now, with the caveat that things are still being built, we're very new, etc., to manage new users' expectations. There can still be a feedback thread, but we won't have to pretend that users are helping to shape the site's functions and culture. We've had months of good general feedback that has helped improve overall user experience. In my 20+ years on pet sites, I've never seen the level of user entitlement that santae has. I primarily play Subeta now, and what I like about that site is things are very black and white. Staff makes decisions, and if you don't like them, you're free to not play or grin and bear it (and if you guys think santae'scash shop is greedy...it's nothing compared to other sites and games!!). I truly don't think it's a sustainable model to be as "open" to user input as santae has claimed to be. And, I do think that among the valid complaints, there has also been a lot of really stupid criticism and unreasonable expectations from the community. Voicing the opinion is fine. Expecting staff to change core functions or features to meet your specific demand, and being angry when that doesn't happen, is entitled. I won't call these out, but given there are many different opinions on feedback, I think they should either close it off entirely and run the site how they want (and users can decide if it's a site they want to play) or tighten up the kind of feedback users can provide since we'd be out of Beta anyway.

☁️

[atalienart]

Most importantly regarding AI, even if we ignored the entire discussion around "what is art? who can make it? what makes it valid?", the fact of the matter is that generative AI programs are inherently based on theft

Someone, some human(s), made the conscious decision to scrape the entire internet for literal billions of artworks, photos, videos, stories, blogs, social media posts, articles, copyrighted works, personal works, private works, private medical images. They took all of this data, crammed it all into a dataset for their generative programs to reference, and sold the idea of "look what a computer can 'create' from 'nothing' "

These programs do nothing on their own. They do not create spontaneously. They do not experiment or discover or express themselves. This is why they need data, a LOT of data, because they can only operate with designated user input, they can only regurgitate what has come before, they can only reference and repurpose what has come before. They steal from all of humanity, without due, without credit, without compensation or any sense of ethics, and the people vehemently selling the idea of AI are doing precisely that: selling it. They're exploiting the hard work, the identities, the privacy of billions of people for the sole purpose of making a quick, easy buck

In any sane world, the argument would end then and there, but unfortunately, we live in a world where are many of our laws are from the stone age (with people actively seeking to keep them there for fear of losing their power/influence). The creators of these AI programs are well-aware of these legal shortcomings, they have openly stated as such on numerous occasions, and are explicitly proud to be operating in this "legal grey area" because they know it means there are ill-gotten profits to be made

Regardless of whether or not a computer can genuinely make "art" or whether some person mashing words into a search bar is genuine "art", the fact of the matter is that it is objectively unethical in its current form. But, even that's an uphill battle to preach because too many people couldn't give a rats ass about ethics unless it personally affects them, and that's why we're in this position to begin with

I completely agree. It's entirely build on theft and it shouldn't exist. But as long as those who steal think they won't face any consequences and it brings them profit they won't stop. It's terrifying how so many people don't care about anything these days. It's just so frustrating to listen to all the excuses.

[last-sprout]

Last Sprout Dev Diary - Nov 28, 2024

Hello again! This is one of those "low progress" weeks as I battle with shader code and scriptable renders.

What I see in my nightmares.

So, for this week's Dev Diary, I wanted to take this opportunity to talk a bit about one of the core systems for Last Sprout - Brains.

Hopefully this is interesting even if you don't know much about programming, but I could always use the feedback.

I live my life assuming I'm some amount of this comic.

Brains & States

Part of my process in developing Last Sprout is taking the time to build systems that are as generic and abstract as possible - any time I'm thinking about writing something directly into the code, I try to find some way to pull that out into some kind of data that can be changed in the editor. Mostly because, as much work as it is to do the programming, it's also a ton of work to do the tweaks and edits that make it feel right.

A Brain isn't actually much on its own, just a framework that defines the bare minimum an Entity (the core 'thing' that exists in the game) needs to interact with.

Less fleshy than I'd like for this game.

The key here is that Brains just give instructions and move on, they don't know or care what happens once those instructions get passed to the Entity.

Brains don't take actions, they make polite requests.

So a Brain really just says "I would like to move in this direction, aim in this direction, and perform these actions".

Actions are bit flags, which means inputs are stored in one integer number that uses its 1's and 0's as true/false values. A brain toggles these bits based on a lot of different parameters - for instance, the PlayerBrain just listens to user inputs and sets its instructions accordingly, whereas an AggroBrain contains logic to look for valid targets and chase them down.

Hopefully this is a little easier to visualize for people that aren't familiar with bit flags.

An entity, every frame, asks its brain to update its instruction. Then, it passes that instruction along to a State. The State is responsible for actually taking the actions the brain recommends, So they'll have names like IdleState, WalkingState, MeleeState, and so on. States are also where animations live, so a given IdleState (which is an object that lives in the game files), will have an associated animation for Idling, and it will play that animation when the state is entered.

Not the most interesting state, but the easiest one to understand.

The state is what decides what input flags to listen for, and which states to exit to. Because states always have an EntityStateType, and Entities have a list of all their allowed states, they don't actually have to know what the options are, they can just say "Exit this state to a Walking state" and the entity will find a match.

This is a ton of words, but the core of it is that Brains and States are separate, and don't know anything about each other. This means that you can attach any Brain to any Entity, and it just works. If you want to test the attack range on an enemy, you can just slap a PlayerBrain onto them and suddenly you can control it! You can duplicate the player, change its tags to Hostile, and put an AggroBrain on them and suddenly you have an AI controlled hostile copy of Twiggs! While it adds a layer of complication to developing behavior, it also means that our code is reusable and modular, and it lets us experiment freely in engine.

Brains are one of many lego brick style systems, maybe next week I'll talk about another. Thanks for reading this, and if you have any particular questions, feel free to drop and ask to @last-sprout or my personal tumblr over at @oneominousvalbatross. Fair warning though, the answer may be extremely wordy.

[itsbenedict]

From the beginning | Previously | Coin standings | 50/57 | 30/30

You pick up the phone and DIAL A NUMBER, heading to what ought to be the holy tower.

Error: No codec found for undescribed audio input "hawk_3_0075.soul". Converting to byte array and delegating to receiving device for validation. Error: No codec found for undescribed audio input "dove_2_0060.soul". Converting to byte array and delegating to receiving device for validation. Error: No codec found for incoming byte array. Raw data "hawk_3_0075.souldove_2_0060.soul" stored in message buffer. Error: Message buffer overflow. Discarding excess message data.

The sensation is no more pleasant than last time. You feel as though you've been squeezed through a tube of toothpaste, and you're seriously disoriented when you come out the other end, in...

Hmmmmm! Okay! So, uh, maybe you've come out through the phone in the middle of a sauna, because the building is slightly on fir𝖾. Only like, slightly, though, right? How flammable could it be? In reality it's all steel and glass, and here it's like, stonemasonry. Was it the RAT PECS? Maybe it was the RAT PECS.

Oh gosh okay no yeah the building is pretty on-fire. You're not sure how that happened but it's definitely time to grab some EERIE HURT-FIXINGS off the wall and start spraying your way to the BIT COIN MINER.

Whew. Okay. You find the coin miner at the bottom of a pile of foam after extinguishing the largest of the blazes you could find, and unplug that thing tout de suite, claiming 10 Coin from the wreckage of... no, actually, it's completely intact. They build those things to last, apparently! You should... probably iɴstall it somewhere this will be less of a problem, though.

Heading downstairs, you find the shop is mostly unchanged:

RELINER STAFF (30)

HACK IN NIL (22)

OW, PANIC! ICE FISTS! (12)

A COUCH FÉVER (10)

BILATERAL SIZINGS (9)

A SNARE WORM (3)

NOBLE BELT TUT (2)

STOPWATCH FARE (2)

BEAT USER (1)

With no sign of your daughter or a way home down in the subterranean graveyard, you've got to come up with another plan. N๏w what?

Since the building was recently on fire, there's NO LIMP ICE YONDER. Granted, there wasn't any before, either, because ice is typically rigid.

If wishes were horses, beggars would ride. But then some guy named Tom, hungry enough to eat a horse, would eat them all, and IF WISHES WERE ALL IN TOM you'd have problems.

Hey, she's holding that exciting event! HER TRITIUM FROG-OFF, where frogs equipped with gear using radioactive hydrogen isotopes battle to the death! That sounds fun.

There's some luxury cars here, but they seem like they were built by extraterrestrials- these UN-HANDY ALIEN BUICKS weren't intended for human use.

Continued | 48/55 | 29/29

[cute-girls-from-vns-anime-manga]

As an engineer I think the problem comes from a lack of communication. If a guy sitting in his little ivory tower dictates everything without getting down and dirty with the equipment, he can't understand what is needed by the people operating the equipment. There needs to be a dialogue between the engineers and the people they're engineering for, and if there isn't the system is going to come out like shit 9 times out of 10 and there will be complaints.

Thankfully I'm in validation so it's my job to get my hands all over things and actually use them, but there's still a problem if the requirements for the system were written without user input because the validation procedure might be written strictly to the requirements and thus might miss actual usability concerns.

An engineer designing machining equipment should be familiar with actually operating machining equipment, or they should be actively consulting with one, and it sounds like your guys were neither. What a shitshow.

While communication and getting engineers both involved in and at all familiar with the actual process so they have at least SOME context as to what is reasonable vs what is technically possible, is one aspect to the solution. HOWEVER it is made moot if said engineer has zero respect for the work being done and the person doing said work.

Had an engineer recently start and then leave our site who was out on the floor actively involved in the process and that ended when a coworker genuinely had to jump in between myself and him and de-escalate the situation, I have a particularly short fuse when it comes to people talking down to me or trying in anyway to pull some gaslighting and my breaking point was when his code fucked up he started ranting about how I was the one who HAD to have messed it up I was ready to throw hands.

So while yes the Ivory tower engineers that expect the machinists to be able to jump through every hoop they ask for are bad but they are FAR from the worst.

Also I am glad you as an engineer were able to successfully remove your head from your ass and come to realize that NOTHING CAN EVER GET DONE IF WE DONT BRIDGE THE GAP BETWEEN SHOP WORKERS AND ENGINEERS!!!!! I hope where ever you work if you have an issue with our sides problematic arrogant asshole (who thinks his 40+ years of experience means he doesnt have to listen when you talk) I hope you can talk to the more reasonable shop guys akin to myself and have them help you rather than that asshat

[our-agabpunk-experience-2]

Hello! We've found a term, like honeybee transfem and coffeebean transmasc, but for transneutral.

www.tumblr.com/cringeandproudx3/774778975079776256/hi-tumblr-i-have-no-clue-how-coining-posts-work

Mintchocolate transneu! (From user "cringeandproudx3")

Just wanted to include it since it's a smaller term but fits perfectly into this.

Have a lovely day!

Honey (she/they/it) @honeyscottage

I’m going to be 100% honest, and I’m open to discussion. But I don’t really understand this term

In an ideal world, terms like “honeybee transfem” and “coffee bean transmasc” wouldn’t exist. They would just be “transfems” and “transmascs”. They exist because of attempts to push those people out of the main labels by defining transfem as “a trans person who was assigned male” and transmasc as “a trans person who was assigned female”. That isn’t saying that honeybee transfem/coffee bean transmasc are 100% synonymous with AFAB transfem/AMAB transmasc. Part of the reason the term was broadened was for AIAB/AXAB/UAB transfems and transmascs, and there are plenty of honeybee transfems who were assigned male and coffee bean transmascs who were assigned female. But using the term implies a fight against defining transfemininity and transmasculinity purely based on AGAB. As far as I know (and I could be wrong) there is no similar push to define transneutrality that way. No argument that your experience with transneutrality is only valid if a doctor said a specific thing when you were born.

That isn’t to say that there aren’t problems in the transneu community regarding the sex binary. We can talk about how asking “Are you TMA transneutral or TME transneutral?” is basically a progressive-sounding way of asking “Okay but like, what were you born as?” We can talk about the constant reinventing the wheel of the gender and sex binaries by sorting enbies into “masc-aligned” vs. “fem-aligned”, “masc presenting” vs. “fem-presenting”, usually without any input from the nonbinary person themselves (using masc enby to mean any nonbinary person with a beard regardless of whether they actually identify with masculinity) and treating them as categories that never overlap (the constant arguing that “fem-aligned enbies can be lesbians but masc aligned ones can’t!” that forgets that plenty of nonbinary people identify with both masculinity and femininity). Are these the problems that the mint chocolate transneu term is fighting against? Because they don’t exactly feel like the same kind of problems as the ones honeybee transfem/coffee bean transmasc aim to address.

I’m 100% open to discussion and to help myself understand.

[critical-skeptic]

The Illusion of Complexity: Binary Exploitation in Engagement-Driven Algorithms

Abstract:

This paper examines how modern engagement algorithms employed by major tech platforms (e.g., Google, Meta, TikTok, and formerly Twitter/X) exploit predictable human cognitive patterns through simplified binary interactions. The prevailing perception that these systems rely on sophisticated personalization models is challenged; instead, it is proposed that such algorithms rely on statistical generalizations, perceptual manipulation, and engineered emotional reactions to maintain continuous user engagement. The illusion of depth is a byproduct of probabilistic brute force, not advanced understanding.

1. Introduction

Contemporary discourse often attributes high levels of sophistication and intelligence to the recommendation and engagement algorithms employed by dominant tech companies. Users report instances of eerie accuracy or emotionally resonant suggestions, fueling the belief that these systems understand them deeply. However, closer inspection reveals a more efficient and cynical design principle: engagement maximization through binary funneling.

2. Binary Funneling and Predictive Exploitation

At the core of these algorithms lies a reductive model: categorize user reactions as either positive (approval, enjoyment, validation) or negative (disgust, anger, outrage). This binary schema simplifies personalization into a feedback loop in which any user response serves to reinforce algorithmic certainty. There is no need for genuine nuance or contextual understanding; rather, content is optimized to provoke any reaction that sustains user attention.

Once a user engages with content —whether through liking, commenting, pausing, or rage-watching— the system deploys a cluster of categorically similar material. This recurrence fosters two dominant psychological outcomes:

If the user enjoys the content, they may perceive the algorithm as insightful or “smart,” attributing agency or personalization where none exists.

If the user dislikes the content, they may continue engaging in a doomscroll or outrage spiral, reinforcing the same cycle through negative affect.

In both scenarios, engagement is preserved; thus, profit is ensured.

3. The Illusion of Uniqueness

A critical mechanism in this system is the exploitation of the human tendency to overestimate personal uniqueness. Drawing on techniques long employed by illusionists, scammers, and cold readers, platforms capitalize on common patterns of thought and behavior that are statistically widespread but perceived as rare by individuals.

Examples include:

Posing prompts or content cues that seem personalized but are statistically predictable (e.g., "think of a number between 1 and 50 with two odd digits” → most select 37).

Triggering cognitive biases such as the availability heuristic and frequency illusion, which make repeated or familiar concepts appear newly significant.

This creates a reinforcing illusion: the user feels “understood” because the system has merely guessed correctly within a narrow set of likely options. The emotional resonance of the result further conceals the crude probabilistic engine behind it.

4. Emotional Engagement as Systemic Currency

The underlying goal is not understanding, but reaction. These systems optimize for time-on-platform, not user well-being or cognitive autonomy. Anger, sadness, tribal validation, fear, and parasocial attachment are all equally useful inputs. Through this lens, the algorithm is less an intelligent system and more an industrialized Skinner box: an operant conditioning engine powered by data extraction.

By removing the need for interpretive complexity and relying instead on scalable, binary psychological manipulation, companies minimize operational costs while maximizing monetizable engagement.

5. Black-Box Mythology and Cognitive Deference

Compounding this problem is the opacity of these systems. The “black-box” nature of proprietary algorithms fosters a mythos of sophistication. Users, unaware of the relatively simple statistical methods in use, ascribe higher-order reasoning or consciousness to systems that function through brute-force pattern amplification.

This deference becomes part of the trap: once convinced the algorithm “knows them,” users are less likely to question its manipulations and more likely to conform to its outputs, completing the feedback circuit.

6. Conclusion

The supposed sophistication of engagement algorithms is a carefully sustained illusion. By funneling user behavior into binary categories and exploiting universally predictable psychological responses, platforms maintain the appearance of intelligent personalization while operating through reductive, low-cost mechanisms. Human cognition —biased toward pattern recognition and overestimation of self-uniqueness— completes the illusion without external effort. The result is a scalable system of emotional manipulation that masquerades as individualized insight.

In essence, the algorithm does not understand the user; it understands that the user wants to be understood, and it weaponizes that desire for profit.