I will preface this by stating I'm not an American, and I certainly don't claim to speak for everyone. I'm also not against voting in principle, and in my own country I prefer to vote when I can, and have done so most of the time. But there were times when I chose not to, and there was a time when I regretted voting. I've also been browsing the English internet for a long time, which is dominated by Americans, and I've been part of English-speaking leftie spaces for a while too, which are also dominated by Americans. I base my post on these experiences.

There's a lot to be said on this topic, but I will try to briefly explain a key point I've been able to put into words only recently. Being a leftist, not a left-leaning person or a "leftist" that just means left-leaning liberal, but a genuine leftist, is a weird experience. You have a lot of issues close to your heart. You spend a great deal of time and energy learning to criticize the systems you live under, whether they be capitalism, nation-state, or some cultural hierarchy. You already feel alienated from most people on political issues, because you hold wildly unpopular opinions, and people treat you like a weird person for it. You get into a lot of arguments and conflicts as a result, which often result in further alienation. After all, refusing the status quo is not an easy thing to do, and it often leads to social isolation at some level. It's not predestined, and it's not all-encompassing, but you can't help but feel alienated from most. Their ideas, their ideologies, the things they endorse—it all seems, to put it mildly, a little bit insane.

Then comes the election season, and you realize the politicians of the supposed major """left""" option, which is actually just relatively left compared to the insanely right alternative(s), never take you seriously. They never voice policies that speak to your sensibilities, wishes, beliefs, morality, and principles. They always voice par for the course arguments, and obviously don't care for what you want.

Then, people that are part of the "normal" politics start making the same arguments. In my experience, this happens regardless of the country we're talking about.

• You should still vote for us. The other side is worse.
• If you don't vote for us, you're a traitor.
• A vote not cast for us is a vote cast for them (interestingly, the opposite of this is never voiced: "a vote not cast for them is a vote for us.")
• I don't approve of them in every way either, but this is the lesser of two evils.
• This is not the time to be having these arguments. It's a time for unity.
• This is the only option possible.
• You're not voting out of privilege. (extremely untrue, can even be called an outright lie)
• You should be logical and not emotional. Vote with your brain, not your heart. Be an adult.

The last item on thist list, I think, strikes at the heart of this post. People expect you to be this ultra-rational decision-making machine, "pragmatic" to the core, always willing to shut up and toe the line when it matters, without a care for what you want. But they don't expect this from anyone else (barring minorities). The far-right, right-wingers, centrists, liberals, people satistified with par for the course politics—they all get to voice their wishes, wants, opinions. They all get to act according to their own emotions, without critically examining their own beliefs, ideology, behavior. They all get concessions made to them by politicans. They all get to have a say. But not you. You should shut the fuck up and vote for them. You don't get a say.

They take it for granted that you would vote for them, that's why they never take what you want seriously. They give tons of shits about every other group, which are all part of the status quo politics, but they never give a shit about you. That's why they never make concessions to you.

At some point, naturally, you realize how hypocritical, unfair, and insidious this is. You may not consciously know it, or even be able to put it into words, but deep down you feel it: everybody else gets one, but not you. Then they seriously expect you to support them. And when you don't, they go on a witch hunt, labeling you a traitor.

For example, they expect you to be fine with "your" candidate supporting a genocide, even though this is the worst possible thing a country can do, and then be baffled when you don't take this well. And god forbid, if you "act emotionally" and have your own worldview and sensibilities, like every other group does, and not vote for them, you get labeled a traitor. These people don't realize that their own eagerness to so readily uphold the status quo politics, resulting in your own wishes and values getting eternally ignored, brings about your response.

So, I think this is why a lot of leftists don't vote when they prefer not to. I suspect this also applies to other demographics, such as minorities that get overlooked. And as long as the status quo politics ignores this problem, it won't be solved.

I think, for other people like me, something we can do is to voice why we don't vote when we choose not to. Because the status quo politicians and their supporters seem very eager to get the wrong message, which is "we need to move further right". This, of course, doesn't work, because right-wingers choose the original instead of the imitation anyway.

What I'm saying, I guess, is a very simple democratic process. If you want people to vote for you, you have to take them and what they want seriously, and at the very least make concessions to them. If you do not, they probably won't, and you can't blame them for it. This is how it works for every demographic. So, instead of blaming potential and future voters and supporters, you should criticize the party that failed to get their support.

So this is reality. I warned myself not to take anything for granted with Trump, 2016 happened, but still I was starting to feel hopeful for a minute there. But nope, this is what America looks like now. For now.

This sucks for a lot of Americans, some are justifiably devastated. A lot is uncertain and we all have to figure out how to navigate this version of the country for, at least, the next 4 years. That's of course part of the insanity, that there are big questions about what happens when Trump's term is over. We kinda know there's going to be some level of a coup attempt, we just don't know if it will be successful.

But for the moment I want to put aside the myriad fucked up social, economic and geopolitical implications and explore what it means from a more ideology and identity sort of angle.

This means that we don't live in a just world. When my partner was crying last night, I think that's what she was feeling the loss of most of all. The idea that despite the imperfections of the world, somewhere underneath there is some form of justice based in the fundamentally good nature of human beings.

Intellectually it seems obvious that there is no inherent justice. But emotionally it's a different story. Speaking for Americans, it's not the story we're told growing up in the shining beacon of democracy. The concept of what America is, and who Americans are, that we translate to our childen is missing most of the nuance. And many of us keep that with us emotionally as adults, even if we know better.

The grown up version, the story we tell ourselves in American culture, has more nuance but not as much as you'd hope for. As an example, we've been pretending that giant corporations, conglomerates and the ultrawealthy can serve the public interest for an embarrassingly long time. We've made materialism into an art. A little light to medium evil in our foreign policy is just something we need to accept.

Of course the nuance isn't lost on everyone, a lot of us have a clear view of what America is, and western capitalist democracy writ large, but Trump is president, in part, because a lot of people do not. Full stop. We, as a culture, are telling the wrong stories about ourselves.

But Trump is president, in spite of his escalating rhetoric and Jan 6th and the nazis on parade and the election wasn't even close. So we have to come to terms with what that means about what America is, and who Americans are.

That's going to take time and processing and I'm not sure how that might or should look. I just want to add that this isn't new. This is the country we've been living in for some time. The only thing that's really changed is that we can't rationally tell any other story now.

It's heartbreaking but after we grieve I think we'll have an opportunity, collectively, to come to terms with what we are, good and bad. Which is of course a vital early step in the process of change.

One thing I'd like to add to the conversation, that's been said a lot and still not nearly enough, is that the enemies here are not just bigotry, or ignorance, or extremist religion or lack of security. Perhaps the biggest reason, directly and indirectly, for Trump's second term is unchecked capitalism.

I hope that, as a whole, we'll learn from this, and focus our energy on the right demons. The ones we maybe have to deal with before we can handle the others.

And also I want to say: this is sad and it feels bleak at the moment... and this grief is shared by millions. We're not alone in this. We'll get through it.

Hey! I know a couple Miata owners are hiding here, so I figured I'd ask a car question here. Bear with me, this is a non problem that I blow out of proportion.

I get twitchy when I don't have a fun manual car, so right now I have a high mileage 330i E46 ZHP sedan. For those out of the know they're fairly notorious BMWs that are pretty unreliable, but the E46 generation is fairly easy to work on yourself. This was the ideal performance model that I wanted for a while, but unfortunately this one gave me lots more things to work on over the last year and a half than my last one. (Who knew the one with 230k miles off the street would be more difficult to sort than my grandpa's pristine 50k example??) It is a great car, it brings fun to my commute, but I don't feel the love with it. After the last repair I did took a turn, I just wanted it out of my parking spot more than anything... So now that it's back in a solid state, I have it up for sale and I'm planning on replacing it.

Here's the problem: bare minimum, if I'm going to drive something to work I want it to have side airbags. My pregnant wife and I almost got sidelined by a moving truck blowing a red light in my old NB Miata, and while I consider that kind of thing could happen regardless of the car I'm driving, I have a 60-mile highway commute and figured I shouldn't play those odds in a car with 80's safety sensibilities anymore. I sold the Miata and got the BMW, for safety and because it had back seats in case I needed to take the kid in it.But then I ended up never needing the back seats at all, and it doesn't seem like I really ever will in whatever I get. So now I'm looking to replace the bimmer with something less practical. And while my second kid is on the way - so we won't have a ton of time to go together for a bit - my wife agreed she misses the drop-top. So I'm looking at convertibles again. I feel like I've got two routes about this. (We have a minivan and a family sedan, so ignore any unmentioned notions of practicality going into this.)

The NC Miata has side airbags, and as a benefit they're dead reliable. They're a bit faster, a bit more comfy, and all around a better car than my NB was. So I could save up for that... But I just don't feel a ton of heart for them? Despite all the revisionism going around the NC and how they're underappreciated, I just find them very, uh, bar of soap to look at. Some seat time might change my mind here. A Fiat 500 Abarth or a 986 Boxster would also work, and I find them more interesting, but they don't have the reliability points.

On the other hand, if I'm looking to get something for my hobby... Shouldn't I get something I really want? There are a few things I'm interested in my price range, but what's really piquing my interest is an NA Miata or an MR2 of some generation. I had a bad NA before and would like to try again; I adore the styling, and the market cooled off a bit since the Covid bubble. With the MR2, I've never had a mid-engine car and they seem pretty simple, reliable, and aren't as unpredictable as a lot of other MR options. I could upgrade either of those down the line, and many I'm looking at are well taken care of with rust or pre-cat issues out of the way. There's also a huge influx of interesting kei cars and imports coming in that I'm really curious to drive and work on in the price range; Beats, Cappuccinos, Pajero Minis, and GC8 Imprezas are on my radar.

Since I'm not going to be driving to work for a few months while my kid is coming, it won't matter if I won't take it. But when that time comes I'm not going to drive the thing 5/7 days of the week. A manual car really livens my commute up and makes it much more enjoyable, and I probably won't want to be working on an old something with two kids around.So I keep jumping between these two options. My brain tells me I should save for an NC2 Miata; my heart tells me to get something cooler. My gut says I'm clueless and I should just wait for he best thing that pops up. But I just don't know.

Was anyone asking themselves the same question at some point, and what did you end up doing? Did you get the fun side dream car and keep it as the weekender, or did you get the compromise car and enjoy it every day?

*TRIGGER WARNING: Racist and Anti-LGBTQ topics contained below with hurtful language *

Hello all,

TL;DR: I am wondering if there's any generally recommended resources, books, or general advice (peer-reviewed research would be ideal) on dealing with racist, close-minded family after you have made the transition to more progressive worldviews? I don't really like my family these days because of their Trump support as well as their generally close-minded, reality-denying views. It's weighing on me, because I miss having some sort of good connection with them like I used to. Their health is starting to decline, but I've gotten to the point that I don't really like them that much, and I haven't been going to see them. These two parts of me are kind of at odds with each other, and I'm struggling to find a balance.

Background & Context: I (33M) and I grew up in a rather conservative family (2 older brothers), to the point that a "light" level of racism was generally accepted and talked about in the family, and as an example, jokes using the N-word with the hard R were told by my dad and grandparents semi-regularly. I say "light" racism because we don't have a family history of racial violence or owning slaves (we're descendants of 1900's European immigrants, mostly.) I also think my family generally supported the Civil Rights Act back in the day. As a result, I grew up finding racist and gay jokes funny and frequently repeated them, and generally had a close-minded approach to the world before I went to college - but I never truly wished anyone any ill will. I got along well with my family, and while we were never super close, I at least talked to my family about stuff but we never really shared emotions or talked about depression with each other. None of us ever really learned how to deal with their emotions and talk about them. My family never traveled, either, so I never got out of my home state till I was in high school, and it was of my own volition. My parents are also conservative Christians, so they have generally anti-LGBTQ views. My mom calls LGBTQ people "abominations" per the bible, for example. It's disgusting.

Once I got out into the real world working with people of other cultures and befriending them, my worldviews began to change. Especially once I went to college and started working in scientific research, wherein your critical thinking and objectivity are especially stressed, I started to pivot more and more to progressive views. Beyond that, the more I saw that data generally supported progressive views and policies, I started to disagree harder and harder with my parents on political topics. Additionally, I slowly lost my faith, and started to become more and more annoyed by my mother citing the bible as a reference for topics such as LGBTQ marriage rights. I now commonly refer to myself a recovering Catholic.

And then Trump happened. Honestly, in his first run, I could understand why people voted for Trump. They were tired of traditional politics and feeling like it wasn't working for them, especially in midwest and blue collar areas, so they figured "fuck it, throw some chaos into the system." But after COVID and January 6th? I just can't fathom still having a SHRED of support for that disgusting shell of a man. And yet my parents do. My mom watches Newsmax, thinks COVID vaccines are deadly, and thinks the 2020 election was stolen. She thinks Biden was kidnapped and was being impersonated by the Deep State. I can't. I just can't with her. It's all she wants to talk about, and my dad won't say anything to her about how fucking crazy the shit she spouts is.

I was also close to one of my brothers for many years, as we went to concerts and played games together mostly. We just "click" when it comes to gaming together, and it feels seamless and fun to play with him in a way that it doesn't with anyone else I've ever played with. But then, politics comes up. My brother would probably be aptly described as an incel, in that he reads 4chan still, and also has some batshit crazy views. One, for example, is that he doesn't think the races should mix, because something along the lines of black and white genes don't work as well together. He has straight up said that to me, and I regularly wonder if I should cut off contact with him for that alone. He often blames women in sexual assault cases or characterizes them as gold diggers. A part of me wonders if I am doing a disservice to the aforementioned groups by even still associating with him after saying things like that. If I am also doing a disservice to myself by even sometimes associating with someone who has such an awful worldview?

And herein lies my dilemma: I haven't gone to see my family in over 6 months, now (I live <30 mins away). My parents' health is declining - it is likely that one of them is going to die in the next 5-10 years, and yet I don't even want to go be around them, especially my mom. I still game online with my brother, but this dilemma is slowly eating away at me.

But also? I feel a deep empathy and sorrow for them, to the point that I'm choked up as I'm writing this post because they are lonely people who, in my opinion, have been grossly manipulated and mislead throughout their lives. I wouldn't want someone to give up on me, as I feel I am doing to them by avoiding them. I also used to be deeply entrenched in close-mindedness, and I wouldn't be where I'm at without people who kept trying to convince me of a better path. But the other part of me thinks: Is there a line somewhere? At some point, do you become too deeply entrenched that I can't convince you out of it? What do I do at that point? How do I even define that point?

Are there any resources or books on this topic? Are there any objective things I can do to try and improve this situation and feel better about it? I have spoken with a therapist about this in the past, but I wouldn't describe the feedback I got as very helpful. I would like to go see a therapist again, partially about this, but it's so damn expensive thanks to the American healthcare system. Any input anyone has is appreciated, even if it's anecdotal. This post is also partially just cathartic to write out as it is also to ask for feedback. Thank you.

I am reading Never Split the Difference right now, and while the book has a few stereotypical "salesman self-help" moments, I have found some of the strategies to be genuinely incredible.

The biggest game changer for me has been mirroring what the other person says to avoid conflict and gather more information.

Real life example: My wife has a bad habit of poorly explaining what she wants and where it's located. Then, I get her flustered when I rapid-fire follow up questions. Here is an exchange we have frequently which leaves us both frustrated as hell.

She will ask something like, "Can you get the box out of the drawer please?"

I usually reply, "What box?"

"The box. The red box."

"Okay...what drawer?"

"The drawer, you know, the drawer. Come on."

"DUDE. Can you at least tell me which room you're even talking about?"

"Nevermind, I'll get it."

Lately I've been trying mirroring to help both of us and it's awesome.

"Can you get the box please?"

"Get the box?"

"Yeah, the red box. It has a paper in it that I need."

"Okay, you want the red box with the paper in it?"

"Yeah it's in the kitchen drawer next to the sink."

It's so weird when you first start doing this intentionally, but people don't even notice. I have no idea why it works so much better but it's amazing.

So, this got me thinking, what other little human psychology tricks work? Are there other books that genuinely changed the way you approach people or situations?

I'm a teacher and my job is to teach students who mostly have behavioral problems, so I am always on the look out for more of these things.

Imagine that on the campaign posters, it will say your name and then this policy. For example:

Vote for <your username> ...

• Rain boots for everyone. (No American / Englishman / Indian / etc. should have soggy socks.)
• A Speedy DMV. (It should take 10 minutes to renew your license at the DMV.)
• Rice in every restaurant. (Rice is good with everything. At least some Asian KFCs will serve fried chicken with rice!)

It should resonate deeply with people, without the expectation that it should solve any of the deeper problems in life.

Just though it might be nice to have a space for general EV discussion here on Tildes. The only other space I know of to talk on the subject is r/electricvehicles, which has gotten big enough to get polarized and echo-chambery… prepare to get bombarded if you say anything positive about EV models from Japanese manufacturers or suggest that a used Chevy Bolt isn’t a great fit for everybody, for example.

Anyway, what is everybody driving and how do you like it? Has it given you any trouble? Any upcoming models you’re excited about or interested in? If you don’t drive one now, is there a model you’re eying?

Right now I’m driving a 2023 Nissan Ariya Platinum+, which I chose because it’s what I could get a reasonable lease deal on without too much trouble. It’s been great for the most part but I’d be lying if I said it wasn’t total overkill for my needs… something more like a modernized electric Golf would better fit me, but those don’t exist in the US, so here I am.

The upcoming model I’m most interested in is by far the Rivian R3. It’s sized about the same as a Golf, the retro styling is cool, and its got several high-utility features that make it almost seem like a reincarnation of the Toyota Matrix (fold flat seats including front passenger, back hatch window that can open to accommodate long objects, etc) without the Matrix’s weaknesses. The Pacific Northwest inspired interior of the higher end R3X model looks gorgeous too and is a welcome departure from the sterile grayscale interiors that EVs have become known for.

I've been reconsidering things about honesty in the wider context of politics. I think honesty is at the heart of a good faith approach. You have to be both honest about the limitations of your own thoughts, you have to seriously consider the opinion of the person you're talking to, and you shouldn't attack their person in any way.

It's assumed in ethically liberal communities that honest and constructive conversations are the way to go to get political power, in the positive sense. "They go low, we go high." This is, of course, true in some contexts. An entirely bad faith approach to people would result in alienating potential allies. Having a good faith approaches also gives you some sort of moral argument, which you can leverage.

With this being said, this claim, that it is the only way, is extremely insufficient in several dimensions.

First of all, there are a lot of situations where bad faith approach, where you ridicule and attack your opponent, mock them, or even lie about them, etc. work. A recent example is the Couch Fucker bit about J.D. Vance. It's obviously not true, but it was a very useful piece of propaganda. It just caught on, because he really did seem like the kind of guy to do that. A similar example was misinterpreting a certain search, and saying he was searching dolphin porn. Again, he looks like the type to do that. A third example is the AI-generated images about the MAGA crowd bringing fake semen cups to support J.D. Vance. It's not real but it caught on, because the MAGA crowd contains a lot of people that seem that self-unaware and cultish.

Second, the "good faith first" approach ignores a key dimension of politics—the conflict. "Ideal citizens" in liberal democracies, or people looking up to liberal democracies and their ideals, like to imagine that a properly ethical, positive, constructive dialogue-based approach will triumph over bad actors. Gestures widely at the world This is simply not true. There are a lot of situations where such people fail.

The reason for this is that conflict is not "clean". It is conflict. It can be hard or soft in a wide spectrum, but one would have to ignore pretty much reality itself to claim there are only soft conflicts in the world. The good faith approach, which I outlined above, assumes that you can still overcome the hard conflicts with their "clean" approach (unless it's open war).

This is not true either. There are a lot of, and increasingly, bad faith actors in democracies or semi-democracies that are undermining them in every way they can. They want to take people's rights away, make them poorer, conserve or institute hiearchies, and a lot of them also want to kill you. A major chunk of the far right population would be delighted to genocide the people you love and yourself. And a bigger chunk of the right-wingers are sympathetic to them.

This is not a war in the conventional sense, but it's a serious hard conflict. So, the stakes are not just losing an election and then putting up with some leaders with "differences of opinion". Stakes are much higher. If or when they succeed, a lot of people will suffer at the hands of these weirdos. Some of them will even directly or indirectly get killed.

In light of this context, approaching bad faith actors in bad faith is within reasonable ethical limits, and it's the strategically sound option. This is, again, not a black-or-white thing. Not every situation requires the same strength or variety of bad faith response, neither ethically nor strategically. A context-sensitive approach is required.

This context-sensitivity, in other words flexibility of mind, is at the core of what I'm trying to illustrate here. Black-or-white thinking about having to choose between good faith and bad faith leads to ruin. It's a spectrum. A person ought to assess the situation at hand, and respond properly.

For example, on Tildes I try my best to approach topics from a place of good faith. I think this approach on Tildes mostly works, because a) people here in general try to operate on good faith b) people here seem to try to distance themselves from populist and rash arguments c) it's left-leaning to an extent, and definitely very anti-far right, so less insane opinions.

I neither would want to be bad faith here nor would see any point in it. However, on places like big social media sites (Reddit, Twitter, etc.) I don't really see the point. They are rife with fascists and fascist sympathizers. I saw plenty of naive people -I've been those people- try to explain things earnestly to them, assuming that their opinion is simply based on ignorance and misunderstanding, and not on active ill-will and a conscious choice to hurt people.

Before any objections, I will say that I am aware of the nuances. Not every right-winger is the same (and I have not made that claim), and even among far-right people there are ones who can be persuaded, because they simply are ignorant. But in vast majority of the time, these actors are operating on bad faith. They are not interested in constructive arguments, they are interested in spreading their filth in order to hurt people.

Keeping this in mind, it can be seen that a better counter to their claims is some variety of bad faith. In other words, more ostracization by labeling them things like weirdos and incels. More couch fucking, more dolpin porn, more cups of cum.

For clarity, a mandatory arbitration agreement is when a consumer or customer must "agree to have their case reviewed by a third party—called an arbitrator—and to be bound by the arbitrator's decision." The intent is that you waive your right to sue (in a regular court of law) the party you're entering this agreement with. But these agreements can, in some cases, be ruled as invalid by a court. The examples I've seen apply to the US, but I'd be interested in examples from other countries.

I'm sure I'm not the only one who's been noticing how out of hand it's becoming to see these statements plastered in Terms of Service and several other locations.

The most newsworthy example recently was Disney claiming that a statement like this in their Disney+ ToS also applied to a wrongful death case on one of their properties. As the linked article says, they backpedaled on this, but it's still disgusting and disturbing they even tried it in the first place.

The most recent example I've seen is this post on Mastodon where it was included on the packaging of a supplement.

I can't help but wonder if this is just a way to deter people from seeking litigation in the first place, especially if they aren't wealthy enough to hire a legal team that could poke holes in the legitimacy of their mandatory arbitration agreement.

I'm sure there's a nearly endless supply of examples of this, especially in software service agreements. But is there anything that can be done about it? Or is this just one more way corporations get to have more power than people that won't ever change?

I’m really frustrated by recent experiences interfacing with the mental health system for myself and for my teenager. For them, it’s really atrocious. There may be effective options for the upper classes, but they aren’t accessible to me.

This is inspired by @X08’s recent [post] (https://tildes.net/~health.mental/1iia/unable_to_feel_progress_lack_of_happiness_and_not_finding_motivation_to_keep_investing) . Obviously I don’t know about their particulars, but I’ve certainly had the experience of being a part of a group where it appears others are progressing while I am not. Partly this is a problem of how we perceive, measure, and judge “success.” “Don’t compare my insides to others’ outsides,” as the saying goes. But it is possible to a more faithful and reflective comparison, and it does happen that others similar to me* make progress where I don’t, and it’s really frustrating. I’m often wondering, what’s wrong with me that I can’t change and grow?

I don’t have a great answer, although my exceptionally shitty childhood certainly plays a great role.

What I really want to comment on, though, is how insensitive our current mental health system is to the impact disparate causes have on creating similar symptoms, and how that should inform treatment approaches. A gifted psychiatrist (of which there are shockingly few) once put it like this (paraphrasing): Before we look at treatment for depression, we have to make sure the patient isn’t just surrounded by assholes.

But it’s a real problem. CBT is touted by a lot of “weighty” authorities as a valid gold standard treatment for a wide range of MH symptoms, and is claimed to be effective regardless of causes. And it’s my opinion that there is a lot of reasonably scientifically rigorous research backing that claim up. But, it’s not all rainbows, and it’s not working for lots of people. For one, a lot of folks claiming to do CBT are really not. Actual CBT involves a lot of homework, and a lot of recipients don’t have home support and don’t do the homework. This is extra true for children and adolescents living in dysfunctional homes. But more than just patient effort, the research marking CBT as so favorable is mostly based on subjects who are only mild to moderately distressed.* The end result is everyone involved in the “evidence based” healthcare chain is signing sufferers up for CBT when that might not be the best approach. There are lots of other criticisms too. If a practitioner is not well-trained and dedicated, the practice can be very invalidating. It seeks to make the sufferer’s more cognitive process more ‘rational,’ but when that person’s experiences are really, objectively bad, it’s very rational to conclude the world is hostile and unsafe. The tool itself is prepared for this, but it takes a really effective therapist to pull off. Also, it’s not enough by itself, grieving and other healing is also required for success.

The same thing happens in 12 step groups. AA/NA is resoundingly helpful-for a certain set of alcoholics/addicts. Those who don’t make it are often exhorted to become more honest, more open-minded, or more willing.*** My observation, though, is that most of the ones that make it come from intact families with resources. This is not universally true, it’s important for me to point out that there are enough examples of success among folks with no such background to say that there is something valuable in that approach that transcends socio-economics. There are also plenty from well-resourced families who don’t make it, but many of those families are highly dysfunctional. Of this last group, folks from dysfunctional families, some of us find success in other groups. This is because AA/NA are designed for sociopaths, ACA**** is designed for the product of sociopathic parents (who are filled with shame).

I don’t know what the solution is. A lot of malaise, addiction, “maladaptive” behaviors are, I think, born in a dysfunctional society, and so long as that society remains dysfunctional, no individual focused therapy solution will create a permanent fix. I think right here and now, too, we are at one of humanity’s “high tides” of self-destruction, a result primarily of runaway capitalism (is there any other kind?). We also just came through a really nasty global trauma, everyone is feeling it some kinda way.

Thanks for attending my TEDz talk.

*Of course, when talking about something as complex as a human life, there may no way to determine how similar is enough to make valid comparisons

**Also, let’s not talk about the various biases and implementation problems with what those studies refer to as ‘validated’ assessments used for measuring level of distress

***I am, technically, an NA success story

****Adult Children Anonymous, aka Adult Children of Alcoholics and Dysfunctional Families, more info at adultchildren.org.

I've been mulling over this for some time. I'm what you'd call a politically or ideologically motivated person, as it contains topics close to my heart and I'm trying to do my best about them. However, I mostly don't personally follow "the news". I still hear or read things due to my friends and family, or because of places I browse like Tildes. But even here, I filter out most news topics.

Part of this is due to the health problems I have, as they leave little mental energy to spend on stuff, and I'd much rather spend that energy to build something rather than get demoralized. So, what I do instead is to check out specific topics I care more about, and possibly academic articles.

With this being said, I've been observing people around me and how they interact with the news. I'm trying to assess how much following the news regularly impact their political activity. I mean contributing to some sort of political goal. Based on my observations, I'm not convinced that regular consumption of news, in the form of visiting a news website (or several), is what is presented to be.

So, I decided to flex my ideological analysis muscles a little. Here's a rough sketch of my thoughts on the ideology of being a news outlet, whether it's a giant corporation or a single person.

I think there are two levels to the ideology of being a news outlet.

1) The News System

A) How to Market Yourself

1. You are the most important source of knowledge about the topic you choose. This most often includes a city, country, continent, a political concept like "the west", or the world in general.
2. You are the objective source of knowledge on this topic.
3. Consuming news regularly is the responsibility of every citizen. Thus, they should buy your products or visit your website. Doing otherwise is shirking one's duty, and it's morally reprehensible. It's equal to being ignorant.

With this level, you establish yourself as the epistemological source of news about the topic, and you attach moral feelings of duty, guilt, shame, etc. to consuming your product. However, it's also a wider ideology. You don't only sell your news, you sell the news. That means you're also marketing the idea of news to people. This is how you establish the moral case, that is vital to selling your product. It's also important for prestige, which shouldn't be underestimated. There is not only an economic motivation but also a social motivation to selling the idea of news, presenting yourself as a bringer of truths.

B) How to Keep Them in the Loop

1. Humans are problem-fixers, because ignoring problems would mean they or their loved ones could suffer from them in the future. So, they are emotionally motivated to seek and try to fix problems. So, if you present them a problem, they will pay attention to it.
2. Cities, countries, continents, etc. are vast. There are always problems, no matter how big or small. You can always report on them.
3. If you face with the criticism of getting too small on scale, you can say you are just putting a human face on a widespread problem.

By utilizing the points above, you can ensure that you are always selling your product. You also ensure that you are feeling like you are contributing to the world, by "bringing the news to people". This way, you ensure both your financial success and your moral standing, your sense of meaning.

2) The Problems

The problem with the system created by the approach above is several-fold, and it doesn't depend on the factuality of the news being reported.

1. This system ensures there is always bad-news to be reported every single day, possibly even every single waking hour.
2. The constant source of bad-news demoralizes people, and quite possibly affects their mental health. A cursory look at Google Scholar with the keywords "doomscrolling mental health" is enough to show that this is suspected by the psychological literature too.
3. This stream of bad-news alters a person's perception of city, country, world.

For example, if you look at the subreddit for a city, quite often you'll see it filled with news of crimes and such, with people in the comments lamenting or raging about it. But the daily life in such cities is very rarely one of being riddled with crime.

Another example is USA citizens' perception of crime. "The violent crime rate fell 49% between 1993 and 2022, with large decreases in the rates of robbery (-74%), aggravated assault (-39%) and murder/nonnegligent manslaughter (-34%)." However, more and more people in USA think crime is getting worse. I suspect the news-cycle bears a big portion of the blame.

To drive the point home, I suspect this constant stream of bad-news might be feeding into conservatism, as "a meta-analysis (88 samples, 12 countries, 22,818 cases) confirms that several psychological variables predict political conservatism: death anxiety (weighted mean r = .50); system instability (.47); dogmatism–intolerance of ambiguity (.34); openness to experience (–.32); uncertainty tolerance (–.27); needs for order, structure, and closure (.26); integrative complexity (–.20); fear of threat and loss (.18); and self-esteem (–.09). The core ideology of conservatism stresses resistance to change and justification of inequality and is motivated by needs that vary situationally and dispositionally to manage uncertainty and threat."

So, there is enough reason to suspect that constant stream of bad-news, which should elevate people's feelings of uncertainty and threat, should be feeding into conservatism.

3) Solution?

This is an open-ended topic, and I'm not claiming to have solved a very complex topic in a few hundred words. However, one thing that I found to work is limiting and choosing what I consume. By the ways I mentioned, I limit what I see and I try to focus more on topics I care more about.

There is support from the literature too, that suggests partial news avoidance can benefit mental health and well-being (more on the topic can be found on Google Scholar with "news avoidance mental health").

Obviously, following news isn't a black or white situation, and for moderation there is no single size that fits all. But I think it would be better to keep in mind that news outlets benefit both financially and socially from establishing their regular consumption as a moral principle. Honestly, I think constructing a good understanding of ideology and history is more important than that, as it provides a more solid base to judge things from, but that's another day's topic.

Something I have been thinking about lately is how sexual content online seems to be proliferated and normalized much more than it used to be. I'll give a couple of examples.

While I do not use the big social media sites (Instagram, Facebook, TikTok) very often, I've seen questionable content while others are scrolling, as well as conversations both online and offline with others who do use them. Nearly all of these sites contain profiles of people who are primarily there to market an OnlyFans account or similar. And these profiles are pushed to various demographics, seemingly moreso to males.

Reddit has a very questionable history with this type of content. But outside of that, any subreddit that allows submission of photos of people will often include these models trying to promote themselves, and they frequently make it to the top of the subreddit. (Some reddit users make fun of this in subreddits such as r/UNBGBBIIVCHIDCTIICBG, which stands for "Upvoted Not Because Girl, But Because It Is Very Cool; However, I Do Concede That I Initially Clicked Because Girl").

Twitch is a livestreaming platform that primarily hosts streamers who are playing video games. Streaming other events or "just chatting" has grown in popularity, which I have no complaints about. But there has been a lot of controversy about sexual content on the platform. To address this to some degree, Twitch added a "Pools, Hot Tubs, and Beaches" category for people who are streaming in that specific context. But OnlyFans models do not stick to that category, and can easily be found in "Just Chatting." And I can personally say that regardless of how many times I select "Not Interested" on these streams, I continue to get suggestions for them.

Even generic chat applications (such as WhatsApp and Discord) are plagued with bot accounts that are either representative of an actual model or part of a scam, but in both cases, try to lure users in with sexual content.

I do want to say I have no issue with adult content when it is in the appropriate venue. Sites dedicated to pornography are completely fine for consenting adults. What I take issue with is how this content has expanded far beyond dedicated sites.

Society has reached a point where we hand off internet-connected devices to children at a very young age. Chromebooks are used in schools very early in education, and smartphones are given to kids early in life. It already seems to be common knowledge that social media use results in self-image issues in youth. These issues will likely be accelerated by social media not only showing a false image of how people live their lives but also the lengths they go to appear sexually appealing.

I'm not proposing some overreaching "save the children" censorship legislation is needed. But it's hard to imagine how this trend can be turned around. It produces a ton of clicks, which is all these user-posted content sites (and advertisers) care about. Is there anything that can be done, or is this just the new internet?

Given all the noise about whether President Biden is frail or cognitively compromised, I thought it would be interesting to informally survey Tildes denizens for their beliefs about aging.

These are purely conversational questions, each of which is so broad it could be its own topic - I have no skills as a demographer or pollster.

I also realize there may be national or ethnic definitions around who counts as venerable as opposed to senile, so I'll ask you to include nationality or relevant ethnicity in your response.

1. What decade of your life are you in - < 20, twenties, thirties, etc.
2. In what decade (see above) do you think old age begins?
3. What characterizes being "old" to you? For example, loss of sexual attractiveness, diminution of physical strength or stamina, illness, loss of mental agility, etc.
4. At what age do you think you will be too old to function as you want to in life?
5. Do you have experiences of aging (personal, family, acquaintances, caregiving roles) that give you concerns or hopes about your own future?
6. Do you believe age confers any benefits, and what might those be?
7. Assuming no catastrophic health events, do you believe life will seem better or worse to you as you age?
8. Do you feel like aging people are a burden to those younger?
9. Do you find yourself using pejorative words about age?

Full disclosure: There is evidence that what you believe about aging influences how well you age.

1. I'm in my 50's, US, ethnically Jewish.

2. My current inclination is to say that old age begins around age 75 in general, but I've met people who were what I'd call old at 30 and young at 90.

3. I know that various measures of peak {insert attribute here} start declining much earlier. 75 - 80 seems to be the point at which many things break down irreparably for the vast majority of people. That's the age range where the ability to live independently drops off, and that's what I count as "old".

4. I hope to be independent for at least another 25 years, but that's already somewhat determined by a limiting progressive condition. My experiences with aging are biased by highly educated people and super-ager relatives. There have been several centenarians in my family, each of whom was cognitively intact until death even if they were no longer completely independent physically.

5. I believe age confers the ability to recognize patterns based on cumulative experience. That's what passes for wisdom. The ability to acquire new memories and skills can be more rapid with connections to the previous body of knowledge. Socializing is definitely easier with many years of practice and the dulling of anxieties - the worst that can happen usually already did. For better or worse, people look up to you as a survivor and teacher...

6. Life will probably get better with age. I've had an extended time without a job followed by a job purely chosen, so I can say that "retirement" is likely to be much more productive and enjoyable both for self and society. I expect old age to be a time of reconnecting with others and doing the charitable activities I don't have flexibility to engage in now.

7. This is a tough one. At a general scale, we're encouraged to work as hard as possible to hoard resources that will ensure we have the means to maintain independence and purchase care when we're old. Rather, we could live lighter, share more, and build relationships which can sustain us. I count myself fortunate to avoid the burden that many others have endured when dealing with debilitated or demented relatives. And yet there are so many ways in which nations and cultures other than the U.S. do a better job of sharing care.

8. There's a lot of online discourse about greedy boomers, crumbly conservatives, and so on, but I think those are manufactured divisive narratives. I've been acquainted with so many people over the years who don't fit neatly into demographic or political boxes. On that evidence, I don't think any generation has a greater balance of virtue or vice compared to the others.

9. I use "adulting" and "old fart" self-denigratingly. I follow r/oldhagfashion for actual IDGAF style ideas.

What is Poverty Point in short?

Emphasis in the text below is mine.

In modern-day Louisiana there is a place with the dispiriting name of Poverty Point. Here you can still see the remains of massive earthworks erected by Native Americans around 1600 BC. With its plush green lawns and well-trained coppices, today the site looks like something halfway between a wildlife management area and a golf club. Grass-covered mounds and ridges rise neatly from carefully tended meadows, forming concentric rings which suddenly vanish where the Bayou Macon has eroded them away (bayou being derived, via Louisiana French, from the Choctaw word bayuk: marshy rivulets spreading out from the main channel of the Mississippi). Despite nature’s best efforts to obliterate these earthworks, and early European settlers’ best efforts to deny their obvious significance (perhaps these were the dwellings of an ancient race of giants, they conjectured, or one of the lost tribes of Israel?), they endure: evidence for an ancient civilization of the Lower Mississippi and testimony to the scale of its accomplishments.

Archaeologists believe these structures at Poverty Point formed a monumental precinct that once extended over 200 hectares, flanked by two enormous earthen mounds (the so-called Motley and Lower Jackson Mounds) which lie respectively north and south. To clarify what this means, it’s worth noting that the first Eurasian cities – early centres of civic life like Uruk in southern Iraq, or Harappa in the Punjab – began as settlements of roughly 200 hectares in total. Which is to say that their entire layout could fit quite comfortably within the ceremonial precinct of Poverty Point. (...) People and resources came to Poverty Point from hundreds of miles away, as far north as the Great Lakes and from the Gulf of Mexico to the south.

(...)

Today, Poverty Point is a National Park and Monument and UNESCO World Heritage Site. Despite these designations of international importance, its implications for world history have hardly begun to be explored. A hunter-gatherer metropolis the size of a Mesopotamian city-state, Poverty Point makes the Anatolian complex of Göbekli Tepe look like little more than a ‘potbelly hill’ (which is, in fact, what ‘Göbekli Tepe’ means in Turkish). Yet outside a small community of academic specialists, and of course local residents and visitors, very few people have heard of it.

(...)

Published in 2004, this remarkable discovery by John E. Clark, an archaeologist and authority on the pre-Columbian societies of Mesoamerica, has been greeted by the scholarly community with responses ranging from lukewarm acceptance to plain disbelief, although nobody appears to have actually refuted it. Many prefer simply to ignore it. Clark himself seems surprised by his results.

Graeber, D., & Wengrow, D. (2021). The dawn of everything: A new history of humanity. Penguin UK.

A more detailed explanation is given at the end of this post.

Why is it important?

The traditional historical or archaeological understanding of political organization of society separates societies into four categories: bands, tribes, chiefdoms, states (1, 2, 3, 4). It proposes that as human society became more complex, its hierarchies became more pronounced, that this is inevitable. As an extension of this, it treats the least hierarchical, or in other words "most egalitarian" form of society, hunter-gatherers (foragers), as lacking any complex form of societal organization or achivement.

This narrative also ties the rise of the state to invention of agriculture, thus treats pre-agriculture societies as lacking complex structures and organizations.

Numerous examples contradict this quasi-social Darwinist hypothesis, such as Göbekli Tepe, which was -for its time- a gigantic settlement created by hunter-gatherers, and they are almost never heard of. In this way, Poverty Point, despite being an even more important finding that defy the traditional narratives about human history, is heard of even less.

Maybe even more importantly, this hypothesis is used to justify the existence of existing hierarchies, such as capitalism or stratified societies. The Better Angels of Our Nature by the famous pro-capitalist ideologue Steven Pinker, for example, uses this argument. This book had a very wide reach, and was presented by Bill Gates as "one of the most important books I’ve read—not just this year, but ever."

Why is it ignored?

Let’s first ask why even some experts apparently find it so difficult to shake off the idea of the carefree, idle forager band; and the twin assumption that ‘civilization’ properly so called – towns, specialized craftspeople, specialists in esoteric knowledge – would be impossible without agriculture. Why would anyone continue to write history as if places like Poverty Point could never have existed? (...) The real answer, we suggest, has more to do with the legacy of European colonial expansion; and in particular its impact on both indigenous and European systems of thought, especially with regard to the expression of rights of property in land.

Here it’s important to understand a little of the legal basis for dispossessing people who had the misfortune already to be living in territories coveted by European settlers. This was, almost invariably, what nineteenth-century jurists came to call the ‘Agricultural Argument’, a principle which has played a major role in the displacement of untold thousands of indigenous peoples from ancestral lands in Australia, New Zealand, sub-Saharan Africa and the Americas: processes typically accompanied by the rape, torture and mass murder of human beings, and often the destruction of entire civilizations.

Colonial appropriation of indigenous lands often began with some blanket assertion that foraging peoples really were living in a State of Nature – which meant that they were deemed to be part of the land but had no legal claims to own it. The entire basis for dispossession, in turn, was premised on the idea that the current inhabitants of those lands weren’t really working. The argument goes back to John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government (1690), in which he argued that property rights are necessarily derived from labour. In working the land, one ‘mixes one’s labour’ with it; in this way it becomes, in a sense, an extension of oneself. Lazy natives, according to Locke’s disciples, didn’t do that. They were not, Lockeans claimed, ‘improving landlords’ but simply made use of the land to satisfy their basic needs with the minimum of effort. James Tully, an authority on indigenous rights, spells out the historical implications: land used for hunting and gathering was considered vacant, and ‘if the Aboriginal peoples attempt to subject the Europeans to their laws and customs or to defend the territories that they have mistakenly believed to be their property for thousands of years, then it is they who violate natural law and may be punished or “destroyed” like savage beasts.’ In a similar way, the stereotype of the carefree, lazy native, coasting through a life free from material ambition, was deployed by thousands of European conquerors, plantation overseers and colonial officials in Asia, Africa, Latin America and Oceania as a pretext for the use of bureaucratic terror to force local people into work: everything from outright enslavement to punitive tax regimes, corvée labour and debt peonage.

Graeber, D., & Wengrow, D. (2021). The dawn of everything: A new history of humanity. Penguin UK.

There is one more reason I can think of. For clarification, I haven't progressed into the cited book much further than this point, so I don't know if they mention this later, however, justifying hierarchies based on a narrative of "historical progress" has a more general reason than the "agricultural argument" made by colonialists: it works to justify pretty much any existing hierarchy. Capitalism, nation-states, authoritarianism, you name it—all of it can be justified by saying this is the price we pay for complex societies (and progress), that there is no other way unless we want to give up most of what we have. In fact, Pinker does exactly this for capitalism (and neoliberalism). So I very much suspect this ideological approach plays a role in even experts overlooking such an obviously important finding.

The book I'm using as the source for this post, The Dawn of Everything, is written by two archaeologists. It's a great book I recommend to anyone. It turns the traditional understanding of history and pre-history, especially about "equality", upside down. It shows enough evidence to poke so many and giant holes in the frameworks that approach history as if it's linear or is one of "progress", and I've only read 1/3 of it yet. Poverty Point is just one of many examples.

I watched Supernatural until season 7 or so when I was younger. I didn't really examine its subtext at the time, and just thought it lost steam after the original plot ended. I've recently started rewatching the show from the beginning, and, wow, like just wow. It's amazing how much Christian and Western supremacist subtext it contains.

Before I get into the details, I should mention that I've only rewatched the first five seasons yet. So I don't know if this still holds true after that. With that out of the way, here are the major reasons (obviously, spoilers).

Pagans are always depicted as bloodthirsty maniacs. Every single time.

Holy aspects of Christianity -such as exorcism rituals, churches, holy water- are the only "real" effective way of fighting demons. The other ways are made up in the show (demon killing guns and blades).

The cosmology is a thing on its own. Christian God has created the universe, yet Earth is at its metaphorical centre. Knowing a few things from the seasons after too, I can say that it's the only place of importance in the entire universe. Following the traditional Christian logic, humans are also the most important beings on Earth.

A special mention goes to the episode "Hammer of the Gods" (S05E19), as a striking example of what I talk about. In the episode, the major "pagan" gods alive gather to talk about the looming apocalypse. This includes Kali, Baldur, Mercury, Baron Samedi, Zao Shen, Odin, Ganesh. It's really telling that they threw in Ganesh and Kali together with old gods. Oh, and of course they all eat people.

The said apocalypse is to be caused by Lucifer coming back and fighting it out with Michael. Apparently it will be so bad that it will kill around half the human population.

The gods gather, conspire, with leads Dean and Sam there being held hostage as bargaining chips. They say they have to conspire, because if not prevented, this Christian apocalypse will kill them too. So this led to them teaming up. You can already see that Christianity is depicted as the big bad boy in the entire world.

During the talks, Kali says this to Loki, who she discovered was actually arcangel Gabriel.

"Westerners, I swear. The sheer arrogance. You think you're the only ones on earth? You pillage and you butcher in your God's name. But you're not the only religion, and he's not the only God. And now you think you can just rip the planet apart? You're wrong. There are billions of us. An we were here first. If anyone gets to end this world, it's me. I'm sorry. [KALI stabs GABRIEL with his own blade. GABRIEL screams, and in a flash of light, dies.]"

Don't worry he doesn't actually get killed by Kali.

Almost just after this scene, Dean gets up and says the following. Emphasis mine.

"All right you primitive screwheads, listen up. I'm outta options. Now on any other given day, I'd be doing my damndest to, uh, kill you. You filthy murdering chimps. But, uh, hey, desperate times. So even though I'd love nothing better than to slit your throats, you dicks, I'm gonna help you. I'm going to help you ice the devil. And then we can all get back to ganking each other, like normal. You want Lucifer, well, dude's not in the Yellow Pages. But me and Sam, we can get him here."

I swear, at this moment, I could almost see a 19th century colonizer white supremacist manifest to say this. I should remind that he says this to a group of gods that includes two major gods from Hinduism: a major religion that still exists. It would have been bad even without that, but this fact makes it much worse.

After this, Lucifer shows up, and kills every god with ease. He's not even the Christian god, and he's not even at his full power, yet he kills multiple major gods from other religions as if they were less than nothing. Oh, and he says that to them too.

"You know, I never understood you pagans, always fighting, always happy to sell out your own kind. No wonder you forfeited this planet to us. You are worse than humans. You're worse than demons. And yet you claim to be gods. [LUCIFER twists his fingers and MERCURY dies as his neck snaps] And they call me prideful."

He then kills Gabriel for real too. Because, as is tradition, gods from other religions are too incompetent to do anything to Christianity.

This episode is probably the epitome of what I mean, but it's just a culmination of what's been there from the start. The trashing of what is deemed as "pagan" (often read: not "Western"), and the supremacy of Christianity has always been there. I still like the show for its other aspects, but its subtext is really Christian and western supremacist.

Second edit: It has been pointed out that my collaborators don't necessarily need to upload my files in order to work on them, and that the bigger the project/organisation, the more likely they are using their own system for managing content rather than the Adobe Creative Cloud. I didn't realise that not using the CC is an option. In conclusion, I can still collaborate with Adobe's customers as long as I ask them to never upload my work to the Adobe CC.

Edit: After sleeping on this, here's my biggest gripe with terms like these.

Regardless of the contents of Adobe's TOS, I cannot be forced to accept them as long as I'm not their customer. Similarly, people who don't use an imaginary social media app called "Twitter" can't be subjected to Twitter's terms of service even if for some reason Twitter had access to these people's data. If Twitter wants to make an agreement with non-customers, they must get these people's explicit consent. Writing stuff in their TOS doesn't cut it because those are directed at customers. Corporations absolutely can't have the right to make me a customer without my informed consent.

As it stands, given Adobe's market share, I would either have to accept their terms when it comes to my work that gets uploaded by third parties, or I can never get my work published again. This is completely unacceptable. Even if the terms were the most gracious and reasonable terms anyone has ever seen (which they aren't), I would still have the right to refuse them. This right cannot be taken away from me. Adobe has done nothing to show how they intend to separate non-customer content from customer content, which most likely means they have no plans to do so and certainly aren't doing it at the moment.

Organisations that are Adobe customers and want to publish/edit content produced by non-customers will have an insurmountably tough task trying to draft a solid contract with these people. In order to protect themselves from future disputes, they will have to get explicit consent for everything that I quoted in this post, for all imaginable and unimaginable purposes. The rest of the TOS (the parts that I didn't quote) is legally too fuzzy to be put in a contract, and as far as I know, the term "generative AI" doesn't even have a legal definition yet. Essentially, Adobe is making their own customers do their dirty work for them. Good luck with that.

Original post:
Adobe receives an unrestricted license to use all uploaded content however they please, according to their TOS.

Let's say I am a professional photographer, but I don't use Adobe software to edit my work because I don't want to grant Adobe a license to do whatever they want with it. Now, let's say that High End Art Magazine wants to publish some of my photos in their Hot New Photo Artists section. Most likely they are using Adobe software. To create the magazine layout, they are going to have to upload my photos. I haven't used Adobe since they put everything in the cloud, so I wouldn't know how the process actually works, but I doubt that Adobe asks about the ownership of each uploaded file. Do they? The magazine editor does not have the right to grant Adobe any sort of license to my work. It's not their content, they are merely presenting it. The end result: Adobe has content on their servers that they do not have a license to use however they wish, no matter what they put in their TOS, and they most likely have no way to tell this content apart from the rest.

The above example is simplified. I am actually not a photographer, but an artist in another field. Publishing my work involves images that are put together by a team of people, each of whom must be able to deny using the resulting photo without their explicit consent. How can cases like these be handled? If I care about how and where my and my team's work is used, will I have to stop collaborating with anyone who uses Adobe products? Even that won't necessarily protect us. Uninformed people can still grab an image form somewhere and use it for a school project or something. This used to be okay as long as you didn't publish the result, let alone try to profit from it financially. But now, if you use Adobe software to edit your project, ethically you can only use unlicensed content as your source material and everything else is off limits.

From the Adobe TOS:

...you grant us a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free license to do the following with your Cloud Content:

reproduce
distribute 

create derivative works 

publicly display 

publicly perform and
sublicense the foregoing rights to third parties acting on our behalf

And:

“Content” means any text, information, communication, or material, such as audio files, video files, electronic documents, or images, that you upload, import into, embed for use by, or create using the Services and Software.

To be clear, I get that the TOS is meant to enable Adobe to run their services in the cloud. At least for now. But there are no guarantees that this will remain the sole purpose of that license. I prefer to simply not grant them any sort of license to use my work. Obviously, I must have a right to deny corporations such a license for whatever reason, at all times.

For comparison, when I started using Reddit, I read through their TOS and decided that it looked predatory. I have always refrained from posting things that I wouldn't want them to use for extracting financial gain. I was happy about that decision last year.

Does anyone know if the Adobe TOS are different for organisations that routinely handle large amounts of content that they do not own the rights to?

Protests Seen as Harming Civil Rights Movement in the '60s

I've recently had some conversations about activism and protesting about climate change on Tildes, which made me remember these polls again. I think they are a good historical reminder, and they demonstrate that masses much too often care more about comfort and privilege rather than justice.

These polls also show that you don't need to convince the majority to effect change. In fact, focusing on that might be detrimental to your cause. People who are bothered by your protest, because it disrupts "order", will try to tell you how to effect change while sitting in their own comfort. But this is not important.

Here is the gist of it, with MLK's own words.

"First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection."

Believing in the timetables created by comformist opinions would be a grave mistake for climate activists. We need more confrontation, more radical acts, and more direct action. We don't need to make friends with the majority to do this. We need to shake things up, and most people don't like that. You can see this by the worsening majority opinion of the Civil Rights movement after they intensified protests. But the activists were right, it was an urgent matter, and they succeeded. So, we don't need to play nice.

For example, after MLK's asssassination people started burning down cities, which resulted in the Civil Rights Act of 1968 passing. You can see this in the citations; basically the government feared further escalation, and that's why they had to pass the act. Another example is the suffragettes' bombing and arson campaign in Britain and Ireland, which helped with their cause by putting pressure on people in power.

I'm not giving these examples to say there should or should not be one-to-one copies, but to show that being radically confrontational does work. Radical confrontation and direct action are what we need for climate justice, because time has been running out for a while, and every day past without a radical change makes things much worse. So we should cast off the yoke of mass approval and meekness. We need to embrace the confrontation.

Have you not heard of that madman who lit a lantern in the bright morning hours, ran to the marketplace, and cried incessantly: "I seek God! I seek God!" —As many of those who did not believe in God were standing around just then, he provoked much laughter. Has he got lost? asked one. Did he lose his way like a child? asked another. Or is he hiding? Is he afraid of us? Has he gone on a voyage? emigrated? —Thus they yelled and laughed.

The madman jumped into their midst and pierced them with his eyes. “Whither is God?" he cried; "I will tell you. We have killed him—you and I. All of us are his murderers. But how did we do this? How could we drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What were we doing when we unchained this earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving? Away from all suns? Are we not plunging continually? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there still any up or down? Are we not straying as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder? Is not night continually closing in on us? Do we not need to light lanterns in the morning? Do we hear nothing as yet of the noise of the gravediggers who are burying God? Do we smell nothing as yet of the divine decomposition? Gods, too, decompose. God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him.”

"How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it? There has never been a greater deed; and whoever is born after us—for the sake of this deed he will belong to a higher history than all history hitherto."

Here the madman fell silent and looked again at his listeners; and they, too, were silent and stared at him in astonishment. At last he threw his lantern on the ground, and it broke into pieces and went out. "I have come too early," he said then: "my time is not yet. This tremendous event is still on its way, still wandering; it has not yet reached the ears of men. Lightning and thunder require time; the light of the stars requires time; deeds, though done, still require time to be seen and heard. This deed is still more distant from them than the most distant stars—and yet they have done it themselves.

It has been related further that on the same day the madman forced his way into several churches and there struck up his requiem aeternam deo. Led out and called to account, he is said always to have replied nothing but: "What after all are these churches now if they are not the tombs and sepulchers of God?”

• Friedrich Nietzsche, “Gay Science”, 1882

The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents. We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was not meant that we should voyage far. The sciences, each straining in its own direction, have hitherto harmed us little; but some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the deadly light into the peace and safety of a new dark age.

• Howard Phillips Lovecraft, “The Call of Cthulhu”, 1928

“Humans desired reasons. Reasons for pain. Reasons for sadness. Reasons for life. Reasons for death. Why were their lives filled with suffering? Why were their deaths absurd? They wanted reasons for the destiny that kept transcending their knowledge.”

“And that was God.”

• Kentaro Miura, “Berserk” (83), 1996

What's it say about life, hm? You gotta get together, tell yourself stories that violate every law of the universe just to get through the goddamn day.

• Nic Pizzolatto, “True Detective”, 2014

The universe of modern science engendered a profounder horror in Lovecraft’s writings than that stemming from its tremendous distances and its highly probably alien and powerful non-human inhabitants. For the chief reason that man fears the universe revealed by materialistic science is that it is a purposeless, soulless place. To quote Lovecraft’s “The Silver Key”, man can hardly bear the realization that “the blind cosmos grinds aimlessly on from nothing to something and from something back to nothing again, neither heeding nor knowing the wishes or existence of the minds that flicker for a second now and then in the darkness.”

• Fritz Leiber, “A Literary Copernicus”, 1949

With respect to the theological view of the question; this is always painful to me.— I am bewildered.— I had no intention to write atheistically. But I own that I cannot see, as plainly as others do, & as I should wish to do, evidence of design & beneficence on all sides of us. There seems to me too much misery in the world. I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent & omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidæ with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice.

• Charles Darwin, in a letter to Asa Gray, 1860

In a way, Darwin discovered God—a God that failed to match the preconceptions of theology, and so passed unheralded. If Darwin had discovered that life was created by an intelligent agent—a bodiless mind that loves us, and will smite us with lightning if we dare say otherwise—people would have said "My gosh! That's God!"

But instead Darwin discovered a strange alien God—not comfortably "ineffable", but really genuinely different from us. Evolution is not a God, but if it were, it wouldn't be Jehovah. It would be H. P. Lovecraft's Azathoth, the blind idiot God burbling chaotically at the center of everything, surrounded by the thin monotonous piping of flutes.

Which you might have predicted, if you had really looked at Nature.

• Eliezer Yudkowsky, “An Alien God”, 2007

The whole earth, continually steeped in blood, is nothing but an immense altar on which every living thing must be sacrificed without end, without restraint, without respite until the consummation of the world, until the extinction of evil, until the death of death.

• Joseph de Maistre, “St. Petersburg Dialogues”, 1821

One night in times long since vanished, man awoke and saw himself. He saw that he was naked under the cosmos, homeless in his own body. Everything opened up before his searching thoughts, wonder upon wonder, terror upon terror, all blossomed in his mind.

Then woman awoke, too, and said that it was time to go out and kill something. And man took up his bow, fruit of the union between the soul and the hand, and went out under the stars. But when the animals came to their water-hole, where he out of habit waited for them, he no longer knew the spring of the tiger in his blood, but a great psalm to the brotherhood of suffering shared by all that lives.

That day he came home with empty hands, and when they found him again by the rising of the new moon, he sat dead by the waterhole.

• Peter Wessel Zapffe, “The Last Messiah”, 1933

For the rest of the earth’s organisms, existence is relatively uncomplicated. Their lives are about three things: survival, reproduction, death—and nothing else. But we know too much to content ourselves with surviving, reproducing, dying—and nothing else. We know we are alive and know we will die. We also know we will suffer during our lives before suffering—slowly or quickly—as we draw near to death. This is the knowledge we “enjoy” as the most intelligent organisms to gush from the womb of nature. And being so, we feel shortchanged if there is nothing else for us than to survive, reproduce, and die. We want there to be more to it than that, or to think there is. This is the tragedy: Consciousness has forced us into the paradoxical position of striving to be unself-conscious of what we are—hunks of spoiling flesh on disintegrating bones.

• Thomas Ligotti, “The Conspiracy Against the Human Race”, 2010

This realization threatens to put us in a persistent state of existential fear.

• Sheldon Solomon, Jeff Greenberg, Tom Pyszczynski, “The Worm at the Core: On the Role of Death in Life”, 2015

What does it mean to be a self-conscious animal? The idea is ludicrous, if it is not monstrous. It means to know that one is food for worms. This is the terror: to have emerged from nothing, to have a name, consiousness of self, deep inner feelings, an excruciating inner yearning for life and self-expression and with all this yet to die. It seems like a hoax…

• Ernest Becker, "The Denial of Death", 1973

In the literature of supernatural horror, a familiar storyline is that of a character who encounters a paradox in the flesh, so to speak, and must face down or collapse in horror before this ontological perversion —something which should not be, and yet is. Most fabled as specimens of a living paradox are the "undead," those walking cadavers greedy for an eternal presence on earth. But whether their existence should go on unendingly or be cut short by a stake in the heart is not germane to the matter at hand. What is exceedingly material resides in the supernatural horror that such beings could exist in their impossible way for an instant. Other examples of paradox and supernatural horror congealing together are inanimate things guilty of infractions against their nature. Perhaps the most outstanding instance of this phenomenon is a puppet that breaks free of its strings and becomes self-mobilized.

[…]

Whether or not there really are manifestations of the supernatural, they are horrifying to us in concept, since we think ourselves to be living in a natural world, which may be a festival of massacres but only in a physical rather than a metaphysical purport. This is why we routinely equate the supernatural with horror. And a puppet possessed of life would exemplify just such a horror, because it would negate all conceptions of a natural physicalism and affirm a metaphysics of chaos and nightmare. It would still be a puppet, but it would be a puppet with a mind and a will, a human puppet—a paradox more disruptive of sanity than the undead. But that is not how they would see it. Human puppets could not conceive of themselves as being puppets at all, not when they are fixed with a consciousness that excites in them the unshakable sense of being singled out from all other objects in creation. Once you begin to feel you are making a go of it on your own—that you are making moves and thinking thoughts which seem to have originated within you—it is not possible for you to believe you are anything but your own master.

• Thomas Ligotti, “The Conspiracy Against the Human Race”, 2010

Why, then, was the human race not wiped out long ago in great, raging epidemics of insanity? Why are there so few individuals who succumb to the pressure of life because their acuity reveals to them more than they can bear?

A consideration of the spiritual history and present state of our species suggests the following answer: most people manage to save themselves by artificially paring down their consciousness.

• Peter Wessel Zapffe, “The Last Messiah”, 1933

Although we typically take our cultural worldview for granted, it is actually a fragile human construction that people spend great energy creating, maintaining, and defending. Since we’re constantly on the brink of realizing that our existence is precarious, we cling to our culture’s governmental, educational, and religious institutions and rituals to buttress our view of human life as uniquely significant and eternal.

• Sheldon Solomon, Jeff Greenberg, Tom Pyszczynski, “The Worm at the Core: On the Role of Death in Life”, 2015

Man is an animal who has to live in a lie in order to live at all.

• Ernest Becker, “Escape From Evil”, 1975

Ask almost anything

Last week had a focus on understanding. This week has the same focus but with a different angle.

Use this topic to ask almost any question you want to ask, including those you’re worried might come across poorly if brought up elsewhere.

If you feel equipped to answer a question, answer it!

Importantly: this is a safe space in which you can ask questions free from judgment. The vibe we're going for is a classroom, not a battleground.

Discussions like this can often cause intense emotions, but I want us to be especially vigilant in keeping this topic conflict- and aggression-free (see: Thermostat Rule below). If a fight breaks out in a classroom, learning stops, so conflict is counterproductive to our goals here. Disagreements are fine; disses are not. In all of these threads I have said that we should "be kind; be gracious; listen to others; love lots." Let's put that into practice here.

If you feel that a user is deliberately breaking any of the norms for this topic, do not engage them. It is more productive to simply mark their comment as noise and not respond. In the extremely rare case that you believe someone is actively intending to do harm, please mark their comment as malice.

Ground Rules

• Curiosity Rule: The reason that this is "ask almost anything" instead of "ask literally anything" is that your question has to come from a place of genuine curiosity -- you must honestly want to learn more. This is not a place to ask rhetorical questions to make a point or provocative questions to stir the pot.

• Good Faith Rule: assume all users here are acting in good faith and read their words in the best possible light. This goes for both those asking the questions and those answering as well.

• Thermostat Rule: the thermostat is set for this topic, meaning the heat should not rise. If you find that you might say something that would raise the temperature in the topic, please reword it, step away to cool down for a bit, or ignore the topic entirely.

Guidelines

• Experience Guideline: if a question is directed at people with specific identities/experiences, the bulk of their answers should come with people aligned with those identities/experiences. For example, a question directed at trans people should be primarily (but not necessarily exclusively) answered by trans people. The reason this is a guideline and not a rule is that there are many ways a rule would cut out valuable discourse -- e.g. people who are still questioning their identities; a cis person who wants to talk about the experiences of their trans partner, etc.

• Multiple Answers Guideline: even if a question has already been answered by someone else, it is okay to give another answer if you have more to add or a different perspective to share.

• Volunteer Guideline: if you are open to answering questions about specific topics, instead of making a top-level comment with a question, make a top level comment stating what you're willing to share about (e.g. "I'm happy to answer questions about ace spectrum terminology"). People can then respond to you directly with their questions.

Full Event Guidelines

Everyone is welcome to participate. This includes allies! You do not need to identify as LGBT in order to join in the topics (especially this one!).

I will use "queer" and "LGBT" interchangeably as umbrella terms to refer to all minority sexualities and gender identities. These are intended to be explicitly inclusive.

Be kind; be gracious; listen to others; love lots.

Schedule

I won't reveal everything upfront, but with each post I will give a teaser for what's next:

June 1st: Introductions and Playlist
June 4th: Who is a historical LGBT advocate that you admire?
June 7th: What positive changes have you seen in your lifetime?
June 10th: What's something you wish more people understood?
June 13th: Ask almost anything
June 16th: (teaser: windows and mirrors)
June 19th:
June 22nd:
June 25th:
June 28th:

If for whatever reason you would not like to see these topics in your feed, add pride month at tildes to your personal tag filters.

I picked ~misc and don't really have an idea of what tags would be appropriate. If there's stuff I can include in future posts like this I'll be glad to make sure they're there, just let me know. There probably won't be one for a long while but I'll remember. Technically I am advertising myself a bit, but I think I've framed it well enough that ya'll will see it's not really the point of the post. I'll never be bothering ya'll with offers and ads and shit.

This is a continuation from a post I made a while back about how it's going with the endeavor I've set in front of myself. In some ways, things proceed as I'd hoped, while in others there's been need for flexibility/adjustment. I wanted to give an update because a few big steps happened this past week which hopefully mean moving into a busier phase of the whole thing, and to add to the corpus, create the proof of what this all was as it begins if that makes sense.

The biggest thing has been an article published in our local paper. Two, actually, which were combined together into a front page spread I did not expect. Yes, there's a photo of us and our contact info in there, and yes, you're welcome to reach us if you've an idea for something you'd like to do. You'll be talking to me, and I'll be happy to go over details and land on pricing that actually does work for both of us. Primarily we are offering the space, with some ability to accommodate large groups and connections with folks who can provide stuff. It depends on what you want, how things will be priced. The less you need us to do, the less we need to charge. We don't want to regularly be a place where folks stay overnight, but I can probably swing that from time to time for someone coming from far away. If you aim to do something in the near term, do be aware it is hot as shit down here and very humid. The house is a-ok staying cool, but you'll want to be prepared for Mississippi in the summer. I have a dog too, so if you've got allergies you'll need to prep accordingly. She's gonna be 16 this year, she's nothing but friendly to people and sleeps a lot. Pets are welcome, provided they are house-trained and well behaved.

I am intentionally avoiding the internet on the whole for reasons I'll get into, but I do want to extend an offer to this forum in particular, as thanks for allowing me the space for expressing my thoughts as they took shape. I'm aware the site is public facing - what I'm going to share here is public already. I have to bite the bullet on sacrificing some anonymity and just try to control how that anonymity goes away, is how I've come to see it. You won't find me on social media, and what exists for the house/my grandmother is wildly out of date/largely inaccessible - it's gonna stay that way if all remains up to me, so this is just about the only way for someone outside of Brookhaven to know of us at this time. I'd like for at least a few people to know what we were up to, in a form that serves as proof of my intent from its actual beginnings. While the plan took shape before I ever wrote about it, it was in writing about it that I was able to make it clear to myself, what I aim to be doing, so I feel like it's part of completing things to share this stuff here.

The paper is very much a local thing, they got a few details wrong and you'll probably pick out how the quotes don't quite sound like me if you've read a lot of what I've posted. It's fine, the details in need of correction aren't critical. There isn't a lot in there about the more high-minded stuff I like to write about, because I'm not there yet. For now, it's simply building a business out of something, I have to make the something from which that business will spring. I'll think more about where it goes when I've got it moving. The article was free, which was pretty awesome. The paper is in a slow time, and it's mostly one guy doing a lot of the writing, they were just happy to have something to include. I think he did great.

The articles worked, too. I got calls the day the print version went out, and am expecting some followups soon to set dates and square away payment. I go walking downtown every day in the afternoon, and got some extra attention. While it's possible, while the pressure is light, I've been taking advantage by trying to advertise almost solely through word of mouth and face-to-face interactions, fully aware it will take a while for that to have an effect and that I may need to branch out fast if pressures change. Thus far, it's been the local paper, a print ad in a different paper that goes out primarily to local businesses, and a radio ad. There's a couple of reasons I've stuck to stuff like that.

The first is that I think it will provide a good foundation for sustaining the enterprise. If it's possible to have enough business to stay around purely from what exists around me, that means I can capitalize maximally if/when we do extend advertising outside our area, and it means security if for whatever reason those means can't be utilized. I don't want to be dependent on the internet for a livelihood if I can possibly manage it. It's not so principled a position that I'd refuse to do it at any point, rather it's like a back-pocket option, something to be engaged with strategically at what I determine to be either the proper time or because the needs have grown past what I can sustain without it, if that makes sense. My aim is to be a part of this town, to be of it, so I want to keep what we're doing as local and simple as possible. I have to be ready to constrain everything and take care of my grandmother too. I won't let that priority slip and will endure whatever hardship is necessary to fulfill it. It's easier to do that the smaller things are, a bit of a balancing act.

The second reason is much more practical and kind of silly. My grandmother's computer is the biggest security risk I think I've ever encountered in person. I refuse to introduce new online components when such a risk exists, if that makes sense, and I will endure whatever hit to efficiency/development it means until I can get it corrected. Her usage habits are minimal which is a lucky thing - she sticks to old fashioned stuff for almost everything. But, a priority of mine is that she can see and understand everything I'm doing, so I need this machine to be in a better state before I can take some of the steps with that. The challenge of it isn't technical at all, I could get the thing in good working order in a day, probably.

To give you an idea of what's difficult here, imagine for a moment you just ignored the internet as a whole since it began. You used it, you know how to do some stuff on it, but only by way of memorizing actions, the steps necessary to do a thing you wanted, a setup someone made for you. You never really engaged with what the stuff you use is designed for, you didn't follow how any of it developed, you're (blissfully, I'd say) unaware of pretty much that whole end of things. It's very difficult to explain the danger of something like an AI phishing scam, to someone who for all intents and purposes, never learned what phishing is, and further doesn't tend to believe in the shittiness of other people. That last part is one of the reasons I love my grandmother as much as I do, but it does make this task harder, and delays further action on my part.

I've gotten the machine to as secure a state as I can, and have gotten the data backed up, so hopefully movement really gets going on this and I can feel better about spreading out our net, so to speak. I think what frustrates me about it is having been there across years of time - a lot of why this machine is the way it is, is because other people took it upon themselves to "fix it" and almost none of them knew what the hell they were doing. They didn't explain anything to my grandmother either. Their interactions mean misunderstandings on my grandmother's part, and the lack of a foundation of knowledge means it's starting from zero in a way I have never actually encountered before doing this kind of work. I've gotten close, seen some pretty absurd things, but the lack here is just of a different kind, more complex than it seems. I've been writing about it separately/on my own because I think the experience stands as a sort of ultimate test of a lot of the stuff I did before I got here.

There is also health to think about. The priority, for now, is to set things up in a way which is compatible with what my grandmother can do. I'm trying to set up situations that let her do the things that make her happiest, and do all of the nitty-gritty shitty stuff myself. That means house maintenance, yard work, grocery shopping, cooking, arranging for stuff like an electrician when something breaks, learning how to do some of the fixing myself. I've only ever rented. I've never been in a position to maintain a house before, and as I'm sure plenty of you know far better than me, that's a good bit to learn all on its own. Especially with a home as old and complicated as this one with an owner who hasn't done a lot of that herself. Can't exactly tell me what needs doing when someone else was being paid to come do it for years. I feel good about it though, I like to learn and I like to fix things, and there's lots of opportunity. I've been able to eliminate a lot of costs and reduce regular expenses by taking on a lot of what others were doing and applying effective fixes to longstanding issues. It's very fulfilling, like getting to do the type of work I always hit a wall with in all my other workplaces, improve and optimize. That it's for my family brings together a lot of what matters the most to me, keeps me constantly motivated.

The town is nice too. It's been a few months so I've gotten more acclimated, the slower pace of things and friendlier atmosphere really does a lot for me. Here are a bunch of images of downtown I took on some of my walks. Because of the slower pace, I can be measured, precise, take the proper time to consider things and work out problems without feeling like I'm in some inner state of siege/under the gun all the time. At first I missed a lot of what was available to me elsewhere, but as time went on I came to realize a lot of that just didn't matter as much as I thought it did. As much as I love a good Indian restaurant and a computer store, not having them is not the detriment my mind used to pretend it was. Along with that has come an explosion of creativity, I've done a ridiculous amount of writing and reading, and am slowly getting myself up to snuff drawing things. The house exists on an art school campus, and from what I've gathered reading local magazines the presence of that school has done a ton to really give this place character and variety. My hope is to really lean into that, support it and see if we can have our space be a place for folks to work their creativity. Connections are taking shape and that's made me real happy to see. I cannot tell you how heartwarming it is, for example, to talk about this stuff with the guy who does a radio show and then hear him on the radio a day later saying "this place is really good you should go see it!" Folks are really beginning to grasp my aims when it comes to the scale and type of stuff we want to do, and I haven't really encountered much suspicion/doubt/etc. Folks tend to just trust the simple motives. I can't ask for more than that, the sense of gratitude I wake up with every day is beyond my ability to capture here.

So, there you go. Another step taken, one more further toward whatever comes, as precisely as I can manage to get to the goals. I wanted to post the followup because I said I'd do that and as part of the effort itself, share the vision and the way it plays out in the hope others spot what my eyes miss, and/or that they might take something useful for themselves from it. I'd love to read it if you have thoughts, opinions, advice, experience. Or if you just want to talk about the high minded stuff, I do like doing that. Helps me stay consistent. Anyway, i've said plenty, so off I go to walk around downtown again. I've got that phone on me all the time, call/text whenever (text if it's after 5pm CST, is my only request with that). As always, I very much appreciate you taking the time and giving me your attention.

There was a question on reddit about whether rich people ever think about all the poor and starving people who are suffering while they live in luxury. It got me thinking about the "rich" more broadly, as many of the people like me who are on the internet are part of the global 1% if not the local.

I think a lot of rich people dont like to think about the idea that maybe the truly morally right thing to do would be to give up all their money and work a day job like everyone else.

So they try to avoid thinking about it at all to avoid having to constantly feel guilty about not doing the thing they know is right. Making a contribution to helping others just opens you up to other people or even your own conscience saying you could be doing more, and youll never be able to do enough to fully justify not doing so. Or alternatively you can embrace selfishness and give up on constantly trying to be a better person and never have to think about it again.

Maybe its easy to look at some billionaire and say they could lose 1/2 their money and not notice any change in their lifestyle, so they should be considered morally contemptable for not even offering a fraction of that when it could make such a difference for so many. But somewhere between that and living in poverty, there has got to be some line where your right to take care of yourself and your right to try and invest in your own future stops outweighing the shame of allowing the evils of the world to go unchallenged.

Then there is a fuzzy region around that line where its ambiguous whether you are doing enough good in the world or if you should feel morally compelled to change how you are living your life. And I think its probable the for a lot of people the place where they envision all their dreams coming true is somewhere on the negative end of the spectrum. So if your dream is to be a famous movie star, for example, at some point that dream might not be compatible with your moral imoerative to oppose classism.

Personally I hate having to work an office job. If I got the chance to make a fortune Id build a cabin in the woods and have food delivered to me and never have to deal with anything ever again. But doing so would be selfish. So I guess if I ever had the opportunity Id be corrupted by riches in a heartbeat. Which is kind of a downer of an ending to this line of thought.

I'm not sure if this would be better for ~music, ~tech, or what, but after messing around with Udio for a bit, I made some stuff I liked and wanted to get folks' thoughts. Imo, it's incredible to be able to get music from a text prompt - it means I, as someone who is mostly ignorant to music production, can have my musical idea and actually render that out as music for someone to hear. I can think "damn that would be cool" and then in kind of a fuzzy way, make it happen then and there. Whether it's good, I don't know. That's not up to me, really, but it is the kind of sound I wanted to happen, so I'm left conflicted on how to feel about it. Figured it would be worthwhile to show folks some of it, and see what they think.

I do enjoy synth and metal, so there's a lot of that in these. Feel free to be as critical as you like. If I can apply your criticism I will try to do it, and if you want to see how that works out, I'll share.

1. Cosmoterrestrial
2. A Floyd, Pinkly
3. Empire's Demise, Foretold
4. Metal for Ghosts Bedsheet Edition (the very end of this one is hilariously appropriate)
5. Multi-3DS Drifting

And here's a link to my profile, if you would like to browse. It will update too when I put more up.

They're all instrumental. Lyrical music is less appealing to me in general and Udio's voices do sound kinda weird to me more often than not. The way I made the tracks, I would start with a clip combining some genres/moods, and then add to either end of the clip until I had a complete song. Along the way, I could introduce new elements/transitions by using more text/tweaking various settings and flipping "manual mode" on and off. The results were fuzzy; I didn't always get what I wanted, but I could keep trying until I did, or until I got something that sounded "better". I wrote all the titles after the song was finished. The album art is from a text prompt.

I'm not sure what I think, to be honest. On the one hand, a lot of the creative decision-making wasn't mine. On the other, the song would not be what it is without me making decisions about how it came about and what feelings/moods/genres were focused upon/utilized. I think the best I can say is "use the tool and see whether it's enough to count". To me it feels almost 50/50, like I've "collaborated with my computer" rather than "made music". Does it matter? If the sound is the intended sound, the sound I hoped to make and wanted to share, is that enough to say it is "my music"? Is this perhaps just what it looks like to be a beginner in a different paradigm?

When I used Suno, I had a much more rigid opinion. What it produced, I called "computer spit". Because, all I could actually control was telling it to continue, changing the prompt, and giving it structure/genre tags that felt like a coin flip in terms of effectiveness. I had a really hard time trying to get it to keep/recall melody, and my attempts to guide it along felt more like gambling than deliberate decisions. It also couldn't keep enough in context to make the overall song consistent with respect to instrumentation. It's different with Udio, both because you have a lot of additional tools, and because it feels like those tools work more consistently at making the model do what you want. I still call the results "computer spit" where I've shown them off, but I'm unsure now whether the production has enough of myself in it to be something more. Perhaps not on the same level as something someone produced by playing an instrument, or choosing samples/arranging things in software, but also not quite the same as the computer just rolling along, with me going "thumbs up" or "thumbs down". Maybe these distinctions don't actually matter, but I'd be curious if anyone has thoughts along these lines.

I'm intentionally trying to avoid a discussion about the morality of the thing or what political/social ramifications it has, not because I don't care about that but because I'm in the middle of trying to understand the tool and what its results mean. Would you consider what I've posted here work I could claim as my own, or do you think the computer has enough of a role to say it's not? Is my role in the production large enough? Or perhaps you have a stronger position, that nothing the computer can possibly do in this way counts as original music. Does any of this change that position for you? I ask because I've gone through a lot of opinions myself as I've been following things, and one interesting bit is that I have not gotten any copyright notices when I've uploaded the music to Youtube (I did get notices with Suno's music). As far as I can tell, with what is available to me, this is all original.

And of course, the most important one: Did you like it? Is there something you think would make them better? Do they all suffer from something I'm not seeing/hearing? I'm not an expert technician nor a music producer, so perhaps my ignorant ears are leading me astray. Either way, I've had a ton of fun doing this, and the results to my ear are fun to listen to while I'm doing stuff. I wouldn't call any of it the best music I've ever heard, but I can also think of a lot that is worse. I think what I wonder the most is whether it comes off bland/plain. Most of the folks I show things to are a bit too caught up in being astounded/disturbed to really give me much feedback, so perhaps putting the request in this form will work out a bit better - ya'll have time to think on it.

As always, your time and attention is greatly appreciated

Edit: I should clarify. I am not attempting to be a musician. Hence calling it "computer spit" with anything public, and the lack of any effort to pitch it as something I did only on my own. Rather, I recognize the limit of my own understanding, and felt I'd hit a point where my ignorance of production meant I could not judge the results as well as I'd like. That means it's time to engage some folks because folks out there are likely to know what I do not and see things I can't. From that angle, a lot of the discussion is very interesting, and I'll be responding to those in a bit. But there's no need to argue for doing the work - I recognize that. I'm trying to see past my own horizons with a medium I don't put the work into. I'm a consumer of music, not a creator, so getting some perspective from folks more acquainted with creating and with the technology is really what I'm after in sharing the experience.

Edit again: Thank you all for a very interesting discussion. I had a spare evening/morning and this was a good use of it. For the sake of tying a bow on the whole thing, I'll share my takeaways as succinctly as I can manage.

It seems, at present, and at best, the role these tools can play is of a sort of personal noise generator. The output is not of sufficient interest, quality, complexity, etc., to really be regarded the same as human-produced music, is the overall impression I have been left with. And for other reasons, it may be that the fuzziness of it all is a permanent feature, and thus a permanent constraint on how far toward "authentic" the results can ever get. I was trying to avoid a discussion about my own creativity, the value of doing work, societal ramifications, etc., so I'll work on how to present things better. For what it's worth, this has all been part of what I do creatively - my area of study was philosophy, and the goal of that to my mind has always been "achieving clarity". So I am attempting to achieve clarity with things as they develop, as a hobby sort of interest while I'm busy doing completely different stuff and to better protect my own mind against dumb marketing and hype. So once again, I appreciate you all taking the time, and I wish you all well in all the things you do.

I live in a country that's extremely dominated by the right. Leftist people are almost non-existent, and it's even often used as an insult. By leftist I just don't mean it in the anti-capitalist sense, but also for cultural stuff like not being a homophobe, racist, misogynist, etc. In fact, these are even more important qualities in this context.

I've gone through and am still going through my fair share of ideological growth. Even though I've always been progressive by the standards of my country, well, it was a low bar. So I had to unlearn a lot of things, and learn a much more critical approach. I'm a constant learner, and I'm interested in politics, so in the long run it's changed me a lot.

Another thing is that I've always had a strong egalitarian tendency since my childhood. I think this is an important trait that enabled me to grow past the conservative hierarchies. I'm really glad I did, and I plan on continuing to do so. However, this came at a personal cost I deem great.

Simply put, I have a lot of trouble connecting with people anymore. I still can connect with people at some level as long as we don't talk about politics, but it's an important area to me, and more importantly, as a human being, I don't think I will ever be able to overlook someone who grossly objectifies women every day, expresses queerphobic sentiments constantly, jokes about violence against minorities regularly, or genuinely wants pogroms to happen to minorities.

This is not a single person, but it's the general attitude of the population here. Men tend to make more edgy reactionary remarks, but women aren't that different politics-wise either. Some of my friends are left or left-leaning, but most of them are right-wingers who say and believe in stuff like that.

I've tried to be understanding, see it from a different angle, tried to consider that people are 3-dimensional. But there's a limit. Both because I grew, and because some of them regressed, I now look at these people and feel like I'm a complete stranger. As a person who bonds with people hard, this is extremely upsetting to me. Loneliness has been a burden of mine for a long time for various reasons, but in the last few years I was finally starting feel like I had found a social circle I could truly belong to. Despite all the stuff I mentioned, in personal relations, these people had qualities I found quite positive and precious at the time. For example, they were much less the stereotypical "feelings are for women" type of guys, which are extremely common here. Maybe first time in my life, I was feeling truly at home. It's probably why I struggled for years to keep it going.

For a very long time, I tried having talks with them, explain stuff to them, listen to them. They didn't work. I tried being aggressive, because they are still kind of dudely dudes who sometimes "respect" a dominant attitude, but that didn't work either. I feel like they are truly lost, and infuriatingly, unapologetically reactionary.

I fear that if I abandon them I won't be able to find a new social circle like this one. I have international friends as well, and I love them, but anyone can guess that for some stuff you want local people to bond with.

Part of my frustration is due to how most people here tend to follow comically evil beliefs. If this was just a rare occurance, I wouldn't have reacted this strongly, because I'd know there were a lot of egalitarian people. But they are an extreme minority. The dehumanization is suffocating.

There isn't much to add. This is a cost I didn't consider would come to pass, but I think I've outgrown these people, except for a few friends who I appreciate. It's demoralizing losing your social circle again at this age, to start all over. Again. But I think it's mostly unavoidable, because I am done trying to be tolerant of their evil.

Has anyone gone through, or is going through, something similar? What was or is your experience like?

Before starting this topic, I thought I'd start a discussion that wasn't held before. @cfabbro and other commenters who have better memories than I pointed out that this isn't the case. They've also laid out it's been tried and was unsuccessful. I stand corrected.

I do not want to contribute any noise to the website, so I'd appreciate it if @Deimos can lock or remove the topic all together, if he deems it appropriate. I'd also appreciate it if no further comments are made so as to not put any further burden on moderation. I apologize for wasting everyone's time.

click here for mood music for this post

Sometime recently I got it into my head that I wanted to go back and replay all of the so-called "Igavania" games in the Castlevania series - the three on Gameboy Advance, the three on Nintendo DS, and, of course, Castlevania: Symphony of the Night on PSX. I played through most of these back when I was a teenager and liked them, but haven't touched them since. Metroidvania games are a dime-a-dozen these days but I haven't found anything else that scratches the itch of exploration-meets-RPG-elements-meets-gothic-aesthetics.

Well except Bloodstained: Ritual of the Night, I guess. That game was pretty good.

I decided to begin with the GBA trilogy since Circle of the Moon is the first Igavania I ever played and the one I have not played in the longest. I pieced through the whole trilogy in release order over a few weeks; here are some stray thoughts from the experience:

Castlevania: Circle of the Moon

• The graphics in this game have aged beautifully. It's the only of the GBA & DS games that - to my knowledge - doesn't heavily re-use sprites from Symphony of the Nights, and as a result it has an aesthetic cohesion a step above any of the following games. Circle of the Moon is infamous for being way too dark on the original, non-backlit GBA screen (I had to use a wormlight back in the day to be able to see it), but with that limitation irrelevant on modern hardware it has a clean, moody aesthetic that's just solid.
• Overall, the game feels very much like "classic Castlevania stuff, remixed." That's certainly true of the music, which is primarily (very good) remixes of classic Castlevania tunes with just a few (very good) original compositions. This applies to the gameplay too, which is classic (you only get a whip, the upgrades are very standard stuff) but with a big new twist thrown in:
• The DSS system. Throughout the game you can collect 20 cards, divided into two categories, and by equpiping two at once you can utilize your magic meter to activate one of 100 DSS effects. Some are straightforward stat boosts, some offer reprieve like healing or invulnerability, and others offer really fun magic, weapon, and transformation effects. It's a joy to try out the combinations every time you get a new card, and they help give the game a lot of space for exploring your personal play style.
• Did I mention that the whip feels really good? The whip feels really good. The sound effect and animation are really satisfying.
• Circle of the Moon has some rough quirks that keep it from being a 10 out of 10, though. DSS cards, for instance, are locked behind random drops by enemies, some with absurdly low drop rates. If you just play through the game normally, without consulting a guide on specific drops or farming cards, there's a decent chance you'll pick up <50% of the cards before you finish the game. I get that you don't want to give the keys of the kingdom to the player right away, but why on earth would you build an awesome, fun game mechanic, and then set it up so players won't see most of it without extremely un-fun farming and grinding? Thankfully a "Magician" mode that gives you access to all of them straight away opens up after you finish the game once, but not everyone will make it that far or want to go back for a second playthrough.
• The difficulty is also allllll over the place. As a teen I got stuck forever at the twin-headed dragons, and going back as an adult ... yeah, I got stuck again. I had to look up strategies, go hunt down a specific sub-weapon (the cross, which is very overpowered in this game), grind a few more levels, and steal away to an alcove of the battle arena to a specific spot where the dragons can't touch you to abuse the DSS healing power. The dragons are the most egregious example but they're far from the only one; there are several points where the game switches from hard-but-fair to ha-ha-eat-shit-stupid. It seems like the designers fully expected the players to use and abuse DSS, especially the healing abilities, because there's no way someone played through this and thought "yeah that's a smooth difficulty curve."
• Special shout out to the optional battle arena. Yes, it's optional, but the difficulty of this 17 room gauntlet is truly hilarious. I was only able to beat it - near the end of the game, at a high level, with the best equipment available - by abusing save states and playing the last half of it in slow motion (the wonders of emulation). And it still took me over an hour!
• There are also some design decisions that are just strange. Your character, Nathan Graves, begins with an excruciatingly slow walk speed and a unwieldy jump that's almost vertical. Within the first 15 minutes of the game you pick up a character upgrade to be able to run - i.e. move at a normal speed - but you have to double tap a direction on the d-pad to activate it. So now you have to spend the next 6-8 hours of your playthrough double-tapping a direction any time you want to move just to move at a normal speed. Why? Very strange.
• There's also a whole area of block pushing puzzles. They're not too difficult, but is this really what Castlevania needed? 20 minutes of slowly pushing boxes?
• I've read that Circle of the Moon was made by a different team, with a different director, than the rest of the "Igavanias." You definitely get that sense when playing it, that it's just a bit different, and it really endeared me to the game. It has its issues, but most of those can be smoothed out with modern backlit screens, save states, and online wiki guides. Overall it was a joy to revisit, probably an 8 or 9 out of 10 in my book.
• I also highly recommend Jeremy Parish's retrospective look at Circle of the Moon

Castlevania: Harmony of Dissonance

• Castlevania: Harmony of Dissonance is what you get when you learn mostly the wrong lessons from the feedback the previous game received. I played this one back in the day and but lost interest and never finished it. I now see why.
• I'll start with the good. The character movement feels better; we finally have a normal run speed and the shoulder buttons can be used for left and right dashes that are very satisfying to use. Together they give this game a much faster pace than Circle of the Moon. The jump is weirdly floaty but you get used to it.
• The graphics have also seen a big improvement in a technical sense. The sprites are larger and more impressive - especially on bosses - though this is also the beginning of heavily re-using sprites from Symphony of the Night. You'll definitely recognize some old favorites if you played that game.
• Honestly, though, that's where the improvements end.
• The art direction has taken a big step back. Konami heard that Circle of the Moon was too dark and now as a result we've got Harmony of Dissonance, a game so insanely bright and chock full of garish psychedelic color choices that not only did it completely remove the moodiness of the first game, it led me, for the first time in my life, to download and install a romhack. Maybe on the original, unlit GBA screen these choices looked good, but on modern displays it feels like Castlevania by way of a Big Top Circus. And then if that wasn't enough the game adds an extra bright outline around your character at all times. Good grief.
• The music has also taken a humongous step back. Supposedly more of the GBA's processing power was used up by the graphics so the sound had to be deprioritized. But even putting aside the big step down in fidelity most of these compositions - save the main theme and one or two others - are not memorable, hummable, or fun to listen to. They're just ... there. There, with bad sound quality.
• All of this would be excusable if the gameplay were tremendous, but again we've learned the wrong lessons and gone backwards.
• DSS has been removed, and there's nothing nearly as interesting to take its place.
• ...but they decided to leave in block pushing. WHY?!
• The rocky difficulty of Circle of the Moon is gone, and now the game is far too easy. I beat almost every boss in this game on my first try, which is definitely not true of either of the other two GBA Castlevania games. The fun movement options have a side effect of making the game even easier, since you can quickly dart around the screen dodging things.
• The level design is poor, with endless, unmemorable hallways and generally boring layouts. Plus the entire first half of the game is basically linear
• Then the cherry on top is that halfway through the game reveals that there are two parallel castles, and it sends you on an excruciating fetch quest across both of them. So you get two identical castles of boring level design, middling music, recycled bosses, and the most tedious backtracking I've done in years.
• There are so many aspects of the game design that just feel sort of busted. Once you're 10 levels above an enemy they only grant you 1 EXP for each kill, so there is truly no upside to all of the tedious backtracking you're forced to do. There are shops in the game, but they all have weird requirements you have to meet to spawn them, and even once you do there's barely anything interesting to buy.
• This game is a chore, and is the only one I would not recommend. It's not "bad," necessarily - I'd give it a 5/10 - but I had to consult guides so many times to figure out where in which castle I needed to go, and I was downright relieved when it was over.

Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow

• It feels like this is where the team at Konami finally found their groove. Aria of Sorrow is a very good game.
• The graphics are still brighter than Circle of the Moon's moody look, but the color choices are dialed back to a sensible, tasteful level. No more wild acid circus backgrounds, and no more bright outlines around characters!
• The music has taken a big step up, with tons of memorable tunes.
• The character control has finally found a nice middle ground between Circle of the Moon's stiffness and Harmony of Dissonance's hyperfast floatiness. Instead of left and right dashes letting you zip around the map there's just a backdash, which is a sensible compromise that allows for lots of maneuverability in combat.
• The level design is a huge, huge step up from Harmony of Dissonance, and is probably better than Circle of the Moon's. Aria of Sorrow does a great job at giving compelling reasons to backtrack with interesting ability unlocks and thoughtfully placed warp zones and area connections.
• The difficulty curve is pretty smooth throughout, except maybe the boss fight with Death - but I found that one an interesting challenge, rather than a brick wall. This is still an easier game than Circle of the Moon, but not a total pushover.
• We've finally got a system to rival DSS: souls that you can gather from enemies and then equip for all sorts of passive and active effects. It's still luck based, but you'll get enough of a variety of souls through normal play for it to not be too bothersome. There are lots of interesting souls, but I missed the "combination" aspect of DSS, of experimenting between combining different cards and seeing what they do together. Here we've just got basically three slots for three types of souls - passives, abilities, and attacks. This is a totally fine way to do it, but it means that one or two of those slots are always just going to be the same one or two souls that give you whatever stat boost you need and whatever ability you rely on the most.
• There are a few more interesting abilities that tie into the exploration as well. When you start the game you can't sink into water and explore, you merely float at the top. Before you even get that ability, though, you get the ability to walk on top of water as if it's a hard surface, opening up interesting level design gimmicks. Later on you can both sink or stand on top depending on what you have equipped.
• The downside is this does mean too much time in menus switching between the same 3 or 4 souls over and over again - at least until you get flight abilities that let you skip a lot of the navigational tedium. One wonders why they couldn't have made things like on top of water / in water contextual abilities (maybe you land on the water, but then press down to sink into it?) instead of requiring players to unequip the ability they want to use 95% of the time, equip a water navigation soul for one room, then open the menu again to switch back.
• At least we don't have any huge block puzzle rooms any more! The environmental puzzles that do exist are far more interesting.
• Instead of the whip of the previous two games there are several classes of weapons the main character, Soma, can equip, including swords, axes, and even a handgun (which seemed pretty useless in my time with it). The variety is neat, but I have to say none of the weapons felt as good to use as the satisfying whip of Circle of the Moon, with its supremely meaty sound effects. I didn't expect to, but I found myself missing the straightforward, satisfyng combat of Circle of the Moon.
• And that's sort of my feeling on the game as a whole. It is a very good game, at least as good as Circle of the Moon, and it doesn't have nearly as many strange friction points as CoTM. It's an 8 or 9 out of 10, for sure. But for me, specifically, something about Aria of Sorrow sort of came and went for me, like it was much smoother than CoTM but didn't leave me with as many memorable moments. I'm not sure how to describe it, so I'll chalk it up to personal insanity.

Oh also all three of these games have a story. Does anyone care about the stories in Castlevania games? I skim the character dialogue while quickly clicking through it and that's pretty much it.

I've now moved on to the DS games, and am loving revisiting Dawn of Sorrow so far - my favorite from back in my teenage years. I'm very interested to revisit Portrait of Ruin and Order of Ecclesia, which I don't remember as clearly, and Symphony of the Night, which I remember loving...and then loathing the inverted castle. Still, it's been >10 years, so who knows how things will hit these days.

Has anyone else played (or replayed) these Castlevania games recently? What were your thoughts?

This is a thought I had, and I'm not saying it's necessarily true, or at least cynically true. But I think it brings to the fore an interesting point, and I want to emphasize how it feels like.

I feel like people are mostly interested in politics from a distant and uninvolved point of view. For example, in more progressive spaces, there's all this talk about fear of climate change, deteriorating international politics, rise of right wing authoritarianism, populism, nationalism, etc. However, I feel like people expect others to do something about it. There's this passivity and inaction, and no real effort to combat such changes. I feel like debates, talking, ruminating and such perform a theatrical function that makes you feel as if you've contributed to "doing good", but you actually don't do anything. This is what I mean by performative.

This is not to say talking is unimportant. It's a major component of politics, and it's a core value and function of democratic and egalitarian approaches. However, it feels to me like doomscrolling and dreading or being angry about political things is seen as being politically conscious and active, while political consciousness can't exist without action.

What are your thoughts about this? Have you had similar thoughts, or do you think differently? How do you emotionally handle this?

Ugh. Scammers are everywhere, and I know I'm getting them in my inbox and junkmail, but I need a way to know who I am wasting my time on and who is a real client.

My current client doesn't seem to speak in the usual way (for example saying "you have replied to me perfectly" in response to me asking "Please let me know if this works for you or if you wish to negotiate"). They want to pay me via a cashier's check. I just now told them I only accept PayPal payments (that is what I've always used). Waiting for a response now.

So my question is, which of these would be the most secure method of payment to use over the internet, with strangers, where contact is via email?

PayPal
Wire transfer
Cashier's check
Other (write in comments)

While there were conversations about this in the past, those were much more generalized.

Now, I personally don't have issues creating world maps, regional maps, or 'battle' maps, as it were, but when it comes to city maps... I'm consistently at a loss. That said, I don't want this to just be me begging and whining into the void about how I can't find something that I prefer to make city maps in, so here's what I've used and would recommend over the past 15 years or so:

• World Maps: Wonderdraft, Photoshop, Campaign Cartographer (probably about ten years ago, and I never finished a map with it)

Of these, I definitely recommend Wonderdraft the most. I think if you put in enough time and effort, Photoshop can turn out better (and most detailed), but if you're interested in a style that Wonderdraft has support (and assets) for, it's pretty much perfect. It's a one-time cost, has been getting consistent updates and support since it was in beta years ago, and the community assets are pretty much unending. The one caveat to Wonderdraft is that if you want to make an absolute behemoth of a map (like I'm apt to do), it will eat some serious resources and can begin to lag, due to how it handles each individual tree/mountain/path as a singular, editable asset.

Campaign Cartographer is an oldie that I tried about ten years ago, had some success with (mostly in how it designed continent outlines and things), but just didn't feel like it had enough malleability to create things the way I saw fit.

• Region/Continent Maps: Wonderdraft, Photoshop, Inkarnate

I think everything I said about world maps applies here, as well. I haven't used Inkarnate in the better part of a decade, but I know the free version was very limiting and there were some concerns about the company 'owning' anything you created in the program. That said, a brief look at it now makes it look like a more closed-off version of Wonderdraft, but with a subscription instead of a one-time purchase.

• Battle Maps: Dungeondraft, Photoshop, a plethora of generators that I can't even begin to remember dating back 10+ years

Before Dungeondraft, I pretty much hated making maps for combat. Early in my GMing 'career', I would just have a blank canvas on Roll20 and draw on details as it was needed, and eventually I just pivoted completely to theater of the mind for all of my combat. And then Dungeondraft rolled around, and it was pretty quick to export from there, incredibly quick to import to Foundry (with a module), and Just WorkedTM. Before that, I did occasionally try and make things in Photoshop, and would follow tutorials from time to time, but it was all just so time-consuming, and with a lot of asset hunting if you wanted consistent art style and detail to what you were doing. It was just so much.

Which, of course, brings me to...

• City Maps: Wonderdraft, Dungeondraft, City Designer 3, Photoshop, Watabou's Medieval City/District/Village generators, AI...?

Ah, the problems. So, I tried to make city maps in Wonderdraft, but it's very obvious that it was built for a larger scale, and there are a lot of 'hacks' (or workarounds, I guess?) you need to do to make it work, and it can be frustrating and very time-consuming, as there's nothing there to really automate the process at all. For example, Wonderdraft has this beautiful 'paint brush' for assets such as trees or mountains that will 'spatter' them across a set radius, with a set density, etc. This is very helpful for something random like forests, but essentially useless for placing buildings. Dungeondraft is a little better in this regard, but has the opposite issue: Everything is too 'small' and focuses on more grid-based, rigid design, given that it's built for, well, dungeons. And battle maps in general.

I purchased City Designer 3 (along with a big pack of Campaign Cartographer add-ons) as part of a Humble Bundle a while ago, and I kind of enjoyed it, but it really felt like the amount of effort required wasn't worth the end result, which - at best - would be using art assets designed to give the feel of the maps from D&D 5E. And even then, that limited the asset options because it didn't seem like there was a lot of additional third party support for the program (which is definitely showing age). That said, it's the only one I've used that seemed able to handle good building placement along roads, able to do it automatically. That said, Photoshop?

Probably the best time I had making city maps. I had to stylize them, but with enough ingenuity, good knowledge of automation (through recording Actions), and following some art style tutorials, you can make a "cheap" city map that's able to have a lot of variation. If you're interested in map design in Photoshop, I highly recommend the tutorials of Jonathan Roberts, who is very much my 'gold standard' for map creation. Unfortunately, he doesn't really update his site any more, and some of the tutorials show their age, but all of the content there is still great.

Then, we have generators. The ones linked above are the best ones I've found, though the city ones leave a lot to be desired as far as graphics and specific details go. But the village generator for small towns and the like? Beautiful. It's genuinely just a perfect little generator if you don't care all that much about the specifics of the map. So, for most towns and villages, it's fine. But what if it's a town built up against a mountain, that sprouted up around a mine? Well... that's not gonna work. What if it's a town that's split on two sides of a river, protecting passage? No such luck. A swamp town, or one in tree-tops? No, not really gonna work all that well.

And just last year, I was turned towards AI generation here on tildes, thanks to @atomicshoreline and his fairly extended description of how to set things up. But, I eventually gave up bothering him after my old video card kept having VRAM issues with only 8GB.

I have seen some very good city maps made in Inkarnate, but I don't know that I'm interested in something that has a yearly subscription, and I can imagine it being very frustrating long-term to invest in something that I've seen issues with in the past.

So, all of this is to say that I really enjoy making detailed content for my world, but I've always had issues with cities. There's just so much content that needs to be hand-placed in almost every program, and even an un-finished city has taken me well over a hundred hours in Dungeondraft, and that was with me still actively hating looking at it..

So, if anyone has other suggestions, I am quite literally always searching for new ways to make city maps, and I've tried just about every suggestion given to me at least once, often to the detriment of my bank account.

Oh, if someone can think of a better title to this post and wants to change it, please be my guest. I just wanted to contribute my knowledge and recommendations, rather than just throw a "give suggestions" post out into the ether, and wasn't sure how to phrase that.

Intro

Whenever smaller keyboards come up online, I often see a lot of the same reactions/dismissals. I've found many of these to be foolish, but also that the community around such devices has its own barriers. It sometimes is represented from its most extreme aspects rather than someone with a more normal approach and use case.

So here is yet another pitch on why you might want to consider trying out some of the smaller keyboards out there, and the various advantages it can bring. This will probably be quite long, but I hope it at least is interesting.

Daily Drivers

Skills Required

I think the only real "skill" you must have to consider downsizing your keyboard is the ability to decently touch type without looking. If you're the sort of person who still hunts and pecks, no judgement, but this is not for you.

If you're someone who has to code, do data/numerical entry, or type a lot for work, then I encourage you to read on. Those are common barriers I hear thrown out, but in my experience are actually easier with a smaller keyboard.

Why?

The normal keyboard for most machines has a lot of dead/wasted space that could just be used better, and has some keys that are important or have grown more important in really poor positions.

Some main offenders

1. Capslock - How often do you use capslock? How often do you NEED capslock? If I can convince you of one thing to try out right now it's this, remap capslock (check out powertoys on windows) to left control. As it stands capslock is one of the easiest buttons to hit, and yet it if you moved it over next to Scroll lock you'd probably never mind. A large portion of my job is coding SQL and I never use it because that's what modern formatters are for. Please try remapping it(throw capslock on left control or some combo if you want).
2. Spacebar- Hear me out, as this might vary depending on how you type. Do you use one or both thumbs to hit your spacebar? If you're anything like me, you use one, and in my case it's the left thumb. This means that I've got a massive portion of my keyboard dedicated to one button, even though I'll never touch more than half of it (you'd be surprised how small you can make the space key and still hit it reliably). Now you might think that you don't need that space, but I'll dive into that more later.
3. The number row- More on this later, but my brief take on this is that humans are actually pretty bad at knowing exactly where the numbers are when they get away from the home row, and as anyone who's ever had to do lots of number entries know, the 10key/numpad is the way to go.
4. PgUp/PgDwn/Home/End/Delete- These 5 keys (and control and shift) are great for navigating/editing text/code/spreadsheets/webpages quickly, and could not be farther away from where you really need them to actually do that easily.
5. Arrow keys- A lot of people think it's fine that they're waaaaaay out there away from everything. I will be proposing an alternative given these are also critical to quick navigation.

How is smaller better then?

The core idea is simple. You can find the home row easily with the homing keys (j/f generally have a bump or some defining feature). You're probably excellent at hitting the keys in relation to that if they're 1 step away from the home row. The farther you are from that, the more likely you'll need to look, and the longer it'll take you to press the key even if you don't. So where possible, it's ideal to try and use space more efficiently to keep the keys you actually need to use near this position.

But how are you going to fit all those keys anywhere near the home row?

My Keymap

As an example, to help explain moving forward, here is the keymap for my mercutio 40.

You'll want to save that json, and then upload it at qmk configurator, which will make it much easier to explore. If you've never looked at this before it can seem insane, but I promise you it's pretty tame ignoring some edge case stuff.

If you don't feel like going through the hassle here's screenshots from the site with descriptions of each layer.

Mostly the same as below but i did fix some missing info below so sorry about that. I'm also leaving the descriptions of my "gaming" layers 4/5/6 in the imgur only because I think that's out of scope for this).

The magic of programable layers and context.

Space is an interesting key. It's a key only ever really tap, never hold (outside of games, more on that later). So, why not double it up, and make it do something different when you hold it?

Well in this case, tapping any of my 3 space buttons gives you a space like anyone would expect, but if you hold either of the left 2, it "shifts" you to layer 1 (base layer is 0), and holding the right one, shifts you to layer 2.

I put shifts in quotes because it's just like the shift key. If you hit 7 on your keyboard, you get a 7. If you hold shift and hit 7, you get &. This is the same concept, and just keep the layers organized in a way that makes sense, keeps it very easy to know what layer what key you want is on.

The Detailed Layers

The shorter version

If you don't want to read all of that, the basic idea is that your average person can type on the keyboard with minimal explanation. If they forget where a key is, the other 3 layers all follow rules to help guide them. One layer for navigation and keys that don't actually output characters (home/end/delete/esc/et) and one layer for the rest of the keys that output characters, namely the numbers, which are then also your numpad and ALWAYS under your right hand, centered and ready to go. The final layer is, mainly, for the function keys, still following the numpad from the previous so you can again easily figure out where the button you want is.

What does this gain you?

In the end the main benefits i've found are easier navigation, as I essentially now have a navigation layer with every key i could want on it, and much faster access to numbers. I still do data entry and lots of numbers, and having the numpad always one keyhold away is awesome.

On top of that it's just nice to not have to move my hands so much to type, and to get so much of my desk space back.

I type just as fast as I do on a normal keyboard for basic text, as there's almost no difference, and I type faster doing code/editing text because my numbers, brackets, and navigation keys are all closer at hand and in such a way I don't need to look or even move my hand from the home row to hit them.

So is it just all upsides?

On the typing side, honestly yeah. I've seen a lot of excuses like "well i prefer a numpad" or "how do you type numbers" which I've tried to address in this post.

The only issue i've run into is gaming, where I already really solved most of my problems as shown in the extra layers in the imgur gallery, and think it might even be better for gaming vs the normal layouts.

The only remaining hassle is roguelike games such as stone soup or caves of qud, which LOVE to assign every fucking key a use so there's no easy way to remap things and I have to actually add another layer JUST so i can hit the numpad numbers because I need them to navigate....

BUT unfortunately, you might actually want to acquire one of these keyboards, and that's where stuff gets a little tricky.

Programmability

All the upsides I just mentioned assume you can actually program the keyboard. Thankfully this has gotten much much easier with both Via and ZMK making the process very simple. QMK is doable, but difficulty wise it shared a lot of similarities with trying to get the perfect modded run of Fallout New Vegas going with about 20-40 mods. If you are not more comfortable in the tech world, I recommend ONLY boards that support via software. I believe these days anything that supports QMK supports VIA, but it's worth checking on the via website to make sure the board you're about to get works.

Some assembly required

The mercutio and the discipline I built myself after ordering the parts. They're through hole soldering and were some of the first soldering I'd ever done on my own outside of a quick kit I bought off amazon to practice. It is actually not that hard BUT you need the equipment. It's not horribly expensive to get but it's not cheap either. I do really enjoy just throwing on music and putting these together, but I totally understand that you might just want to, you know, buy the fucking thing already built.

Thankfully many sites offer build services (or you can find them on etsey) which charge a fee to assemble it for you. This is what i've done with every corne i've ordered because it is NOT through hole soldering and I don't have the guts for it, and even still they've all had some eventual issues (although again, i carry mine with me in a very unprotected state because i'm insane so some of that is on me).

Made of money

Especially if you're paying for the aforementioned build services, these things can get into the 200-400 range FAST, which is a lot for a keyboard. There are some cheaper options out there, and the Mercutio was only $70ish before switches(not bad) and keycaps (range from dirt cheap to ungodly expensive).

Still I would not recommend ANY of these for a first time buyer. My first smaller board was a 60% mechanical and those range from $70-100 these days from what i'm seeing.

Take my money....please?

Sometimes you just won't be able to find or buy the board you want in the way you want. There are lots of interesting boards i've seen over the years, but they're either very expensive or only open for a limited time. I had a working cornish zen that died on me. I'd love to replace it. I cannot as they currently don't sell them. Will they make more? Dunno. I hope they do.

Recommendations

I DO NOT recommend diving in head first and suggest starting with something simple like a 60 or 65, probably keychron, as they're a decent budget brand. You might want to go even cheaper with just a 60% off of amazon that isn't even programmable just to see if you outright hate it, but I do think that getting something you can start to tweak as you begin to understand what you want helps adoption.

Final Thoughts

I hope this gave some of you the push to look into all this. I'm glad I dipped my toe in it, less glad about the absurd amount of money i've spent on it (dear god keycaps), and really glad about the moment where I thought "huh i really just don't need all these keys" and pulled some out. I hope I can convince a few others give it a shot and hopefully see the same results. No dvorak or home row modifiers and weird triple tap macros. Just some layers and common sense.

I do still, if nothing else, highly recommend switching left control to caps lock.

This is a post about the topics mentioned in the title, and how they are related in my life. I suspect it might provide a point of consideration and discussion for other members, as I provide an argument that could be applied to other people and situations.

For good or bad, I put much value on morality, and see the world through a moralizing lens. This is not necessarily a case of reducing everything to "evil choices", it's more complicated than that, but it's been bothering me for a long while. It's partially because I often find myself judging myself too harshly, especially after failing to live up to my moral ideals.

For example, I don't like overconsumption and the surrounding hyperconsumerist ideology, so I hadn't bought any sort of "geeky" merchandise for some years. It's because, even though I thoroughly enjoy fictional works, there's this hyperconsumerist ideology and culture surrounding geekdom. So I thought, and to some extent still think, that buying any kind of merchandise was being tricked by the system.

I bought a simple merchandise item -a mug- the other day, which prompted me to question why I bought it. It feels shameful to write even now, but it's because I thought I should treat myself to something. It was cute, after all. When I thought about this issue, I realized certain things.

For starters, I put too much emphasis on personal responsibility when it comes to moral issues. One reason is I tend to blame myself. I often question myself first before questioning others or the wider picture. Another reason is that there are many, many moral tales that emphasize the role of personal responsibility. Too many stories have the hero look down on the villain and declare: "There's always a choice." And then the hero explicitly or implicitly says the villain just wasn't strong enough.

I think this is to a great degree due to how personal responsibility is mythologized in the contemporary culture. Abrahamic religions often put much emphasis on choosing the morally good choice. After all, the whole afterlife dichotomy is built upon this idea. Furthermore, with the "Enlightenment", the idea that individuals are rational and free to choose has become very prominent. So, both pre-modern and modern beliefs about morality puts much emphasis on personal responsibility.

This has different effects on different people, and I recognize that my experience is not necessarily generalizable, but I do think that it provides a kind of insight on some issues. At least for some people. Basically, I've come to realize that ethical issues have more of an emotional impact on me than most people. I also have a dysfunctional pattern of trying to live up to unreasonable standards. When these two and the emphasis on personal responsibility were combined, it created a very difficult pattern for me. It made me more vulnerable to moral purism.

I've recently realized why this moral purist tendency is straining for me, and there's a very simple why: it's because it's a thought that belongs to a fictional, idealized world. It doesn't consider the complexities and realities of the world I live in, it demands that I should live in that fictional, ideal world. In other words, it fails me, because it doesn't recognize that I'm a human with real needs and wants.

I don't mean this in the cliche "Oh, humans are imperfect," way, because that way of thinking still puts the moral purist way on a pedastal. It just tells you that you are weak and imperfect, and tells you to compromise. I think this is not a good way of looking at it, because it still reinforces the idealized thinking. It just tells you to make concessions, which is unacceptable to a perfectionist.

Instead, I say that it's a shitty psychology. This way of thinking doesn't consider how a human mind works, what it needs to be healthy and happy, and the overall workings of the world. Healthy thinking comes from being able to cope with realities of the world—in a way, it's being in tune with the reality you live in, and that necessitates recognizing your own emotional needs and wants. Moral purism encourages you to neglect your own emotional needs in pursuit of some fictional, impossible person you want to be. It's a fantasy.

In this context, it's healthy to come to terms with your own limits as a single person. The wider picture should be considered. For example, in my situation, buying merchandise now and then doesn't make me a bad person, nor does it make this act morally bad. I live under capitalism, and no matter what I do, as long as I continue to live in a society, I will always contribute to its workings (and healthy people don't go "off the grid"). From my point of view, it's bad that doing things I love contributes to an inequalizing system, but in no reasonable way should I be expected to give up what little or moderate joys I get by participating in this system. Of course, there should be a limit regarding consumption, but the bar is certainly not as high as I thought.

This is my personal experience with moral purism. I think the culture of overemphasis on personal responsibility feeds into it. What are your thoughts about it? Have you had similar experiences? The don't have to be about consumerism, as moral purism is seen many, unrelated issues.

Note: This goes without saying, but this post doesn't suggest that having a better world in mind and striving for it is bad. It just criticizes an unhealthy way of approaching the mentioned topics.

It's something I've wondered about for a while, but I wasn't sure how to have a constructive conversation about it. For clarity's sake, I am talking about the common social-media post of a woman talking about a terrible experience with a particular man or group of men and framing it around "Men are shitty". To be clear, I understand that is said in specific context and rarely does the person mean it literally. My question is about the appeal in the first place. As a personal example, I've been hurt by many women, but the idea of ever saying "Women are shitty." makes me feel mega-ick. So I'm genuinely curious to understand why some people find that kind of language cathartic or useful in some way?

I'm wondering if this type of tool exists. Basically, I am senior dev of a 3 man dev team at a non-tech company. I maintain 60 or so web apps for our 300-400 users (all internal apps) as well as act as jack of all trades when it comes to SQL, IIS, self hosted and cloud hosted windows server boxes, VMware, etc. Basically, I have a lot of spinning plates.

We are in active development but we get interrupted a lot. Like, a lot a lot. Because of this, we don't really work based on deadlines but more on timelines. Upper management knows that things get priority over other things and we have to move things around and pivot a lot, so as long as we can explain why a project took 6 more months than we projected, it's fine.

So having said all that, I'm looking for a timeline system similar to gantt but I want the ability to have more than one "timespan" per task/row.

So for example let's say I'm building a to-do app and one of the tasks is to figure out the theme/color scheme of the app. I think this will take 3 days, and I don't really need to be more specific than that, they aren't trying to micro manage. However, I got interrupted and pulled off the project in the middle of that task, so I worked on it for 1 day, I had other things for 3 days, and I came back to finish the last two days.

In this case, in a gantt chart, your task can only be one "timespan" per "row" and in order for me to chart what actually happened, I need to add multiple subtasks to that task and the task ends up taking 3 rows of space.

This is rough to read and annoying to have to rearrange and insert new subtasks and rearrange subsequent tasks along the timeline.

Is there a tool out there that handles this more "ad-hoc" scheduling that I'm looking for?

Ideally what I would like is for me to be able to put together a full estimate of time for the project (say 3 months) with the ability to cascade schedule changes down when a task in the middle goes on longer than expected or gets interrupted.

I would like to have categories or color mapping so we can see which timespans are interruptions and which are tasks done and tasks to do.

Am I asking too much? Does gantt have this ability and I've not found the right vendor?

Right now my temporary solution is excel but it's a beating to have to go shift things every time I have an interruption, I feel like I spend more time explaining what happened than I do actually programming, haha

Edit: I've seen things like Monday.com and Microsoft project, but these are really heavy and too specific for my needs, I don't want a lot of context or setting up a kanban board or anything like that, I just want effectively an interactive timeline with simple "I'm doing this for x days" and not much else in terms of percent complete, details of the task, sprint integration, etc.

Think trello in complexity, just time-based and sideways 😅

I don't want to be a project manager, I don't have time for that - I just need the ability to quickly track interruptions and be able to use it as backup if upper management comes poking around

Hello Tildes,

I am currently taking DSA in college and struggling a lot with the math and algorithms. Recently had to solve Karatsuba questions and I don't even know what I wrote down on the paper. I have been trying to look for videos on this and only really came away with a vague understanding.

What I've noticed is that I struggle with solving the math part of the questions.

For example: "Describe a divide and conquer algorithm to compute the square
of an n-digit integer in O(n log3 5) time, by reducing to the squaring of five [n/3]-digit
integers"

I have zero clue how I am supposed to understand the latter half of the question. It makes no sense to me beyond I am supposed to be multiplying squared numbers. How do I even begin to turn this into an algorithm? What is the solution even supposed to look like?

Needless to say, I've struggled with math my entire life and I've been trying for years to be decent with it, and I have nothing to show for it.

So, do you have any recommendations that could simplify the math needed for DSA? Videos are preferred but I will textbook recommendations as well.

Thank you, and have a good day!

When I was reading a Psmith novel, I couldn't help but notice that Psmith had a certain similarity with Douglas Addams character Dirk Gently. I can't say for sure if it has any validity, or if it is just make-believe patterns in random chaos. But regardless, these are my observations.

Svlad Cjelli. Popularly known as Dirk, though, again, ‘popular’ was hardly right.
Notorious, certainly; sought after, endlessly speculated about, those too were true. But popular? Only in the sense that a serious accident on the motorway might be popular -- everyone slows down to have a good look, but no one will get too close to the flames. Infamous was more like it. Svlad Cjelli, infamously known as Dirk.

—Dirk Gently’s Holistic Detective Agency by Douglas Addams

Thus were Dirk Gently introduced. But who is this Psmith fellow anyways? He is the titular character in a series of novels by P. G. Wodehouse, a great humorist who happens to be Douglas Adams favorite author. Douglas Addams writing, I’ve noticed, share the same whimsical mastery of language:

Deep in the rain forest it was doing what it usually does in rain forests, which was raining: hence the name.

and

Richard stood transfixed for a moment or two, wiped his forehead again, and gently replaced the phone as if it were an injured hamster.

—Dirk Gently’s Holistic Detective Agency by Douglas Addams

While both characters have changed their name to something much more fancyful, their motivation contrasts greatly. Psmith wanted a fancier name, simple as that; Dirk Gently, on the other hand, changed his name repeatedly to avoid being held accountable for a lifetime of blatant hustling and has finally ended up with Dirk Gently:

'My dear Svlad.'
'Dirk, please, if you would,' said Dirk, grasping his hand warmly, 'I prefer it. It has more of a sort of Scottish dagger feel to it, I think. Dirk Gently is the name under which I now trade. There are certain events in the past, I'm afraid, from which I would wish to disassociate myself.
—Dirk Gently’s Holistic Detective Agency by Douglas Addams

Enter Psmith:

A small maid-of-all-work appeared in answer to the bell, and stood transfixed as the visitor, producing a monocle, placed it in his right eye and inspected her through it.
“A warm afternoon,” he said cordially.
“Yes, sir.”
“But pleasant,” urged the young man. “Tell me, is Mrs. Jackson at home?”
“No, sir.”
“Not at home?”
“No, sir.”
The young man sighed.
“Ah well,” he said, “we must always remember that these disappointments are sent to us for some good purpose. No doubt they make us more spiritual. Will you inform her that I called? The name is Psmith. P-smith.”
“Peasmith, sir?”
“No, no. P-s-m-i-t-h. I should explain to you that I started life without the initial letter, and my father always clung ruggedly to the plain Smith. But it seemed to me that there were so many Smiths in the world that a little variety might well be introduced. Smythe I look on as a cowardly evasion, nor do I approve of the too prevalent custom of tacking another name on in front by means of a hyphen. So I decided to adopt the Psmith. The p, I should add for your guidance, is silent, as in phthisis, psychic, and ptarmigan. You follow me?”
“Y-yes, sir.”
“You don’t think,” he said anxiously, “that I did wrong in pursuing this course?”
“N-no, sir.”
“Splendid!” said the young man, flicking a speck of dust from his coat-sleeve. “Splendid! Splendid!”

— Leave it to Psmith by P. G. Wodehouse

As mentioned, Dirk Gently is a hustler. One of those enterprising characters who will push themselves tirelessly and unrelenting in order to aquire cash or commodities without labour. Earlier, he had cast himself as a psychic, something which backfired with terrible hybris. When we finally encounter him, he has ended up as a detective, seemingly specializing in searching for, but not actually finding, the lost cats of old ladies:

'Yes,' continued Dirk into the phone, 'but as I have endeavoured to explain to you, Mrs Sauskind, over the seven years of our acquaintance, I incline to the quantum mechanical view in this matter. My theory is that your cat is not lost, but that his waveform has temporarily collapsed and must be restored. Schrödinger. Planck. And so on.'
—Dirk Gently’s Holistic Detective Agency by Douglas Addams

Psmith, by contrast, is no hustler, but fall squarely into the trickster archetype. Think Loki, who tricks the blind Hodr into killing Balder. Think the Joker, whose terror is its own reasoning. Psmith, by his own admission, is bored. He may steal umbrellas and impersonate poets in order to woe a certain girl, but one suspect that the girl is merely a pretext for the means.

Both characters share the same flamboyant ignorance of the fuckedupness of their antics. Compare Dirk Gentlys quantum cat theory to Psmiths approach to being accused of umbrella thievery:

“Mr. Walderwick was in here a moment ago, sir,” said the attendant.

“Yes?” said Psmith, mildly interested. “An energetic, bustling soul, Comrade Walderwick. Always somewhere. Now here, now there.”

“Asking about his umbrella, he was,” pursued the attendant with a touch of coldness.

“Indeed? Asking about his umbrella, eh?”

“Made a great fuss about it, sir, he did.”

“And rightly,” said Psmith with approval. “The good man loves his umbrella.”

“Of course I had to tell him that you had took it, sir.”

“I would not have it otherwise,” assented Psmith heartily. “I like this spirit of candour. There must be no reservations, no subterfuges between you and Comrade Walderwick. Let all be open and above-board.”

“He seemed very put out, sir. He went off to find you.”

“I am always glad of a chat with Comrade Walderwick,” said Psmith. “Always.”

— Leave it to Psmith by P. G. Wodehouse

When the girl feel some reservations upon learning that the umbrella he so gallantly lend her was stolen gods, he casually brush it off:

“Merely practical Socialism. Other people are content to talk about the Redistribution of Property. I go out and do it.”

Psmiths outre clash of upperclass lifestyle and socialist glamour is mirrored in Dirk Gentlys clash between the private detective business and holistic new-age mumble-jumble:

'I'm very glad you asked me that, Mrs Rawlinson. The term 'holistic' refers to my conviction that what we are concerned with here is the fundamental interconnectedness of all things. I do not concern myself with such petty things as fingerprint powder, telltale pieces of pocket fluff and inane footprints. I see the solution to each problem as being detectable in the pattern and web of the whole. The connections between causes and effects are often much more subtle and complex than we with our rough and ready understanding of the physical world might naturally suppose, Mrs Rawlinson.
'Let me give you an example. If you go to an acupuncturist with toothache he sticks a needle instead into your thigh. Do you know why he does that, Mrs Rawlinson?'
'No, neither do I, Mrs Rawlinson, but we intend to find out. A pleasure talking to you, Mrs Rawlinson. Goodbye.'

Psmiths socialism bend is merely a humble joke. The quirky disrespect for property laws and insistance on calling other men "Camrade" is highly amusing, surely, but also a bit on the nose, lazy creativity which everyone else knowing nothing about socialism would come up with. On the other hand, with Dirk Gently, the holistic approach to detective work is mirrored in the novel themes and plotting. In contrast to the way Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy gleefully throws around outlandish scifi mindfuckery with absolutly no relevance to the plot, Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency is a beautifully orchestrayed mystery where "everything is connected". (for another tightly plotted mystery novel in the fantastic genre, I can recommend Who Censored Roger Rabbit)

Another difference is that Dirk Gently is much more complex and deep, his casual money grapping contrasted with a moral compass of sorts. Both are clowns, but we get to see one of them after the show, devoid of pancake makeup.

Last year I inquired how one might take sea passage across the Atlantic. The realistic answer is that there are various ocean liners and transatlantic cruises traveling multiple times per year, none faster than 7 days and many taking closer to 10 or 14. Repositioning cruises, when the ship is being moved from one region to another and you just tag along, are infrequent but the cheapest option.

In February, I will unavoidably be in the United Kingdom. I am flying there, but have not purchased a flight back yet. I am thinking about taking a ship in repositioning from England to the US Eastern Seaboard as there is very conveniently one such ship leaving a couple days after my event is over. That would probably be Southampton to Miami (from there, I would take a train home) and would take 11 or so days, zero of which are at intermediary ports.

I was thinking about a ship over a plane because the last time I flew it was like my ears got blown out for an entire day afterward. I don't know what it is about my sinuses but they have never handled flying well. My height makes the experience particularly cramped and unpleasant and I have gotten sick on every plane I have taken in the last six months. It's the most miserable thing I do to myself on a regular basis.

Unfortunately, all the research I can find on passenger ship emissions seem to indicate that it is worse for the environment on a passenger-mile basis than flying that same route, at least as far as cruise ships are concerned (there is zero research on emissions from being a passenger on a container ship). As of 2006, the Queen Mary 2 ocean liner supposedly emits about 0.43kg CO2e per passenger-mile, compared to 0.257kg CO2e for a long-haul airplane. But emissions estimates vary so ridiculously widely that it is a little bit hard for me to take these figures seriously:

Emissions factors for individual journeys by cruise ships to or from New Zealand in 2007 ranged between 250 and 2200 g of CO2 per passenger-kilometre (g CO2 per p-km), with a weighted mean of 390 g CO2 per p-km.

That's literally an order of magnitude. I think there is some guessing going on here. To translate from p-km to p-mi, that's ~402–3545g CO2e/p-mile or a weighted mean of 628g CO2e/p-mi. I would speculate that a repositioning cruise (which spends no time in intermediary ports because it is specifically supposed to get somewhere efficiently) would be on the lower end of the spectrum. So, honestly, while worse than an airplane in terms of gaseous emissions, it's not... that much worse. From the way articles seem to talk about cruise emissions, I would have thought it would be at least an order of magnitude. (For reference, the difference between a train and a plane is about an order of magnitude.) Which I guess it can be based on the higher figures there, but I am pretty sure that that is derived from non-direct routings (port visits apparently contribute massively to emissions) or from luxury behaviors (i.e. having an enormous stateroom and other amenities that decrease space efficiency).

One may notice that those sources are almost 20 years old. There is more recent research on cruise ship emissions, but the non-academic stuff all seems to cite the Queen Mary 2 statistic (not sure where it even originated). I attempted to discern what cruise ship emissions looked like 20 years ago versus today, but was unable to find any specific information about passenger-mile emissions year-by-year. I don't have institutional access to most journals anymore, so feel free to share if you know anything.

There have definitely been new environmental regulations since 2007. In 2020, some new regulations limiting high-sulphur fuels went into effect. But sulfur dioxide is more of a health concern; it isn't a greenhouse gas. It's toxic to marine life too, and all other life, but wouldn't be considered in a passenger-mile CO2e emissions figure. Apparently the regulation has encouraged more ships to switch to less toxic liquefied natural gas (LNG) fuels rather than the literal bottom-of-the-barrel sludges they've traditionally burned (maybe a 20%-ish improvement at face value), but most ships have just installed scrubbers to continue using the same fuel and emit fewer horrible particulates. Apparently a switch to LNG, while favorable for human health, does not really reduce GHG emissions due to increased methane output.

Aakko-Saksa et al. 2023 seems to be the most comprehensive journal article I can access that covers current strategies in reducing greenhouse gas emissions for ship engines now and in the future. It mainly talks about fuels and technical stuff about engines I don't understand. This paper remarks that the switch to LNG could still be positive; it suggests a 30% reduction in GHG emissions compared to diesel fuel but a 6–23% reduction depending on how much "methane slip" happens; the IEA thinks it's 10% or less. That's still a meaningful reduction, though there is quite a lot of variance. The authors' takeaway is that there could be a significant benefit to switching to LNG and then blending that with greener fuels at increasing proportions over time.

There are many proposed ways to decarbonize the industry. It is not clear to me which of these have been adopted recently. The industry seems to have some interest in decarbonizing, or giving the appearance of having interest, as Norwegian claims to want to "reduce GHG intensity by 10% by 2026 and 25% by 2030, compared to a 2019 baseline with intensity measured on a per Capacity Day basis." And they are actually thinking about it: they have ESG staff and a 2022 ESG Report lays out a few relatively specific and achievable metrics (or so it seems to me, a layperson and a landlubber):

We were very excited to announce in early 2023 that two of our Norwegian Cruise Line newbuilds, expected to be delivered in 2027 and 2028, will be re-configured to accommodate the future use of green methanol. Green methanol is a fuel that we see as a promising future solution. Compared to conventional fuels, it can reduce carbon dioxide emissions by up to 95%, nitrogen oxide emissions by up to 80%, and all sulfur oxide and particulate matter emissions.

Environmental goals:

• Reduce GHG intensity by 10% by 2026 and by 25% by 2030, compared to 2019 baseline, and pursue net zero GHG emissions by 2050
• Decrease fleet-wide fuel consumption of boilers per day by 2% annually, compared to 2016
• 100% of fleet equipped with Waste Heat Recovery by 2027
• Increase the percentage of our fleet with shore power capabilities to 50% by 2024, 70% by 2025, and 100% by 2035
• Increase the percentage of treated wastewater compared to untreated sewage discharged by 2024, compared to 2019
• Reduce bunkering by 4%, as compared to 2019, by 2025
• Decrease the total volume of sludge offloaded fleetwide by 5%, compared to 2018, by 2023

Green methanol is apparently a real thing. The figures Norwegian uses are lifted directly from the Methanol Institute. It does seem like methanol production capacity is increasing and is on track to continue increasing, according to this source. If a cruise ship uses about 250 tons of fuel per hour (91250/year), and current green methanol production is just shy of 1 million tons/year, then if all of that production were directed toward cruise ships then it could fuel about... 11 ships. Hmm. If by 2027 production increases (generously) by an order of magnitude, that's still only about 100 ships, or less than 1/3 of the total fleet worldwide across all cruise firms. Better than nothing...?

Norwegian claims to be "on track" for all of these metrics, especially fuel consumption, but of course they will say that. I can't really figure out what their "-50%" and "-80%" figures mean and I suspect they mean nothing. Frankly most of these commitments are ridiculously insufficient, though it isn't reasonable to expect revolutionary changes to happen in just a couple years. I think we should take these commitments with a grain of salt, but it does make sense from an operational perspective why industry would be interested in improving their own efficiency, especially to avoid potentially crippling regulations from governments who they can clearly see are honing in on emissions.

From what I can tell, many or most of the emissions are not just from the transportation itself (i.e. the burning of fuel for the purpose of moving mass from point A to B) but rather from the hoteling aboard the ship (12x more emissions than land-based hoteling) and from other luxury-related activities. Intuitively, if we know how energy-efficient it is to transport goods by sea, this should come as no surprise: if we're comparing fuel costs, it simply takes less fuel to move objects by water than by air. This is why ferries have so few emissions per passenger-mile. Ship fuel is particularly nasty stuff as far as human health is concerned, but many resources appear to primarily emphasize the non-fuel waste produced by these enterprises. So the CO2e emissions of cruise ships would seem to originate not just from fuel but rather from the inefficiency of human habitation at sea. Norwegian is at least vaguely calculating multi-scope emissions (p. 15) with, for example, "purchased goods and services" apparently making up ~21% of total emissions in 2022 (fuel itself is about 55%, and "fuel and energy-related activities," whatever that means, being another 12%). I assume "capital goods" (18% of their emissions) are the emissions from the ships themselves, which is more of a decarbonization question for manufacturers.

There are also significant non-GHG environmental impacts due to operational procedures taken by cruise ships. Wikipedia has a whole page on the environmental effects of shipping (not just cruise ships, but they are included). Waste dumping, noise pollution, etc. Those externalities are different than the externalities produced by airplanes; same idea, but apples to oranges, so I don't know how to compare them.

Anyway, this is all to say: greenhouse gas emissions from cruise ships are pretty rough. Given the relative lack of information on repositioning cruises specifically, the age of much of the data, and newer emissions reductions which are maybe not yet reflected in the literature, I am going to speculate that such a trip has an approximately equal GHG impact as a long-haul flight, assuming a typical stateroom and a direct voyage. On average, it probably works out to somewhat more emissions, though I personally think ships have a clearer (easier/faster) path toward net-zero (ish) emissions than airplanes given the limitations of each mode.

I will go to sleep and decide tomorrow whether I will fly or sail home, but right now I am leaning toward the sea for this occasion. I am not sure about future voyages yet. We will see.

I've been running Linux full-time pretty much since Valve released Proton. I remember submitting reports to ProtonDB back when it was just a shared Google Sheet! In the years that followed I made it a point to test and report out on different games as new versions of Proton were released and support improved. I thought it important that we have a good data set for what worked and what didn't. Over those years I tested hundreds of games and submitted as many reports to the database.

In thinking back over my gaming in 2023, however, I realized that I fell out of the habit of submitting reports because I'm so used to Proton working that it's stopped occurring to me that it might not.

That doesn't mean that there aren't some games that don't work -- it simply means that the success rate that I used to have (maybe 30-50% on average) has risen high enough that I'm genuinely surprised if something doesn't work (it's probably somewhere around 95% for me now, though that's biased by the types of games that I play). I actually tried to remember the last game that didn't work, and I genuinely couldn't tell you what it was. Everything I've played recently has booted like it's native.

Honestly, I genuinely don't even know which games are native and which run through Proton anymore. I've stopped caring!

I got my Steam Deck halfway through 2022. It was awesome, but it was definitely a bit rough around the edges. There weren't that many compatible games. The OS had some clunkiness. It matured though, and has gotten better. Among my friend group, I'm the only person who cares even a little bit about Linux. If you asked any of them to name three different Linux distributions they'd stare at you blankly because they wouldn't understand the question. Nevertheless, of my friends, SIX of them have Steam Decks and are now gaming regularly on Linux.

There are currently ~4,300 Deck Verified games and ~8,700 Deck Playable games according to Valve. On ProtonDB, ~8,600 games have been verified as working on Linux by at least three users, while ~19,700 games have been verified by at least one user. There is SO much variety available, and the speed with which we've gotten here has been pretty breathtaking.

This was my device breakdown for my Steam Replay for 2023:

• 55% Steam Deck
• 32% Linux
• 10% Virtual Reality
• 4% Windows

The only non-Linux gaming I did was VR and some local multiplayer stuff I have on a Windows machine hooked up to my TV.

I don't want to proselytize too much, but if you have a general interest in gaming, you could probably switch over to Linux full time and be perfectly happy with the variety of games you have available to you. Not too long ago, making the jump felt like a huge sacrifice because you'd be giving up so much -- SO many games were incompatible -- but it no longer feels that way. You can transfer and most of -- probably almost all -- your library will still work! Also, if a particular game doesn't work, there isn't too much sting because, well, there are thousands of others you can give your attention to.

If you have a specific game that you must play, then it's possibly a different story. If you love Destiny 2, for example, then full-time Linux definitely is not for you. The same goes VR -- it's simply not up to snuff on Linux yet. There are other niches too that don't transfer over as well (modding, racing sims, etc.) so, of course, this isn't a blanket recommendation and everyone's situation is different.

But for a prototypical person who's just your sort of general, everyday gamer? It's reached a point where they could be very happy on Linux. In fact, as proven by my friends and their Steam Decks, it's reached a point where people can be gaming on Linux and not even know they're doing that. That's how frictionless it's gotten!

I don't really have a point to this post other than to say it's incredible that we are where we are, and I'm beyond appreciative of all the effort that people have put in to making this possible.

It's hard to find hopeful sci-fi these days. The zeitgeist is that things are bad and they will keep getting worse. That's a problem, because before you can build a better future, you must first imagine one. This is the first book I've found in a long time that does a credible job of that.

This post is about a pair of novels by Daniel Suarez. The first one is Delta-V, the physics term for a change in velocity; the second one is called Critical Mass. Together they're a heavily-researched look at asteroid mining, offworld economics, and space-based solar power.

The series takes place in the mid 2030s. By this point, the symptoms of climate change are becoming serious, creating what people call "the Long Emergency": famines, storms, and waves of climate refugees. There is real concern that the global economy will collapse under the strain. To avert financial apocalypse, an expedition is launched to mine the asteroid Ryugu; the first book covers the miners' training, their long journey through space, and the hazards of mining an asteroid in deep space. In the second book, they use those mined materials to build a space station in lunar orbit, to set up a railgun for launching materials from the moon's surface into its orbit, and to begin building the first space-based solar power satellites.

I was surprised to learn that space-based solar power is a real thing that the US, China, and several other countries and companies are actively pursuing. Basically, you have a bunch of solar panels in orbit, which beam power down to receiving antennas ("rectennas") on Earth. You lose a lot of efficiency converting the electricity to microwaves and back, but solar panels on orbit have access to ~7-10x more energy than those on the ground, since there's no atmosphere in the way and it's always solar noon. In exchange for a large initial investment, space-based solar power offers always-on, 100% renewable energy that can be switched from New York to California at a moment's notice.

That initial investment is a doozy, though. SpaceX is working on lowering launch costs, but launching material from Earth's surface into orbit is going to be very expensive for a very long time. So these books look at what might be possible if we could avoid those costs. What if we could create mining and manufacturing operations in space? What if we could use those to generate clean power in heretofore undreamt-of amounts?

I’m going to excerpt a conversation from the second book:

[At dinner,] chemist Sofia Boutros described the unfolding water crisis in the Nile watershed back on Earth—and the resulting regional conflict. This elicited from around the table a litany of other climate-change-related calamities back home, from wildfires, to floods, to famines, to extinctions.

The Russian observer, Colonel Voloshin, usually content to just listen, chimed in by saying, "Nations which have contributed least to carbon emissions suffering worst effects." He looked first to Lawler and then Colonel Fei. "Perhaps the biggest polluters should pay reparations."

Dr. Ohana looked down the table toward him. "It's my understanding that Russia has actually benefitted from warmer climate."

Yak replied instead. "Not overall. Soil in Siberia is poor. Wildfires and loss of permafrost also disruptive."

Lawler added. "You guys sell plenty of fossil fuels, too, Colonel."

The electrical engineer, Hoshiko Sato, said, "Complete decarbonization is the only way to solve climate change."

Most of the group groaned in response.

She looked around the table. "That might sound unrealistic, but there's no other choice if we want to save civilization."

Chindarkar said, "We've been saying the same thing for fifty years, Hoshiko. It's barely moved the needle."

"We’ve brought carbon emissions down considerably since 2020."

Boutros said, "You mean we slowed their growth."

Ohana said, "We should be planting more trees."

Monica Balter countered, "Trees require water and arable land. Climate change is causing deserts to spread, pitting food versus trees. Plus, whatever carbon a tree captures gets released when it dies—which could happen all at once in a wildfire."

Chindarkar looked down the table at her. "Nathan Joyce claimed we could use solar satellites to power direct carbon capture. Could that really be done at the scale necessary to reduce global CO2 levels?"

Colonel Voloshin let out a laugh. "That's not even in the realm of possibility. It wouldn't even make a dent."

Monica Balter said, "I respectfully disagree, Colonel." She looked to Boutros. "And Sofia, I understand we must do everything possible down on Earth to reduce carbon emissions: solar panels, wind turbines, geothermal—all of it. But that won't remove what's already in the atmosphere."

Voloshin shook his head. "We must adapt."

Lawler couldn't resist. "Easy for Russia to say."

Balter spoke to Voloshin. "Back in 1850, atmospheric carbon was at two hundred eighty parts per million. Now it's at four hundred fifty-seven parts per million. We put over a trillion tons of CO2 into Earth's atmosphere over that time. Humans caused the problem, and humans can solve it."

The colonel was unfazed. "Yes. All of humanity worked hard to cause this, and it still required almost two centuries to accomplish. It is naïve to think a few machines will correct it."

"Half of that excess carbon was emitted in the last forty years, and direct air carbon capture powered by solar satellites can actually work at a global scale. I can show you the numbers, if you like."

He scoffed. "Even billionaire Jack Macy says that solar power satellites are idiotic—that very little energy beamed from space reaches the terrestrial power grid due to transmission and conversion losses."

Balter nodded. "The number is 9 percent."

The crew around the table murmured.

He spread his hands. "I rest my case."

"But 9 percent of what? Jack Macy neglects to mention that a solar panel up in orbit is seven times more productive than one on the Earth's surface. The fact that he runs a rooftop solar company might have something to do with that.

Boutros asked, "A sevenfold difference just from being in space?"

Balter turned to her. "The best you can hope for on the Earth's equator at high noon is 1,000 watts of energy per square meter—and that's without factoring in nighttime, cloudy days, seasons, latitude. But a power sat in geosynchronous orbit would almost always be in 1,368 watts of sunlight per square meter. So you get a whole lot more energy from a solar panel in space even after transmission inefficiencies are factored in. Plus, a power sat won't be affected by unfolding chaos planetside."

Voloshin shrugged. "What if it is cloudy above your rectenna? You would not be able to beam down energy."

"Not true. We use microwaves in the 2.45-gigahertz range. The atmosphere is largely invisible at that frequency. We can beam the energy down regardless of weather—and directly to where it's needed. No need for long distance power lines."

"But to what purpose? It could not be done on a scale sufficient to impact Earth."

"Again, I could show you the numbers."

Chindarkar said, "I'd like to see them, Monica. Please."

Balter put down her fork and after searching through virtual UIs for a moment, put up a shared augmented-reality screen that appeared to float over the end of the table on the station's common layer. It displayed an array of numbers and labels. "Sorry for the spreadsheet."

Colonel Fei said, "We are quite interested in seeing it, Ms. Balter."

She looked to the faces around the table. "There are four reasons I got involved in space-based solar power... " She pealed them off on her fingers. "...electrification, desalination, food generation, and decarbonization. First: electricity. We all know the environmental, economic, and political havoc back on Earth from climate change. Blackouts make that chaos worse, but a 2-gigawatt solar power satellite in geosynchronous orbit could instantly transmit large amounts of energy anywhere it's needed in the hemisphere below it. Even several locations at once. All that's needed is a rectenna on the ground, and those are cheap and easy to construct."

Chindarkar nodded. "We saw one on Ascension Island."

Jin added, "J.T. and I are building sections of the lunar rectenna. It is fairly simple."

"Right. For example, space-based energy could be beamed to coastal desalination plants in regions suffering long-term drought-providing fresh water. It can also be used to remove CO2 directly from seawater, through what's known as single step carbon sequestration and storage, converting the CO2 into solid limestone and magnesite—essentially seashells. This would enable the oceans themselves to absorb more atmospheric CO2. Or we could power direct air capture plants that pull CO2 straight out of the atmosphere."

Voloshin interjected. "Again, a few satellites will not impact Earth's atmospheric concentrations, and where would you sequester all this CO2?"

"Just a few satellites wouldn't impact climate, no—but there's definitely a use for the CO2—in creating food. Droughts in equatorial zones are causing famine, but hydrogenotrophic bacteria can be used to make protein from electricity, hydrogen, and CO2. The hydrogen can be electrolyzed from seawater and CO2 from the air. All that's needed is clean energy." She glanced to Chindarkar. "NASA first experimented with this in the 1960s as a means for making food here in deep space."

"Really? Even back then."

"The bioreactor for it is like a small-batch brewery. You feed in what natural plants get from soil: phosphorus, sulfur, calcium, iron, potassium—all of which, incidentally, can be extracted from lunar regolith. But I digress..."

Colonel Fei's eyebrows raised. "That is indeed interesting."

"The bioreactor runs for a while, then the liquid is drained and the solids dried to a powder that contains 65 percent protein, 20 to 25 percent carbohydrates, and 5 percent fatty acids. This can be made into a natural food similar to soy or algae. So with energy, CO2, and seawater, we could provide life-saving nutrition just about anywhere on the planet via solar power satellites."

Voloshin was unimpressed. "Yet it would still not resolve climate change."

"At scale it could. Do the math ... " Balter brought up her spreadsheet. "We're emitting 40 billion tons of CO2 per year, 9 billion tons of which can't be sequestered by the natural carbon cycle and which results in an annual increase of roughly two parts per million atmospheric CO2—even after decades of conservation efforts."

She tapped a few screens and a virtual image of an industrial structure covered in fan housings appeared. "A direct air capture facility like this one could pull a million tons of CO2 out of the atmosphere each year at a cost of one hundred dollars a ton. All of the components are off-the-shelf and have existed for decades. Nothing fancy. But it needs 1.5 megawatts of constant clean energy to power it—and that's where solar power satellites come in."

Voloshin said, "But who would pay? Governments? Do not count on this."

Chindarkar asked, "Monica, seriously: How many carbon capture plants would it take to make a difference in the atmosphere of the entire Earth?"

Jin added, "And how many solar power satellites to power them?"

Balter brought her spreadsheet back up. "Merely to cancel out Earth's excess annual emissions—9 billion tons of CO2—we'd need nine thousand 1-megaton DAC plants worldwide, each requiring 150 to 300 acres."

The group groaned.

Tighe said, "That's a lot of hardware and a lot of real estate, Monica."

"It doesn't have to be on land. Just 2.7 million acres total—smaller than Connecticut. And that would be spread across the entire globe. More importantly, doing that stops the advance of climate change. If we reduce emissions, then it would actually help reverse climate change."

Chindarkar studied the numbers. "Powered by how many solar satellites?"

Balter highlighted the number. "It would take 1.6 terawatts of electricity—or 818 2-gigawatt SPS-Alphas. Each about 7,400 tons. But again: that halts the advance of climate change."

The group groaned again.

"Eight hundred eighteen satellites?" Jin shook his head. "That would take decades to build."

"Not with automation and sufficient materials here on orbit. You've seen the SPS-Alpha I'm building—it's made of simple, modular components."

"Yours is one-fortieth the size of these 7,400-ton monsters."

"But it's the same design. We just need the resources up here in space, and we could scale it rapidly with automation."

Voloshin picked up his fork. "As I said: it is a technological fantasy."

Chindarkar ignored him. "Monica, what would it require to not just halt climate change—but reverse it?"

Balter clicked through to another screen. "To return Earth to a safe level—say, three hundred fifty parts per million CO2-you'd need to pull three-quarters of a trillion tons out of the atmosphere." She made a few changes to her model. "So with forty thousand DAC plants, powered by thirty-six hundred 2-gigawatt satellites in geosynchronous orbit, you could accomplish that in eighteen years."

Fei asked, "At what cost?"

"Roughly seventy-two trillion dollars."

Again groans and an impressed whistle.

Voloshin shook his head. "I told you."

Balter added, "That's four trillion a year, over eighteen years. Spread across the entire population of Earth."

This was met with a different reaction.

Jin said, "That is actually less than I thought."

"And bear in mind the fossil fuel industry has been supported by half a trillion dollars in direct government subsidies worldwide every year for ages. Whereas this four trillion is for just a limited time and would permanently solve climate change, and we'd see significant climate benefits within a decade as CO2 levels came down. And once it was accomplished, all that clean energy could be put toward other productive uses, either on Earth or in space."

She studied the faces around her. "But to accomplish it, we'd need tens of millions of tons of mass in orbit. Launching all that mass up from Earth would never work because all those rockets would damage the atmosphere, too. However, with your lunar mass-driver—and the ones that follow it—we could make this work. This is why I'm here."

Those around the table pondered this. For the moment, even Voloshin was silent.

Boutros asked, "Is it not risky to tinker with the Earth's atmosphere?"

"That's what we're doing now, Sofia. This would just reverse what we've done and return Earth to the conditions we evolved in."

Chindarkar pointed to the virtual spreadsheet. "Does that seventy-two trillion dollars include the cost of the solar power satellites?"

"Yes. And doing nothing will cost us far more. Best estimates are that by the year 2100, continued climate change will reduce global GDP by 20 percent—which is about two thousand trillion dollars. Not to mention the cost of possibly losing civilization.

"But if, as your CEO Mr. Rochat says, we intend to prove the SPS concept at scale here in lunar orbit, well... then you will make this commercially feasible. In other words, you can make this future happen. Everyone else has talked it to death. The bean counters and decision makers back on Earth clearly won't do it, no matter how critical it is. And this needs to be started as soon as possible—before the situation on Earth gets truly untenable."

This book is not afraid to think big. That's what sci-fi is for, right? And it's extensively researched; there's a bibliography at the end of each book that I've used to start my own research journeys.

I like these books because they're ambitious. They never downplay the scale of the problems we face, but they maintain that these problems are solvable, and they expose me to new ideas I'd never heard of. I found them in my local library. Thanks for reading this wall of text!

Well, a few minutes ago I finally pushed the button, the game is released. So I wanted to write a short write up of some things that I had to do to release the game. I won't really talk about making the game itself too much, more about the part of actually releasing the game, if you are interested in more of that you can see my posts from Timasomo (1, 2, 3, 4, showcase).

Steam

I have already created many games in the past, I've been making games for more than 5 years, but always as a hobbyist. So I never experienced releasing a game on a platform like Steam. I have to say working with Steam and Steamworks is very pleasant and streamlined, but it is still much more complex than for example releasing a game on itch.io, which is what I did before for all my other games. I'll try to summarize how the process looks like.

First, before you can even get on Steam, you have to register, fill out a ton of paperwork, wait some time for it to be manually approved. Afterwards, you have to pay the 100 dollars for Steam Direct. At this point you finally get a Steam app id, which you can use to start integrating Steam features into your game. For example, having achievements, Steam cloud integration (so the saves get synced between devices), leaderboards and potentially more, especially if you are making a multiplayer game. To make my game I am using Godot, and I found a C# library called Facepunch.Steamworks which made this all quite easy, I'd definitely recommend it if you are using Unity or Godot with C# and want to release your game on Steam.

Before releasing a game on Steam you also have to finish everything on a gigantic checklist, including things like: uploading 10 various header, capsule and other images which are used on the store page and Steam library. An icon for the game. What are the minimum requirements required to run the game, whether the game has adult content, whether it supports controllers, how much the game will cost, screenshots, a trailer, there are just so many things to do! And when you complete parts of this checklist you have to have your game go through manual reviews. Each review could take about 3 days to get done. I failed one review first so I had to resubmit it too and wait again. Let me tell you, if you plan to release a game on Steam, reserve at least a month to do it, and start going through the reviews as soon as possible -- actually I think there even is a minimum of a month before you can release the game from the day you get an app id.

Trailer

Creating a good trailer is super hard. I am not a video creator/editor at all, but luckily I at least own a solid program for creating videos -- Vegas 14 pro, that I got for super cheap in some Humble bundle about 8 or something years ago, so I at least had a good start there. I ended up with not that complex of a project and Vegas still kept crashing when rendering, so I am not sure if I'd recommend it though.

The hardest thing for a trailer is deciding what to put in it for me. I know that a trailer should be super short, should showcase how the gameplay looks, what are the features and so on, but when I got to actually making it, it was still super hard to decide what to put there. How do I even start? I watched a ton of other indie game trailers to get some inspiration and that also didn't help that much. There are some trailers which are really just gameplay, some trailers which are actually just incredible with editing I could never do as a pleb... So I started with something that I know a bit more. I created a very short music track, and decided that I will just edit the trailer to fit the music.

The music track basically splits the trailer into 4/5 very short sections:

• Basic gameplay, how the game looks when you start playing it
• Explaining the roguelite part of the game, selecting spells and items
• More complex gameplay, how some combinations of spells and items can look later in a run
• List of features
• Special bonus ending section showing a "Legendary" spell, which should show how insane spells can get, followed by the logo of the game

I think the trailer ended up being not too bad, but I still had some feedback that it isn't flashy enough. And it's true, but I am not really sure how to improve it easily. When watching the Vampire Survivors trailer for example I can see that they did a much better job: it's so much more dynamic, the music really pumps you up, it's overall better edited, it has cool transitions, camera movement and so on.

End

Releasing a game on Steam was a great experience. I learned so much! I basically made this game over weekends and evenings, since I also have a job. To try maintain my productivity I tried to do at least some work on the game every single day. I have to say that towards the end I started losing some steam (haha), some days scrambling to do at least something late in the evening before I went to sleep. But, if at least someone plays the game I think I want to keep updating it more, I still do really like the game!

Thanks for reading! Feel free to ask me anything about the game, or the game dev process, or about anything basically haha.

Here's the Steam store page, the game costs 5 dollars, I'd love it if you checked it out. If you want to play the game but can't afford it PM me and I'll send you a key for the game (at least once I get the keys I requested -- did you know that Steam has to approve the creation of keys manually? Edit: the keys are now ready)
https://store.steampowered.com/app/2682910/The_Spellswapper/

The whole narcissism/NPD thing gets talked about so much these days. I don't know if my father has that. But he no doubt has many of those qualities as he is extremely self absorbed, has been neglectful throughout my life, and is incapable of looking inwards.

There's a lot of back story but hopefully it's enough to say that I have had a strained relationship to my father since I came out as a transgender woman 5 years ago. Everyone else are able to use my new name and gender me correctly, like nobody ever makes a mistake anymore (and mistakes are okay in the beginning because it's new and confusing for everyone). But he continuously says the wrong thing and at times also does it on purpose if he's angry with me for whatever reason.

So the last time I saw him was 3 months ago for a day of golfing with him and my brother, where the first few words he said to me outside of hello was calling me "drengerøv" - literally "boyass". The closest word in English is probably something like boy scout, asshole, or a gendered version of smart-ass. He wanted to get back at me for saying "hi old man" which I feel is a pretty normal thing to say to one's father and also he is 75 years old? But sure, maybe it was cheeky of me. I can see that. So I would have laughed if he called me a bitch or something. But his response was the final drop in the bucket for me because this is after so many conversations about deadnaming and misgendering these last several years. Months do pass without error, but then something like this happens out of the blue time and time again. For those of you who are also transgender, you know how traumatizing it can be. I have nightmares about him.

So anyway the reason for my need to rant here is that three weeks ago, he texted that he wanted to come visit me, but I wrote back that I don't want to see him on account of how it went last time. He didn't reply until now, and I am just kind of in disbelief about how much of a non-apology it is. And it brings me back to the narcissism thing and something called DARVO: deny, attack, reverse victim and offender. He is always the victim no matter what. If he deadnamed or misgendered me in the past, it is always "well I was tired," or "I am very stressed," never an actual apology. And sure enough, this time it isn't either - he actually did use the word apologize a couple of times, but it felt like it was in the context of him feeling bad and being depressed about it rather than truly sorry.

He for example wrote "I spoke to my psychologist and he fully understands that I feel like shit about being rejected by you" and "I am so nervous and afraid of doing the wrong thing again".

Do you notice how it's all about him? Blaming me for rejecting him? How terrible and awful it is for him? In the words of Emily Blunt... You don't get to commit sin, and then ask all of us to feel sorry for you when there are consequences. I just don't fucking care. I'm done feeling sorry for the man who is supposed to be a father figure. Trying to make me feel bad about his fuckups is just... ugh.

And knowing him, he probably wasn't honest with his psychologist about the situation in the first place because he always engineers situations to make himself look good. Even at his brother's funeral, my uncle, his speech was about being the boss of a hundred people in a company back in the day while kind of making fun of how silly it was that my uncle was a communist. My father is just completely incapable of being honest with himself and truly reflect about his behavior. These are all the same reasons my mom divorced him 10+ years ago, feeling very neglected by him. Even this he managed to years later turn on its head and refer to as "the time your mother failed me", like it is just ironic how he always does this and also unbelievable that he cannot himself realize it.

So I think I'm pretty much done at this point. I almost always have to take the high road while he just continues to do his own thing without much of a care in the world until the consequences finally catch up with him. Everything about my relationship with him the last 5 years has been awful. Even if I wasn't queer, he still wouldn't truly care about me - anytime we've had lunch or something, we only ever talk about him. He would only ask how I was doing to be polite. It got to the point that if we talked on the phone, I would time how long it took for him to start talking about himself and it was rarely more than half a minute. One time, I didn't even manage to answer, like he didn't even pause after asking the question before going on to talk about his own shit.

Another great example of this idiocy is when I woke up from anesthesia earlier this year after having triple jaw surgery. One of the first things he tried to talk about was how lucky he was that he found a good parking spot while I was literally in the middle of throwing up blood. I had tears in my eyes and my stomach was convulsing and I looked probably the worst he's ever seen me, and yet all he does is wrinkle his nose in disgust, turn to my mom (who, being sane, of course completely ignored him) and smiling while bragging about something as mundane as parking. Who does that? What the fuck!?

I have been typing for more than an hour at this point so it's probably unhealthy to continue lol, sorry, and thank you for reading my rambling if you actually made it this far.

Edit: Voting closed

Thanks to everyone who have so far participated in the five movies we did in November. We need to pick four movies for December and it is going to be any movies from the 1990s.

Rules

• Must have a release date between 1990 and 1999. If in doubt, whatever it says on IMDb
• Not one we have already done
• Only one nomination per user
• Please only nominate if you intent to participate

In case of ties in the number of votes, random.org will decide. Voting closes Sunday.

This overview on Letterboxd can be of some inspiration.

In addition, I think it will be too much to do a vote on voting categories, but I am curious to get some feedback and ideas. Should we go narrower like genres (westerns, horror, science fiction) or perhaps niche genres (road movie, murder mystery, historic)? How about directors - like I had an idea of doing a Kubrick versus Spielberg for example. Actors, countries, film festivals? Or is it okay to have the category be very broad?

I often find myself ruminating over something I said that didn’t get the “right” feedback. Maybe this means my opinion wasn’t validated, or someone proved I was wrong, or I was completely ignored. The repetition of these moments in my head can last for days, sometimes years. I’ve learned a few coping mechanisms because no one can be perfect, for example, just telling myself that it’s a learning lesson and realizing that most of the “embarrassing” things I’ve said in the past are completely forgotten by anyone else who heard usually helps get me through. Can anyone who relates to this share some other good tips/tricks?

His wife is murdered in the Bataclan terror attack in 2015. Shortly after, Johannes Baus meets Floriane Bernaudat,
who's fiancé was also killed there. They become a couple, and have to learn what it means to love another.

Written by Katharina Render, last updated Nov. 18th, 2023. Published in the "Christ & World" section of DIE ZEIT.

Translated by @Grzmot

When the breaking news from Israel on October 7th pop up on Johannes Baus' phone, he instantly remembers the moment when he was lying on the floor of the Paris music club Bataclan. Islamist attackers shot into the crowd of people, killing 90 attendees, his wife among them. He felt "incredibly cynical morderous energy" in the room, on the 13th of November, 2015, he tells today.

He can feel this murderous lust today, through his smartphone, when the algorithm puts the Hamas hunt for people into his timeline. Videos of young women and men, who like him then, just wanted to dance, murdered, raped, or kidnapped. Johannes Baus defends himself against this hate. The hate of the terrorists now, and even his own. Under no circumstance must he give in to the hate. Get up and live instead! But how are you supposed to do that, when one of the in total 130 victims in the Paris terror attacks in the Bataclane, the Stade de France, bars and restaurants, was the one for him?

In the past four years as a reporter I've talked multiple times with Johannes Baus and visited him in Paris. When we last video-chatted, I asked the lawyer, who's found his home in the french capital; how does one believe in the good of people, when you were forced to live through the most vile thing that people can do to another? When a stranger, because of his upside-down view of religion extinguishes the love of your life? When he makes jokes with his accomplices during the murdering? When you have to bury your wife in her wedding dress, which she wore five months earlier? I wanted to understand: How does hope work?

Two months after the terror of Paris, in January of 2016, hope stands in front of Johannes Baus. She is wearing the same hat like his late wife Maud, and knows like no other, what he has been through. She has lived through the same thing. Floriane Bernaudat, then 27, lost her fiancé Renaud in Bataclan. He was 29. The first bullet hit him in the back, the second entered his groin and exited at his jaw. It was five AM when he died, alone in the hospital, while Floriane Bernaudat was driven to the police with other survivors and a relative of hers called every hospital in the area. When
the relative was finally told, that there is a patient who fits the description, he was already dead. Twelve years they were together. Almost half their lives. Two weeks before the attacks, she had chosen her wedding dress.

And suddenly, there is this stranger, who in a Facebook group for mourners, comments on her post about Renaud: "Your message has touched me deeply, I lost my wife in Bataclan. If you want to meet..."

The so-called Islamic State quickly admitted responsibility publicly, and celebrated the killing of innocents as a "holy raid" against the "crusading France". Almost 700 people were wounded by the terrorists. Floriane Bernaudat and Johannes Baus did not suffer any bodily injuries. But the wounds, that the barbaric murder of their loved ones cut into their souls were so deep, that neither of them imagined, the lawyer nor the headmistress of a private university, they would ever heal. How could they keep on living? The day they first meet, they talk about these thoughts. Till the owner of the restaurant closes for the night, that's how they both describe it.

From a surface perspective, a romance begins to blossom here, how only Hollywood could tell it. It would maybe even be too cliché for the authors of TV soap opera scripts. Too much does this story rely on the "all ends well" trope. It's because it's not true. Not quite. Their love does not grow quick and strong, they are not made for one another. The backdrop of their tale is no idyllic Cornwall, but a Paris, where violence and murders still happen.

Guilt, jealousy, trauma

It's no innocent love between the two, like you could see it on the pictures of the two with their earlier partners. Of photoshoots in tranquil forests and colourful sunglasses on vacations. Floriane Bernaudat and Johannes Baus didn't make their love easy. There was guilt. Jealousy. Secret dreams of their dead partners. Lingering trauma. The fear of being the second choice. At some point they looked at each other and honestly asked: What keeps us together? Are we two sinking survivors who just want to drown together, or do we want something more?

The something more is now five and two years old and doesn't know or understand, what brought their parents together. The first daughter the two survivors called Bérénice. A name of ancient Greek origin, which means: The one who brings victory. The second they called Madeline, "The Illustrious".

When the terorrists storm into the concert of the Eagles of Death Metal, Baus and his wife Maud are standing close to the entry. The tickets were a surprise for them. The 37 year old Maud honestly wasn't in the mood, didn't know the band and was tired from work. In the subway still, she was unsure if she wanted to attend. But when she's there, she really likes it, is how Baus tells me. A happy grooving together. Until they hear the bangs. Like fireworks.

Screaming people run into their direction. He searches for her hand and doesn't find it. He jumps behind the bar and in a break of the shooting, runs out through the backdoor into the open air. Later the police tells him, where they found Maud, who was shot in the heart by the terrorists: Supposedly, she was next to him behind the bar. When you ask Baus to go through it by the minute, he remembers many details, for example a fan which he found and "armed" himself with, until he realised just how stupid that is against an assault rifle. To this day the idea of Maud being right next to him does not fit into his head. His memory of her blanks the moment they run and his hand doesn't reach hers. He believes that
his brain is protecting him from the thought that he could have left his wife behind.

That Madeline and Bérénice "the victory-bringer" were born, is a victory over the doubts. The choice to give in to hope, despite everything. Hope for a world, where the girls will live well. A second yes to life, and the opposite of what drove the terrorists of Paris, who sought their salvation in the next life and some of which blew themselves up.

One of the main culprits of the attacks was later caught in Belgium: Salah Abdeslam, 34, convincted to life in prison. Baus and Bernaudat didn't really follow the court case. They didn't want to give the individual any more attention. It's important that the judiciary is doing its job, they say, but at the same time they understand that the case isn't going to give them any satisfaction. A warmer idea to them is the thought that "our story inspires someone or gives them hope, especially to someone who is afraid of terrorism or the general tragedy of life. That would be wounderful. But it would be even better, if a potential suicide-attacker, who is in danger of seeing a nihilistic act of self-destruction as the best alternative to life, became inspired to see the positives of life and take small steps in a good direction."

This point of view is the result of a long process of therapy and intense work with the human condition. It's an attempt to escape the role of a victim which society attributes them with. Johannes Baus doesn't want to be damned to mourn forever. His thoughts are shared by the journalist Antoine Leiris, who put a similar impulse to paper after the attacks. His wife also died in the Bataclan club. The journalist wrote, addressed to the perpetrators: "I will not give you the gift of hating you. Even when it is what you want. To answer your hate with rage would mean to give in to the same ignorance that made you who you are."

"Make it stop"

Floriane Bernaudat likes this perspective, she tells today. If she liked it back then, when she was hiding in the little space between ceilings, which she climbed to from the wardrobe? The biting glass wool which was supposed to isolate the space, but didn't protect her from hearing the execution shots below her in the hall? When she was one of the last survivors to leave the building, and the policemen told her to look up into the air and not down at the corpses? At Renaud's funeral, when she hated the musical arangement, which her late husband would not have liked?

Both find it difficult to give general advice, for example to the survivors in the middle east. Part of the fact is, they explain, they wouldn't know where they would be without each other. At the same time they agree that love by itself is not the answer. But their example shows, that even close to the wounds on their soul, new moments of happiness can grow. Though they point out, it would be a lie to say that it is easy to remain humane after having witnessed so much inhumanity. Just recently a Algerian colleague of Bernaudat's told her that it's beautiful, that she is able to treat him as a Muslim exactly the same how she treats everyone else. There are many people in France, and not just there, who after the terror of 2015 cannot tell the difference between members of a religious group and islamist fanatics.

They want to teach their daughters that. Of course they should also know, that the "first loves of their parents" existed. But now it's too early. For everyone. That's how Baus and Bernaudat think of it. That's why there are no pictures of Maud or Renaud in the little house in the Paris suburbs, into which the family moved four years ago. But what remains still, is the close connection of the parents to their dead partners. The children have four grandmothers and four grandfathers. Sometimes, Floriane says, she feels like Maud and Renaud guided her and Johannes together from
the afterlife. "They are in our hearts, and our hearts told us, what is right".

In October 2017, almost two years after the attacks, Johannes Baus and Floriane Bernaudat marry. At the wedding, they announce that they are expecting their first child Bérénice. Bernaudat wears a dress which is very different to her first wedding dress. The best man of the wedding, Mehdi, was Baus' best man at his first wedding too. "Maud gave me a part of her gentle soul", believes Johannes Baus. Floriane got a little tattoo of a fox on her arm. In French, "renard" means fox, which almost sounds like Renaud, who is now forever under her skin.

She still sees that last image of him in front of her eyes. How he's dancing happily on the Bataclan stage and waves at her, wanting her to come closer. Floriane is standing a little bit away. She's tired and needs a short break, and it's hot on stage. Then the attacks happen, and pure chaos bhreaks out. Shots, screams, blood everywhere. A man, hit, falls on top of Floriane and begs for help. When Floriane sees the shooters reload, she crawls out from under the injured man and runs to an exit. With approximately fifteen others, one of them a mother with a young son, she ends up in the wardrobe for the musicians. A man takes her hand, "I don't want to die!" Someone manages to punch a hole into the ceiling. Bernaudat climbs into it, crawls over electric cable and fibreglass wool, until she can't anymore. She hears phones ring and shortly after shots ringing. She doesn't dare calling Renaud, but writes a message, "I'm in the ceiling, where are you?"

Johannes Baus sits next to Floriane Bernaudat on the couch. The kids are colouring in princesses. He caresses her arm, the arm with the fox tattoo on it. They talk about the Hamas attacks once more. And to the question, what gives hope in the pitch black. During therapy, the myth of the phoenix rising from the ashes played a big role repeatedly. To gain strength even when facing complete destruction. Maybe that's what it's about, says Bernaudat.

Johannes Baus finds his words in songs, which he composes. Music has always given him much. The bass of his songs plays Matt McJunkins, 40, the ex-bass player of the American band Eagles of Death Metal, who were standing on stage on the 13th of November 2015. McJunkins hid with others, in part injured ones, in the room behind the stage and survived there. Baus asked him some time ago, if he wanted to teach him. Now they make music together.

In the song Chaos Rebuild Baus writes in English how it feels when the world falls apart. When all security is lost and you are thrown into chaos. What do you do then? Then, the song goes on, it's your duty to build a new world. In the chorus of the song, Baus gives us a picture of his new world:

Make it good

Make it just

Make it clean

Make it gentle

Make it stop

November 1st is here! Technically, the creative time period for Timasomo has ended but if you need more time to keep working, go for it!

We have a few more days before the Showcase goes live, so I wanted to run through some guidelines:

Examples: The best way to get a feel for the Showcase thread and its expectations is to take a look at the previous showcases: 2022, 2021, 2020, 2019

Time: I will be posting the showcase when it’s approximately 8:00 AM, Sunday morning, in Auckland, New Zealand. You can use that link to see when the topic will go live for your local time (which for much of the world will still be Saturday).

Do not feel obligated to post immediately unless you’re ready to! Take the time you need — the Showcase topic will be there when you are ready for it.

Requirements: The only requirements for the showcase are a title for your project, as well as the sharing of your project (or parts/info about your project — see Privacy below) in whatever way is best for you (could be pictures, videos, download links, etc.)

Recommendations: While your project will speak for itself, the story of its creation as well as your own thoughts and feelings are also valuable and help personalize your work for people. Feel free to add any “creator’s statements” you want in addition to your work to convey that. Many of you have been posting AMAZING stuff in the weekly discussion threads, but a lot of people who view the Showcase won’t necessarily have followed that.

Think about what you want people to know about you and your project and share it alongside your work!

Unfinished Projects: It is PERFECTLY FINE to share projects that are in an unfinished state. It is also PERFECTLY FINE to wait until you’re done to share them. Go with what works best for you.

Privacy: Tildes is a privacy-respecting site, and that extends to you and your work. If you created something for Timasomo but do not wish to fully share it publicly, that’s fine. Feel free to share a limited glimpse into your work rather than the whole thing.

Alternately, you don’t have to share anything! You could simply describe what you did for your Showcase entry without sharing the product itself. It is entirely up to you how much you share and how it gets presented.

Promotion: Timasomo is an incentive to create, but it is not the roof under which your work has to live. Your work is your work, and it’s yours to share elsewhere as well. Feel free to post it on X/Mastodon/Tumblr/reddit/your blog/etc. Also, feel free to share your work outside of ~creative.timasomo on Tildes if it fits into, say, ~games or ~tech or ~life (tag it with user content). This will help your project reach a broader audience here (since not everyone is subscribed to this group).

The Tildes Code of Conduct says the following about self-promotion:

Sharing your own content is welcome as long as you're involved in the community, but don't just treat Tildes as a source of an audience.

Anyone who is actively participating in Timasomo is, by definition, involved in the community. Your work for Timasomo is absolutely welcome on the site!

Hosting: If you are looking for a good place to host images that isn’t Imgur, postimages.org is a good alternative.

If you have greater or different hosting needs and no easy way to make that happen, ask in the comments here. Tildes has a lot of wonderfully helpful people who are super knowledgeable with tech and will likely be able to point you in the right direction.

Questions: If there’s anything I missed, ask below!

Hype: I am SO excited for the Showcase y’all don’t even KNOW! It has been a joy and a legitimate inspiration to follow your projects over the last month. I am thrilled that the whole community will get to see them as well as all of you, standing tall and proud beside them (metaphorically), in just a few days’ time.

Update (Nov 1, 2023)

The app is now available for alpha testing on TestFlight: https://tildes.net/~tildes/1bt0/three_cheers_for_tildes_ios_version_is_open_for_alpha_testing_on_testflight

Original post

Hey Tildes, I failed to account for certain time-consuming parts of the TestFlight submission process, and so the first iOS alpha of Three Cheers will be delayed at least a few days. I'm disappointed I won't meet the promised October deadline due to this oversight. Sorry to anyone who's been eagerly waiting on the edge of their seat (@cfabbro). I've been working hard on the app though, and excited to release my first ever iOS app soon.

It's in approximately the same state as the Android alpha version, which is to say, it's functional and pretty stable bugs-wise (fingers crossed), but missing a lot of features you'd expect from a Tildes app.

For example, you currently can't: apply comment labels; see reply notifications; submit new topics; change sort options.

The plan is to get this released and then go back and add new features to both the Android and iOS apps.

If you're an iPhone user and looking for more features right away, check out Backtick and Surfboard, two great apps by talented developers.

For Three Cheers, I've made a point of supporting iOS versions back to version 12.4, which includes iPhone 5s and iPad Air 1st generation. So if you're using an older iPhone/iPad that doesn't run the other apps, you might want to give Three Cheers a shot when it's ready.

Thanks for bearing with me! I'll post another topic when the TestFlight link is ready. (And maybe request for this topic to be locked if needed.)

Hey folks

I've got a couple of months to put together an overview for tools that a company could use as part of television production and I'm hoping for your input.

It goes without saying that everyone in the tech world is pushing ai heavily. Having been in IT for almost 3 decades I know what to watch, look at, out for, etc. AI is still very much regurgitation of its input but the input is vast. What I have right now is some bare bones of what I want to throw around for insight and discussion for what would help people in TV production tool wise.

For those that do not know how TV production works it's a simple idea: you generate a huge raft of ideas for shows, absolute basic outline of what the show would be about and put that in to a paper. You then sit around in your research/Dev dept and pitch to each other and the ones that people go "yeah, that could make a good show" get some extra meat added. Those ideas get pitched to dept heads who then take the best ones to channel/broadcasters execs and see if any get hooked at all. If they do, they get given some development funding to put together a taster/pilot/video version with the funding they have. This means shot on camera, run through an edit for cutting, audio, graphics, etc, still in its infancy and development state. This video and a bigger padded Treatment (documented idea with its bones, flesh and now make-up added) goes back to the broadcaster and you wait for feedback. If you get lucky you get a greenlight and order for X amount of shows and then you have a production. The production is taking the idea to it's full potential, shooting it, audio and music, graphics, the works and that's what you see on TV.

I'm after working out what tools AI offers today that would help them with this process. Right now, ChatGPT v4 will generate some great treatment ideas for shows, except I would imagine these shows already exist or have been tried to channel/broadcaster before? AI is regurgitation and not thoughtful to its own ideas and imagination. I suppose with great prompts it could generate great output.

Okay, that's the process and I'm rambling. Right now I have a short list of LLMs such as ChatGPT and Bard types that will help with the idea stage for researchers. I could use some decent links for prompters to help the research know how to ask AI for what they want out of it.

When it comes to generative AI for graphics I only have experience with txt2img using the likes of DALLE and Midjourney, along with some inpainting for changing images with lies, I mean, graphics (insert plane on fire, etc).

Does anyone have any other ideas and tools which would help production or useful things I can look at and research myself to see how they could be helpful? Auto audio generation? Graphic building that takes less time? Think of those great show intros for the likes of Game of Thrones, can that be done using AI yet or are we no where near that level for AI? Even basic video edits, where are we for AI help? Can we feed it some clips and have it autostitch based on an input document? If so, what tools should I be looking at and researching?

I'm asking here before I plop search terms in Google and Bing and then get swamped with whichever has paid the most or played the SEO game to be top of the pages. Asking for real human input is definitely better than asking AI which may actually be the whole point of my talk when it happens.

Thanks for listening and any help/pointers/sites you can give.

UPDATE:
I went off and did some research. Enjoy these if you want. I had issues linking so if a mod wants to go ahead and do that, feel free:

Pre-Production:

Treatment idea generation

Generating a great idea is usually through using knowledge and research, but these days you can literally ask an AI engine to come up with a show idea. Here I will list some good AIs that use a very large language model (LLM) to come up with ideas:

ChatGPT4 from OpenAI

ChatGPT is the best known AI out there, but essentially it's the AI that everyone uses. What's different is the data that is fed to it. ChatGPT from OpenAI has a lot of knowledge, however, it's generally backdated information and not up to the minute.

You.com

Built on ChatGPT4 AI. Data fed in more up to date as it's based around a search engine. Due to the plethora of sources being fed to the You.com Chat bot, you may find some more interesting results and ideas.

Bing.com - Chat

Directly leverages the latest version of ChatGPT4 from OpenAI but uses additional media from Microsoft sources. Responses are more natural due to the Turing Natural Language.

Copy.ai

A fun LLM designed for advertising agencies and the alike. The difference here is you can upload a back-catalogue of your own data for it to analyse to take on your brand voice, mix up your ideas and generally become one of the family.

Prompting

Just from picking one of the four AIs listed above, you can straight out ask for a basic show idea. All of them came back with interesting ideas from the prompt of "Generate me a great show idea for a television production treatment. The show should be a documentary for daytime viewing."

Prompting is the hardest part of any AI interaction, the results can wildly vary depending on what and how you ask. Due to this, there's a new type of website to help with prompting:

https://promptperfect.jina.ai/prompts

Using the line from above about generating a great show idea, promptperfect injects a lot more information into the prompt before running: "Please create a compelling show idea for a daytime documentary television production. The show should be engaging and informative, catering to a broad daytime audience. It should focus on a specific topic or theme that is both educational and entertaining. The documentary should be well-researched and provide in-depth information on the chosen topic, presenting it in a visually appealing and accessible manner. The show should aim to captivate viewers and leave them with a better understanding and appreciation of the subject matter. Additionally, please provide a brief outline of the structure and format of the documentary, including the number of episodes, approximate runtime, and any unique features or storytelling techniques that will make the show stand out." The quality of the Treatment created will be far superior to the initial request.

https://webutility.io/

An interesting take on generation of prompting. It breaks down the prompts to dropdown boxes with key words such as create, design, analyse along with the focus type. This forces the ai to create some more complex and well thought out documentation for a treatment idea with explanation of how it got to where it did.

AIs to help with show production

Location finding/scouting

With the latest AI image searching features, you can now upload an image and get a "related" search. Using this technology, you could, for example, look for English Country Gardens that you would like to film out of. Uploading this image would give you a list of locations, similar places and website associated with the image:

On each of the following sites, in the search bar, click the Image Icon to upload the image:

https://www.bing.com/images/
https://images.google.com/

Scheduling (not specifically AI)

Scheduling shoots should be simple. We've seen all the fun from an Excel spreadsheet that's laid out like a calendar, through to the most complex diary entries in a shared Google calendar. We already have the tools for this in Microsoft Office:

Microsoft Bookings: This is a great tool for scheduling a diary of a single person or a whole team. It allows to have a Web Page where people can book in time for appointments, whether virtual or in person. Perfect for a researcher trying to book interviews with a host. The AI lies in the ability to cross search a calendar and pick associated times available.

Microsoft Planner: A tool for project and time management. Breakdown the show in to buckets (categories) and assign out tasks to people and teams, due by dates or exact dates, etc. You can even keep all of the documents in the plan.

Microsoft Shifts: Team management for your production using Shifts. This allows you to schedule team members in Teams, allowing them to clock in and out, as well as specifying when they need to be available.

The three tools all work with the Outlook Calendars so each person knows what their plans are well in advance.

Post-Production

This is the one most people are interested in for AI at this time. The tools used for image generation, manipulation, etc. The market is currently being flooded with tools and not all of them are equal, but here's a few ones to watch and use.

Auto-Clipping & Social Platform

OpusClip, using the power of OpenAI, can take a long video and create 10 viral clips from it at the click of a button. The AI behind it analyses the video, looks for compelling sections and highlights, then seamlessly rearranges in to short videos. This tool will be great for generating short promotional videos of long form shows, documentaries, etc.

Descript is a great tool that can take a video, give you a transcription, then you can edit the transcript, where it then edits the video to match. You can remove words, create studio quality audio from a standard mic, remove common error words such as um, and er, etc. One of the bigger cool things it can do is voice mimic using AI. You read it a line and then you can type out a whole transcript and it'll narrate it in your voice and allow export.

AI Generative

Moving on to the more scary AI platforms, we have completely generative AI. This is where AI generates absolutely everything including the "avatar" of the human speaking. It's getting so real, you could probably make a documentary using nothing buy AI voice for narration and even have an interview with the AI Avatar.

Video Generation

Synthesia has 120+ voices, over 140 AI Avatars and an editing tool that is extremely easy to use. Mostly aimed at Sales, Training and Marketing Teams, but could easily be used to create development tasters and cuts by mixing in the AI with real video. An example video here.

AI Studios from DeepBrain is another tool, similar to Synthesia. The avatars are based on real humans being recorded but then converted in to AI models. Again, lots of models, full text to video.

Spline AI is a 3D modelling engine that will generate models from text prompts. It's still in Alpha stages but specifying something like "A cube", "rounded corners", "floating", "spinning slowly" will generate exactly that. This tool is aimed at animators but is likely where CGI effects will head.

Still Image Generation

Txt-2-img is amazing and growing at an ever rapid pace. With the wealth of images out there to learn from, the styles, etc, it's no wonder it's doing great. However, it's far from perfect, even now. You'll often find that it adds limbs or fingers to models, shadows completely wrong, crazy styles that are not what you asked for, and that's just the start of the issues with it. However, when it gets it right, it's amazing.

DALL·E3 from OpenAI is the current leader in image generation. If you need to whiz up a picture of a steam train, crossing a suspension bridge at sunset with a woodland in the background, this is the tool of choice.

Bing Image Creator is probably the second biggest right now and has very good accuracy of text to image due to the absolutely huge database of images with high detail being fed to it by Microsoft. It's also free.

I'm not going to list too many more as a lot of them stray off in to fantasy land, being trained on Anime, comics, however, DeepAI definitely deserves a mention. These are the folks behind a lot of the viral videos where you can scan your face and and speak a few lines, then it adds you to a section of a movie as a "Deep Fake". You can have it chat, generate images and even AI edit images with txt-2-img.

Video Edit Tools

The biggest AI enhancers right now are tools that help in the Edit at a professional level.

Topaz Video AI is one of the leading tools in Post production. Upscale footage from SD to 8K and HD to 16K. Full denoise, sharpening, 16x slow down with AI interpolation including building new frames. Corrects people and faces. AI Stabilized video to stop bounce and tracking issues. This is a complete Post Swiss-army knife.

Adobe After Effects which everyone knows. The Adobe AI, called Sensei, is under constant development. Easy animations of text and logos via text to video, rotoscoping video objects to remove the background of a person and replace, or removal of all objects in a scene using AI generative filling is all extremely easy.

Adode Premiere deserves a mention, but again, this down to Sensei. The current AI tools coming in to the suite are things such as Auto Rough Cut using the transcript to generate the video, full auto transcription with subtitle creation for multiple languages. Auto Colour will fix most colour issues using AI to save time in grading. AI Morph Cut adds visual continuity to cut transitions, remix for music matching with visuals, and Auto Ducking – popping dialogue over background audio to make sure you can hear voices correctly.

ColourLab AI is a new kind of grading tool where you no longer need to spend time with an artist grading every scene. The tool is a plugin to Davinci or Premiere and will do cool things such as film grain matching or stock emulation, which allows you to match any scenes together to look exactly the same. Take a video of a pigeon flying over a statue in London, and have it grade using a still frame from The Martian to get those awesome colours automatically, for the whole scene.

Audio/Narrator/Voice Over

The final piece is the new voiceover AI generation. No longer do we need voice over artists. In fact, Hollywood thinks the same and fired the whole staff of Snow White and replaced the Dwarfs with CGI and AI voices.

Altered Studio can change any persons voice, in any way you wish. Record your voice for narration and then adjust it to be male, female, Elvern, whatever. It also does full transcription and allows for VO with text-to-speech using AI voices.

A quick shout out to a member of Tildes who wants to remain anonymous for some of the cool links that they sent over - much appreciated.

A lot of people argue that we should try to protect "minority languages" and support "linguistic diversity", but I struggle to understand why having more languages is actually a good thing.

I would be very interested to hear about concrete benefits in the present to linguistic diversity.

Lots of random musings I had on this

A lot of people say things like "it helps you to think differently" which I have not really understood at all (I speak multiple languages, for context, some quite different), but my sample size is really just me in saying that. They also say things like "protect minority culture" which I think is quite harmful. For example my great-grandmother immigrated to an English-speaking country in the west from Africa (she was Indian-African), and she could not speak a word of English which put her at a massive disadvantage, but also gave other family members a lot more power in their relationship because they could all speak English. [Edit: I think there's a gender aspect where women are expected to maintain the traditional language and the burden is not put on men in the same way]. I get the whole assimilation versus integration, but I think there's a very strong case for trying to assimilate (into the dominant group).

I have yet to see a case arguing why it is better to have more languages (and thus necessarily less mutual comprehension and a more segregated world) rather than a single one (e.g. if everyone spoke English). My issue is not really with high-level philosophy about what would be better in an ideal world, but multilingualism as a practical concern. For example, Tildes does not really seem to 'believe' in multilingualism because it only allows English (which personally I think is better than if we had people arguing backwards and forwards in many different languages, but I am also a native English speaker so that might prejudice my perspective).

Most of the arguments about this that I see are from (usually) French speakers bemoaning the decline of their language (and it's kind of ironic to see France becoming a flag-bearer for linguistic diversity given that they exterminated a lot of languages to force French upon the world).

Spotify recently increased their price, making it the same price as Apple's service. I've had Spotify since 2016 (started with the free version), and got premium in 2018 when they had the college student deal where you would get that and Hulu for only five bucks a month. I've been an off and on Premium subscriber since 2019. Only re-subscribing to it when Spotify would send me offers to sign up for three months for the price of one. This is actually the first year that I've consistently had Spotify all year since I was in college.

But now that they're the same price I was wondering if I should switch over. I don't want to get into the whole quality thing and lossless (I don't even know what that is) but I haven't been happy with Spotify's algorithm for a while. Streaming services have always been how I discovered new music, going back to me using Pandora while I was in high school. But now Spotify keeps suggesting the same songs whenever it's on smart shuffle. For example, if I play a song from the late 60s or early 70s, I know the next song Spotify plays is going to be Ain't No Mountain High Enough by Marvin Gaye and Tammi Terrell. Whenever I play an indie pop song, like a Lana Del Rey song or something, I know that the next song is going to be Borderline by Tame Impala.

I'm kind of sick of it at this point, and I feel like it's limiting the scope of what I'm listening to. I'm not sure what Apple Music's algorithm is like, I've heard mixed things with some saying it's better than Spotify and others saying it's worse.

I'm also happy taking recommendations on other things to do or try with Spotify to correct this.

What I mean by short/immediate thinking vs. long-term.. let's take the experience of learning a new skill (for example, riding a bike). In the beginning, the skill is difficult as you're carving out those new neural pathways in your mind. It's grating, unnatural, uncomfortable. It seems that the rational way to think about this experience is "yes, it feels uncomfortable right now, but if I keep attempting this, eventually the discomfort will lessen, and it will get easier. It won't be like this forever." For myself (and I assume some others?), I instead get stuck in a mindset of only seeing the present moment: "this sucks and therefore it will always suck!" Yeah, I can catch myself thinking this way and correct it to consider the long-term, but that's not my default. My default is short term, now, only now.

You could expand this to so many things: enduring temporary struggles and not letting them get you down (the situation isn't permanent, it will change), not partaking in addictive behaviors (deciding not to do something that might feel good, because you're considering the long term consequences), procrastination... list goes on and on. To me, it always seems rational to consider long term impact of your actions. If you don't, it seems you're blowing off this entire swath of information which could/should inform your decisions in the present moment.

On the flipside, I'm not saying you should only think of the future and disregard the present... just when making decisions, it seems better to consider both, that's all..

I have been trying for 10 months to change this about myself, yet I continue to slip back into this pattern of constant "now" thinking. I know it leads to irrational decisions. I'd love to hear others thoughts on this. Have you struggled with this? If so, how did you manage to overcome these thinking patterns? For anyone: are you more naturally a "now" thinker, or are you lucky enough to naturally consider the long-term, or maybe you bounce between both? I have no idea if this is a common experience, or if it means something is inherently irrational about the way I think.

My examples have to do with tech/media, but it could be anything - old fashioned or "outdated" ways of cooking, communicating, hobbies, or mending things rather than replacing them, etc.

Owning DVDs

Earlier this year my husband and I had an irresistible urge to watch the masterpiece film that is Shrek. I hoped that one of the most popular animated movies of all time would be available at no charge to me, but of course it was not on Hulu, HBO, Netflix, or included with Prime. So that's great, I'm paying something around $50 a month for all these libraries of media, and somehow find myself paying extra whenever I want to watch something specific. Fair enough though, that's part of the deal I guess.

We decide to rent the movie on Amazon for $5. A couple years ago, I'm pretty sure renting movies like this was more around $2-3 and they've been slowly bumping it up. Okay. Everything gets more expensive. We try to start streaming the movie, and Amazon gives us this pop-up that says they've detected the hardware we're streaming it on (it's apparently a bit outdated,) so it's going to choose a specific version of the movie for us, one that didn't use some new technology related to streaming quality. That's fine in itself, but it just got me thinking about how much control these streaming companies have over all of this. My TV is at least 15 years old, works perfectly fine, and I don't see myself replacing it anytime soon. My imagination went the dramatic route, picturing a future where Amazon and its ilk will only stream to newer computers/TVs, either for a legitimate technological reason, or because they've struck a conniving secret deal with the TV manufacturers. Again, dramatic I know, but my point is just the general idea that these companies make all the decisions with streaming; we own and decide nothing.

Ultimately, I realized I could have easily found a DVD of Shrek for $1-2 at practically any used bookstore, and I would have not only saved money, I would have avoided giving my money to Daddy Bezos, and gained ownership of a fairly permanent copy of the movie. And what could be better than the ability to watch Shrek on repeat for the rest of my life?

So basically my husband and I have started a DVD collection. We have date nights at used bookstores and pick up all kinds of unexpected treasures. Childhood favorites we had forgotten about, classics we haven't seen in years, DVDs with extensive special features, some with really nicely designed packaging. For some reason, browsing the DVD shelves is like the fun version of scrolling aimlessly through endless streaming catalogs and not being able to decide what to watch. It reminds me of one of the greatest joys of growing up as a child in the 90s - getting to go to Blockbuster (or in my neighborhood, "Mr. Movies") and frolicking around with your friends/siblings, physically checking out the cases, and debating over which ones are the best (Mom is on a budget, after all.)

I have been pleasantly surprised by how novel and enjoyable it has been.

Owning Music

My second thing started when I realized I really want to spend more time away from my phone. I've also been jogging recently and have been annoyed/confused about what to do with this massive phone that I want with me for music (I try to buy small phones but they barely exist anymore.) Probably inspired by my recent "discovery" of the joys of DVDs, I decided to spend $25 on a tiny, simple mp3 player that clips onto my clothes. A music player that isn't also a social media machine which is connected to the entire world and every human being I've ever known, at any given moment. Just music.

Then I realized that I haven't owned any music (or paid any artist directly for their music,) in at least a decade. I genuinely didn't even know where to buy music at first. The last time I bought music, I was 17 years old and hadn't yet freed myself from the Apple/itunes ecosystem ("freed" myself from it, right into the Google/Pixel ecosystem, of course.) Someone suggested Bandcamp, as when you buy music on there it comes with the option to download mp3s. I've had fun discovering some new artists on the platform. And although I really like supporting artists directly, to make my collection a bit more frugal I've started picking up a couple cheap CDs when we go shopping for DVDs. I just export the music as mp3s with some free software. I'm not an audiophile, and the quality seems just fine to me. Next, I think I'll visit my parents and get some mp3s from their boomer CD collection.

All of this also prompted my husband to dig out an old hard drive of his, which we found had a massive goldmine of all the music he listened to in college (and he had/has fantastic taste in music!) Some of my favorites, plus all kinds of random bands and genres that I wouldn't necessarily think to seek out on Spotify, but they're in my lovely collection now, so why not listen? :)

(A bonus to exploring the old media was finding some ridiculous photos and memes he had saved from college. Bless him and his radical vulnerability, I couldn't believe he was willing to browse the hard drive with me while having no idea what was on it. Thankfully for him, it was mostly just good music, along with photos of sharks with large human teeth photoshopped onto them. He is so pure.)

The DVD/MP3 thing seems like a no brainer now that I've tried it, and I'm sure it will seem silly to some of you, but it simply didn't occur to me for years. Maybe something about my age - being 31 years old, the transition to streaming media happened just about exactly when I graduated from highschool and became an adult. I had no personal DVD collections to bring to my first apartment, and I certainly wasn't going to buy any - Netflix was all the rage, around $8/month, and practically no one actually paid for their own account. And having only purchased one or two physical CDs in my life, I did have a large mp3 collection from iTunes and Limewire as a teenager, but that died pretty quickly once we moved from iPods to phones for music, which happened around the same time. I think I transferred MP3s to my first one or two phones and lost them after that.

Anyway, in a world increasingly impacted by enshittification, with companies relentlessly pushing towards the breaking point of what we will tolerate when it comes to how we spend our time and money, I'm sure there are other "hidden in plain sight" realizations I'm missing out on.

Author's note: I'm mostly typing this up for myself as a writing exercise to sum up my situation, so that I can present it to a doctor one day if I can find one who will listen. It's a long read, and I don't expect anyone to seriously read it? But, if you happen to make it through and have any advice, or recommendations for specialists I could seek out, I would really appreciate that.

I work remotely as an open source maintainer for a university research lab, so I spend a lot of time at my computer. Throughout my adult life, I've found that I work best when sitting in my bed with my laptop. Yet, I figure sitting in my bed isn't the best for my body, so I've tried hard over the years to make a desk setup that's as accommodating as possible:

• I have a big corner desk with lots of tabletop space and overhead cabinets.
• I've set up cozy under-cabinet 2700K LED strip lightning.
• I've decorated the space with nice sentimental things.
• I've got a foot-warmer under the desk (since I have chronic ice-cold feet for reasons I don't yet understand).
• I own a (secondhand) Steelcase Leap v1 that I've meticulously adjusted to my body, making sure all of the heights and distances are within typical ergonomic recommendations.
• I have an ergonomic keyboard with a sliding under-desk tray
• I've gotten dual monitors, with one being a modern 1024*1280 monitor to avoid whiplash from an extra-wide double-1080p monitor setup.

Despite all of the above, every time I go to use my setup, I feel a big sense of revulsion and a big urge to just curl up in bed with my laptop.

I've spent a lot of time thinking about why I react this way, and I attribute it to a whole bunch of underlying factors:

1. I'm autistic+anxious (ASD/GAD diagnoses), and I was previously diagnosed with ADHD, too.
2. I struggle a lot with pain/physical discomfort:
   • One of my brain quirks is that I have big sensory sensitivities surrounding my body. I'm hyperaware of any uncomfortable sensations in my body, and pain/discomfort can completely derail my ability to focus and be present in the moment. For example, if I eat too much and feel overfull, the sensation of my stomach pressing against my other internal organs drives me crazy, to the point where I can hardly even watch a show or listen to music. The same goes for when I'm constipated or have an upset stomach. When I get like this, it's like I can't feel any emotions. The discomfort/pain are the only physical sensations I can take in, because they crowd everything else out. I can't feel warmth or happiness or fullness in my heart. All I feel is discomfort.
   • My anxiety results in a near-constant state of tension. I'm often very aware of the booming of my heartbeat, or tightness in my chest. I fall into a negative feedback loop, as it makes it very difficult to relax, which further triggers anxiety and tension. (Side note: Beta blockers are the most effective anti-anxiety medications I've ever been prescribed for exactly this reason. They target the physical sensations, and helped me feel an overall sense of calm. I haven't been prescribed them in 7+ years, though, because every new GP/psych I visit automatically discounts them as off-label/not-first-line approaches, even though I've had direct success with them when other approaches have failed. I wish doctors would listen to me. Would weed help?)
   • When I get anxious/depressed, I find that my posture suffers a lot. My body sort of curls in on itself, as though it were attempting the fetal position. It takes an exceedingly difficult amount of effort to preserve good posture the more fatigued I get. But, in such a state, I don't have the spoons to exert this effort -- it gets harder and harder until I inevitably curl up in bed.
   • Wouldn't you know it, I have chronic pain, too. Multiple times a week, it manifests as this combo of upper-back/shoulder/neck/sinus/behind-the-eyes pain. It typically happens only on one side of my body (though which side it happens on is not consistent). The sinus pain is curious, too: I regularly have a "cold nose" (similar to my cold feet), and breathing in feels icy and sharp, with a tingle like I'm about to sneeze. I find myself reflexively picking or prodding at my nose just to distract from the painful sensations. I often cover my nose with my shirt so that I can breathe in my warm, moist, exhaled breath. It doesn't really warm up my nose, but it provides some in the moment relief.
   • You can imagine what this chronic pain does to my ability to feel emotions or focus on tasks... I rely a LOT on Aleve. ;;
   • I'm also sensitive to temperature: I really dislike being too cold or too hot. I often change clothes multiple times a day, from shirts to sweaters and back + shorts to sweatpants and back, because I'm constantly adjusting my temperature.
   • I also am particular about pressure and textures on my skin. I don't really like having my skin exposed? I like big comfy sweaters and a specific kind of sweatpants that Uniqlo used to sell. I also really adore this specific duvet I got from IKEA, because it's big and fluffy and weighty. It's like a semi-weighted blanket without being so densely concentrated (I have a glass bead weighted blanket I hardly use because of how icky it feels).
   • Because of all of this, my ideal state of being is one where my body just kind of... disappears from my consciousness? I strongly wish I could exist without being aware of my physical form, because I'd say at least 90% of my waking hours I'm feeling some form of discomfort or another, and thus 90% of the time any happiness is blocked by the discomfort.
3. As far as working on a computer, I find that I'm most productive when I can sink into a state of hyperfocus/flow and attack a task for hours at a time in a single sitting. I'll lose track of time, come out of the state wondering where the day went, yet be insanely productive during that period.
   • Naturally, this goes against conventional advice for computer-based WFH, since in this state I don't take stretching breaks, don't adjust my posture, don't rest my eyes, etc. But, I find forced breaks tend to rip me out of my focus, and it takes a lot of self-regulation/spoons to get back on track after a break.
   • Despite the terrible ergonomics of hyperfocus, it counterintuitively acts as a needed respite from the pain/discomfort. Being hyperfocused is one of the only states that supersedes the sensory sensitivity I have. I'll often be so focused that I don't notice the state my body is in, which is pretty much my ideal! (Side note: Because of this dynamic, I often lean on rhythm video games as a respite for pain, too. They're easy for me to hyperfocus on, which makes passing the time a lot more bearable for me when I'm in pain.)
4. And, the environment most conducive for sparking a state of hyperfocus is my bed, rather than a desk.
   • Even with all my adjustments, my desk feels very finicky and dynamic. The chair rolls, the keyboard tray slides, the chair back reclines, my foot warmer slides around. Rarely do I feel anchored, and rarely does everything feel "just right". I can't really find a "locked in" position for hyperfocus, as my body is always interacting with its environment via subtle little tics and adjustments.
   • I also find that sitting at a desk leaves me feeling rather exposed? Even with clothes on, I just... don't have enough weight on my legs to feel fully comfortable.
   • When I do try to sit at a desk, I may be somewhat comfortable at first, but as time goes on I get more and more uncomfortable. Maybe a tricky task temporarily spikes my anxiety, which causes tension and pain, which makes me focus on the pain, which makes it harder to think clearly about the task at hand, which makes me more anxious, which begins to affect my posture, which makes it harder to properly sit in my ergonomic chair. I'll fidget and shift, and start to lean on one arm. It often escalates to the point where it feels like torture to hold my own body up, because I feel like a ragdoll in my chair.
   • My bed, by comparison, doesn't ask any effort of me at all. I'm fully enveloped by the mattress and my pillows, so if I end up in "ragdoll anxiety/depression" mode, I'm supported in exactly the same way I would be if I was in "full spoons" mode. I also get the comfort of my duvet, with fluffy warmth and weight on every part of my body, and very little of me being exposed.
   • This means that I can somewhat ignore my body when I'm in my bed. Even if I'm in pain, even if I'm anxious, I don't really have to... DO anything about it? I don't have to physically move my body in a specific way in order to keep hacking away at a task. The pain will still be there, but the hyperfocus state can win out, and I can work away while feeling like my laptop is an extension of my body.

Surely this isn't good for me, right? Surely I should be attacking the root of the problem so that I don't devolve into a ragdoll mess of pain every time I try and use a desk? Surely lying in bed for hours at a time isn't good for my body, right? But, with this multi-layered set of factors, with many of them being inherent anxious/autistic traits, I don't know how to create an environment that's any better for me than my bed is.

What do?