Lia's recent activity
-
Comment on Alternative news source recommendations in ~news
-
Comment on Alternative news source recommendations in ~news
Lia Link ParentThanks. I've also been considering whether the person might be AI generated. The channel is definitely attractive to someone like me who would like to see a more euro-centric perspective on the...Thanks. I've also been considering whether the person might be AI generated. The channel is definitely attractive to someone like me who would like to see a more euro-centric perspective on the flood of political topics that originate in the US but affect us all. Or it would be, were it legit.
Another item that adds to my suspicion: she's mentioning a book she wrote but it doesn't seem to have a real person's name as the author, just the channel name. Why would any credible human do that?
(I'm giving this a bit more time before calling it and then I'll probably remove the recommendation from my comment.)
-
Comment on Alternative news source recommendations in ~news
Lia (edited )LinkThe following are probably not exactly what you're looking for, but because I've been wanting to recommend them as alternative sources for news, I'm going to mention them anyway. Actually, one is...The following are probably not exactly what you're looking for, but because I've been wanting to recommend them as alternative sources for news, I'm going to mention them anyway. Actually, one is a solid recommendation and the other is something I'd like my fellow Tildeites to review and give comments on.
Heather Cox Richardson is a political historian who discusses the current events (from the US angle) that everyone else is discussing, with some key differences: she includes viewpoints and topics I haven't seen mentioned anywhere else and she explains the key factors of the legal system around each topic so that I can actually follow along even though I'm not familiar with US politics that deeply myself. She doesn't shy away from 'boring but important', for example the Boundary Waters sulfide mining vote in Minnesota. For this reason I would classify her as an alternative source.
In the video I linked above, she follows her usual framework where she answers viewers' questions, but then she also weaves in an alternative version of a 'State of the Union' speech because not much leadership could be expected from the Tantrum Tyrant. If the thing is too long to watch in its entirety, I recommend this part in the end because it gave me hope, and it did so in a credible, non-fluffy way. See it especially if you are American! (But also if you are from somewhere else and developing resentment towards Americans due to their incompetent and immoral leaders.)
Downside: very prolific, doesn't edit her material much so it gets slightly rambly and long-form (but even her rambly mind is strikingly acute and its workings a pleasure to witness!).
Upside: no visual content so you can just listen to these while doing chores, sports, whatever.
ETA: She also fact-checks the Tantrum Tyrant and his regime in real time without losing track - a skill very much needed in these trying times of ubiquitous misinformation.
On to the second one:
[House of El](https://www.youtube.com/@HouseofEl/videos)From the description:
I’m El — PhD in Computer Science, systems thinker, and geopolitical analyst.
This channel unpacks how nations are built, and who they’re built to serve. Through sharp contrasts and quiet truths, we explore global power, hidden design choices, and the invisible systems shaping wealth, resilience, and collapse. From Nordic efficiency to American dysfunction, every video is a lens into what makes societies succeed or quietly self-destruct.
If you’re drawn to geopolitics, design thinking, and uncomfortable questions with elegant answers - welcome.
My gripes with this channel: her titles are unnecessarily inflammatory and it makes me think the content may not be fact-based, although I can't immediately pinpoint things about it that are false (but I'm also not an expert in this field). Her scripts sound AI-generated to the point of ticking me off. I'm not saying that they are, they just come with a lot of "It's not this, it's that" and other similarly overused structures. Maybe using AI helps her post more often or something and I'm willing to tolerate that if I can otherwise trust that she is a real person with real knowledge who carefully fact-checks her content before recording it. But I'm not entirely sure if I should. I'd love for someone to take a look and comment on this!
The reason I wanted to mention it here is because I just saw this rant from you and I think this channel's content may provide some relief: Europe seems to be acting in resistance, to a greater extent that I myself was aware of before. (You're still right that EU countries are guilty of colonialism too.)
I know I said two channels but I want to add a third one, even though it may be known by many on Tildes already and it's also focused on a hot topic: Pivot to AI. David Gerard posts a short, AI-related news story almost daily, with the aim to be as truthful as possible but often with a dose of lighthearted sarcasm.
-
Comment on Untangling the connection between dopamine and ADHD in ~science
Lia Link ParentThank you for spelling all this out. The common misconceptions about ADHD are indeed more along the lines of "It doesn't exist", "It's those people with self-discipline issues" etc. Most laypeople...Thank you for spelling all this out.
The common misconceptions about ADHD are indeed more along the lines of "It doesn't exist", "It's those people with self-discipline issues" etc. Most laypeople probably don't even know what dopamine is. I would be extremely grateful to anyone who managed to educate the general public so well that they adopt the "It's about low dopamine" idea.
(Source: I live in a European country that is considered to have a great public education system and where people are generally quite informed.)
If anyone asks me, I usually tell them it's about dopamine dysregulation (which then either leads to further discussion and explanations, or not). I'm planning to read the article at some point to see how far off I am.
-
Comment on Fix your hearts or die: The path to liberation for lonely men is feminism in ~life
Lia Link ParentWell, I was having a fairly crappy day when I read this and felt instantly better! Thanks for mentioning it. :)Well, I was having a fairly crappy day when I read this and felt instantly better! Thanks for mentioning it. :)
-
Comment on Ayatollah Ali Khamenei killed in Israeli and American joint strikes in ~society
Lia Link ParentI can't thank you enough for this comment. People on the lowest level of the competence hierarchy are infuriating to deal with when you're competent yourself. For people on the second lowest...I can't thank you enough for this comment.
People on the lowest level of the competence hierarchy are infuriating to deal with when you're competent yourself. For people on the second lowest level, it's a different kind of pain. I'm an artist and can't claim to know my shit about war but it's been disconcerting to see so many 'kind of smart' people get so far into the weeds about whether a genocide should be called a genocide while it's taking place, etc.
There's so much pain, fear, guilt and other unsavoury feelings involved that I think laypeople are often simply emotionally too weak to face them, which leads to mindlessly parroting some propaganda-esque talking points that allow them to avoid those emotions. I would very much like to see comments from knowledgeable people (to the extent that you're able to disclose, obviously) - people who are actually involved and who've had to develop skill in facing those emotions and seeing this stuff as a real part of the actual world, not just a computer game of sorts, or course material for a history class.
I understand that it's a thankless effort though.
-
Comment on Fix your hearts or die: The path to liberation for lonely men is feminism in ~life
Lia Link ParentFor me, they have done exactly that. I probably wouldn't have met any of the most important people in my life if it weren't for online dating (some are still actively in my life even after we've...I agree with this. I think it probably does expose, in a different way, just how bad the odds can be. I find this particularly disheartening because I would've thought that because the odds are so bad, apps would be a perfect solution to speed up the process.
For me, they have done exactly that. I probably wouldn't have met any of the most important people in my life if it weren't for online dating (some are still actively in my life even after we've broken up romantically or just never ended up dating even though we met on the apps). I'd say my dating went from "impossible" to "just really hard". And the way I'm framing it for myself isn't actually that it's "hard" - it's just something that takes very high effort and yields results very rarely. But really good results, which makes it worth the effort.
They explained it to me as a result of the process: they get such an overwhelming amount of potential matches (e.g. almost everyone they swipe right on is a match it feels like to them), they're forced to be more selective. That process of becoming more selective then gets worse as the matches themselves end up crappy - dudes sending dick pics or asking for nudes. In person, they still typically had a pretty open mind when meeting folks at a party, or a friend of a friend. This was attributed to both there being less potential options in person, and also stronger expectations of sanity/quality of humanity in person.
Thanks for elaborating. Yeah so they are more open IRL because i) the people they meet are likely already inside their bubble one way or another - not just complete randos off the street, ii) expressing interest (sending a like) leads to a different level of commitment on the app than just responding to someone who chats you up at a friend's party. These are sane responses to the online environment IMO. Becoming picky about the wrong things is of course less productive, such as the direction of someone's bangs (FFS) or not being good looking enough.
Some things that may seem meaningless are actually not, and you learn this when you spend enough time browsing profiles and talking to their owners.
I hesitate to get very specific lest I offend people, but I'll mention one that was important to me. I always have the highest-effort profile I can possibly achieve and every time I send someone an opening message, it's similarly high effort. If I get a low effort opener such as "Hi" or "Nice lips" or "Can we talk?", the only time I will consider responding is if their profile is an exceptionally descriptive and creative showcase of a person whom I feel very excited about. But it never is. It's always medium effort at best.
When I have already given a lot of material to start a conversation and they have given less, and their opener is essentially saying "I can't be bothered to come up with anything to talk about, can you do it please", that's enough to know I'm not dealing with one of the rare highly compatible people I'm looking for. Those people have high effort profiles like myself and when they match with me, they have no problem disclosing why they would like to talk to me.
I was a bit worried that I came across as putting you down in my response
Your extremely constructive tone is a pleasure to engage with and you have a long way to go if you wanted to stoop to put-downs.
-
Comment on Fix your hearts or die: The path to liberation for lonely men is feminism in ~life
Lia (edited )Link ParentI've watched the incel phenomenon grow since before it was given that name, and I think you're on to something here. If I had to pinpoint one key factor, it would be a lack of empathy and/or...Not being able to convey personality or just not having a relatable set of hobbies/interests in general could be the core issue.
I've watched the incel phenomenon grow since before it was given that name, and I think you're on to something here.
If I had to pinpoint one key factor, it would be a lack of empathy and/or emotional intelligence. It affects so many things, including your perception of who would be a good partner for you (but also your career trajectory - edit: or even just employability - in the modern society, etc.). An extreme example of this is a guy who is only able to perceive women's exterior qualities and who tries to select a partner based on those alone. This is incredibly off-putting to almost all women and women can tell when they're being evaluated this way even when the example person isn't being transparent about it. On the other hand, this type of guy probably can't tell that women can tell. And if he can't appreciate people's personality traits, he probably won't understand or believe when women tell him that things like that matter to them. Such women may come across as liars to a guy like this.
That's the extreme example but some fairly broad group of men seem to suffer from similar handicaps to a lesser degree - still enough that it most likely impacts their dating.
98% or more of the profiles I see on my online dating feeds have no profile description, no bio and basically nothing filled out
Wow, really, 98%? That's.. rough. In my area, maybe 60% of men had a blank or mostly blank profile last year on Tinder (on OkCupid even way less blanks). My male friend who is browsing women isn't seeing that many blank profiles. He's annoyed though that many women's bio descriptions are awfully generic/cliché.
I wonder what country/city you're in but I get it if you don't want to disclose (I don't either).
-
Comment on Fix your hearts or die: The path to liberation for lonely men is feminism in ~life
Lia Link ParentI didn't read the article and based on the comments here I'm unsure if I want to. I do agree that sweeping generalisations aren't helpful either way and I've seen more accusations fly in both...This is pretty funny to me when the majority of the pushback against the OP article is basically the male inverse to this (even if the article arguably doesn't say all men are liars).
I didn't read the article and based on the comments here I'm unsure if I want to. I do agree that sweeping generalisations aren't helpful either way and I've seen more accusations fly in both directions than I'd like. Basically I don't really understand anyone who attempts to date the opposite sex while actively holding and expressing hateful ideas about that same group of people. That said, most of my parents' generation seem to have done exactly that - as if that's just how the world works or something. No wonder so many of their marriages were and are unhappy.
...2012-2020 or so: the women I knew were absolutely getting spoiled for choice on these apps, were being way more selective on the apps than they ever would be in person and admitted it, and also getting just the grossest messages frequently on these apps
For reference, I met my most important long term partner on one of the earliest dating sites in 2002. Since then I've been back a few times. I'm assuming "spoiled for choice" has to do with getting lots of likes? And I don't want to downplay the emotional repercussions of getting / not getting them, but it shouldn't be seen as indication of how easy it is to find a partner, and you seem to be saying the same with the "spoiled for bad choices".
Mathematically speaking, the end goal is equally easy or hard for both sexes to reach when looking at monogamous, heterosexual relationships. That is: every time a heterosexual woman finds a monogamous relationship partner on or off the apps, a heterosexual man finds one too.
My experience remains the same as it's always been: finding a truly compatible person is very hard and rare. That's just how life is. The apps probably expose how hard it is in a new, more tangible way because you can go through so many "options" in a short span of time, most of whom are not really options at all (just users of the same app), but you have to go through them anyway so you get a chance to encounter those rare people who are.
I'm not sure what your friends meant when they said they were being "way more selective on the apps than they'd be in person", but I don't think this is an easy comparison to make accurately. The apps essentially show you everyone in your age bracket who is single and looking (and a user). It's like walking down the street or taking public transit and being able to detect which of the people you see are single and looking. Would your friends really go up to these strangers and start chatting them up a lot more often than they do on the apps? I know I wouldn't. Could it be that they were comparing with a scenario where someone is expressing interest after some sort of initial vibe check, or even after getting to know them a little in a work context, etc.? That sort of comparison is misleading.
I'm not the guy you're responding to, but yes, I absolutely do think that the cost of living disproportionately affects men's ability to date than women, in ways that clearly are tied to broader patriarchal beliefs. Men are expected to be caretakers and pick up the bill, especially for early dates (not all women believe this, but a large proportion of them still do).
This makes sense. Personally I don't care who pays for a date, how much my date earns, or similar things. But I'm also very far removed from the patriarchal ideas that are still prevalent even in liberal, Western societies. I broke up with the love of my life because I didn't want to sacrifice my career, my ability to have time off, my pension, and if worse came to worst, my physical and mental health in order to have our children. He couldn't imagine a future without children. If I try to imagine a version of myself who does want kids, in our current society that we live in, then I would probably expect a man to show generosity, willingness and ability to support me through that ordeal because the risks involved are inherently still so lopsided.
Conversely, a lot of women actually struggle in the dating world because they're too successful - insecure men are uncomfortable being with women who earn more than them.
I've heard about this phenomenon but haven't experienced it myself due to being a (mostly) starving artist. I do have first hand experience on a related, equally annoying hangup, something that usually takes a while to show up unlike the income thing which is usually clear from the start. I'm feeling really lucky that it already came up with the person I'm dating now, even though he is a fairly new acquaintance. He even brought it up himself. He said he can tell I'm smarter than him, but also that he's been in this situation before and it doesn't bother him. A massive relief. :D (And he's socially more perceptive than me so I still get to look up to him too.)
-
Comment on Fix your hearts or die: The path to liberation for lonely men is feminism in ~life
Lia Link ParentI didn't read the article yet, but I interpret the quoted statement as follows: feminism is an antidote to the patriarchal mindset that many (all) of us were indoctrinated into. One facet of it...The actual path to liberation for lonely men is feminism.
Do they really believe that there aren't lonely feminists? Like what?
I didn't read the article yet, but I interpret the quoted statement as follows: feminism is an antidote to the patriarchal mindset that many (all) of us were indoctrinated into. One facet of it has to do with the idea of ownership: parents sometimes behave as if their children are commodities they own (even when they don't consciously hold such beliefs), and men sometimes behave as if their spouse is similarly owned by them. With this comes the idea that men who have these possessions are more admirable and more highly respected than those who do not.
The agony of incels can be seen as deriving from the above mindset, perhaps not entirely, but to a significant degree. (Similarly, some women experience anxiety due to not having reproduced even if they don't even really want kids.)
Feminism teaches us that these ideas are ultimately there to control us, not liberate us, and that we can reject them if they don't serve us. The solution to this type of loneliness isn't finding a partner but realising you can be happy and a good person even when you're single.
-
Comment on Fix your hearts or die: The path to liberation for lonely men is feminism in ~life
Lia Link ParentA woman here. Hi. I have serious beef with this very often repeated statement. It's just all wrong, in all parts, and it's infuriating that when women say so, men refuse to listen. i) Yes, I am...- Exemplary
Women are more judgmental, harsh and selective about their sexual partners especially on dating apps, but do not like to admit it.
A woman here. Hi. I have serious beef with this very often repeated statement. It's just all wrong, in all parts, and it's infuriating that when women say so, men refuse to listen.
i) Yes, I am selective about my dating partners. I'm monogamous and strongly prefer long term relationships, which means I can only get involved with a handful of people in my lifetime! Most guys are not a good fit for a LTR for me so of course I am selective. Because a lot of guys aren't selective at all, or don't care about compatibility the way I do, the entire business of being selective falls on me, which I really dislike, but whatever.
ii) I have zero problem "admitting" that I'm selective.
iii) However, I am NOT selective about looks, income, status and other such things commonly referred to by the incel community. When I say so online, the response is usually that I'm lying. But if you took a look at the people I've actually seriously dated / been in a relationship with, you would see I'm not. I've dated a (non-professional) model but also someone that most people would consider a troll from under the bridge, and I did not love or desire the latter any less.
iv) The above OkCupid "research" is often referred to, but I almost never see it mentioned that despite the ratings women gave, women still sent messages to the majority of men. Men were the ones who acted picky about looks, contacting the highest-rated women a lot more than they did other women.
v) I was actually an OkCupid user at the time when they gathered data for this "research". This was before the era of swiping and the site worked completely differently: you were shown profiles in a feed that you could filter based on your chosen criteria. They put a small box on top of the page that displayed a photo from 3 or 4 different profiles at a time and asked you to indicate if you like each of the people or not (a precursor to swiping, then, and the real reason they were doing this was probably market research about whether swiping should be implemented on the site).
And here's what I'm getting at: users were not being asked to evaluate those people's LOOKS, at all. I don't remember the question specifically but it was something along the lines of "do you like this person" or "would you consider dating this person"? I remember feeling very frustrated because I had to click open each profile to see more info about them than the one photo, but I did so every time before answering. Even if I hadn't done so, there is always a lot more information in a photo than just looks that influences whether or not I like the person. I clicked "no" to most of the profiles shown to me because there was something about them that would make them a poor match for me, but not because I thought they were not attractive! If my memory serves, most were decently attractive guys and I would have said so if they had asked, FFS.
I am absolutely certain that I'm not some freak of nature of a woman for doing this. Even though I am very much outside many norms, this particular thing - considering the personality of your potential dating partner over their looks - is extremely common to the point of being standard behaviour.
It would be lovely if we could stop spreading misinformation about women that paints us double-awful: more superficial than we are, and on top of that, habitually lying about our own preferences.
__
Your point regarding cost of living is a good one. Does it disproportionately affect men in your opinion? Is it less of a problem for a guy to date a woman who lives with friends / family? When I was last dating, I did find myself hesitating to date someone who was still living with an ex (due to financial reasons) and I might have felt similarly about someone living with his parents. I believe I could have gotten over it for someone that has a mature, adult relationship with the parents: not letting them cross your boundaries or influence you in a disproportionate way. Unfortunately this isn't all too common even for people who live on their own, so I'd say it's reasonable to be somewhat cautious about it.
-
Comment on Slop and guilt in ~talk
Lia (edited )LinkHey, stranger. Here are some things I wanted to say after reading this. It's really important for humans to cry. More importantly: to be able to cry. I used to be good at it but lately with the...Hey, stranger. Here are some things I wanted to say after reading this.
the sort of naive positivity in the show at least sort of makes me a bit optimistic, at least very temporarily. And it also makes me almost (or not almost) cry.
It's really important for humans to cry. More importantly: to be able to cry. I used to be good at it but lately with the world going down the toilet, I've been having an increasingly hard time letting go like that, and I know this isn't good for me. If you've found something that gets that sort of release out of you, this alone makes the experience healthy and productive for you, slop or not.
Something sort of related: one of the major issues in today's society is that a lot of people have a hard time knowing what they want or like. I know someone (now retired) whose career was in psychotherapy and related research, and they keep saying that the single most pressing and most common issue with their clients was not being in touch with what they really want. Many other issues stem from this root. Society is actively creating this paralysis with its utterly nonsensical, rigid rules around gender and what it means to be an adult, to be productive, and so on.
Again, if you've found something you actually like, please do me a favour and throw the "who this is for" in the bin and let yourself enjoy! Yes, humans in their infinite stupidity have invented concepts like "target demographics" that shows try to cater to, ultimately in the name of maximising ad revenue, but it's not your job to be a pawn in that game. The game is rigged against you, not for you! The whole world is out there for you to experience and enjoy to your fullest ability, no one should try to tell you what you're allowed to like, and if someone tries anyway, you absolutely do not have to listen.
I really wanted to see the magical boy show up. But I also can't deny that I enjoy it. I continued watching it the next day, even after I saw the magical boy show up, after all.
Remember when I said I've had a hard time crying lately? Well, this brought me to tears (in a good way) and I'm grateful that you posted.
it's literally made for like 8 year old girls
My best friend has two girls around that age. They're incredible humans. I want so much to be like them. My friend (their dad), a management consultant in his late 40's wants to be like them. Everyone wants to be like them. There's no reason to be ashamed of that.
I am kinda basically a guy even tho I am also probably more feminine than most (maybe it'd be fairer to myself to say that I am nonbinary, but you know, if you are nonbinary in a forest where no one can see you are you really nonbinary? yes? yes. but also I am just perceived as just a guy by most people so lets keep it simple.
I'm a (mostly) heterosexual CIS-woman. I spent last year on the dating apps, mostly bored out of my wits. Then in November I saw a guy, a smart looking finance guy wearing a high quality suit (one of the things I really enjoy). In another photo he was having dinner in a nice restaurant in a white button-down shirt and his head shaved to a 1 mm stubble (hot). Next, hanging out in his living room in a black t-shirt and Harry Potter glasses (hot), with slightly longer hair. And then: in a party with long, thick, black hair tied into a side ponytail, wearing a dress full of small flowers, looking really pretty.
I don't ever match with people based on photos alone, but his courage to like what he happens to like was definitely a plus.
We've been dating ever since and I can say that he's one of the most masculine men I have ever met. This is not to say you have to be masculine. You don't. Men should be masculine, androgynous, feminine, extraterrestial or whatever they effin' want to be. I'm just saying that liking some show does not define you in any meaningful way, just like wearing a dress doesn't.
I think you should make the magical boy outfit and learn the dance! For now, you can host a party for yourself, alone, where you can dance in that outfit to your heart's content if you fear it would otherwise be too socially complicated. You may find that you love it and want to do it where other people can join you, or that it's just a phase and not a larger part of your identity, or something else, and all of that would be okay.
-
Comment on Attention economics, software engineering, and AI in ~tech
Lia Link ParentYour definitions seem self-contradictory. "The power" no longer influences the internet but "the power holders" "shape the internet"? I know that there is probably a thought process behind these...The power no longer influences internet — internet is the power. At least in the first/second world countries. So the power holders shape the internet to make it shape the society.
Your definitions seem self-contradictory. "The power" no longer influences the internet but "the power holders" "shape the internet"? I know that there is probably a thought process behind these definitions but they're too vague to make sense.
(You could try writing a post that focuses solely on why "internet is the power" and what exactly that term means to you. Hopefully in the process you'll discover a better name for that phenomenon - something that will generate understanding rather than confusion.)
-
Comment on I hacked ChatGPT and Google's AI – and it only took twenty minutes in ~tech
Lia Link ParentYou're right, but at least the slop pages can still be easily detected due to the poor quality and weird domain names. It's really annoying as it is, but I fear how much worse it can get.You're right, but at least the slop pages can still be easily detected due to the poor quality and weird domain names. It's really annoying as it is, but I fear how much worse it can get.
-
Comment on The AI disruption has arrived, and it sure is fun (gifted link) in ~tech
Lia Link ParentThe question is moot, with half of Americans acting like their brains have fallen out of their crania. That's partially thanks to manipulative AI, but also social media and news algorithms, all...What about national security concerns, with America falling behind its opponents?
The question is moot, with half of Americans acting like their brains have fallen out of their crania.
That's partially thanks to manipulative AI, but also social media and news algorithms, all designed to make users addicted, worsening an already bad outcome. If national security is a concern, you/they should regulate these systems to oblivion, starting yesterday.
-
Comment on I hacked ChatGPT and Google's AI – and it only took twenty minutes in ~tech
Lia (edited )Link ParentYeah, not to give anyone ideas but one of my AI-related concerns, should it become good enough in programming, is that scammers can implement real-time monitoring of online search trends and spit...Yeah, not to give anyone ideas but one of my AI-related concerns, should it become good enough in programming, is that scammers can implement real-time monitoring of online search trends and spit out websites tailored to fit them. Once perfectly efficient, the system could even produce a tailor-made website for each individual web search (in my imagination at least, but I'm not an IT pro and I hope I'm wrong about this).
ETA: And not just scammers but propagandists and other nefarious actors too.
-
Comment on Some of my family members aren't convinced that ICE isn't overstepping and that they are just deporting people that broke the law, can you help me share unbiased links that proves they are? in ~society
Lia (edited )LinkI can't help with the numbers but maybe someone else here can: Tell them how many illegal immigrants Obama deported. That shows it can be done efficiently without the violence and societal discord...I can't help with the numbers but maybe someone else here can:
Tell them how many illegal immigrants Obama deported. That shows it can be done efficiently without the violence and societal discord that according to Trump is necessary to get the job done.
Which society would they prefer: the current shit show or the stability that you guys had before, if and when the deportation process is equally effective in both scenarios? (Like I said, I don't have the numbers but I wouldn't be surprised if Obama's was in fact more effective at getting results.)
ETA: I recommend this approach because it doesn't lead to arguing whether individual cases of violence happened or not, or were justified or not. It simply takes for granted that society is more hostile and violent now, which it is, and your family members absolutely feel it in their bones too. Just don't bring up discussion points that give them a chance to try to find logical arguments against that fact, because that's what people will do when in an uncomfortable situation. The arguments are first and foremost intended to soothe their own minds and they will continue for as long as they are afraid, needing to be soothed (that is, forever, or until society calms down again and they don't have to be afraid anymore).
-
Comment on Communities, relationships, and navigating the enshittification of absolutely everything in ~talk
Lia (edited )LinkAn artist here, going through pretty much the same / similar things. Thanks for posting and making me feel less alone! I believe this constant tension we're feeling is a precursor to a bursting of...An artist here, going through pretty much the same / similar things. Thanks for posting and making me feel less alone!
I believe this constant tension we're feeling is a precursor to a bursting of a bubble. It's an incredibly thin, soapy surface we sit on, becoming increasingly stressed in multiple directions until it can't remain intact anymore. No wonder it feels awful. One reason it feels even more awful than most awful things in life is because we don't know how long it'll still take for it to burst. It could happen this year, it could take a few more years - if some strange and rare event occurs, it can take even longer (although I don't believe that's likely).
I'd like to describe my own experience around the topics you mentioned.
Enshittification and being the only one who cares
For me, the bandwidth-consuming battle against enshittification started around 12 years ago when Adobe released Creative Cloud and started manipulating users to sign up and stop using the local software versions (CS). I saw the writing on the wall and covered my bases, resulting in my peers thinking I was a bit of an oddball. I've managed to work all these years without having to get even a trial period for CC, but last year's new development where Adobe now claims they own all rights (practically speaking) to my work if any collaborator of mine decides to work on it using CC is a new source of stress and worry. Most of my collaborators aren't as diligent or as short for funding as I am (at least they weren't up until now, more on that later), so they just kept getting locked into the Adobe ecosystem, the logic being that their end customers are paying for it, so why not. It isn't easy to get out at this point even if they wanted to.I've been managing my systems and processes outside of the Adobe "garden" for so long now that it's become routine for me and I can more or less consider myself safe. But it's certainly more work than it would have to be in a better world where services exist to actually serve people.
Disruptions in my field
Related to the above, the reason I've been short for cash when the people around me have not: I'm producing concrete, real world items while my collaborators are mostly producing digital work and most of my peers are producing specs. Making tangible things requires a lot of technical know-how, money to cover the often steep material costs, and overall an attitude where I have to be mindful of every single small detail at every level of what I do. This kind of existence is hard, and for that reason, it's also frowned upon in my field. We were taught at university to strive for a position where we don't personally touch the manual labour component - rather a "true professional" is someone who has others do it on their behalf. People who "have to" do the manual parts themselves are seen as unsuccessful to some degree.At the moment, I'm glad that I chose the concept I did, because hard as it is, it definitely cannot be replaced by AI - and more importantly, no one is even claiming that it can. The really shitty thing is that these claims and partially erroneous beliefs are actually causing people to lose their jobs even when the claim itself is likely false. I recently contacted a small digital design agency I used to work with, only to discover that their website doesn't exist. I haven't contacted them yet to ask what happened but I fear the worst. Many clients with large budgets - the ones that used to cover for the steep Adobe CC subscription fees - are now trying to cut costs, most likely by experimenting with AI. As a result, many high level professionals lose their best clients. I don't believe for a moment that this level of professionalism can actually be replaced by AI even when the end product is digital, but the clients are certainly going to try it because they can. And they won't understand their mistake before my friends' businesses have already gone bankrupt many times over.
This feels incredibly hard on many levels. There's some minor satisfaction I feel, realising I haven't been taxing myself in vain by going against the grain of common practices and sticking to my guns. At the same time, watching people's lives crumble and important skills get lost hurts like hell. And it hurts more because it was always so incredibly predictable. Systems built by blindly power-hungry people, intended to enable them to do "art" (among other things) without having to go through the process of becoming an artist (a process that involves growth as a human being and learning to be responsible in a way that isn't possible unless you painstakingly put yourself through that process) - it's so very obvious what kind of world this leads to. Which brings me to the next pain point.
Turbo capitalism and the rise of economic (and emotional) colonialism
In secondary school, I was taught a story about colonialism. I haven't checked for its accuracy but I don't think it matters much whether or not it was fabricated because the same thing is happening in our current societies. The story was that Native Americans traded their land in for glass beads - not realising the full implications of the transaction until it was already too late. The colonialists obviously knew the implications and deliberately failed to disclose.I feel like the people around me who don't care about privacy and other consumer rights (sometimes human rights) that Big Tech is trampling on are being similarly deliberately misguided, and it's extremely painful to watch. The logic of colonialism seems to be: do bad thing now -> apologise when others realise it was bad -> immensely profit anyway because it'll be too late to go back and now you hold the power. This logic is being applied more and more often in the context of capitalism, in an increasing variety of ways, almost like capitalists are testing to see where else they can get away with it.
While I believe in the basic principles of capitalism and I don't think there are better ways to enable human and societal flourishing, I also think that what we have here is something else and quite sinister at that. It's not people choosing in free market conditions what makes their life better and rejecting what doesn't. It's people (and smaller organisations) being led on in an increasingly manipulated marketplace, rife with lock-ins and other ties to businesses and products that no one would actually choose if we started from a clean slate. It's being forced to use and pay for products and services that have negative value to society - things that leave us worse off! It's crazy and every sane adult should be actively going against it, but most are not.
(This text is already too long for me to get into "emotional colonialism", so I'll save that for another day.)
About the bubble
So, I mentioned that our emotional uneasiness is due to the looming bursting of our current bubble. And I do believe this, but at the same time: my own experience of life and work in the world has always been like this. I do things that I believe in, while realising most other people don't care, or don't believe in, the same things. I do what I do anyway, accepting the costs to my personal life and mental health (of which I then take extra good care for, so that I don't burn out or lose balance).At the moment though, I can see and feel a shift taking place. It used to be easier for me to accept that the world was largely not built for me, or that it didn't cater to my needs and interests too well, because I could see and believe that it was a good place to live in for the majority of people. This is becoming harder and harder to believe as corporate interests keep shifting from value creation towards value extraction. The rift that used to divide me and a small outgroup of similar people from society - that rift is repositioning itself to divide most of civilised humanity into large cohorts with conflicting interests. When I say "large", I don't necessarily mean a large number of people on the colonialist side, just that their influence is large enough to effectively oppress and act against the rest.
All I can say is: I hope that this bubble, when it bursts, will not only take the dotcom-esque ridiculous AI hype with it, but also the naïve belief that glass beads are of equal value to the land we live on.
-
Comment on Dating apps are training us to want the wrong people in ~life
Lia Link ParentThanks for the link! I took a fairly thorough look but there's absolutely nothing that I can see to inform such a claim as the article makes. Table six depicts past relationships and I guess it...Thanks for the link! I took a fairly thorough look but there's absolutely nothing that I can see to inform such a claim as the article makes.
Table six depicts past relationships and I guess it could be used as a guideline for the outcomes attainable via different meeting contexts. (Except that the study cohort isn't large or diverse enough at all, and the other issue is that still ongoing relationships aren't included, but whatever.) But it tells us absolutely nothing about how "picky" women were when deciding whether or not to date someone.
In fact, this study looks at relationship development even before anyone picked anyone. They criticise other studies for not taking into account that some key events often occur before the parties have actually decided to form a relationship - for example, you may meet someone at work, think nothing in particular of them at the time, and four years later it develops into a relationship. This study observes and includes everything that happened during those four years.
The only plausible reference point that I can find is figure E on page 92, where it appears that close to 50% of the participants experienced "desire to carefully evaluate" their (potential) partner in the very beginning. Colloquially, it sounds similar to "being picky". Could the journalist's logic be so far fetched as to say "On the apps, women are being 95% picky and in this study, only about 48% picky, which is only half as picky"? I know it makes no sense but that's the only numerical piece of information I could find that represents half of 95%. XD
-
Comment on What are you working through? in ~life
Lia Link ParentThank you for the compassion. It's really quite helpful to see that someone gets why it's hard and unfair (especially as the opponent is pretending that they don't). I appreciate it!Thank you for the compassion. It's really quite helpful to see that someone gets why it's hard and unfair (especially as the opponent is pretending that they don't).
I appreciate it!
Thanks for pitching in. A part of me is hoping she's just following a strategy geared towards growing the channel to start with, and then moves away from the clickbait once she has enough attention. Yes, I'm a naïve person who sometimes gets disappointed, but not always!