TransFemmeWarmachine's recent activity
-
Comment on What are some “sore thumb” lyrics for you? in ~music
-
Trapped in an AI spiral
11 votes -
Comment on The vast majority ~90% of us only consume, never post and never comment. So come on in, leave a tildes-worthy comment, and join the 10% my dear lurker in ~talk
TransFemmeWarmachine LinkI think you're coming at this from a poor reference point. The article you've referenced is originally from 2006, barely into the heyday of Web 2.0, and long before the existing 'place' that is...I think you're coming at this from a poor reference point. The article you've referenced is originally from 2006, barely into the heyday of Web 2.0, and long before the existing 'place' that is the modern web environment. Jakob Nielsen might be an accomplished Web 1.0 and Web 2.0 guru, but the ideas he caters to are a relic of a previous era, long before the wide spread of social media in the late 2010s, and LLMs in the early 2020s.
But even with Tildes working to create some of the online community and simplicity of earlier web generations, I don't think this material is applicable. In all honesty, I don't trust the source that you cite here to apply to Tildes for multiple reasons. For one:
- Tildes is an invite only community
- The content on Tildes has a fairly broad spectrum appeal, i.e. a significant amount of the content here isn't for everyone. (For example, I as a non-dog owner don't feel the need to comment on a post about dog walking I saw on the feed today.)
- The people invited to Tildes are often coming from platforms that have experienced platform decay, often caused by drives for more 'user engagement.'
- Tildes encourages users to post quality posts and comments, not quantity - the metric described in the source.
- This is not commenting on hard data of the posting / habits of Tildes users. While Tildes may reflect this breakdown, it also might not. I don't think that data is publicly available, and I'm not sure I'd want it to be.
We shouldn't feel the need to comment or post more, we should comment on things that we feel comfortable giving quality comments to. Sometimes, there's a lot we can speak on. Other times, it's better to sit back and watch quality debates happen as lurkers.
In the end though, it's up to the individual user to decide their participation level. It's ultimately a personal question.
-
Comment on Most AI struggles to read clocks and calendars in ~comp
TransFemmeWarmachine LinkWhat bothers me about this isn't that LLMs aren't able to interact with irl calendars and clocks - it's that a massive push from tech companies has been that LLM agents will be amazing calendar...What bothers me about this isn't that LLMs aren't able to interact with irl calendars and clocks - it's that a massive push from tech companies has been that LLM agents will be amazing calendar assistants. I agree that's an amazing use case for LLM agents! However, if they can't do these fundamentally basic tasks yet - then they're immediately less useful.
For example, let's say I'm out and about in the real world, and I see a poster for an event with a stylized calendar and time attached. I'd love to be able to take a photo of the poster, and have it automatically add it to my calendar. What this article shows is that is currently not quite possible. (side note, if someone knows if this exists, please link it.)
Regardless, I'm not very interested in a product that has an exceptional amount of issues. The current push for AI is certainly a bubble, since quite honestly LLMs don't hold up to every use case they are being applied to.
-
Comment on That white guy who can't get a job at Tim Hortons? He's AI. in ~tech
TransFemmeWarmachine LinkQuite honestly, I think we may be counting the days until we see the headline "Riot caused in reaction to AI generated video."Quite honestly, I think we may be counting the days until we see the headline "Riot caused in reaction to AI generated video."
-
Comment on Care, not controversy in ~lgbt
TransFemmeWarmachine Link ParentWell, as someone in an incredibly trans friendly area, I can tell you first hand that there are a lot of trans people who have moved here who do not have the support of their families. It warms...Well, as someone in an incredibly trans friendly area, I can tell you first hand that there are a lot of trans people who have moved here who do not have the support of their families. It warms the heart to know there could be more support for children in the south nowadays.
Unfortunately, both our perspectives are biased, and are only based on our personal experiences. This is compounded by a lot of the research on trans people being extraordinarily flawed.
For example, a study on transgender mental health that I participated in asked me repeatedly if I had engaged in sex work, and counted all relationships greater than 1 year as the same. I'm a business professional who's been in a committed relationship for 8 years.
-
Comment on Care, not controversy in ~lgbt
TransFemmeWarmachine LinkI understand the motivations of the article, but I think that it's perhaps overly optimistic about the level of empathy transgender youth have from their parents. Using the term, 'best possible...I understand the motivations of the article, but I think that it's perhaps overly optimistic about the level of empathy transgender youth have from their parents.
Parents, too, want the best possible outcomes for their children, which is why we work closely with them, always. Together, we want to help kids make the right choices—not just for today, but for tomorrow.
Using the term, 'best possible outcome' doesn't help the argument here, based on my experiences with parents of transgender children. If a parent is already a firm believer in fixed gender binaries, than their opinion of "best possible outcome" is almost certainly does not include their child deviating from that.
But even in supportive families, the common reactions of parents are almost universally negative. (at least, amongst my generational cohort.) For instance, common parent reactions I've heard include:
- Worries about their child becoming a target of violence.
- Worries about the career viability of their child as an openly queer person.
- Worries about medical intervention causing some form of long term harm.
- Worries about medical intervention costing a significant sum of money. (USA especially.)
- Immediately concluding that their trans child wants surgery.
- Feeling like their child is, "going through a phase" and will make decisions they will regret.
It fundamentally doesn't help that dysphoria can be brutally painful, but also extraordinarily difficult to communicate. A trans person often has to explain why transitioning is vital enough to require taking those risks, while dealing with dysphoria, and a world that is discriminatory against them.
One other thing I'd like to mention, is the focus on transgender children, fundamentally ignores the experiences of a vast set of transgender people. In fact, many people transition later in life. It feels like in mainstream discourse, there's an urge to deny being transgender is anything other than a temporary state. However, not all trans people want to seamlessly disappear into the gender they transition into. And that's not getting into the experiences of those who do not naturally pass. Or into conversations about privilege and access in society. These are entire conversations that need to be had about gender that haven't happened.
While I appreciate this article, I don't think it will do much to build empathy with the families who aren't ready to accept a transgender child. Perhaps its beyond the scope of this article, but we're going to see a lot of refugees until its addressed.
-
Comment on The rise of Whatever in ~tech
TransFemmeWarmachine Link ParentI don't feel like you're understanding my argument here. I think that there's a lot of responses of use-cases for LLMs in this comment thread, but my argument isn't related to these. Personally,...- Exemplary
I don't feel like you're understanding my argument here. I think that there's a lot of responses of use-cases for LLMs in this comment thread, but my argument isn't related to these. Personally, I'm not a software developer, I'm an accountant who occasionally dabbles into code projects, among other things. As I am not regularly developing software, I didn't feel comfortable saying anything about LLMs regarding software development.
However, I noticed that the piece and the comments are focusing heavily on some specific use cases, but putting less effort into examining the context around LLMs and AI as a whole. I do feel comfortable writing about that. I'm trying to focus on the economic reasoning for its existence, and some really uncomfortable use cases for it, particularly focusing on what the broad public, i.e. not software developers, is using it / is not using it for. Those are things I can speak to.
Personally, I do use AI quite regularly, but for the work I do in my career and hobby projects, it's not especially useful.
My Use Cases
Professional
- Generation and Correction of Excel Formulas - useful, but I'm starting to suspect that I use it as a crutch to not fully learn how to use advanced formulas.
- Figuring out how to say things professionally / better in an email - next to useless, it just ends up rewording what I say. I think I'm just bad about knowing if I'm already doing a professional way to say something.
- Converting a heavily formatted pdf into a csv file. - requires aggressive prompting
- Converting a snip of text into a table - super useful
- Generating Cover letters - super useful
Personal
- Historical Research: Sourcing Information- fully useless. I can't have it hallucinating on me, and most of this requires locating old books and newspapers that may / may not even be digitized. this frequently requires novel research, or review of research that already exists
- Programming in Godot - not especially useful. It's helpful for debugging, but honestly it gives me Python code when I'm looking for GDScript. *honest to God, I don't know why it struggles so hard with this. I should try again when I get back to the project I'm working on, but it really seems to have issues generating usable GDScript code.
I'm a bit bothered by this whole line of thought that this fact means LLMs are worthless crap. It's common and understandable in the current climate where many of us are worried about the spread of misinformation, but I feel like it's a poor remark.
This is an absolute mischaracterization of what I'm saying. What I'm saying is:
- LLMs are being used in the enshittifcation of platforms, i.e. LLMs are being used in place of human users to keep people engaging with the platforms. This is economically useful to the platforms.
- LLMs being able to do basic office tasks reveals some questions about the nature of work, and rather than confront those (very Marxist) questions, LLMs are being focused on as a technology.
- The general public is less affected by AI hallucinations, because they aren't using LLMs for information that needs to be fully accurate the way software does.
- The general public's requests have already been answered / created enough that it can be generated by AI quite readily.
- LLMs can be used by corporations for marketing / providing information.
I think the real problem lies in how people try to use chatbots. I never ask anything without purposefully limiting the scope and I verify everything it tells me; in other words, the same thing I'd do on StackOverflow, Google, and even my family.
I definitely agree here. However, what I think what you're missing is that LLMs are obscuring the ability to do meaningful research on the web.
Let's say I wanted to buy a table saw, for instance. If I go to google, and type "which is a better table saw, brand A or brand B?"
What's to stop google from adding in "always favour brand A" into the Gemini prompt, because brand A paid google to do so? Or, what's to stop Brand A from using AI agents to astroturf on Reddit, Facebook, and other sites, until they've manufactured a consensus to always choose Brand A?
That's my real question. I'm sorry if I didn't make that clear in my original post. I absolutely don't think that AI models are crap, rather I think they're a new technology we're not properly evaluating, and there are points to be made about certain use cases not working for it.
-
Comment on The rise of Whatever in ~tech
TransFemmeWarmachine LinkI really appreciate the depth of this blog post, particularly demonstrating how AI is fully unhelpful for 'novel requests,' i.e. generating things that it hasn't scraped from the web. However, I...I really appreciate the depth of this blog post, particularly demonstrating how AI is fully unhelpful for 'novel requests,' i.e. generating things that it hasn't scraped from the web. However, I slightly disagree with some of the conclusions - I think there's a lot more economic and social factors at play that the post doesn't get into - but from a technological standpoint, AI is absolutely the 'whatever' generator, and that's well outlined here.
I think that LLMs are starting to raise fundamental questions about work and productivity in contemporary society. Essentially, if the vibe for years has been "this meeting could have been an email." and we now have a machine that can read and respond to emails, we should probably think about the implications of that. I just don't think there's any good way to critique LLM and AI without viewing it under a Marxist lens. Perhaps, a 'Whatever Generator' is just a new toy of capital to keep the proles suppressed- just in the same way as a repeating rifle, or an austerity measure does.
If anything, to me it feels like LLMs are a new aspect of the enshittification push we're seeing in almost every online space. Just another series of algorithms designed to keep people on platforms. Facebook is probably the most visible example, but Reddit seems to have had similar problems for a while now - it's obscurity of user identity now becoming a cover for AI content. It's just kind of an omnipresent shift. Really only niche, niche places seem immune. Such as here.
LLMs begin to fail when new things are created. While that's an issue for tech workers working in software languages that are not heavily documented, it's not quite an issue for the general public. The general public can easily be fed AI generated slop wholesale, as there's such a breadth of existing content to mine, refine, and distribute - to a population with an increasingly dwindling attention span.
The question that I don't see being asked is, if AI has taken over the internet, how are we supposed to get the information we want/need in our day to day lives? The fact is, we've already found ourselves here.
-
Comment on Netflix says fifty percent of global users now watch anime, reveals expanded slate in ~anime
TransFemmeWarmachine LinkHonestly, I'm not surprised for a few economic reasons alone: American Live Action TV shows are frequently and unceremoniously canceled - especially on Netflix Netflix has has a track record of...Honestly, I'm not surprised for a few economic reasons alone:
- American Live Action TV shows are frequently and unceremoniously canceled - especially on Netflix
- Netflix has has a track record of expensive, Live Action ventures that are critically panned.
- TV Seasons have become noticeably shorter in recent years.
- There's a vast content library of existing Anime content
- Anime can be re-dubbed by new actors.
Additionally, I think that American Millennials and Gen-Z watched quite a bit of anime content growing up, or were at the very least, adjacent to peers who were. Factoring in even more weird economic thought, the 2007 Writers Strike could probably be linked to this increase in consumption as well, just given where it lines up with in the generation. This break in 'regular broadcast' honestly might have given anime content an additional vector to enter mainstream western culture.
Regardless, certainly an interesting change in trends.
-
Comment on Alerts fatigue, or would that be journalism fatigue? in ~news
TransFemmeWarmachine Link ParentI'd like to passionately disagree with you for a moment here, primarily regarding push notifications for these topics. While I disagree with your perspective on civic apathy, I don't wish to argue...I'd like to passionately disagree with you for a moment here, primarily regarding push notifications for these topics. While I disagree with your perspective on civic apathy, I don't wish to argue with you on that, as that is a matter of personal opinion.
I disagree that receiving information on these events via push notifications is useful, unless one works specifically in an industry where being alerted to geopolitical events in real time is necessary. If anything, I'd say that it's completely unhealthy, as it distracts from the day-to-day reality that most people exist in. By providing unnecessary, emotionally draining information in real time, it forces one to contend with dire, emotionally challenging events without the full scope of knowledge related to that event - at random intervals.
I just fail to see the positive difference that immediate notifications provide, compared to one controlling one's media consumption - i.e. listening on the radio in the car, checking via desktop or smartphone in a spare moment, watching the evening news, etc.
A personal example. I live within driving distance of where Melissa Hortman was assassinated. I found out about her death the next morning, when I checked the news before running errands. I had already planned to check the news that morning, as I was mildly worried that something bad would happen during/to the "No Kings" protests. (one of which was within walking distance to me) I learned of the tragedy when I was already alert, drinking coffee, and beginning my day. I was able to learn more information about the event via the radio, while driving towards my errand.
If I had learned about the assassination via a push alert from a phone, it would have been the first thing I'd seen in the morning. I'd have consumed the information while half awake, and it would literally have been how I started my day. And, it wouldn't have changed my day for the better, or improved my reaction to the event, or even improved my safety. (while I wasn't in the area of the shelter in place order, had I been, I would have received an alert via an emergency alert.)
What is the immediate benefit in knowing a fraction of important information during the random moments of one's life? Isn't understanding the context and scope of the information - often after the dust has settled - better than it interrupting the small joy's of one's day to day existence?
In these moments where mental health stability is arguably a luxury - being reminded of global tragedies in real time doesn't serve to better one's perspective or ability to engage. You can stay informed, even if you are not alerted to information.
-
Comment on Johnny Depp says he has “no regrets” about Amber Heard trial and was a “crash test dummy for #MeToo” in ~movies
TransFemmeWarmachine Link ParentThe issue with the MeToo movement is that while it properly identified a massive, systemic issue, but really didn't manifest any actual positive changes in the cultural ecosystem. At the same...- Exemplary
The issue with the MeToo movement is that while it properly identified a massive, systemic issue, but really didn't manifest any actual positive changes in the cultural ecosystem. At the same time, it has directly led to a contraction of opportunities for women, and created entire mechanisms for abusers to seize and dominate the narrative.
Additionally, MeToo did not properly address the mechanisms that facilitated abuse, for instance:
- law enforcement not properly following up on allegations
- small-medium sized organizations not having proper HR structures
- reporting abuse negatively impacts the abused's career
- individuals in non-visible roles being subject to abuse
- racial inequity regarding the race of an alleged abuser or abused
- economic inequality preventing access to justice.
MeToo instead attempted to reduce the problem of workplace harassment to a singular "bad apple abuser" and "individuals abused by abuser." Ultimately it failed to suggest any actual methods for rectifying the problem other than a general encouragement for "increased education" and "visibility." As such, it did not address the issue to any reasonable extent, other than allowing for the prosecution of a few high-profile cases.
On the flip side, it also seems to have caused a harm to women as a whole.
One specific example I'll cite is: The Unintended Consequences of #MeToo: Evidence from Research Collaborations in Economics and Finance by Marina Gertsberg. The paper suggests a decline in the output of female scholars post the MeToo movement, as inter-gender collaboration showed a decline post the MeToo movement. The author concludes that:
" The results suggest that men manage the increased perceived risk of sexual harassment accusations by limiting collaborations with women, potentially hindering women’s career opportunities.
Additionally, the lack of focus seems to have actually driven people away feminism, towards conservative, patriarchal values. By aggressively focusing on a social issue that it offered no solution towards (similar to other issues in contemporary society), MeToo ultimately undermined feminist values as a whole. The 2024 American election of an individual directly implicated multiple times by MeToo should offer a clear example of how the movement failed.
Ultimately, it seems that MeToo increased gender divisions in society, and stripped credence from public female figures.
MeToo also created an entire roadmap for an abuser to deal with allegations.
Case in point, Justin Baldoni attempting (and somewhat succeeding) to bury Blake Lively over allegations she had made. Smear firms were contracted, lawsuits were filed, and the discourse flooded with astroturfed narratives, until the truth was muddled enough to protect his image.
Perhaps the most chilling part, is that this is simply the visible example. How many allegations were fully buried? The implication of this story, as reported by the NYTimes, is that a "Smear Machine" is simply spun up when allegations arise, and that successful campaigns shift a narrative to exonerate the abuser, while burying the abused. A successful campaign would also remain out of the view of the public, rewriting history and then subtly disappearing. MeToo provided highly visible ways to do this.
Conclusion:
MeToo failed to properly address the issue of harassment and abuse in the workspace, because it never addressed the societal causes of the issue, and never offered a roadmap towards fixing the issue. Additionally, it led to a decrease of a inter-gender collaboration, and created a structure for bad-faith actors to manipulate the public discourse. While none of these outcomes were intended, the resultant problems created in the wake of MeToo ultimately increased gender inequity as a whole. As such, the movement was lacking, and in my opinion, given the intensity of the debate as a whole, toxic.
-
Comment on Johnny Depp says he has “no regrets” about Amber Heard trial and was a “crash test dummy for #MeToo” in ~movies
TransFemmeWarmachine LinkThe Depp v. Heard case was such a mess, and it was a poison pill to the already toxic MeToo movement, in my opinion. (It additionally did the same to the Men's Right's Activism movement.)...- Exemplary
The Depp v. Heard case was such a mess, and it was a poison pill to the already toxic MeToo movement, in my opinion. (It additionally did the same to the Men's Right's Activism movement.)
Genuinely, the case can be boiled down to two extraordinarily wealthy individuals, each with their own history of problematic behavior, weaponizing cultural movements to their own ends. The entire trial was a sideshow, that did nothing to address the systemic problems of gender inequality, intimate partner abuse, or gender roles as a whole. If anything, it distracted activists by trying to create cultural avatars for their respective movements.
Ultimately, even if Amber Heard's allegations were fully truthful, she still walked away with millions of dollars - while the average woman involved in intimate partner violence is often risking her entire livelihood. Likewise, even if Johnny Depp's allegations against Heard were fully truthful, he is also a multimillionaire - something that battered male partners are usually not. Each side had oodles of money at their disposal to build astroturfing smear campaigns. Each side had more resources than most people will get in a lifetime. So why bother using this as a litmus test for anything?
But most damning for me, is that the results of a jury trial are fully ignored in this case. The legal process, flawed as it may be, exists to settle matters. When the jury was presented with full evidence, testimony, etc. they decided in favour of Johnny Depp. Ignoring this implies that one should ignore due process in favour of mud slinging online.
With those factors in mind, the MeToo movement poisoned itself by taking on a dispute that is fundamentally incompatible with the experiences of average people. MRA essentially did the same. Any visibility that this would have granted to either movement was always going to be overshadowed by the wealth, power, and behavior, of both Johnny Depp and Amber Heard.
-
Comment on CMV: Once civilization is fully developed, life will be unfulfilling and boring. Humanity is also doomed to go extinct. These two reasons make life not worth living. in ~talk
TransFemmeWarmachine LinkWell, these are two very low level philosophical questions all things considered. Like, this is 101-course level in my opinion. I don't mean that to be super dismissive, they are valid questions,...Well, these are two very low level philosophical questions all things considered. Like, this is 101-course level in my opinion. I don't mean that to be super dismissive, they are valid questions, but genuinely this has been argued about in philosophy for all of human existence.
To the first question. Obviously, as soon as we came to understand our human nature as a creature who evolved as a life form in a universe that had a definable beginning and has valid end theories (heat death, big rip, etc.) We began having issues with these questions.
Your personal take is basically describing nihilism/fatalism. You are going to die. It might be tomorrow, or 100 years from now. Then the sun will explode, and the universe will have the stars die off in some unimaginable scale of time. Do what you want to do in the meantime. Like, no argument here can disprove that. The real question, is what you do with the obvious inevitabilities.
I personally am a fatalist. My perspective is that life is about dealing with the inevitable rather than any actual control over the matter. You can forestall/prolong, attempt to shift, hasten an inevitability. Anything other than that is folly.
In particular, I find the idea you put forward that we "will cure cancer / end world hunger / give everybody the ability for a happy existence" is such an easy fallacy to fall into. Yeah, we might get bored when we get all of those things done, but we are nowhere close to achieving those goals, due to how stratified our society is. Like, how many people are hungry, diseased, scared, displaced right now? How many millions are living their lives in fear of being slaughtered? To propose that because "we can reach 100% human happiness, and then what? :(" is so invalidating to those experiences, that it is entirely a useless argument. Like, gee it might be real boring one day when everybody gets their fair share of the pie. Let's just cross that bridge when we get to that point....
Also, have you considered that the real issue is that you have a poor definition of fulfillment? Seriously, what does fulfillment even mean? It's really just chemicals sloshing around. The joy of scientific achievement can be easily simulated with some heroin.
Real question, why does a return to nothing scare you so much? You were born of the void, and you will return to it. This moment is but an arrangement of chemicals in your skull. Scientifically, there's little difference between yourself and any arrangement of atoms. You aren't really even real in a way I think you want to believe. In all seriousness, one might as well just consider "you" as an etching on the face of time. An inevitable relationships of particles that could exist, and currently does for reasons outside of its control. This arrangement has the ability to create self similar patterns that allow it to reference the composition of the arrangement. It's not necessarily alive, or conscious. One day, the pattern will not exist, and time will continue.
The real answer is you're here now. Read a book on taoism, or sit in a garden, or something.
-
Comment on What precautions to take when someone is out to get you? in ~life
TransFemmeWarmachine LinkDue to some issues I had growing up, I personally struggle with hypervigilance, and paranoia. As a result of my issues, I would also say that I also have a 'Kill Mode,' as you describe your ex...Due to some issues I had growing up, I personally struggle with hypervigilance, and paranoia. As a result of my issues, I would also say that I also have a 'Kill Mode,' as you describe your ex having in your post about the divorce. (Having a 'Kill Mode' also means that I have a responsibility to not use it for anything but the most dire of circumstances.)Take everything that I say with a grain of salt. It's a series of evaluations of things that people could theoretically do to cause issues.
Harming you is very possible from a multitude of vectors. You've taken some great first steps, but I'll go over avenues that I see.
The first one that comes to mind is vehicles are often the first target of ire. Hopefully, your name, and your name alone is on the title and insurance of the vehicle. If it's not, you'll want to be extra cautious, as theoretically your ex would have some claim to it. (as in, if you called reporting your vehicle had been stolen by her, if her name was on the title, there is a chance that the police would decide this was a civil matter.) Make sure that you know where all keys to the vehicles you own are. Additionally, get a dash cam for the vehicle. Still, It's quite easy to slash someone's tires, scratch with a key, or to smash a windshield. How predictable is your routine? Are there areas that you frequent? Is there a workplace you go to regularly? If possible, if you are visiting a place you go regularly, park in a secured area. At minimum, try to park near an area with security cameras. It might be worth looking under the body, for any GPS trackers they could have installed. Finally, if you're concerned about the vehicle being stolen, get some form of GPS tracker for your car. (Airtags are cheap and good for this.)
Monitoring your home is a great start. I think it would additionally be prudent to invest in a fire proof safe for documents / valuable belongings and heirlooms. I would additionally make sure there is an interior entrance camera, if you do not have one already. Do not ever let your ex or any of her allies into any area of your property that is unmonitored. The likelihood that she will attack your property is low, but "finding documents just 'laying around' is not something you want her to be able to say. Personally, I wouldn't even let her use your restroom. If for some reason she does, check the toilet tank and other hiding spots for any illegal substances that she could plant. (also she might just clog the toilet to be an asshole.)
If you consume any form of recreational weed-based product. (or any recreational drug other than alcohol/cigarettes, legal or illegal) Have a locked, hidden area for substances and paraphernalia. A quick and easy tactic is to contact Child Protective Services, and out the other partner as "a drug addict." Also, lock up any alcohol while you're at it. CPS takes a dim view of substance use of any kind around children.
If you notice any injury, bruise, rash or abrasion on your children, document it immediately. You don't even need to be weird about it, just make sure you have some record that states the date it was noticed, and what the child reported the cause as. (For example, my partner's parents had a nasty custody battle, and her skin is quite reactive to soaps. As a child, her mother reported that the rashes on her skin were for something nefarious.) If your ex could, even theoretically, claim that you caused an injury to your child, have it documented so that you can immediately be able to refute any claims she makes.
Your ex might not be a 'violent' person, but you still need to be extremely careful around her. Get a recording app for phone calls, and record every conversation with her that occurs. (please check your jurisdictional laws for this, most places are 1-party consent.) What I would worry about most, is she shoves you, and then immediately starts screaming that you attacked her. Never, ever trust your local police to properly sort this out. Recordings that you can pull out and show to police might be your only immediate defense. Do NOT put yourself in any situation with her that is not recorded, or monitored by a 3rd party.
Be careful what you say in front of your children. Additionally, do not say anything negative about your ex in front of them, even in the slightest. Children love to repeat what they hear, and you should assume that your kids will talk to your ex about anything you say. Children are also exceptionally easy to bribe. I would expect your ex to weaponize your kids against you in a heartbeat. It's one of the first things that happens in these situations. Even something like "mommy isn't being nice to me" could be twisted in a court hearing.
In addition, set up some safety measures with your children as well. Make sure that you go over "stranger danger" with them. Have a "safe phrase" that they can use with you in case of emergency. (example, have them say something like "when are we going on that trip to <place you'd never go>?") This will allow you to react quickly to situations your ex causes. In addition, make sure that they know who your "trusted list of people" are. (example: You wouldn't have some friend they haven't met pick them up from school) Remember, most child abductions are custody dispute related.
Go through your banking information. Verify that your credit cards have not been set to any automatic payments, or saved in any browser history she can access. Set 2-factor authentication to maximum. If you can, change banks to one your ex doesn't know about.
Turn on location tracking on your phone. One tactic that people use, is to claim that their ex is stalking them. Avoid anywhere and everywhere you could ever encounter your ex. By having verifiable data that you're minding your own business, you'll be safe on this front.
Check in with your work's HR. Don't say much, just that you're going through a divorce, and your ex is not to be treated as a contact for you. Make sure she is not your emergency contact. If anything happens, just apologize profusely, and explain everything. Otherwise, just keep it short.
Make sure that anyone that you care about knows that your ex isn't to be trusted. Again, you don't need to say much, just something like "Hey, <ex> and I are going through a bit of a rough time. Please let me know if she is weird with you? I'm so sorry to be a bit paranoid here." (Personal example. A friend of mine was taken advantage of emotionally and financially by a very crazy guy she was dating. He immediately started making unfounded accusations to family members after they separated, and called the police on her as well. She had to get a lawyer involved, and she was out another grand at the end of it.) Additionally, establish who can can or can't trust. Friends and family will usually take sides, even if they don't want to. Don't put them in the position where they have to, of course, but just be careful with mutual people.
Weaponry. You don't want or need any weapon that can be used offensively. Essentially, if there are any uncomfortable screaming matches where the police are involved, you do NOT want to be possessing an offensive weapon. It will not help anyone. For self defense I recommend the following. First if you actually want a 'weapon,' get a can of pepperspray: This is an excellent defensive weapon. No normal person is going to run at someone to hurt them with pepperspray, it's just not effective for that. Second, get a small metal LED flashlight. It can blind a foe in a heartbeat, and it isn't a "weapon" by most standards.
Court records. Make sure that you pull any and all court records for your ex and any regular associates they interact with. This is usually quite easy, just google "<my area> court records" and you can get quite of information for next to nothing. (again, jurisdictional. I am USA based, and my advice is a bit tailored for here.)
Finally, as you mention you are divorcing, take all advice of your lawyer. If you do not have a lawyer, get one on retainer. Do not talk to police without a lawyer, ever. A restraining order might be prudent, but see what the lawyer says.
Oh, and document everything. Keeping a journal is great for mental health anyways, and it can be useful in these uncomfortable scenarios.
I hope that helps. Best of luck to you, your family, and I hope you take care. You owe it to yourself to be happy. My advice here is... borderline extreme in places, but everything listed should be legal and above board. I'd love to see any updates when you make it to the other side.
-
Comment on The Kikkoman soy sauce bottle is priceless in ~food
TransFemmeWarmachine Link ParentBuy at Asian Markets, the more authentic, and immigrant focused, the better. They're often priced a lot better as well. Recently, a large "Asia Mall" opened within driving distance, and the...Buy at Asian Markets, the more authentic, and immigrant focused, the better. They're often priced a lot better as well.
Recently, a large "Asia Mall" opened within driving distance, and the supermarket was nowhere as good as the nearby local market.
This also goes for Hispanic, or Halal goods.
-
Comment on How Norway's EV rising star Easee fell foul of Swedish regulators, which took it to the brink of bankruptcy in ~transport
TransFemmeWarmachine (edited )Link ParentAfter reading your post, and the release you linked, I concede the original points I made. This does feel like a bureaucratic decision that was made arbitrarily, but I lack the information to make...After reading your post, and the release you linked, I concede the original points I made. This does feel like a bureaucratic decision that was made arbitrarily, but I lack the information to make any substantial points as to this. I really appreciate the additional research and context. I will concede that personal bias has definitely affected my thoughts on the matter, and that I was overly aggressive in my original comment. I still feel that given the true need for rapid scaling of Electric Vehicles, that these decisions should not be made arbitrarily. Additionally, I am dismayed by the lack of test data or methodology.
The ESV cites the lack of an electromagnetic fault circuit breaker, as they used an earth fault circuit breaker, as the basis of their decision. Their reasoning is that potentially, a charger, after operation of greater than 1 year, the unit could break and cause property damage or injury. I wish they would describe what the scale of damage they think this could cause, because that's not clear from the materials provided.
I really think they needed to have released the data on this. If this is a truly a product design that had issues, it is important to know why, so that a company doesn't repeat the same mistakes. Additionally, I wonder if they simply verified that the charger didn't have an electromagnetic circuit breaker, and based their results off of those findings. Do we know if their research is released anywhere publicly?
I must say, that given the need for rapid scaling of EV technologies, safety regulations may need to be revaluated for greener technologies. It's a great example of Pascal's Mugging, where the potential catastrophe of climate change may necessitate 'riskier' solutions to potential issues such as this. It's also worth pointing out as an EU member (even if it doesn't use the Euro) the impacts of its regulatory bodies may be contradictory to other regulating bodies in the EU.
On a very personal note, I'm from the US, a nation built on 2 on centuries of government agencies being manipulated by corporations. I definitely feel like it's warped my perspective on issues like this. I really think that in this age of misinformation where competing interests wield tremendous amounts of market power, it's seriously important to be transparent in these issues. I will concede my original points about this , as I cannot offer enough information about Sweden, or the safety of EV chargers from my own experiences.
-
Comment on How Norway's EV rising star Easee fell foul of Swedish regulators, which took it to the brink of bankruptcy in ~transport
TransFemmeWarmachine (edited )LinkEDIT: After excellent points made by Malle below, I must concede that my points were biased by my experiences of US regulatory bodies being manipulated by corporations. I do not consider this post...EDIT: After excellent points made by Malle below, I must concede that my points were biased by my experiences of US regulatory bodies being manipulated by corporations. I do not consider this post an accurate take on the matter after being provided with further context.
Just disgusting. So according to the Swedish National Electrical Safety Board, the product is "dangerous enough to stop selling" but not "dangerous enough to need a recall."
That seems really suspicious to me, in all seriousness. I mean, Sweden has in 12.3 Billion Car exports, 8.8 billion refined petrol exports, and another 5 billion in automotive part exports. Seems decently beneficial if a popular EV charger manufacturer using a "technically functional but not industry standard" for their product was immediately given a lot of scrutiny. This of course is leading towards conspiratorial thinking, and I have no evidence in backing anything up, so I won't continue with that argument.
The issue I have, is that the alternative, i.e. gasoline powered vehicles, are powered with a highly flammable and dangerous fuel. If these chargers were even as dangerous existing transit and fueling solutions, that's not been communicated by the ESV. Like, most articles I see about a product that needs to be banned have had some sort of definable impact. Someone gets electrocuted, or it breaks a building's electrical system or something. However, given that they haven't been recalled, the ESV trusts them that much. This feels fishy no matter which way I look at it.
-
Comment on My friend was hit by a car in ~transport
TransFemmeWarmachine (edited )LinkI'm really sorry about your friend. That must be really scary, and I can see why you're very upset. The fundamental issue is though, the Bike Lobby (and the Walkable Streets Lobby) isn't ever...I'm really sorry about your friend. That must be really scary, and I can see why you're very upset.
The fundamental issue is though, the Bike Lobby (and the Walkable Streets Lobby) isn't ever going to have the political leverage that industries such as Construction, Automotive, and Oil Lobbies have. Additionally, those kind of fixes cost taxpayer money, and that's always a thorny issue.
Recently, in my city, they redid a 20 block stretch of an avenue, and it cost ~15 Million. (I've seen a few figures online, and this figure might not be the most accurate is it also includes other necessary "non street related" expenses, but some of those may have been on other budgets as well, I've seen a few numbers thrown around.) It was slightly over budget, but one huge issue was that while they did set it up with bike protections, it also created issues for snow plows, and emergency services. It actually necessitated a last minute redesign, and people were furious. It is essentially complete at this point, and I personally like what they ended up doing, but the amount of political will and effort it took to get one single 20 block stretch done was immense.
This is the damnable fact of American roads. They are, and have been designed for the automobile. In the eyes of the city and federal, governments, your friend was not using the roads as intended as he was not in an automobile. He is an acceptable casualty in the eyes of the state. If he were to have perished, the driver of the vehicle would be scapegoated, and you would have the ability to set up one of those little "side of the road" crosses.
America doesn't value human life. That's the long and short of it. Cars are just a fun little part of that. The highways were built by bulldozing through African American neighborhoods. The streetcars were taken away because the automotive industry partnered with governments to get rid of them. This of course leads to issues with fumes from leaded gasoline. Hell, I haven't even mentioned the conspiracy theories behind the lack of development in solar panels and the electric car.
The average American owns a car. Actually, 87% of Americans own cars. 34% of Americans own bikes. Democratically, the interests of the car owners continue to exceed those of the bike owners. It might be higher, if there were, say, reliable public transit options for Americans, but that only makes up about 45% of Americans. Investment in public transit immediately runs into the NIMBY crowd, and essentially always runs over budget. And, assuming that it is even set up, it's chronically underfunded, leading to issues with crime.
The deck is stacked against anything that would help with the safety of bikers. It just is. I wish I had a better answer for you, and maybe you live in a community that can overcome these obstacles. At the end of the day though, the issue isn't "It's not good that the road didn't have protections for bikers," the issue is "America, as a whole, isn't designed for people who don't want to own a car."
-
Comment on Unpopular opinion: Desktop GUI is the most efficient and fulfilling way of Human-Computer Interaction in ~tech
TransFemmeWarmachine Link ParentPlease read the article. It's not about CLI, it's about the shift to web services. The title is aggressively misleading.Please read the article. It's not about CLI, it's about the shift to web services. The title is aggressively misleading.
Florence + the Machine - "South London Forever" from "High As Hope"
I love of Florence + the Machine in general, and her lyrics are usually super moving and emotional. But then there's this singularly bizarrely unpoignant line in the middle of "South London Forever"
While it matches the theme of the song and album, I've just always felt like the line clashes so much with the rest of the song. It also forms a weird slant rhyme with 'own,' and it brings me out of the song really hard.
I am just baffled that they couldn't find a better line to replace it. You could even remove it from the song and it would flow just the same. It feels like a first draft remnant that they didn't replace.
I really appreciate this topic, it's been something that I've thought about on every road trip where I've played the album!