Japanese-style public service ads in LA metro
Cute, but it feels the novelty could wear off quick.
The real reason why network ‘neutrality’ is impossible
Interesting technical reasons why this idea is a nightmare. It will cause shortages of service, just like every other time bureaucrats try to make things “fair.”
Twitter is done with hate symbols and violent groups
Twitter clutches its pearls.
Brie Larson on Twitter: “I merely smiled at a TSA agent and he asked for my phone number. To live life as a woman is to live life on the defense.”
Via Jill. What hath feminism wrought? Paranoid, intolerable Victorianites. Peasants cannot spake suchly to the aristocracy!
Here’s why a 45-foot tall nude sculpture may be coming to the National Mall
Can you believe it’s a silly political statement?
Sci-fi interfaces | IxD Lessons from Sci-Fi
A site I wish I knew about sooner.
Blade Runner Black Out 2022
A nicely-executed short story animation.
Former Hollywood Insider Speaks Out About Sexual Corruption
I dig (a few) movies, but morally, Hollywood is a neverending dumpster fire. It’s safe to assume there’s plenty worse that goes on that we don’t know about, if this scandal is one of the public ones.
COLUMBUS NEVER CAME TO AMERICA
I also dig native American (or whatever they’re supposed to be called) culture, but they are nowhere near the noble angels they’ve been reputed to be.
…Because computers would be the ones revolting. Computers aren’t much different than robots, fundamentally: they gather input, process it, and “do something” as an output. This final output, in the computer’s situation, is really just making pixels light up in a certain way on a monitor, whereas robots typically output by moving in three-dimensional space. Granted, in the former case it’s very minimal action in physical space, but it’s action nonetheless.
We have a good clue that robots would not revolt with Hollywood, Asmovian fury, because we know how computers act. Computers, when they malfunction, merely end up not performing their higher-purpose requirement, like starting up Wolfenstein, because of a low-level function, like the failure to read the game’s save file (which is due to some failure of an even lower-level function that I’m not familiar with). Computer applications, when they malfunction, don’t end up somehow performing another higher-level function. My corrupted Wolfenstein save file isn’t going to launch Halo 5 with a matching percentage of completion. Applications will just break down in some manner once they get out of the gate.
Apply this thought to robots. What would it look like? A malfunctioning shelf-stocking robot wouldn’t end up going on a murder spree—he’d put a few boxes in the wrong place. A Roomba with its wires crossed isn’t going start cutting the wifi connection power or putting cyanide in the orange juice. It will fart out some dust bunnies and keep banging into the living room floor’s molding.
Someone give me counterarguments.
Jill and Ed bring up a simple and effective point: a revolution could happen, but only with the insistence of an agency outside the system, ie., a malicious programmer. Systems, like a robot, has boundaries by definitions, and they can’t do something as complex as social revolution without reprogramming the entire system.
Real world example: I’ve worked on a money transfer process for a website before. A defect in that programming wouldn’t send money, say, to another bank instead of my exterminator. To interact with another bank involves a good dozen interactions, most of which involve control access and permissions gates. That sort of thing just doesn’t happen by accident. A building doesn’t explode and crumble to form another building just as complex. It turns to dust.
Websites can’t reach into most machine resources. I can’t program a website that will change the background image on your desktop. But what I could (if I knew how) write a Trojan horse program that changes your background photo into a tiled MacGyver collage. But that is acting outside the http system via the Trojan, into the user’s local machine system.
“Doesn’t anyone have any more missiles!?”
Nibiru is the real, cosmic, deal. I know this because all of the theories of Internet-connected folks concerning its arrival into the Milky Way don’t posit the planet crashing directly into Earth like two perfect billiard balls. If it was contrived it would be aiming straight into us, right at our equatorial center, Hollywood-style, with only a cockamamie plan from Bruce Willis or Bill Pullman to stop it. Instead, it’s going to just kinda boomerang over and back near Earth’s orbit. Besides the obvious geo-ecological disaster of the shifting poles, the other disasters: 90% of all the land mass being relentlessly sloshed by monstrous tsunamis and tidal waves, most everyone’s death, and Garrison Keillor continuing to do musical tours, unharmed. Maybe a McDonald’s in Kiev will survive as the only modern-age relic. But, cosmically, it’s not even a fart in space. A positive result of all of this will be that not only the raw number of conspiracy theories we’ll have to deal with will be cut down dramatically, but the rate of conspiracy theories will be reduced to something like 2 theories per 1 thousand people. And they’ll be obvious falsehoods, on first blush, because there’s no civilization, at first, to really give it fuel; the theories will just die on the vine, and maybe the actual theorists will, too. When the Quest for Food™ returns, it’ll be hard to scrounge up yhe mental energy requires to speculate about grassy knolls and equilateral triangles with an eye inside them. There’s another good reason for the favorable lack of conspiracy theorists: most of the ones who survive are the ones who believe this Nibiru nonsense and took preparations for its arrival, and it technically won’t be a conspiracy theory because it actually happened.
I don’t normally comment on these “dawww that’s cute” type of stories, but I’ve been seeing this too much to ignore it.
Story here, original Facebook post here. I was about to write it off as another useless social media story with a gratuitous selfie of Julia for maximum attention generation, until I read that she was on her morning run and the catcaller was on his lunchbreak. So was it in the morning or noontime?
Maybe she works an odd-shift job and her “morning” is really the afternoon, or the guy was eating lunch-oriented food. Whichever…Julia may have just misreported it.
There are other elements that don’t quite add up, though I’m willing to give a pass to. There’s no photo of the mom, James, or the stroller. If this really happened, Julia may have wanted to replace the unnecessary selfie with a photo of her with the family. But there are privacy concerns, so maybe James’ mom said declined the offer. The timing is odd, as well: Julia was running, the family was walking, the man was almost certainly sitting (Julia said he “gathered” his lunch before leaving). The order of events and the position/movements are strange, but not impossible.
What really tipped me off was the actions of the boy and the man. The little boy (I assume this means he was no older than 10 or so) acted like kids do in movies—just a little too perfect with his bravery and response. The man, brazen enough to catcall a woman in a public place where there are families walking (not to mention his boss or colleagues lurking nearby), suddenly gets too embarrassed to stay and finish eating when someone points it out. Again, this seems too Hollywood to be genuine.
I don’t care either way if it’s real or not. Being catcalled is barely a ping on the radar of notable life events, unless you’re really seeking attention or validation on social media. The only value for me is the casual mental exercise in looking at it logically.