outofthedeck

[outofthedeck]

i think janitor should be the highest paying job in a society

[outofthedeck]

You there! Federal museum professional educator or FEMA climatologist or NOAA metereologist or CISA cybersecurity specialist or Army civilian logistics employee. How would you like to work for ICE? No? Not interesting? You’re working for ICE now. You’re working for ICE or you’re quitting. You don’t get a choice. You’re an ICE brown shirt or you’re out of a job.

This is not hyperbole. This is happening across the entire United States government.

[outofthedeck]

i honestly can't get over how , for the lack of better words , Tiny ragatha is in this moment . it's like she's that scared little girl again — looking smaller and responding by moving her head , only speaking up when she was given the offer to do so .

made me honestly want to scoop her up and go Noo babygirl don't cry )): i know you're a 30 year old woman but Still

[outofthedeck]

I made a bad comic and now you have to look at it

[outofthedeck]

If you're having a private phone conversation with the phone off your ear, no headphones, and the speaker on in public, that's a public conversation now. That's an open invite, and I'm going to chime in if I have an opinion. This is now OUR disagreement about your boyfriend's spending habits.

[outofthedeck]

there's been plenty of pushback against youtube's plan to age-check users by using an AI to analyze everyone's watching habits, but amidst that, i spotted this playlist circulating among some teens:

(picture is a reconstruction to protect the kids identity)

interesting! they're trying to trick the AI by watching videos that have a primarily adult viewer demographic? well im a curious fella so naturally i have to take a look-see, and

[outofthedeck]

The new ‘AI’ Scottish voice being used by ScotRail is being used without the consent of the voice actor.

Professional VA, Gayanne Potter wrote the following on Facebook.

[outofthedeck]

at some point in your life you will be boiling fruit, water, sugar, and lemon juice in a pot to make a syrup or jam. the instructions will tell you to simmer for a certain amt of time. your timer will go off and you will look at the pot and go, "hm, this doesn't look thick enough. maybe i'll let it go for another 10 minutes." this is the devil speaking. it's only so liquid right now because it is at boiling point. it will thicken when it cools down. learn from the follies of my youth and do not let this happen to you

[outofthedeck]

Kicked out of the adventuring party because I healed the barbarian when he was trying to make a redemptive sacrifice.

[outofthedeck]

On the subject about parents needing to control their child's reading and invade their privacy in order to "protect" them from "inappropriate material:

Until I was in....college? At least? The vast, vast majority of the books I read were either a) assigned by my school or b) (the vast majority of my reading) provided to me by my mother.

My mom is a librarian. She filled our rooms with books, picked especially for us. She pointed out books on the shelves in our home library (separate from our bedroom shelves) that she thought we would like. She bought us books for birthdays, Christmas, and just stacks of recommendations. She once paid me $10 to read one of the Cirque Du Freak books because she said I needed "to be exposed to bad literature."

She respected my privacy in room, didn't go through my belongings. She explicitly pointed out to us that she wouldn't know if we took a particular book of the shelf, as long as we returned it, if we didn't want her to know we were reading it. She purposely brought us books that she didn't care for herself, because she thought we might find them valuable or enjoyable.

And if we wanted to read something she thought might upset or disturb us, she would explain why. She wouldn't stop us from reading it - just ask us to check in with her, to talk through it.

And so when I read something that upset or disturbed me, I would go to her. She would listen and talk through it with me.

If she said she didn't think I would like something, or that a book might disturb me, or that she thought I should wait until I was older, I listened to her.

She didn't need restrictions or control to protect me. Because she proved I could trust her.

Controlling kids is never about "protecting" them. It's just about control.

[outofthedeck]

Something everyone should know either as an authority or as a person labouring under an authority, being anywhere from a babysitter to a parent to a government entity, is that establishing a rule of any kind is incredibly labour-intensive and difficult to enforce.

So if you're going to make something into a rule, it HAS to be something you can both Verify and Enforce- if you can Verify but not Enforce, it's essentially just a suggestion. If it's something you can Enforce but not Verify, you're going to waste a lot of energy and time becoming an authoritarian dictator that nobody likes.

And because the process of Verification and Enforcement BOTH take a LOT of work, it makes no sense to waste all that work on establishing a Rule which has no Function.

For this reason, every Rule you set must perform a Function which gives you a return that is, if not greater, then at least EQUAL to the energy it takes to maintain, in one way or another. Otherwise, the whole system collapses.

Any authority that exists has limited time and limited resources, so it must prioritize rules that minimize the MOST HARM, that are EASIEST TO VERIFY, and are MOST ENFORCEABLE.

So, before you CREATE a rule, you must ask yourself:

What does this rule accomplish?

Is the reward of this rule greater than the expense of establishing it?

Can I verify when this rule has been violated?

Can I feasibly discipline one to violates this rule?

And, what I would argue is almost MOST important after all that,

5. How do I explain this rule in a way that people will want to follow it?

As a parent, for example, "do not set a campfire in the living room" is a good rule, because it is easily explained as a risk to personal safety and property, it's a rare enough situation to come up, it's easy to tell when it's happened, and a consequence like "you will not be left unsupervised for an extended period of time" or "you will write a report on house fires" could be implemented as discipline.

But as a parent, "no eating outside of meal times" is not a great rule in most circumstances. For one, food is easy to access, the harm that can come from snacking between meals is almost zero, it's almost impossible to prove, and there is no feasible way to stop someone from doing it OR make them WANT to follow it without lowering yourself to abuse.

So, if there is a behaviour an authority wants you to follow, it must first ask itself Why. Then decide if that is reasonable. Then decide if it should be a Rule or a Suggestion.

If the desired rule is not verifiable, or enforceable, then the authority must make peace with the fact that it will be taken as a suggestion. It has no other choice but to become an enemy, and slowly lose all respect and credibility.

You cannot make "no snacking" into a rule. But you CAN say, "this is how you keep a balanced diet, this is how you stay healthy, please don't take more than you'll eat at dinner, save leftovers for later".

You CAN make "no fire pits indoors" into a rule, and you can remain vigilant that it doesn't happen and give it your full focus when it does.

This is where laws based on social or religious judgement fail.

You cannot Verify or Enforce against drugs, crossdressing, homosexuality, sodomy, satanism, tattoos, prostitution, oral sex, or abortion. Not in any way that matters. Not in any way that Protects more than it Harms. It's difficult to prove, difficult to enforce, and it happens too much and too consensually to universally oppose. You can only expend energy and cultivate a population that distrusts you in trying.

You CAN Verify and Enforce against violence, abuse, theft, fraud, embezzlement, discrimination, and murder. Because it DOES Protect more than it Harms, and you can justify the expenses. Because these are things that happen nonconsentually, and can be prioritized, because there are Victims who experience Harm. Enforcing these rules can cultivate safety and trust instead of suspicion, cooperation instead of opposition within a populace.

Which is why laws against anything that does not cause harm, in my opinion, is doomed.

Because I've been raised and raised kids and seen kids raised in both ways, and I know that "because I said so" does nothing.

If you cannot Verify or Enforce, then the best you can do is Educate, provide safe options, and build a system to heal and recover for any potential fallout.

But that’s just my opinion.

[outofthedeck]

jason tham 🌊 design commission for @/mangocherry

[outofthedeck]

I really do love those incredibly in-depth and complex dreams where you wake up and 25 years have passed and you’re a slightly different person but I wish I could schedule them or smthn cause now I gotta go to work knowing that even with the power of time travel and certainty of doom I am unable to alter the paths cemented by the ambition and greed of the unalterable few wholly swayed by their own dearth of life

[outofthedeck]

I love uninstalling shit. Get out of my computer.

[outofthedeck]

DEI does not mean lower standards.

You are thinking of white privilege.

[outofthedeck]

have you lot heard about the tiktoker who’s taking on the actual government over a parking ticket? because she’s a hero