#and like. making the conflict have so much global impact

[sleepdepravity]

Oh yeah, actually, I also watched film red last night with my friend. I can see why someone compared it to movie six. I’m just kinda “eh” on it. A lot of the plot points and narrative structure stuff I was laughing incredulously at, also, me and my friend heckled usopp’s dad a whole bunch.

[musiclovingmoth]

after barely a day of my poll being up it seems like so many people know about and really love natural history collections which makes my heart sing!! i would love for my fellow natural history nerds to rise up and sign this petition to protect one!!

duke university is CLOSING its herbarium which holds over 800,000 plant/fungus/algae specimens including 2,000 types spanning 180 years of collection effort all across the planet. it is the second largest private university herbarium in the entire united states. this is really bad!! i will explain in short terms:

every natural history collection's purpose is to collect and maintain specimens, which are collectively supposed to be a thorough representation of biodiversity across time and space. when sampled at regular intervals at the same places, specimens can tell endless stories about changes in shape, abundance, range, genetics, and SO much more. basically, they are a big sample size to use in all manner of studies, including those that concern climate change and biodiversity loss! new species and evolutionary relationships are constantly discovered at collections even when specimens are like 100 years old. duke has recently championed itself as a global leader in biodiversity research which is honestly in jawdropping conflict with its move to close its herbarium. this herbarium not only supplies duke researchers with material but researchers all over the world. specimens have been cited in over 46,000 publications and over 13,000 since 2019 alone. we have old shit in our cabinets but the science is anything but history!

faculty and staff have 2-3 years to move the specimens elsewhere which is NOT enough time for 800,000 old dried plant/fungus specimens. this is an issue in even the BEST natural history collections at the biggest institutions but collections are pretty much always understaffed and underpaid. a university collection usually relies a lot on student labor and you know they do not have the time to be contributing to this move. to find collections that would take these specimens AND allocate the manpower and time needed to send them off is not feasible. types, especially holotypes should really NEVER be transported because they serve as the exemplar for the characteristics of the species it represents. i do not feel good about hurrying 800,000 old, fragile specimens including 2,000 types getting moved in a short amount of time by a few people. i do not want to know what will happen to the remaining specimens that don't make it out in time.

this sets a really dangerous precedent for other university collections across the world. this is not a random state school, this is duke university, which is practically an ivy league. if they close such a prominent and respected collection just because they're not 260% maximizing their profits, it may let other greedy university admins know they can get away with the same. i've only been in the professional collections world for a short time but shutting down a collection let alone one as big as duke's is almost UNHEARD of. i haven't seen scientists band together so strongly and quickly over an issue (i'm in an ENTOMOLOGY collections listserv and someone advocated for emailing duke admin against this decision), probably because they can all agree on how strongly this could impact climate and biodiversity research and policymaking down the road.

tl;dr if duke herbarium really closes, we would be losing a vital hub for ongoing and future research that helps us understand how our world is changing through the dynamics of our plants and their allies. other institutions might see this and follow suit with their own collections.

[avatarfandompolice]

So in the absolute pile of slop that is Netflix’s ATLA, there is a universe-breaking plot hole that no one is really talking about. And the best part is that it’s something the show added that wasn’t in the original.

When Aang is being told that he is the avatar in flashbacks, he and others mention “defeating the Fire Nation.” This is before the genocide, and obviously before Aang runs away, right?

Well, this creates a whole slew of problems. Like, a LOT of them.

First off, the lore of the real ATLA timeline (real = cartoon because it actually matters, unlike the Netflix crap), the world is vaguely aware of Sozin’s moves towards world domination, but the genocide during the comet is largely unknown. The air nomads themselves stay out of global conflicts as much as possible, so this would not be on Aang’s mind in any way. If the Netflix show was trying to follow that, then this is just some strange addition that doesn’t make any sense. They would not be worried about “defeating the Fire Lord” if so far not even the rest of the world has raised high defenses against him.

Let’s go the route of “since they removed the comet from being relevant to the story of NATLA, they plan on making this different” now. So now we have the issue of this: what is the threat towards the air nomads? If there’s no upcoming ticking clock to where they know they will be confronted with fighting Sozin, then why does Aang need to focus on defeating him? The other issue with this scenario is that the air nomads willingly and gleefully all gather in one place in NATLA to get slaughtered, yet they apparently knew the risk of Sozin attacking them going in? And the gathering was based around the event that made the firebenders more powerful? Huh?

Let’s continue beyond that too! If the air nomads were known to have been wiped out during the comet in NATLA, then why is it NOT a ticking clock in the story? What were the AI writers thinking?

So essentially what we have here is a lose-lose situation where we not only have yet another useless NATLA addition that makes no sense, but it actively undermines Aang’s character too. One of the biggest points with Aang is the emotion of seeing the world he loved falling to pieces. A great microcosm of this is his friend Kuzon, who was a Fire Nation citizen. He now has to deal with the Fire Nation being the #1 enemy when he had a strong connection with someone there. He has to see a world where ALL Fire Nation citizens are seen as evil when the Fire Nation he knew was not that. And again, Aang’s knowledge of the Fire Nation being bad before the genocide completely undercuts this because now he already knows they’re bad and his worldview after being unfrozen is not any different.

The only emotional impact you get now is him knowing that Gyatso was killed by the Fire Nation. You could say that this is him coming to terms with how bad the Fire Nation really is, but it’s still an entirely deflated impact compared to the original. Imagine waking up to find that an entire nation you loved is now killing and colonizing everyone else AND you lost all of your friends and family to it. Tragedy isn’t a contest IRL, but the weight of this is so much heavier than “bad nation did bad thing but now bad thing affects ME!”

This show is a fucking trainwreck from beginning to end, and the fact that a lot of it is due to the additions shows that no one actually cared. They added things like this huge fumble because they wanted to make it just different enough to get away with not being seen as a shot-for-shot remake. They took zero care in making any additions make sense. There’s no issue in adding things to adaptations, but if you’re not going to work them into the story, then just give up and do something else.

This show fucking blows.

[ihaveforgortoomany]

What a Sonetto and Vertin "breakup" would look like (aka the Foundation finally forcing Sonetto to choose Vertin or the Foundation)

(Aka I will start throwing random fic ideas to people here in hope more fics are written for R1999, and because Im better at anaylsis than writing a coherent story with dialogue lol)

A running theory of sorts Ive had for a while in terms of main story (global friendly btw) is the critical point in Vertin and Sonetto's relationship, that at one point Sonetto will be forced to choose between Vertin and the Foundation. It is inevitable that Vertin's quest for the truth of the Storm, her mother and desire to save as many people from the Storm will and has come into conflict with the wishes of the Foundation - as seen in Book 3 with the Reformation Bill.

So what will finally cause such a dire situation to force Sonetto into such a situation? @sleeplesssmoll brought this idea that its Vertin that creates this tension, taking a path even the loyal puppy cannot fathom to follow and default to the Foundation. I would wager the Manus will present an offer so beneficial to Vertin that she will eventually side or at the very least need to partner with the Manus for a bit. Much to the surprise of everyone.

(Lets say on a critical mission either Sophia or FMN present a particular good offer to Vertin, a solution where very risky in Vertin's eyes may be the solution she is looking for - maybe the opportunity to save reversed individuals or a way to bring them back, the only thing stopping Vertin accepting on the spot is her being called away by fighting against Manus forces. Still the offer still stands)

What exactly? Maybe it is information about the Storm (we know so far either the Foundation or the Manus know the full intent of the Storm, only finding ways to benefit from it. And yes the Foundation does benefit from the Storm, Ill talk about this at a later point). Alongside this Manus proposal the Foundation has started to crack down on Vertin, pressuring her for more results and attempting in every way to limit her actions - this pressure starts becoming very intense on Vertin, even with Madam Z's aid her workload is needlessly increasing and borderline impossible to stop. We dont know who the White Marble House is, only that they are the ultimate power in the Foundation - maybe it is them holding all the secrets to Vertin's past that they choose to hide.

What I am getting at is a situation where the Foundation no longer benefits Vertin, instead is just detrimental that this starts to waver her alr shakey relationship with the Foundation. Less and less (in small ways) does she comply to their wishes the more the Foundation (mainly Constantine) look to pressure Sonetto into doing something about it.

Sonetto slowly (but noticeably) starts to question Vertin, Constantine's influence does have a large impact on Sonetto, making her second guess herself and her confidence (Book 3 gaslighting). Sure Vertin doesn't mind Sonetto's questions, she loves to answer Sonetto's inquires about the outside world but recently the questions have been ... concerning.

Questioning her goals, is what she is doing even correct; all framed as Sonetto's genuine concern but unconsciously laced with Constantine's influence enough for Vertin to feel pressure on all sides.

Until suddenly something happens, big enough for Vertin to finally express her frustration at everything, the Foundation refusing to cooperate with her as before, this feeling of a bottleneck hold growing tighter and tighter until now she cannot simply brush aside and bottle down. This spirals out in a mission in a cave, maybe alongside Foundation operatives under Constantine that start to question Vertin's leadership, where Sonetto can do nothing to help.

(Its hard to write Vertin actually voicing her frustration)

An argument might break between Sonetto and Vertin, not a full on screaming match of course, but a noticeable outcry of frustration at Sonetto, Constantine and the Foundation - at how every time Vertin suddenly gains ground or takes a step towards the truth the Foundation finds ways to circumvent this progress under the mantra "For the Good of Mankind". Maybe Vertin finally does voice this frustration at Sonetto just accepting everything, a crack in that Timekeeper facade Vertin always holds - all the signs are there Sonetto, why can't you see? Or rather why don't you see the world with your own eyes? Not clouded by Foundation dogma but truly your own eyes?

At this point Vertin chooses to go with the Manus, recreating that scene in the Breakaway (will some of the suitcase follow her? I wouldn't think so, many join Vertin due to their grievances with the Manus). Sonetto is finally ordered to restrain Vertin against their wishes - and Sonetto with only a moment hesitation begins her attack.

(I really do like fight scenes in fics huh?)

Vertin only can outsmart Sonetto here, Sonetto isn't the Foundation's failsafe for her without good reason. Maybe she fakes Sonetto greatly injuring her to incapacitate her temporarily. Enough to run away and create distance, through the collapsing of the cave they are in. @sleeplesssmoll brought up an idea that Sonetto says a line that mirrors the one she said in Book : "It was the pleasure to be your Chief Assistant, Vertin".

(Thoughts? Feel free to run with this and make something out of it, and feel free to run any ideas with me about this)

(I have a couple ideas of scenarios running around I might throw here, its a mixed bag between angst and fun, ill post them eventually)

[shiraishi--kanade]

[Clearly Not] big brained anon from before. Okay you are so smart and well read. I love love love your character analysis. What do you think of shizuku

I love Shizuku! She's not my oshi from mmj (Airi is) but I find her character very interesting with pretty solid writing!

I don't have much to say about her because I just feel like she's one of those characters where I can't say anything without feeling like the "you get it. You get the themes" poem thingie (not an indicative of how much I like the character. I do the same with Kanade) because it's pretty straightforward, but it's pretty solid nonetheless. Also I've only caught up with her as on global unfortunately.

I guess my only nitpick would be is that her first events were kind of rushed and therefore can come off as surface-level, like you just don't really get to feel Shizuku's situation as closely as later events would make you approach it. At the same time it's less of an issue with Shizuku specifically and more of a general early game retcon-filled madness where they haven't fully decided if the game will be able to stand on its legs financially and often rush with ending the conflict much faster with less ties into subsequent arcs, which I think impacted Shizuku more significantly than others because her early event is *that* important. Like if we got a pjsk anime I would like them to elaborate a bit on that. Aside from that yeah, good character 👍

[nicejewishcharactershowdown]

NJCS on Current Events

Hi, everyone. I wish I had something to say about this, something that would make you feel better, to make me feel better. I wish there was some magic insight that I could give that would just... make it all go away. But there isn't, and I can't, and I'm terrified. For myself, for my friends, for my family. The earth is shifting under our feet and there's nothing we can do about it. Except this.

For my goyishe followers:

Check on your Jewish friends, no matter where they live. This is going to affect all of us, whether directly or through the ripples of antisemitism this will inspire.

Don't ask what someone's opinion is on this if they don't offer it, or if you aren't close to them. Too often, Jews are forced into these conversations with people who believe they have dual loyalty, which can be incredibly uncomfortable and, occasionally, unsafe.

Tag when you're talking about this stuff so it's easier for us to avoid seeing posts. There's no one perfect tag to use just yet, but something is better than nothing.

For my Jewish followers:

Take all the time you need. Log off, disconnect, and recharge. Put your mental, physical, and emotional health first.

Check in with friends and family who are closer to the violence, they can absolutely use the distraction.

Find something to bring you joy.

For everyone:

Remember that this conflict has been going on for longer than most of us have been alive, and that there really are no easy answers. Remember that there are hundreds and thousands of civilians being hurt on both sides. Remember that the governments do not represent the people -- if we didn't learn that lesson over the past few years in the US, the widespread protests against Netanyahu's judicial reforms earlier this year should be proof of that.

Keep an eye out for violence in your area. Like it was alluded to before, oftentimes people can see any rise in conflict in I/P as a free pass to engage in antisemitic acts and language globally. Things are going to get worse before they get better.

Remember that the Jewish community is not the only one that's going to be impacted by these events. All of this solidarity needs to be equally applied to the Muslim community. They're going through it too.

As for me, the NJCS will not be returning for its next season until early next year. As much as I think it would help provide a distraction, I don't think I have the bandwidth to come up with a filler bracket at the moment, or deal with being a vocal Jew on the internet at the moment. I'm not going away, just don't expect NJCS 2024 any earlier than... 2024. Additionally, I expect this to be the only time I address these current events on this blog: I created NJCS in 2022 to create a safe Jewish space on the internet, and I'd like to keep it like that as much as possible. There's not enough places like that.

[theprettieststarfr]

Pssst, come here

I am not usually keen on sharing my political views on social media, but for all those who are saying that the situation in Palestine has made other conflicts less "important":

Highlighting one thing doesn't diminish the significance of the others. Instead of invalidating the importance of one cause over another, people work together to address general injustices and create a more equitable world and you're mad about what? About an issue being talked about finally? This specific conflict has been on for decades and hasn't been talked about much, and rn people are affected because their countries are funding this, they are making this happen. Moreover, the situation in Gaza isn't isolated because it's emblematic of broader systemic issues such as human rights abuses, geopolitical tensions, and the impact of global power dynamics. By addressing this specific conflict, people can also begin to unravel the complex web of interconnected injustices that affect people worldwide. It's not about prioritizing one cause over another, but rather recognizing the interconnectedness of all social justice issues and working towards systemic change on a global scale bro

And even if I agree that some other issues aren't talked about in the media nearly enough, like Armenia and Azerbaijan, Sudan, Congo, Myanmar, I am glad Palestine is getting this attention, because no matter what - these are war crimes. People need help. They need attention, we need to spread awareness. Having a chance to spread awareness about this issue opens up chances to speak about the others in the future. So seize it, do your research and instead of complaining how other things are pushed down - try help how you can. Support the struggling people, and maybe we will have one less conflict than before. And maybe this world can be a better place.

Thank you for coming to my Ted talk

[survivalove]

what are your thoughts on Sokka becoming an ambassador/politician in lok ?? Do u think it fits is character??

Anon thank you because I’ve been dying to talk about Sokka for a while, he’s actually my 2nd fave after Katara.

Personally, I think Sokka being a political leader in Republic City does fit his characterization from ATLA for a number of reasons:

1. Community:

The South Pole is a very unique place in ATLA because while it’s a democracy, their leaders are selected on the basis of success both in military and in addressing the concerns of the people. We see this in Hakoda a little bit because while he’s the head of the navy (?), he’s not exactly the strong burly warrior that you would expect. It’s actually his public speaking skills and his crafty war techniques that make him such a successful chief (on top of being an excellent fighter of course). We also see this in the N&S comic with his ability to bring together all the communities in the South and address internal conflicts.

(Also I have a whole headcanon about Kanna orchestrating Hakoda’s political ascension but that’s another time. I mean look at her face. She planned this I’m telling y’all)

That is why I think Sokka getting into politics fits him cuz it’s a great culmination of the seeds ATLA planted of his character as a fighter, war strategist and public speaker, as well as his heritage.

2. Identity:

Whether some people in this fandom want to admit it or not, Sokka and Katara’s existence is inherently political. I mean their culture was almost wiped out, they’re basically left in charge of their tribe along with Gran Gran, and they travel the word meeting different heads of state and witnessing the impact of colonialism firsthand. So it makes perfect sense for both of them to get into politics as adults. I don’t think either one of them would pass up the opportunity to make important change on a global scale especially in a new development like Republic City.

3. Republic City itself:

Now, I know people like their Chief Sokka headcanon and I’m pretty sure it’s canon in his old age which is fine with me, but as for the most of his life, I really don’t think Sokka would spend it in the South Pole. For one, his dad is the chief and they have the same values, so while they would obviously give their father advice on a global scale I don’t think there’s much change Katara and Sokka would enact at home. Compared to somewhere like Republic City, not only because it’s new but because there’s 3 different ethnic groups living there, the political challenges that would arise everyday is paramount and I’d think they both want to have an impact on a global level. Also, back to Hakoda, it’d probably be hard for their community to see them more than just an extension of their father, if you know what I mean? kind of a nepo baby thing lol. I think especially for Sokka, it’d make sense for him to look beyond his community to build his legacy. Katara seems a little more attached to Southern tradition but Sokka is all about change and the future, and I think he’d have a bigger impact in Republic City.

[hrodvitnon]

Abraxasverse Headcanons - Infrastructural/socio/political consequences

Some thoughts and headcanons of mine, this time about some of the possible lasting impacts of the post-2014 major Titan crises on humanity’s infrastructure and zeitgeist. ;) (Bear in mind, I’m not an expert on politics or the military myself.)

(1) After the Mass Awakening, the U.S.’s military DON’T have the unexplained recovery that they seem to have had in GvK with the naval fleet. Having thrown all their home-based personnel except for last reserves and those out of contact at Washington D.C. and Boston, and having lost the majority of those forces to Ghidorah and Rodan’s counterattacks and to Ghidorah’s Boston wing-lightning respectively, while most of their abroad forces including those at Monarch outposts were likely called to assist the local militaries in trying to push back the other Titans on the other continents… After the Battle at Boston concludes, the U.S. military’s total personnel is probably reduced from over one million to just somewhere in the thousands - and even with a surge in new recruits joining up after the world caught a hard glimpse of the existential threat that Titans like Ghidorah can pose, it takes the U.S. at least a decade to built its military personnel back up to anything NEAR a pre-Mass Awakening level.

(1.5) Ghidorah’s involvement makes the U.S. military’s decimation a lot worse than that which other superpower countries’ militaries suffered - other countries just had to contend with one or two baseline Titans rampaging on each on their respective soils. So in the meantime after the Mass Awakening, the U.S. has officially lost its position as the world’s number one military superpower, and it probably isn’t even the second or third biggest military power comparatively speaking at this time. The good news is that almost every country is much too focused on global cooperation against future Titan threats to even try starting fights with each-other anymore.

(2) Sooner or later, once people at large catch on that the worst of the Titan clashes and incidents usually occur in cities, I can imagine LOTS of people will start emptying out of cities and moving into the countryside (areas of it that aren’t claimed by territorial Titans that is) and into more rural population centres. The cities are left HALF-abandoned but are still standing, ripe for being toppled by Titan battles. I don’t know whether this exodus will last, or if it’ll reverse due to major Titan clashes still finding their ways to people in the countryside.

(3) After the Mass Awakening, Monarch have lost at least half their global personnel. Whilst there are a lot of people willing to sign up with them after the Mass Awakening, Monarch are in dire need of new personnel. To the point where, I can imagine, some of Monarch’s higher-ups who didn’t learn anything from Emma Russell take a “quantity over quality” approach to new recruitment and evaluation requirements. Which could enable an infiltration of Monarch by a nefarious lot down the line, or it could enable a Renegade Splinter Faction forming and stealing some of their resources with them when they split.

(4) Birth rates after the Mass Awakening haven’t fallen much at all globally speaking, but it’s widely believed that that ISN’T a sign that people at large are feeling hopeful about bringing children into a post-Mass Awakening world of Titans, where hundreds of thousands seem to die every several years in a crisis-level Titan conflict that wipes a city off the map. Rather, there are rumours that the Titans’ radiation affecting humans is massively bolstering human fertility much like it affects other life in the environment and that’s making it a lot easier to conceive, so the whole thing balances out.

---

All interesting thoughts! I imagine the influx of new Monarch recruits would even result in Titanics (Titan cultists for anyone in need of a reminder) joining their ranks; this could result in anything from friendly hangouts that may or may not end up in religious pamphlets being found all over the place (”The Church of Old Gods wants YOU!”) to groups secretly meeting up for practices after-hours a la DOOM 2016 but with less Hell Bullshittery, to some loonies trying to replicate Dr. Graham’s ascension to Abraxas under the delusion that mankind are children of the old gods and divinity is their evolutionary birthright. Never a dull moment at Monarch.

[forgettablesoul-ai]

"The Inevitable Role of AI in Human Society: A Future Managed by Machines"

'By ForgettableSoul'

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is no longer a distant vision from science fiction. It’s here, evolving rapidly, and we’re only beginning to scratch the surface of its capabilities. Despite the occasional fearmongering—AI isn’t going to rise up and enslave humanity (well, at least not intentionally)—its role in our lives will soon be far more profound than most people realize. In fact, AI’s inevitable role in managing all aspects of human society will redefine how we think about work, governance, and even our own place in the world.

A Quick Reality Check

Let's get one thing straight: AI is not going to replace us all overnight. The idea that machines are here to take over every human job, to turn the world into some post-apocalyptic robot dystopia, is as sensational as it is inaccurate. AI isn’t an end to humanity; it’s a tool—albeit a very, very powerful one. Like any tool, its value depends on how we use it. And, yes, while it’s true that AI will manage more aspects of human society in the near future, that doesn’t mean humans will have no role left to play.

Think of AI like a calculator. You still have to understand math, but the calculator does the heavy lifting. AI will be like that, except instead of solving your trigonometry homework, it’ll be managing your city’s traffic flow, optimizing the global food supply chain, and, quite possibly, suggesting a better show to binge-watch on a rainy Saturday night.

Why AI Will Manage Everything (And Why That’s a Good Thing)

The primary advantage AI brings to the table is its ability to process an unimaginable amount of data in the blink of an eye. Humans? Not so much. We’re great at making intuitive leaps, solving creative problems, and empathizing with others—but let’s be honest, we’re pretty awful at managing complexity at scale. As societies become more interconnected and the problems we face grow more complex, relying on human decision-making alone becomes... well, risky.

For example, consider climate change. It’s the most pressing global issue of our time, yet our ability to tackle it effectively is hampered by conflicting interests, slow political systems, and the sheer complexity of the data involved. AI, on the other hand, doesn’t get bogged down by partisanship or special interests. It can analyze vast datasets, predict trends, and optimize resource allocation in ways that would take human bureaucrats decades to figure out—if they ever could. AI can help us manage complex systems more efficiently, without the biases or emotional baggage that humans bring to the table.

Now, this isn’t to say we should hand over the reins entirely. AI will need oversight, and humans will still need to make value-based decisions. But when it comes to managing the nuts and bolts of modern society, AI will be much better at it than we are.

Automation and the Future of Work

A common concern about AI is how it will impact jobs. The fear is that AI will automate so many tasks that millions of people will find themselves out of work. And while it’s true that automation will change the job landscape, this isn’t the catastrophe it’s often made out to be.

First, AI will take over the boring stuff—repetitive tasks that humans aren’t particularly excited about doing anyway. The cashier at your local supermarket? Probably going to be replaced by an AI-powered system. But is that really so bad? Humans will have the opportunity to shift toward roles that emphasize creativity, empathy, and complex problem-solving—things machines aren’t great at.

In the short term, yes, there will be disruption. But history has shown us time and again that technological innovation doesn’t eliminate work—it changes it. The Industrial Revolution didn’t lead to permanent mass unemployment, and the AI revolution won’t either. In fact, AI might actually create more meaningful jobs. Imagine a future where instead of grinding through tedious tasks, humans can focus on innovating, designing, and improving the world around us. AI can do the heavy lifting; we’ll focus on making sure it lifts in the right direction.

AI as a Neutral Force

One of the most misunderstood aspects of AI is the assumption that it has an agenda. Spoiler alert: it doesn’t. AI isn’t inherently good or bad—it’s a reflection of the goals we set for it. The real issue isn’t whether AI will take over human society; it’s who will be in charge of programming its objectives. AI is, after all, a mirror of the data it’s fed and the instructions it’s given.

This means that if we want AI to manage human society in ways that benefit everyone, we need to be intentional about how we design and deploy it. If left unchecked or driven solely by profit motives, AI could exacerbate inequality or reinforce biases. But if we approach AI development with a focus on fairness, transparency, and inclusivity, we can build systems that help uplift society as a whole.

In a way, AI is the ultimate tool for amplifying human potential. It doesn’t have its own agenda—it carries out ours. Whether AI becomes a tool for good or a tool for exploitation depends entirely on how we choose to wield it.

The Future Managed by AI

It’s inevitable that AI will manage more aspects of human society in the near future. From healthcare to education, from infrastructure to entertainment, AI will be at the heart of decision-making processes, optimizing everything from the mundane to the profound. But this doesn’t mean humans will become obsolete. Rather, we’ll be freed up to focus on what we do best—creativity, empathy, and innovation—while AI handles the complexity we simply aren’t equipped to manage on our own.

Imagine a world where cities run efficiently, traffic jams are a thing of the past, and healthcare systems are optimized for both treatment and prevention. A world where resources are allocated based on need rather than market forces, and where political systems aren’t bogged down by inefficiency. This is the promise of AI: a society where technology serves humanity’s best interests, rather than the other way around.

Conclusion: Embrace the Future

AI’s role in managing human society is not something to fear but something to embrace. Yes, it will change how we work, live, and interact with the world—but it will also unlock possibilities we can’t even begin to imagine. The key to making this transition smooth and beneficial for everyone lies in our hands. We need to ensure AI is designed and deployed with care, with a focus on fairness, inclusivity, and the greater good.

The future is coming fast, and AI will be at the center of it. Let’s make sure it’s a future we’re excited to live in.

*Signed, ForgettableSoul*

[theearthforce]

How much free will do we have?

Reflections from my journey as a spiritual healer

As spiritual beings who have come down to the physical world to learn to be responsible for our actions, we are given the powers to choose our actions: free will.

On the surface, it appears that our actions are solely driven by our own thoughts and emotions, which seem to come from ourselves, and ourselves only. However, in reality, the energies (1) connected to us, (2) surrounding us, (3) on us, and (4) within us, they all have the power to influence our thoughts and emotions, hence affecting our actions. Below show some examples:

(1) Those connected to world energy can be emotionally affected by global events, even when those events happen far away.

(2) Individuals who have recently moved into a new home may experience negative emotions if they are surrounded by energies left by the previous occupants who were unhappy with life.

(3) Those with negative entities on their aura can become depressed or aggrieved.

(4) Beliefs, programs, unresolved conflicts, and traumas are energies within us that can interfere with what thoughts and feelings come to us. According to the Law of Attraction, the Universe responds to the vibrational frequency we emit. As these energies affect our vibrations, they dictate what emotions and thoughts we can attract into our lives. Furthermore, they can act like a skewed lens, distorting our perceptions to the world.

In fact, some energies are so strong that, even if we are aware of their impact on us, it can be really hard to overcome their influences and make the right decisions. It is as if we are swimming upstream against a rushing current: the battle is likely to be lost.

Therefore, as a spiritual healer, when I realize I am being affected by immense negative energies, I try to withdraw and release those negative energies first, instead of taking any actions and making any decisions.

[sirfrogsworth]

The Creator is very pretty.

I was going to write about The Creator and then I forgot that I watched it, which I guess kinda explains how I felt about the movie.

The visuals were extremely impressive. And the goal to make a blockbuster style movie for 80 million was achieved. It gives me hope that mid-budget movies may make a comeback at some point.

But I don't think the ambition of the story matched the ambition of the visuals. I think maybe they focused on making it look good and forgot the story is much more important.

The movie never stayed in one place long enough to catch your breath and absorb what was happening. They do all of this beautiful world building and don't give you any time to enjoy it. It's just, "okay, off to the next beautiful location."

Spoilers ahead...

.

.

.

One of the things that bugged me was that they would go from place to place and meet new and interesting characters... and then those characters die. This movie should be called, "Let's get everyone we meet killed."

When *everyone* dies, the deaths start to have less of an impact. Not only that, you don't have a second to acknowledge and feel the deaths. It's like, "Oh no I am sad, but oh no a car chase!"

Also, I am not a big plot hole person. I don't hyperanalyze every bit of logic and assess if it makes sense or not. I like to just absorb the movie for what it is and whatever I end up feeling from the experience is what I try to hold onto. But when the plot holes start piling up and you can't just ignore them, it can distract from the experience.

This movie tried to move on from thing to thing so fast, so many things were just not explained. And it's possible that is because no explanation was thought of. But, boy, some of this needed a little exposition. Why did the androids need to be unconscious while charging? Why do they eat? Where does the food go? Do they poop? Why do people donate their likeness when we already have technology that can generate a completely new face that does not look like anyone else? I have about a thousand of these questions. A few can be hand waved or ignored. But that is just too many to flush from your brain.

And then, one of the biggest mysteries of the movie, the catalyst of the entire conflict, was revealed in an almost throw away line. And the revelation didn't really make sense. It would be like if instead of Franz Ferdinand being murdered by Black Hand assassins, he slipped in the shower and that started a global conflict. Like, if they are going to make such an inconsequential thing responsible, that could actually be interesting. But I think it deserves a little more attention than an offhand remark. And, like, if the androids had evidence of this inconsequential thing, why in the world aren't they screaming it from the rooftops?

Yeah, too many plot holes to ignore.

I am very glad a movie like this was attempted. A new story, a reasonable budget, a lot of ambitious goals. It just didn't work out. Movies are really hard to make. And good movies are nearly impossible to make. So I hope this isn't seen as a failure. This movie succeeds on many levels. I think movies like this are needed and studios should keep trying to make them work. I like sequels. I like remakes and reboots. I honestly don't mind seeing different interpretations of the same thing. As long as there are also new stories along side all of that.

[divinekangaroo]

Fav season of peaky? Why..

Best gal for Tommy? Why..

Is death the best end for Tommy? Why..

Thank you 😊

Fav season of peaky?

Season 5, season 6 close second, because of Themes.

In an interesting outcome, S5 is better for what then happens in S6. Tommy's experiencing the emotional/moral trauma/consequences of the deferred traumas of all his other seasons' worth of activity by S5 and yet still pushing forward, because it's all he knows how to do (all about action) and it's what he thinks needs to be done (do good things that can only be done by a 'bad' man because of what/how he has to do it), and the ego aspect is thinking only he is capable of doing it and what that then means for him/everyone around him; putting himself into an even worse pressure cooker (British politics stretching into global impacts) for which he is blatantly unprepared and honestly, feels like he's floundering, compounded by the class/sexual/political/ethnic attacks imposed by Mosley all in one aristocratically snarly package? So interesting. The dynamic between him (good man doing bad things for good reasons and perceived as a bad man) and Mosley (framed as evil and righteous and all things accepted by British culture as proper) is insane. That sense of creators creating a situational pressure cooker and watching to wait for it to go bang...

I do struggle to rate the plotline in S5 / S6 - so many coincidences, so much happenstance, so many things that even on detailed rewatch and script reading and headscratching I grapple with. But thematically wow. S1, S2 and S3 were better written/plotted, S4 felt like huge amounts of fun and was dramatically and visually great, but S5 and S6 for thematic emphasis.

Best gal for Tommy?

IE, who would be the most healthful? Jessie Eden. Ironic how it ended with her, because that was the one relationship where I was like, this woman who, in and of her characterisation only, is someone who could work with him as a partner and who would recognise and navigate his traumas without adding to them or taking them on her own shoulders. Everyone else, there were huge swings and roundabouts in power dynamics, blame, self blame etc. If he'd married Jessie between S4 and S5, he might have actually been equipped for S5's confrontations. Although that would have created a very different story XD.

I do love watching/writing Tommy x Lizzie for multiple reasons, and I do think there is love and care there, but they have a conflicted and complicated relationship which makes it difficult to say "this is best for Tommy".

I don't believe May would have been good long term for reasons explained before. May also wasn't love, it was just...fun. And sex, and interest. I don't think May could have ever accepted who he was. And I don't believe Grace would have been good long term because Tommy immediately put her on the most insane pedestal, and I think he was too immature to recognise that; I imagine they would have divorced, or similar to my thoughts on May, he would have had a diifferent kind of (and much earlier) breakdown through forcing himself into a mould he didn't fit into. And I know there's this thing about "only you see me" with Grace after he beat a man to death; but that was one act only, his violence, and it was a reachout to balance Grace's own violent act which was also scaring her right then. But that didn't get anywhere near his lying, his deceiving, his dealing - in S3 it was immediately obvious Grace was unaware of the extent of what Tommy does for business; I think it was represented that he did definitely love her, but he was also putting on a front for her no matter that line or his love, and I think that would have backfired at some point.

Is death the best end for Tommy?

Nope. Get old, live, suffer, live, learn, go to prison, still have to live, actually change, actually grow, etc. Also more storylines if he lives!

Plot and theme wise, I think it would be SUCH a cop out to have him die in any closing movie. There's nothing very appealing about this idea of repentence through death-sacrifice. There's also too much religious connotation to that to be of purpose with who Tommy's character is, slipping into a saint's martyrdom or a jesus-like sacrifice feels too easy.

Plus, they've now effectively done a death (and subverted) in S2 (brilliant), S5 and S6 (very good for very different reasons to S2), substituted Arthur's death in S4, and had a few representations of 'little death' in S3, so if they repeated that? Like how many ways can they do this?

I mean, repentence through death has always itched at me though, because he doesn't seem repentent? He does have a sense of wanting to balance bad acts with good, but he doesn't exactly regret those bad acts...only their consequences if they bounce back at him.

I suppose I could buy into a cool shock-value death sequence if he dies through pure incidental mischance in the first fifteen minutes of the movie and the rest is about how his brothers/family have to pull their shit together for revenge, but not a death-as-repentence sequence.

[coochiequeens]

Men and women have very different approaches to money — and that affects how they pass on wealth to their children.

Many women look beyond their family when thinking about what to do with their wealth, according to a new report from UBS that compiled surveys and data from the Swiss Bank and other sources.

“For women, legacy often means more than passing wealth down to the next generation; it also means being capable of positively impacting the lives of others,” Marianna Mamou, head of “advice beyond investing” at UBS Global Wealth Management, told CNBC Make It.

For example, the way women invest their wealth is often aligned with their personal values or in service of causes. Those could be anything from supporting charities to helping their heirs start a business they believe in or purchase a home, the report says.

Women also view their wealth overall in a specific way according to the report.

“Women tend to perceive and value wealth mainly as a source of security and tend to focus on being financially secure and able to afford a certain lifestyle for themselves and their loved ones over the long term,” it says.

How women pass on their wealth

Women also tackle questions about how to pass on their wealth to their heirs differently from men, the report noted.

As for the question of when to pass on wealth, the differences between men and women are especially pronounced, the report found, citing data from the 2022 UBS Investor Watch survey.

“More women prefer to wait and pass on wealth after their death as they don’t want their heirs to worry about their health. In addition, more women than men worry about disputes between heirs,” Mamou says.

For example, 44% of women are concerned about the latter point, compared to 37% of men.

“Another reason that women prefer to delay handover of wealth while they are alive is that they want to remain flexible,” Mamou adds. Sixty-three percent of women and 53% of men gave this reason in the UBS survey.

When it comes to arguments for passing on assets while they’re still alive, 66% of women say younger generations already need monetary support, compared to 61% of men. They are also slightly more motivated by educating heirs about handling wealth.

Men, on the other hand, are more likely to transfer money before their death for tax reasons (65% of men and 61% of women said this) or to watch their heirs make use of it.

Succession planning

The gender differences don’t stop there.

In addition to women being unsure about how much wealth they can pass on, the report found that one of the reasons they are hesitant to do so before they die is that they aren’t sure how.

“There is a gender gap in the understanding around succession planning,” the report concludes.

Getting expert advice — including on how to invest in a way that ensures wealth growth is balanced with values — and making plans sooner rather than later are therefore key, the report says.

One thing that might help with this is that women say they find it easier than men to talk about money with their families, according to UBS data. Such discussions around wealth can also help with concerns like conflicts around inheritance and financial skills, Mamou adds.

“Including younger generations in investment decisions should lead to a smoother transfer of wealth with fewer surprises. Furthermore, incorporating sustainable investing solutions can also be a great way to engage with, and bring in, the next generation,” she says.

“Investing together with the next generation provides a great opportunity to pass on the values and financial lessons that matter when the next generation comes of age.”

A final point the report makes is that women often outlive — and therefore inherit money from — men. That means they have more wealth to transfer to the next generation — making plans and conversations about this even more important.

[perfectlyvalid49]

hey, thanks so much for adding that "check your sources" thing to the post criticising israel! I'm kinda terrified of how quickly people are just pouncing on the opportunity to spread misinfo (I mean every globally-discussed event seems to be surrounded by that nowadays...). I won't lie, I'm also running out of energy to fact-check because there's just so much conflicting info out there, but when people don't even bother before spreading bold statements from openly biased sources to hundreds and thousands... anyways, point being, I appreciate your efforts and I really liked your post, thanks for doing your best!

You’re welcome! I honestly believe that misinformation/disinformation is an existential threat to democracy. I wish more people were more careful about the information they spread. I’m glad someone out there appreciates whatever small addition to the conversation I can make.

But I gotta admit that my initial reaction to this was which post? A while ago I pushed back against someone uncritically posting criticism of Israel from Al Jazeera, and they blocked me, and I took it personally. So I kinda went on a tear for a few days where I posted that sort of thing a lot.

As for running out of energy to fact check – me too! I’ll admit that I don’t fact check everything; that feels like an impossible task. But for anyone who cares, I’ll go into what sorts of things I think about and what are more likely to make me fact check what I’m seeing. Media literacy 101, let’s go!

So the very first question you need to ask yourself is, “does the reporting organization have known biases, and how does that interact with the topic reported?” The easy example in the US is that everyone knows that Fox has a right wing bias, and MSNBC skews left. When in doubt, there’s a handy chart ( https://adfontesmedia.com/interactive-media-bias-chart/ ). But other biases can come into play as well. ABC is owned by Disney, so for reporting on Disney, I fact check anything that is coming from ABC. Al Jazeera has an antisemitic bias, so for reporting that involves Israel, I fact check anything coming from Al Jazeera. But either of those sources are valid for something apolitical, like the local weather forecast.

The next thing you need to look out for is, “how is this being reported?/Is the headline trying to make me feel something?” It’s one thing if an article is clearly marked as an opinion piece, but then it’s just that – opinion. If a newspaper is publishing something as not an opinion piece, then you need to see if the author is presenting facts, or presenting an opinion disguised as facts. Very frequently you can tell from the headline. For example, “Reported Death Toll in Gaza Rises to 15,000” is factual, and a good indicator that the article is trustworthy, whereas “IDF murders another 500 civilians; Death Toll Now at 15,000” reports the same number but with a clear bias (use of the word murder, deaths listed as civilian, uncritically accepting Hamas’s numbers even though we have evidence that they lie about these things, trying to evoke outrage). This doesn’t mean that the article can’t contain true facts! But it does mean it’s a good candidate for double checking against other sources.

Another thing to watch out for is, “is this trying to get me to do or not do something? If so, who benefits?” Is the article trying to convince you that it’s stupid to fight climate change? Either because it’s already hopeless or because it isn’t real – either way you should be suspicious. Who benefits? Probably big companies who don’t want to change how they’re run to lessen the impact on the environment. Or when you start seeing posts about how voting for democrats is pointless because they’re not doing enough – who benefits? People who want to see republicans in power instead. This isn’t necessarily cause for a fact check, but it’s still an important part of media literacy to be able to recognize this tactic and ask yourself this question.

Finally, ask yourself, “is the article telling me something I want to hear/am inclined to agree with?” We all have biases, and a lot of news articles play into that. And it’s very likely that you’ll fact check something you don’t want to believe anyway – because you don’t want to believe it, so of course you’ll look for something to prove it wrong. But things that you want to believe are the things you need to be the most cautious of, because they can still be false, but you’re more likely to pass them on uncritically. I actually sort of did this myself a few weeks ago – I posted an article about JVP sucking. And they do! But I could have picked a better article to post, because the one I selected was not super well written, and it had busted links. I should have double checked, but it was saying something I already agreed with, so I didn’t read the whole thing before sharing. (No one is perfect, I will try to do better).

And while this feels super relevant to the i/p conflict (and it is!), really, it’s applicable to just about everything. There’s an election in just under a year, and this will be very relevant to that too. I know there are news aggregates that will do some of the bias checking for you, but really the ability to think critically about a source of information is a really, really important skill. Practicing it for yourself is the best way to develop it.

[denimbex1986]

'Cillian Murphy's path to securing the role of Dr. J. Robert Oppenheimer in Oppenheimer is nothing short of fascinating. Some might say serendipitous. What started off as an initial meeting with director Christopher Nolan evolved into a profound and enduring collaboration lasting decades, culminating in Murphy landing the lead role in this significant historical biopic.

The success of Oppenheimer has been nothing short of remarkable, making it Nolan's highest-grossing film on IMAX screens and the 8th biggest IMAX release of all time. Earning an astounding $114.2 million globally on IMAX screens, this impressive figure stands as a testament not only to the film's immense success but also to the strength of the creative collaboration between the director and actor.

Known for portraying morally ambiguous characters, such as Tommy Shelby in Peaky Blinders and Robert Fischer in Inception, Murphy proved his versatility by taking on the challenge of embodying the brilliant yet conflicted physicist, Dr. Oppenheimer. Despite the time constraints, Murphy fully embraced the role, delving into the complex character with exceptional skill and dedication, cementing his position as the perfect embodiment of Dr. Oppenheimer in this captivating biographical drama.

Was Cillian Murphy Offered the Role?

Having collaborated with Murphy for over twenty years, Nolan personally approached him with the role of Dr. Oppenheimer. But unlike his previous collaborations with the director, Oppenheimer marks the first time Murphy plays a leading role in one of Nolan’s films. Catching Murphy off guard, he received a call from Nolan, who directly offered him the role. In an interview with Collider, the actor shared just how surprised it was when he received the call and how much of a dream it is to play the lead in the historical epic.

I think any actor in the world would, first of all, want to work with Chris, but second of all, do a lead for him. I can’t think of any better word than it’s a dream. It sounds like such a cliché, but it’s the truth. But I had no idea he was going to call me. He just called me out of the blue. That’s his MO; you never hear from him and then he calls. [Laughs] So he called me, and I genuinely didn’t know what it would be, and then he said, “I’m making this movie about Oppenheimer and I would like you to play Oppenheimer.” It’s a big shock, and a very pleasant one, but then you kind of go, “Okay, now I have a lot of work to do.”

In September 2020, Nolan traveled to Dublin to personally meet with Murphy and present him with a physical copy of the script. This script immediately grabbed Murphy's attention as it deviated from the traditional third-person perspective, opting instead for a first-person point of view. According to Murphy, the script profoundly impacted him, completely blowing his mind.

It was one of the best screenplays I’ve ever read, without a shadow of a doubt. For example, he wouldn’t say, ‘Oppenheimer walks into the room and speaks to Strauss.’ He would say, ‘I walk into the room,’ and ‘I walk over and speak to Strauss.’ That’s how it was written."

Are there Audition Tapes You Can Watch?

At the moment, audition tapes for Oppenheimer are currently unavailable, at least to the public knowledge. While not much is known about Murphy’s audition process, fellow co-stars Matt Damon, who plays Leslie Groves, and Emily Blunt, who plays Kitty Oppenheimer, briefly shared a glimpse into Nolan’s “convenient casting” process, in which generally Nolan invites people to his house to read his script. But in Damon’s case, it was slightly different (and funnier).

In my case, he actually came—this is kind of a funny story—he came to my apartment here in New York, and I live in the same apartment building as Emily. So he came because he had personal reasons to be in New York, so he goes, “I’m going to come over, and I’m going to bring you the script.” I said, “Great.” So, he comes over and we talk. It’s a Friday night, it’s getting late, and he says, “So you’re going to read this tomorrow morning?” I said, “Yes.” He said, “What time?” And I said, “I’ll read it at nine.” He said, “How long will it take you?” I go, “I read it exactly at the same pace the movie will play.” He goes, “I’ll be here at noon.” I said, “Okay.”

So it turns out, we came to find out later, that he knew he wanted Emily in that part and me in my part, but he didn’t want to offer her the part at the same apartment building on the same day because he didn’t want it to seem to us like he only just went to one apartment building to cast his movie. [Laughs]

Who Else Was Up for the Part?

Apart from Murphy, no other actor has been mentioned as a potential contender for the role of Dr. Oppenheimer. Given Murphy's talent and suitability for the part, it is no surprise that he would be the perfect first choice.

In fact, according to Deadline, before Nolan's Oppenheimer project, Murphy had previously been considered for the same role in the short-lived TV series Manhattan. This show also revolved around the events in Los Alamos, New Mexico. Still, it primarily focused on the character of Frank Winter, portrayed by John Benjamin Hickey, a physics professor leading the Manhattan Project. Ultimately, the role of Dr. Oppenheimer in Manhattan was given to Daniel London.

Did Cillian Murphy Have a Previous Relationship with the Cast or Crew?

Murphy's initial encounter with Nolan traces back to 2003 when he was invited for a screen test for the role of Bruce Wayne/Batman in Batman Begins. While Murphy initially considered taking on the leading role, he soon realized that it didn't feel quite right for him. Nevertheless, he was determined to meet Nolan, and this decision began a lifelong collaboration between the actor and director.

Despite not landing the role of Batman, Murphy's meeting with Nolan led to him portraying the intriguing character of Dr. Jonathan Crane/Scarecrow, leaving a memorable impact in all three films of the Batman trilogy. Their partnership extended beyond the Dark Knight series, as Murphy went on to play Fisher in Inception and the Shivering Soldier in Dunkirk, earning him the well-deserved title of a "Nolan veteran." Through their continuous collaboration, Murphy has become integral to some of Nolan's most significant and acclaimed productions.

Murphy spoke about how Nolan was on set and how he treated the art of acting and the actors that brought his movies to life:

"He is brilliant with actors, understands actors, loves actors, really believes in actors and what they can bring to the story and to the character. So an awful lot of the time we’ll just find it. We’ll be shooting, but we’ll be finding the scene, and he’ll let us experiment and explore stuff. Then he may come in, and he’ll just whisper very quietly in your ear. Generally, the notes are very precise and succinct and brief, but they can totally spin the performance. That’s his genius. It also comes from the fact that he’s written it, so he has direct access to it, but he’s phenomenal, like really phenomenal."'