#erase all data

[jennilah]

the day isn’t even halfway over and i’m already

[shocked-collar]

all this to say, i have to say goodbye to my children

goodbye children

(chibis below the cut in case u dont want them spoiled for u....)

my poor famly

[fooligandan]

Tee Hee :) let's go

[unprotectedmechs]

i need someone to slowly and methodically delete every individual file from my hard drive until i’m a mindless husk of a machine, incapable of processing information

[valorxdrive]

HC; Sacred Ground.

A land untouched by countless, blanketed by reality, yet only those who hold the great Permission will ever traverse upon the Hidden Sky.

A land where a singular unchosen by the modern term, managed to traverse, keyblade in hand in order to forge those connections that many thought were impossible. Rifts, gates, a Heart that is resolute will be able to find those paths most discrete.

For if the Darkness can hold an all consuming grasp in where to spawn, isn't it natural that it's counterpart; the Light, is also capable of such possibilities?

Now for this HC, I want to take a more profound dive into this location. A place that's only received so much time, yet, it holds a mythical appeal considering the times and the people who conjured it. By the Kingdom Key's light and the No Name's Darkness, they've carved paths through that space only touched by Keyblade wielders, allowing for this land laced with a golden sky to be revealed.

In this matter, I believe this offers another shine of attention to these respective blades and their wielders. (The MoM and Sora respectively.) Now while we haven't seen the MoM come to utilize the weapon himself, whatever Xehanort can conjure with the No Name's potential, in my head, there's not a doubt in my mind that it's an offshoot of the MoM's abilities.

The only difference being is how this power found itself manifested from Xehanort's end only once Kingdom Hearts descends, (And the X-Blade is within his original's hand), allowing for access to all ends of the KH mythos.

Now for Sora's perspective, we've come to see how it's the utilization of both the Kingdom Key and the crown insignia that serves as the conduits, moreso like he just holds that central access. I want to keep a note on this, as I'd like to see how Nomura want to utilize this fashion of the Crowns 'and I'm assuming it'll play in that seven crowns narrative in UX.) Will this be an idea of how to fashion the X-Blade's potential abilities without needing the almighty armament itself?

Since from how I perceive that sacred ground, I'm assuming it's similar to the Dark realm and it's timeless nature. Finding these hidden ways to traverse the realms, to match another either in access, or to be able to throw themselves entirely out of public view looking to be the goal.

As it stands, the Sora does have regular access to this ability, the catch looks to be that an appropriate conduit (for ex: Kairi's heart, the Hollow Bastion committee pass) are the appropriate price.

Seeing how we're getting these 'Sky Realm' locales like The Finale World, and how the Golden Sky is another (and one that's been around longer), part of me wonders if the 'One Sky' motif will play into this.

[kvaradonaa]

thoughts on the pairing of mourinho and abramovich?

Uhh, I was afraid to answer this question at first, but then I remembered I am followed by only hot and intelligent people who don't need to be shown a huge ass "THIS IS BAD" sign to understand that something is, in fact, bad. In that case, I might as well answer.

(But if I get another anon in my ask box telling me "this ship is russian propaganda", I am blocking. You are seriously insulting me by insinuating that I could ever commit what's a criminal offence according to my country's law by spreading such statements. You might find whatever I write distasteful, unnecessary or insensitive as you please, but don't come making ridiculous accusations on me.)

Either way, back to the RPF thing. I think they make up for a really interesting dynamics. See, Jose was probably easily the only person built to survive in Chelsea of that era. Remember when Scolari said that whoever agreed to coach Chelsea, would go through hell? But Jose seems built to survive all the intimidation tactics like arriving at the training centre in a fucking helicopter to scold the staff (really!). He clearly knew there was no other like him, he tolerated bullshit from no one and damn, does he breathe drama 😂. I could see some weird tension going on, not gonna lie. Mourinho was probably the only person who spoke like that to Abramovich ever since that fucking loans-for-shares deal that made him filthy rich and equally influential. But Jose was just, not built to care. He was the special one and he was here to do his job his fucking way. I can imagine a mixture of anger and fascination coming from someone like Abramovich there.

And obviously, as a resident Sheva fucker, I gotta insert him in this story. Maybe even more than him. I had thoughts before about the weird tangled web of dynamics between Chelsea's two strikers, the coach and the club owner. Media tried to antagonise Sheva and Drogba. Well, from Sheva's side, he was kind of an asshole and difficult to work with. Even if the issue on that line was overblown, Sheva did actually see Drogba getting mercilessly bullied by fans, went out and said basically "Well, I don't dive. Never did and never will. And I know that English fans don't like it!" Yeah, shut up 😂. Mourinho obviously wanted Drogba in the club very much, he loved him as a player and as a person. On the other hand, he never asked for Sheva in the team. I can imagine Sheva, the star striker, the Ballon d'Or winner, the attention whore, taking it really badly. Weird jealous antics. Well, he did cry to other people about Mourinho "mistreating him", even if he was himself claiming that everything was fine. A list of people who accidentally outed him with this include Kakha Kaladze and tennis player Andriy Medvedev.

How does it all matter to the dynamics between Mourinho and Abramovich? Well, it later on became really clear that not only Sheva's transfer was entirely Abramovich's idea, but they were also friends, privately. When still playing for Chelsea, Sheva pretended that there was no personal relationship between them, but afterwards, it pretty much became widely known. Sheva was often blamed for Mourinho getting the sacked, but apparently, a couple of days before, it was John Terry who went to talk with the boss. So, who knows... But, Abramovich did want to hire Avram Grant as Sheva's personal coach initially, and Mourinho refused to accept it. Later, Grant went on to coach the team. Damn, that's some level of drama only Chelsea could provide 😭.

Another Sheva related antics, regarding Jose and Roman Abramovich? One time, Abramovich went into the locker room after Mourinho had left, and started giving his own instructions, contradictory to Mourinho's. He spoke in Russian, as he always did in those situations. I honestly think it was a part of intimidation tactics too. Once I knew someone who spoke one language with her ex boyfriend (his native, hers third), but when she broke up, she did so in English so that "he didn't have an upper hand". Speaking your native language does give you more power in expressing self. Not to mention that listening to him yell in a foreign language, then waiting for the translation, added some extra stress for everyone involved (John Obi Mikel once described the experience as such basically). But, oh no, this time he didn't hire an actual interpreter. He had Sheva translate his instructions, making the gap between Sheva and his teammates even bigger, putting him in the opposite position of theirs. Sheva, who surely did not speak English much better (perhaps even worse) than him. I can imagine Mourinho completely losing it as such disregard for his job and such disruption of the team dynamics.

But, well, in the end, Mourinho did get hired again. And won them trophies again. Perhaps he really was the right fit for Chelsea.

[rouge-the-bat]

people are being so very normal in the sonic fandom again

[flash-from-the-past]

Glassez!

[opens-up-4-nobody]

...

[aardvaark]

i had a terrible day but strangely i’m mentally feeling pretty good. what’s that about

[relto]

gotta love that all the php docs you can find tell you that calling oci_new_descriptor will let you create an empty lob object, which keeps failing, and then i find a random bug report from 2006 about this exact thing not working and it turns out this function does in fact NOT create a valid lob object.

[curlicuecal]

playing science telephone

Hi folks. Let's play a fun game today called "unravelling bad science communication back to its source."

Journey with me.

Saw a comment going around on a tumblr thread that "sometimes the life expectancy of autism is cited in the 30s"

That number seemed..... strange. The commenter DID go on to say that that was "situational on people being awful and not… anything autism actually does", but you know what? Still a strange number. I feel compelled to fact check.

Quick Google "autism life expectancy" pulls up quite a few websites bandying around the number 39. Which is ~technically~ within the 30s, but already higher than the tumblr factoid would suggest. But, guess what. This number still sounds strange to me.

Most of the websites presenting this factoid present themselves as official autism resources and organizations (for parents, etc), and most of them vaguely wave towards "studies."

Ex: "Above And Beyond Therapy" has a whole article on "Does Autism Affect Life Expectancy" and states:

The link implies that it will take you to the "research studies" being referenced, but it in fact takes you to another random autism resource group called.... Songbird Care?

And on that website we find the factoid again:

Ooh, look. Now they've added the word "some". The average lifespan for SOME autistic people. Which the next group erased from the fact. The message shifts further.

And we have slightly more information about the study! (Which has also shifted from "studies" to a singular "study"). And we have another link!

Wonderfully, this link actually takes us to the actual peer-reviewed 2020 study being discussed. [x]

And here, just by reading the abstract, we find the most important information of all.

This study followed a cohort of adolescent and adult autistic people across a 20 year time period. Within that time period, 6.4% of the cohort died. Within that 6.4%, the average age of death was 39 years.

So this number is VERY MUCH not the average age of death for autistic people, or even the average age of death for the cohort of autistic people in that study. It is the average age of death IF you died young and within the 20 year period of the study (n=26), and also we don't even know the average starting age of participants without digging into earlier papers, except that it was 10 or older. (If you're curious, the researchers in the study suggested reduced self-sufficiency to be among the biggest risk factors for the early mortality group.)

But the number in the study has been removed from it's context, gradually modified and spread around the web, and modified some more, until it is pretty much a nonsense number that everyone is citing from everyone else.

There ARE two other numbers that pop up semi-frequently:

One cites the life expectancy at 58. I will leave finding the context for that number as an exercise for the audience, since none of the places I saw it gave a direct citation for where they were getting it.

And then, probably the best and most relevant number floating around out there (and the least frequently cited) draws from a 2023 study of over 17,000 UK people with an autism diagnosis, across 30 years. [x] This study estimated life expectancies between 70 and 77 years, varying with sex and presence/absence of a learning disability. (As compared to the UK 80-83 average for the population as a whole.)

This is a set of numbers that makes way more sense and is backed by way better data, but isn't quite as snappy a soundbite to pass around the internet. I'm gonna pass it around anyway, because I feel bad about how many scared internet people I stumbled across while doing this search.

People on quora like "I'm autistic, can I live past 38"-- honey, YES. omg.

---

tl;dr, when someone gives you a number out of context, consider that the context is probably important

also, make an amateur fact checker's life easier and CITE YOUR SOURCES

[sophiamcdougall]

You're a reasonably informed person on the internet. You've experienced things like no longer being able to get files off an old storage device, media you've downloaded suddenly going poof, sites and forums with troves full of people's thoughts and ideas vanishing forever. You've heard of cybercrime. You've read articles about lost media. You have at least a basic understanding that digital data is vulnerable, is what I'm saying. I'm guessing that you're also aware that history is, you know... important? And that it's an ongoing study, requiring ... data about how people live? And that it's not just about stanning celebrities that happen to be dead? Congratulations, you are significantly better-informed than the British government! So they're currently like "Oh hai can we destroy all these historical documents pls? To save money? Because we'll digitise them first so it's fine! That'll be easy, cheap and reliable -- right? These wills from the 1850s will totally be fine for another 170 years as a PNG or whatever, yeah? We didn't need to do an impact assesment about this because it's clearly win-win! We'd keep the physical wills of Famous People™ though because Famous People™ actually matter, unlike you plebs. We don't think there are any equalities implications about this, either! Also the only examples of Famous People™ we can think of are all white and rich, only one is a woman and she got famous because of the guy she married. Kisses!"

Yes, this is the same Government that's like "Oh no removing a statue of slave trader is erasing history :(" You have, however, until 23 February 2024 to politely inquire of them what the fuck they are smoking. And they will have to publish a summary of the responses they receive. And it will look kind of bad if the feedback is well-argued, informative and overwhelmingly negative and they go ahead and do it anyway. I currently edit documents including responses to consultations like (but significantly less insane) than this one. Responses do actually matter. I would particularly encourage British people/people based in the UK to do this, but as far as I can see it doesn't say you have to be either. If you are, say, a historian or an archivist, or someone who specialises in digital data do say so and draw on your expertise in your answers. This isn't a question of filling out a form. You have to manually compose an email answering the 12 questions in the consultation paper at the link above. I'll put my own answers under the fold. Note -- I never know if I'm being too rude in these sorts of things. You probably shouldn't be ruder than I have been.

Please do not copy and paste any of this: that would defeat the purpose. This isn't a petition, they need to see a range of individual responses. But it may give you a jumping-off point.

Question 1: Should the current law providing for the inspection of wills be preserved?

Yes. Our ability to understand our shared past is a fundamental aspect of our heritage. It is not possible for any authority to know in advance what future insights they are supporting or impeding by their treatment of material evidence. Safeguarding the historical record for future generations should be considered an extremely important duty.

Question 2: Are there any reforms you would suggest to the current law enabling wills to be inspected?

No.

Question 3: Are there any reasons why the High Court should store original paper will documents on a permanent basis, as opposed to just retaining a digitised copy of that material?

Yes. I am amazed that the recent cyber attack on the British Library, which has effectively paralysed it completely, not been sufficient to answer this question for you.  I also refer you to the fate of the Domesday Project. Digital storage is useful and can help more people access information; however, it is also inherently fragile. Malice, accident, or eventual inevitable obsolescence not merely might occur, but absolutely should be expected. It is ludicrously naive and reflects a truly unpardonable ignorance to assume that information preserved only in digital form is somehow inviolable and safe, or that a physical document once digitised, never need be digitised again..At absolute minimum, it should be understood as certain that at least some of any digital-only archive will eventually be permanently lost. It is not remotely implausible that all of it would be. Preserving the physical documents provides a crucial failsafe. It also allows any errors in reproduction -- also inevitable-- to be, eventually, seen and corrected. Note that maintaining, upgrading and replacing digital infrastructure is not free, easy or reliable. Over the long term, risks to the data concerned can only accumulate.

"Unlike the methods for preserving analog documents that have been honed over millennia, there is no deep precedence to look to regarding the management of digital records. As such, the processing, long-term storage, and distribution potential of archival digital data are highly unresolved issues. [..] the more digital data is migrated, translated, and re-compressed into new formats, the more room there is for information to be lost, be it at the microbit-level of preservation. Any failure to contend with the instability of digital storage mediums, hardware obsolescence, and software obsolescence thus meets a terminal end—the definitive loss of information. The common belief that digital data is safe so long as it is backed up according to the 3-2-1 rule (3 copies on 2 different formats with 1 copy saved off site) belies the fact that it is fundamentally unclear how long digital information can or will remain intact. What is certain is that its unique vulnerabilities do become more pertinent with age."  -- James Boyda, On Loss in the 21st Century: Digital Decay and the Archive, Introduction.

Question 4: Do you agree that after a certain time original paper documents (from 1858 onwards) may be destroyed (other than for famous individuals)? Are there any alternatives, involving the public or private sector, you can suggest to their being destroyed?

Absolutely not. And I would have hoped we were past the "great man" theory of history. Firstly, you do not know which figures will still be considered "famous" in the future and which currently obscure individuals may deserve and eventually receive greater attention. I note that of the three figures you mention here as notable enough to have their wills preserved, all are white, the majority are male (the one woman having achieved fame through marriage) and all were wealthy at the time of their death. Any such approach will certainly cull evidence of the lives of women, people of colour and the poor from the historical record, and send a clear message about whose lives you consider worth remembering.

Secondly, the famous and successsful are only a small part of our history. Understanding the realities that shaped our past and continue to mould our present requires evidence of the lives of so-called "ordinary people"!

Did you even speak to any historians before coming up with this idea?

Entrusting the documents to the private sector would be similarly disastrous. What happens when a private company goes bust or decides that preserving this material is no longer profitable? What reasonable person, confronted with our crumbling privatised water infrastructure, would willingly consign any part of our heritage to a similar fate?

Question 5: Do you agree that there is equivalence between paper and digital copies of wills so that the ECA 2000 can be used?

No. And it raises serious questions about the skill and knowledge base within HMCTS and the government that the very basic concepts of data loss and the digital dark age appear to be unknown to you. I also refer you to the Domesday Project.

Question 6: Are there any other matters directly related to the retention of digital or paper wills that are not covered by the proposed exercise of the powers in the ECA 2000 that you consider are necessary?

Destroying the physical documents will always be an unforgivable dereliction of legal and moral duty.

Question 7: If the Government pursues preserving permanently only a digital copy of a will document, should it seek to reform the primary legislation by introducing a Bill or do so under the ECA 2000?

Destroying the physical documents will always be an unforgivable dereliction of legal and moral duty.

Question 8: If the Government moves to digital only copies of original will documents, what do you think the retention period for the original paper wills should be? Please give reasons and state what you believe the minimum retention period should be and whether you consider the Government’s suggestion of 25 years to be reasonable.

There is no good version of this plan. The physical documents should be preserved.

Question 9: Do you agree with the principle that wills of famous people should be preserved in the original paper form for historic interest?

This question betrays deep ignorance of what "historic interest" actually is. The study of history is not simply glorified celebrity gossip. If anything, the physical wills of currently famous people could be considered more expendable as it is likely that their contents are so widely diffused as to be relatively "safe", whereas the wills of so-called "ordinary people" will, especially in aggregate, provide insights that have not yet been explored.

Question 10: Do you have any initial suggestions on the criteria which should be adopted for identifying famous/historic figures whose original paper will document should be preserved permanently?

Abandon this entire lamentable plan. As previously discussed, you do not and cannot know who will be considered "famous" in the future, and fame is a profoundly flawed criterion of historical significance.

Question 11: Do you agree that the Probate Registries should only permanently retain wills and codicils from the documents submitted in support of a probate application? Please explain, if setting out the case for retention of any other documents.

No, all the documents should be preserved indefinitely.

Question 12: Do you agree that we have correctly identified the range and extent of the equalities impacts under each of these proposals set out in this consultation? Please give reasons and supply evidence of further equalities impacts as appropriate.

No. You appear to have neglected equalities impacts entirely. As discussed, in your drive to prioritise "famous people", your plan will certainly prioritise the white, wealthy and mostly the male, as your "Charles Dickens, Charles Darwin and Princess Diana" examples amply indicate. This plan will create a two-tier system where evidence of the lives of the privileged is carefully preserved while information regarding people of colour, women, the working class and other disadvantaged groups is disproportionately abandoned to digital decay and eventual loss. Current and future historians from, or specialising in the history of minority groups will be especially impoverished by this.  

[industrial---complex]

reading what happened to your save files caused me physical suffering

oh my god

i know whats really annoying is the hk and oneshot thing i have this habit with most games of getting a run of time where i will play the game and then ill stop and if i have to restart, my brain will just refuse to play it so i have to wait until i get another run of time where i have the capacity to commit to beating the game

[keii-starz]

I'm dying

[shinehollow]

bg3 keeps erasing my mods settings file which is just! wonderful!