#technology doesn't change that

[digitalfossils]

[cozylittleartblog]

Columbo and the Knight (1984)

put me in the universe where Columbo ran through the 1980s and had a crossover episode with Knight Rider. I think they deserved it, and I am not just saying that because they're my two favorite Old Shows. @telebeast wrote a little fanfic blurb about it and I HAD to visualize it into a comic (which is also the longest comic I have finished thus far at five pages...), so writing credit goes to them.

Autism W!

[anaphoraholic]

instagram antis r a different breed 💀 first of all the "you cant just change a character to accommodate to your liking" thing is so sad to me.. have u no imagination?? no whimsy or joy?? allow urself to partake in fiction..

second, why do they want other people to be pedos so bad???? this whole comment section was talking ab how still having a crush on a younger cartoon character as an adult is the same thing as pedophilia....which...it is not 😭 saying that someone still giggling over their old childhood cartoon crush as an adult is the same as being attracted to ACTUAL children is a CRAZY take

one thing ab cartoons is that they don't resemble real people? they are very obviously stylized and unrealistic 2-dimensional drawings, and they usually don't look to be any particular age (a 15 and 30 yr old could look the same age depending on the style; in some cases, the 30 yr old may even look more youthful). anyways. my point is that being attracted to a 2d cartoon with cat ears, inhuman proportions and gigantic purple eyes (which typically don't even resemble a realistic human eye) is not the same as being attracted to a real, 3-dimensional human child.

[poorly-drawn-mdzs]

Why would you—That's not—I just wanted to ask for help, why did you have to go and make it awkward???

[First] Prev <–-> Next

[linovadraws]

Getting some real deja vu, ten years apart.

[glitchedmagic]

okay. under the assumption that namemc spoilers are a troll, i think i have my final wildcard prediction:

gem and pearl said (paraphrasing) that the mobs were all weird and that wasn't really the wildcard nor a spoiler. it's the last episode, so presumably grian didn't want everyone to die to random wildcard effects (some people was probably fine)

so my prediction is decaying/corrupting world. something about the world is falling apart. maybe gravity changes? blocks getting replaced? shrinking world border? idk exactly but i feel like this would be fun for a couple of reasons

a sense of finality to the season. it has to end here because the world is literally falling apart

a deadline. its got to be tempting for the cc's to drag out the last session and try and gear up/prepare/get enough content. this puts a hard clock on the season

a strangely thematic ending (imo). this world was weird and wild. things happened that were not supposed to happen. eventually all of that energy had to break and the world broke too

the fanart would fuck. just. so hard. after a season of ridiculousness, the drama artists deserve to go ham

anyways even if this isn't the wildcard, im going to hc the server corrupting as the season ends. a treat for me

[ultfan]

me when tumblr recommends me someone defending dr3 in the tags and i read through the entire thing and get mad bc they don't understand what brainwashing really is.

[swan2swan]

People: "But--but he can't be that old, his age was revealed to only be sixty-five in Donald Starr's 2008 novel Crash Point, and reaffirmed in the 2012 Guide to the Jedi Order and Chronology of the Clone Wars guidebooks!"

Me: *pointing to medal on my SW Fan uniform* "Do you see this? This was awarded to me for surviving the Spaarti Clone Cylinder Retcon of 2002. Rushed clone production without yslamari was canonized, Kamino became the planet, and Boba Fett is now a clone. Note the Jaster Mereel pip. They awarded these back when retcons were truly upsetting. To children."

[arttsuka]

post oc lore king/queen !!

😭 I don't really have lore tbh, mostly vibes. Everything is too underdeveloped for lore

I have vague ideas of what I want my ocs to be.

For example, I want to put these guys in a 'time travel' kinda situation, where a murder takes place (that phone guy, who was the only one who knew how to help them get back in their time).

The only thing worse than their designs are the names

[the-acid-pear]

Been thinking a lot about of phone cases and biology later especially because of Abel's incident, with him freaking out about the phone pick and Joe "reassuring" him they'd "make it fit". First of all I want that man so bad but even aside is that really an issue? Like, the space? Because what does that tell us about other phones such as Joe himself or especially Roger? Roger's phone is outright FLAT, we see this best on Dialtown where he has his sprites looking up, and while biology isn't a concern in there it is in DSaF.

But what the hell goes on with these models? Or did the technology change somewhere along the way making such case options less of a torture method? I wonder.

[iamthepulta]

Making my own post because now capitalism is just revolving in my brain and I want to respond, but I've intruded more than enough. ^^"

I do think capitalism can be solved, and history actually gives me hope because it shows the fundamental need of society. Humans aren't inherently greedy or cruel. The greed and the cruelty are symptoms of a long-standing human need to make things better than they were before: to live comfortably, and without fear.

Capitalism is merely the current expression of this need that we live in.

Solving the need is absolutely possible by establishing a baseline standard of living and resource allotment. And that's comparable to an amount of 'work' that we deem acceptable in our daily lives. Because if you think about it, making coffee every morning with a Keurig gets you a similar product to making coffee every morning with a hand grinder and cold press: one just takes more resources and time than the other.

However, this needs to be flexible because humans are individuals with different needs, and the premise is also questionable because who's setting this baseline anyway?

I personally think it has more to do with government setting a cap on resource imports. (I think it should be stronger than tariffs, personally. Just a hard cap for the year.)

You can't really control demand. That's what most socialists do, and it always fails because humans fundamentally want to make their lives easier. But you can control resource management. If the government says we can only import 20 tons of cotton this year, and we produce 80 tons of cotton, so companies get 100 tons of cotton to do whatever with, and that's it. If we want more cotton, we have to axe some other import.

It 1) makes management visual. 2) gives citizens a personal reason to be invested in their government. 3) will not allocate resources fairly, but will show the true value of a product for the region it's in and prioritize local resources [i.e. if your country does not produce garnets, garnets will be more expensive than gold]. 4) increases jobs since there's far less incentive to outsource work, overall decreasing inequality. 5) encourages a circular economy.

In which case, I suppose I'm for some form of socialist autarky and I think that would solve a decent number of capitalist problems. Companies could no longer overrun workers and there's individual choice behind jobs, work, and some form of style of living.

It IS bad in like- fifty million other ways though. You can't just go from a country used to living in a capitalist society to imposing tariffs and screaming about autarky. Natural resources WILL be destroyed on your own soil and the biggest nation will have the highest quality of living. Imports have to be on a factor of population growth and this might only be possible with nations for a declining population rate. If at all. You also have to add a judicial angle for the people who will inevitably try to take over that system. And, most of all, you have to commit to not going to fucking war over state expansion for resources. Looking at you, Russia.

So I suppose we COULD solve capitalism, at the expense of a whole lot of other problems that are equally meh-to-bad.

Governments are fundamentally resource management machines though, and it's really stupid to pretend they aren't. With resource management, comes capping the fuck out of companies (specialists) that abuse the system (monopolies/oligarchies). When a government doesn't do that (whatever the method), it's failed its purpose as a government and also needs to be put down (revolution).

[glavilio]

me sprinkling in a little bit of romantic baggage into all my characters with a uniquely transgender flavor. no one is safe

[furby-organist]

> "I'd like to announce that I no longer detest technology!"

> Guess who discovered wireless Hellkea light bulbs and is controlling them with his internal radio (instead of the wireless/bluetooth remote that it would otherwise come with). This deer. Lighting techs, run for your money.

[smol-blue-bird]

i need a new computer. i know i need a new computer. i have the money and the resources to get a new computer right now. i know exactly what kind of computer i want. and yet i Will Not Buy A New Computer

[what-eats-owls]

So there's something I want to say re: intentionally withholding your vote, and I want to do it without coming across as condescending or dismissive.

I've worked as a field organizer in two campaigns, 2010 and 2012, and my job was to help turnout the vote for Democratic candidates up and down the ticket. Technology may have changed, but people are still knocking on doors for specific voters the way they were 12 years ago.

If you say you're not voting/voting 3rd party, the campaign volunteer is supposed to mark that and move on. Their job, in the final month of the election, is to make sure the campaign's supporters have all the information and resources they need to cast a vote.

They aren't collecting data on why you're withholding your vote. They aren't submitting opinion polling results to the campaign. Something like 155 million people voted in the 2020 election, and if you say you're not voting, the campaign is not going to waste a volunteer's time and morale begging you to vote when there are literally millions of other voters to turn out.

Let me repeat that: The campaign does not track why you're not voting. They simply note your vote is not a priority for turnout and move on.

I say this because I see a lot of promotion of non-voting like that's a boycott, when the function is not the same. A boycott is a coordinated mass refusal to engage with an institution—which sounds similar if you see a vote as a good or service to withhold. Unfortunately, it's not.

A vote is a choice you're making as part of a community hiring committee. Your abstention doesn't prevent someone from being hired. It just lowers the threshold for the worst candidate to succeed.

All this to say: In my direct experience as an organizer, abstaining from the vote sends a message. That message is not "You need to try harder to win my vote." It's "Don't waste time on me."

[monsterfactoryfanfic]

if I've learned anything from grad school it's to check your sources, and this has proven invaluable in the dozens of instances when I've had an MBA-type try to tell me something about finances or leadership. Case in point:

Firefox serves me clickbaity articles through Pocket, which is fine because I like Firefox. But sometimes an article makes me curious. I'm pretty anal about my finances, and I wondered if this article was, as I suspected, total horseshit, or could potentially benefit me and help me get my spending under control. So let's check the article in question.

It mostly seems like common sense. "...track expenses and income for at least a month before setting a budget...How much money do I have or earn? How much do I want to save?" Basic shit like that. But then I get to this section:

This sounds fucking made up to me. And thankfully, they've provided a source to their claim that "research has repeatedly shown" that writing things down changes behavior. First mistake. What research is this?

Forbes, naturally, my #1 source for absolute dogshit fart-sniffing financial schlock. Forbes is the type of website that guy from high school who constantly posts on linkedin trawls daily for little articles like this that make him feel better about refusing to pay for a decent package for his employees' healthcare (I'm from the United States, a barbaric, conflict-ridden country in the throes of civil unrest, so obsessed with violence that its warlords prioritize weapons over universal medical coverage. I digress). Forbes constantly posts shit like this, and I constantly spend my time at leadership seminars debunking poor consultants who get paid to read these claims credulously. Look at this highlighted text. Does it make sense to you that simply writing your financial goals down would result in a 10x increase in your income? Because if it does, let me make you an offer on this sick ass bridge.

Thankfully, Forbes also makes the mistake of citing their sources. Let's check to see where this hyperlink goes:

SidSavara. I've never heard of this site, but the About section tells me that Sid is "a technology leader who empowers teams to grow into their best selves. He is a life-long learner enjoys developing software, leading teams in delivering mission critical projects, playing guitar and watching football and basketball."

That doesn't mean anything. What are his LinkedIn credentials? With the caveat that anyone can lie on Linkedin, Mr. Savara appears to be a Software Engineer. Which is fine! I'm glad software engineers exist! But Sid's got nothing in his professional history which suggests he knows shit about finance. So I'm already pretty skeptical of his website, which is increasingly looking like a personal fart-huffing blog.

The article itself repeats the credulous claim made in the Forbes story earlier, but this time, provides no link for the 3% story. Mr. Savara is smarter than his colleages at Forbes, it's much wiser to just make shit up.

HOWEVER. I am not the first person to have followed this rabbit hole. Because at the very top of this article, there is a disclaimer.

Uh oh!

Sid's been called out before, and in the follow up to this article, he reveals the truth.

You can guess where this is going.

So to go back to the VERY beginning of this post, both Pocket/Good Housekeeping and Forbes failed to do even the most basic of research, taking the wild claim that writing down your budget may increase your income by 10x on good faith and the word of a(n admittedly honest about his shortcomings) software engineer.

Why did I spend 30 minutes to make a tumblr post about this? Mostly to show off how smart I am, but also to remind folks of just how flimsy any claim on the internet can be. Click those links, follow those sources, and when the sources stop linking, ask why.