#type environment

[ryukisgod]

I think the best example of power reveals rather than corrupts is parenthood. You have control over a helpless human who can’t leave you for years. People can be mean to their children in a way they can’t be mean to other other people. A child is someone you can scream at and hit without consequence, without them standing up for themself.

[faerieyuri]

i've had so many conversations with people in fandom/creators' circles who are genuinely afraid to make the stories or art they want because they fear (often with good reason!) that their friends might kick them out of their circles, or worse, launch a public harassment campaign against them.

as someone recovering from this fear-based mindset, i want to affirm:

- friends who use implicit or explicit threats to maintain social control are not your friends

- communities that monitor your social media and ao3 to surveil you for perceived transgressive content are not safe communities

- the vast majority of people are NOT going to hate you if you make the art you want

- if you find yourself in a friend group that makes you feel afraid to speak your mind, it's in your interest to disentangle yourself from that group as quickly as possible

- real, honest disagreements between friends can be solved respectfully without the use of public shaming

- if you're feeling afraid in a community, it's likely that others are feeling afraid too. support your friends who may be struggling to leave an abusive fan or creative community, and let them know you're a safe person to voice doubts and disagreement to.

- if you're feeling like you'll never find a safer community of people, i promise there are others who feel that way too. it may take some time, but you'll find people who treat you and your ideas with respect. a good place to start is the people who make the type of art that you admire but that you're too afraid to make yourself.

ok that's all, take care of each other and be nice 💜

[marxistgnome]

Memes shared by kids who grew up on starships I think they should have sea scout/land scout beef with kids that grew up on Starbases

[poorly-drawn-mdzs]

In the world of heavy metals, love is denser than hate!

[felassan]

The Skyhold frescos painted by Solas, lined up. [source and art credit: Nick Thornborrow]

[teamfortressblr]

Team Fortress 2's concept art featured in The Art of Videogames (2007)

A transcription of the paragraphs shown can be found below.

Inspiration

"To both complement Team Fortress 2's exaggerated gameplay and differentiate ourselves from the modern photorealistic look of most other multiplayer action games, we chose to employ an art style inspired by early- to mid-20th-century commercial illustration alongside 1960s industrial design elements. Specifically, we drew inspirartion from the styles of commercial illustrators such as JC Leyendecker, Dean Cornwell and Norman Rockwell. These artists were known for illustrating characters using strong, distinctive silhouettes with emphasis on clothing folds, and they tended to use shading techniques which accentuated the internal shape of objects and characters while emphasising silhouettes with rim highlights rather than dark outlines. The nine character classes of Team Fortress 2 were designed to be visually distinct from one another. Even when viewed only in silhouette with no internal shading at all, the characters needed to be readily indeitifiable to players. For elements of the world associated with each of the two teams, blue and red, we defined specific contrasting properties to set them apart. While the red team's base tends to use warm colours, wooden materials and angular geometry, the blue team's base is composed of cool colours, industrial materials and orthogonal forms. We also deliberately avoided modelling the world in an overly complex or geometrically off-kilter manner, as this would add an unnecessary level of visual noise — not to mention memory-hungry vertices — to the scene. We found that keeping repetitive structures such as the bridge trusses, telephone poles or railroad ties to a minimum is preferable for our style, as conveying the impression of repetition in the space is more important than representing every detail explicitly. In general, the texture maps used on the 3D world are impressionistic, meaning that they are painterly and maintain a minimum level of visual noise. This is consistent with the style of painting used on background plates in many animated films, particularly those of Hayao Miyazaki, in whic broad brush strokes appear in perspective as if present in the 3D world rather than on the 2D image plane. Miyazaki also influenced the game's world and character colour palette." — Charlie Brown, project lead

Art and technology

"Valve is a goal-driven technology company, and game and visual design goals drove Team Fortress 2's technology requirements. Its unique look relies on artistic decisions made before the technology was implemented. For instance, a phong/rim-lighting shader was created specifically to help the characters 'pop' out of the environments. It removes detail in colour and then adds detail back in as highlights, giving the characters a stylised look that's simple yet sophisticated." — Charlie Brown

Bold outlines

"The specific characteristics we needed were mostly dictated by Team Fortress 2's gameplay. Foremost, we wanted players to be able to intuit each character's unique gameplay features at a glance. The Heavy Weapons character, for example, had to quickly convey strength, sturdiness, slowness, and the ability to pack a real wallop. To further aid in quick readability, each character class requires a bold, distinct silhouette shape." — Charlie Brown

[2econd2tar2tealer]

I love how immediately a discussion on all the celestials Joel might be started

I love that trafficblr gets excited about symbolism and poetry and parallels

I love that fans are always trying to make every happenstance event narratively satisfying

I love the curses and the blessings and that everyone freaks out when the patterns continue or stop

I love the over analysis of coincidences and reading between lines that aren’t there and digging far past original depth

Dear stars above, I love this fandom so much

[ily-no-romo]

You’re ok with people stimming in theory but are you ok with people stimming without using fidget toys? If you found out someone bites their nails, destroys their cuticles, peels the skin off their lips, picks at their scalp, picks their nose, would you think that’s gross? Even if you never see it and you know they wash their hands? Can you accept people stimming in ways that are very noticeable? People who make a lot of noises no matter how hard they try to be quiet, people who need constant movement no matter how hard they try to sit still, people whose stims draw attention even when they’re trying to be discrete? What about people who use fidget toys but draw attention anyway?

Are you ok with all of that or do you start to feel like those people need to practice self control? Deep down, do you not consider that real stimming because you know some people can stim in ways that are quiet, discrete, socially acceptable ?

Just something to consider when unlearning internalized ableism

[thenewgothicromance]

Obsessed with the way the passenger (2023) juxtaposes the incredibly serious with the comically absurd. And they exist simultaneously, never contradicting each other. I love how it manifests in the visual language of the movie, and is also at the core of the story! I think it's so important to the ethos of the movie that the genesis of Randy's life-altering trauma is sort of ridiculous. It being ridiculous does not change the emotional impact of it on Randy, and it's still treated with tenderness and gravity.

The sharpness of the juxtaposition feels sort of surreal or jarring at certain moments, but I think it's actually part of what makes the movie hit a real, emotional nerve. The thing that's been haunting you for years does not always seem so obvious out of context. Or sometimes the thing haunting you IS so obviously unspeakably bad that it's going to kill you, and the only way you can talk about it is to say something as trivial as, "I wanted to be a giraffe when I grew up."

A fuzzy yellow sweater and childhood sexual abuse. A lifetime of denying yourself agency or personhood, and a woman with a color-coordinated eyepatch for every outfit. A brutal workplace shooting and bedazzled stuffed animals.

Which speaking of, it's also why, in my opinion, the epilogue does work. It reverses the dynamic from serious with a side of comical to comical with a side of serious. Our focus is on the eraser game, the sillier part of Randy's traumatic story, while the lasting impact of violence lurks quietly in the background (Randy's still physically injured, he's still got the jacket). And then the last shot of the stuffed animals is the *chefs kiss* on top of the whole thing!

[harpuiaa]

(person that has never seen saw but has read yugioh voice) yeah? so he traps people in evil puzzle rooms? sounds a lot like a guy i know

[katyahina]

Godwyn and Fortissax fucked + I have an idea WHY Godrick's genes are so weak (his closest relatives' too)

Short post but I really like this topic hfhfdsf Okay so I double-checked the description of Draconian Tarnisheds and Godrick's dialogue, and:

The notion about Tarnisheds with dragonic roots having shorter lifespans makes me think that this is the reason; dragons and human(oids) are not the best mix! Godrick's closest ancestors might have had actual connections with dragons! Since it IS possible:

Dragons can shapeshift, so yeah.. existence of dragonian Tarnisheds likely implies that Godwyn and Fortissax fucked fsdhfdhs I assume her not just because of them being close, but also because she is unique amongst Ancient Dragons in being dark-colored and these Tarnished have coal skin,

At first I wondered if Fortissax' color might have been an effect of corruption, but then, again: if all Ancient Dragons are just stone grey, Draconic Tarnisheds could have had stone grey skin then because whatever connection made Draconic people had to happen before Godwyn became Prince of Death! Her corruption should then be referring to her losing a lot of her skin, with so much more gold insides showing through, and dark skin of this type of Tarnished revealing her actual color! (+ also post ( x ) on WHY I believe Fortissax is a she)

As for Godrick's and his close relatives and ancestors like Godefroy! Whereas Ancient Dragons refers to the rocky dragons from Farum Azula, there is another kind of dragons - feathered Greyoll's kind of dragons!

I used one of the babies around Greyoll and Agheel as volunteers, but you can see the dragon's body Godrick uses is certainly the same type of the dragon! Again, wings of Ancient Dragons for comparison, are also rocky and lack the feathers:

This makes sense that the branch of dragons Godrick is apparently related to is that of Greyoll's! We never see him use anything bolt-like, however, he does use wind-based attacks, like the rest of the Stormveil. His children do so too!

^ Worth to mention that Dragon Communion has connection with Godfrey (lion face is his mark), but the dragons laying in these churches are the Ancient types! These might be remnants of war with Gransax and others, since they did try to "defeat dragons by becoming them" as set of Dragonic Sentinels suggests! @fantomette22 offered another idea that maybe these Ancient Dragons instead were 'keepers' of these churches, and somehow had conflict with Greyoll's line of dragons. So, these churches came after Godwyn made peace between Ancient Dragons and Golden Order, and people were supposed to specifically consume hearts of Greyoll's dragons, not Ancient!

I don't know which idea I am leaning towards more, but I wanted to bring the Dragon Communion up just in case! Still, Godrick calls the dragon a relative and shows frail health, whereas act of eating dragon hearts gives you serpentine's eyes and makes you into a wyrm (most likely gradually lol). None is seen on him or his children, so I assume relation refers to mixing blood, not to the act of him or his ancestors consuming the hearts! In other words, if Ancient Dragons could turn into humanoids and have children (+descendants like Draconic Tarnished), maybe Greyoll's type could do this as well? 🤔

@val-of-the-north on the other hand, suggested an idea that rather than Greyoll's type of dragons being directly involved, it is all the same kind of genes of Ancient Dragons but having "evolved" into being like Greyoll's type! So, like her kind of dragons are more 'earthly' type, that evolved from Ancient Dragons straying further from perfection and divinity but instead adapting to whatever effects them (looking at you, Dark Souls!), similarly Ancient Dragon genes IN Golden Lineage changed too. And in roughly the same from-stone-to-feather manner, to mirror evolution (or corruption?) of the dragons themselves! I think this idea is very good in terms of how Fromsoft can't have enough of reusing the concepts!

^ Grafted Scions are also showing grey hair, despite being very young! It is not all grey yet and original color is likely black; same as hair of wandering nobles, which would make sense for whatever women Godrick slept with apparently to be noble too. Early grey hair could be manifestation of this poor health and shortened lifespan! Maybe humans with dragon blood in mix die early because they age early, but for Demigods it is just early aging.

(Video by Zullie the Witch ( x )) ^ At this rate I wonder whether these wings and feathers were actually grafted though, of they are sort of a side-effect of this "heritage" xd Like, sure, Stormveil is very much associated with the hawks, but modern Dragons ALSO having feathers makes me wonder! Especially since Godrick himself doesn't have any wings and feathers grafted on him, but the Noble Scions do.. Imagine feathers just showing on them because they are young, and maybe Godrick also used to grow feathers but they fell out by now due to simply his age!

______________

Conclusion: don't have children with the dragons while Godfrey isn't looking or something they will turn out kinda sick and frail idk

[roboutros]

a child's hiding place

[bisexualjonahsimms]

Camille Saroyan master of autism accommodations

[mostlysignssomeportents]

The real AI fight

Tonight (November 27), I'm appearing at the Toronto Metro Reference Library with Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen.

On November 29, I'm at NYC's Strand Books with my novel The Lost Cause, a solarpunk tale of hope and danger that Rebecca Solnit called "completely delightful."

Last week's spectacular OpenAI soap-opera hijacked the attention of millions of normal, productive people and nonsensually crammed them full of the fine details of the debate between "Effective Altruism" (doomers) and "Effective Accelerationism" (AKA e/acc), a genuinely absurd debate that was allegedly at the center of the drama.

Very broadly speaking: the Effective Altruists are doomers, who believe that Large Language Models (AKA "spicy autocomplete") will someday become so advanced that it could wake up and annihilate or enslave the human race. To prevent this, we need to employ "AI Safety" – measures that will turn superintelligence into a servant or a partner, nor an adversary.

Contrast this with the Effective Accelerationists, who also believe that LLMs will someday become superintelligences with the potential to annihilate or enslave humanity – but they nevertheless advocate for faster AI development, with fewer "safety" measures, in order to produce an "upward spiral" in the "techno-capital machine."

Once-and-future OpenAI CEO Altman is said to be an accelerationists who was forced out of the company by the Altruists, who were subsequently bested, ousted, and replaced by Larry fucking Summers. This, we're told, is the ideological battle over AI: should cautiously progress our LLMs into superintelligences with safety in mind, or go full speed ahead and trust to market forces to tame and harness the superintelligences to come?

This "AI debate" is pretty stupid, proceeding as it does from the foregone conclusion that adding compute power and data to the next-word-predictor program will eventually create a conscious being, which will then inevitably become a superbeing. This is a proposition akin to the idea that if we keep breeding faster and faster horses, we'll get a locomotive:

https://locusmag.com/2020/07/cory-doctorow-full-employment/

As Molly White writes, this isn't much of a debate. The "two sides" of this debate are as similar as Tweedledee and Tweedledum. Yes, they're arrayed against each other in battle, so furious with each other that they're tearing their hair out. But for people who don't take any of this mystical nonsense about spontaneous consciousness arising from applied statistics seriously, these two sides are nearly indistinguishable, sharing as they do this extremely weird belief. The fact that they've split into warring factions on its particulars is less important than their unified belief in the certain coming of the paperclip-maximizing apocalypse:

https://newsletter.mollywhite.net/p/effective-obfuscation

White points out that there's another, much more distinct side in this AI debate – as different and distant from Dee and Dum as a Beamish Boy and a Jabberwork. This is the side of AI Ethics – the side that worries about "today’s issues of ghost labor, algorithmic bias, and erosion of the rights of artists and others." As White says, shifting the debate to existential risk from a future, hypothetical superintelligence "is incredibly convenient for the powerful individuals and companies who stand to profit from AI."

After all, both sides plan to make money selling AI tools to corporations, whose track record in deploying algorithmic "decision support" systems and other AI-based automation is pretty poor – like the claims-evaluation engine that Cigna uses to deny insurance claims:

https://www.propublica.org/article/cigna-pxdx-medical-health-insurance-rejection-claims

On a graph that plots the various positions on AI, the two groups of weirdos who disagree about how to create the inevitable superintelligence are effectively standing on the same spot, and the people who worry about the actual way that AI harms actual people right now are about a million miles away from that spot.

There's that old programmer joke, "There are 10 kinds of people, those who understand binary and those who don't." But of course, that joke could just as well be, "There are 10 kinds of people, those who understand ternary, those who understand binary, and those who don't understand either":

https://pluralistic.net/2021/12/11/the-ten-types-of-people/

What's more, the joke could be, "there are 10 kinds of people, those who understand hexadecenary, those who understand pentadecenary, those who understand tetradecenary [und so weiter] those who understand ternary, those who understand binary, and those who don't." That is to say, a "polarized" debate often has people who hold positions so far from the ones everyone is talking about that those belligerents' concerns are basically indistinguishable from one another.

The act of identifying these distant positions is a radical opening up of possibilities. Take the indigenous philosopher chief Red Jacket's response to the Christian missionaries who sought permission to proselytize to Red Jacket's people:

https://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5790/

Red Jacket's whole rebuttal is a superb dunk, but it gets especially interesting where he points to the sectarian differences among Christians as evidence against the missionary's claim to having a single true faith, and in favor of the idea that his own people's traditional faith could be co-equal among Christian doctrines.

The split that White identifies isn't a split about whether AI tools can be useful. Plenty of us AI skeptics are happy to stipulate that there are good uses for AI. For example, I'm 100% in favor of the Human Rights Data Analysis Group using an LLM to classify and extract information from the Innocence Project New Orleans' wrongful conviction case files:

https://hrdag.org/tech-notes/large-language-models-IPNO.html

Automating "extracting officer information from documents – specifically, the officer's name and the role the officer played in the wrongful conviction" was a key step to freeing innocent people from prison, and an LLM allowed HRDAG – a tiny, cash-strapped, excellent nonprofit – to make a giant leap forward in a vital project. I'm a donor to HRDAG and you should donate to them too:

https://hrdag.networkforgood.com/

Good data-analysis is key to addressing many of our thorniest, most pressing problems. As Ben Goldacre recounts in his inaugural Oxford lecture, it is both possible and desirable to build ethical, privacy-preserving systems for analyzing the most sensitive personal data (NHS patient records) that yield scores of solid, ground-breaking medical and scientific insights:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-eaV8SWdjQ

The difference between this kind of work – HRDAG's exoneration work and Goldacre's medical research – and the approach that OpenAI and its competitors take boils down to how they treat humans. The former treats all humans as worthy of respect and consideration. The latter treats humans as instruments – for profit in the short term, and for creating a hypothetical superintelligence in the (very) long term.

As Terry Pratchett's Granny Weatherwax reminds us, this is the root of all sin: "sin is when you treat people like things":

https://brer-powerofbabel.blogspot.com/2009/02/granny-weatherwax-on-sin-favorite.html

So much of the criticism of AI misses this distinction – instead, this criticism starts by accepting the self-serving marketing claim of the "AI safety" crowd – that their software is on the verge of becoming self-aware, and is thus valuable, a good investment, and a good product to purchase. This is Lee Vinsel's "Criti-Hype": "taking press releases from startups and covering them with hellscapes":

https://sts-news.medium.com/youre-doing-it-wrong-notes-on-criticism-and-technology-hype-18b08b4307e5

Criti-hype and AI were made for each other. Emily M Bender is a tireless cataloger of criti-hypeists, like the newspaper reporters who breathlessly repeat " completely unsubstantiated claims (marketing)…sourced to Altman":

https://dair-community.social/@emilymbender/111464030855880383

Bender, like White, is at pains to point out that the real debate isn't doomers vs accelerationists. That's just "billionaires throwing money at the hope of bringing about the speculative fiction stories they grew up reading – and philosophers and others feeling important by dressing these same silly ideas up in fancy words":

https://dair-community.social/@emilymbender/111464024432217299

All of this is just a distraction from real and important scientific questions about how (and whether) to make automation tools that steer clear of Granny Weatherwax's sin of "treating people like things." Bender – a computational linguist – isn't a reactionary who hates automation for its own sake. On Mystery AI Hype Theater 3000 – the excellent podcast she co-hosts with Alex Hanna – there is a machine-generated transcript:

https://www.buzzsprout.com/2126417

There is a serious, meaty debate to be had about the costs and possibilities of different forms of automation. But the superintelligence true-believers and their criti-hyping critics keep dragging us away from these important questions and into fanciful and pointless discussions of whether and how to appease the godlike computers we will create when we disassemble the solar system and turn it into computronium.

The question of machine intelligence isn't intrinsically unserious. As a materialist, I believe that whatever makes me "me" is the result of the physics and chemistry of processes inside and around my body. My disbelief in the existence of a soul means that I'm prepared to think that it might be possible for something made by humans to replicate something like whatever process makes me "me."

Ironically, the AI doomers and accelerationists claim that they, too, are materialists – and that's why they're so consumed with the idea of machine superintelligence. But it's precisely because I'm a materialist that I understand these hypotheticals about self-aware software are less important and less urgent than the material lives of people today.

It's because I'm a materialist that my primary concerns about AI are things like the climate impact of AI data-centers and the human impact of biased, opaque, incompetent and unfit algorithmic systems – not science fiction-inspired, self-induced panics over the human race being enslaved by our robot overlords.

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/11/27/10-types-of-people/#taking-up-a-lot-of-space

Image: Cryteria (modified) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:HAL9000.svg

CC BY 3.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/deed.en

[ridleymb]

Every time I draw comics or think of ideas about Ghost and Hornet, I always find that they have somewhat similar behavior and personalities

So I decided to check out their personalities and well...

Both are istp=))