
pixel skylines

Andulka

JVL
Aqua Utopia|海の底で記憶を紡ぐ

Kiana Khansmith
Three Goblin Art

Kaledo Art
styofa doing anything
PUT YOUR BEARD IN MY MOUTH
Mike Driver
Lint Roller? I Barely Know Her

@theartofmadeline
I'd rather be in outer space 🛸

Product Placement
Cosimo Galluzzi
taylor price

oozey mess
TVSTRANGERTHINGS
DEAR READER
cherry valley forever
seen from Italy
seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from Malaysia
seen from United States
seen from Germany

seen from Türkiye

seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Sweden
seen from United States

seen from Malaysia

seen from Malaysia
seen from Japan
seen from United States

seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from China

seen from United Kingdom
@chucktaylorupset
I had a game when i was a kid where I'd pretend to be a blue cat that explodes if you press her too hard or if she hits anything, killing everyone and destroying everything around her excdpt herself
fanart of her
YOU'RE JOKING
anybody else uhhh. anybody else. anyone else uhhhhh
There is no greater bond on this earth than when you all despise and carry untold righteous anger about one person and then when you’re all together someone is like “so about that dead horse” and everyone starts sounding like Michael Jackson with the way they’re chanting beat it
i took my friend to Hocking Hills state park yesterday and on our hike I talked all about the (now retired) park naturalist who mentored me years ago, along with the professor who also mentored me and how they got me my first job in my field after college, like I went on and on about my memories of them and the time I spent with them in the park, and then we got to a cave and they were both inside. I hadn’t seen either of then since I moved away seven years ago and then I went back to the state park for the first time since and they were just there. in a cave. they went to the cave together. one of them saw me and said “oh hi! what are you doing here?” like hey fancy us all being here in this cave together huh.
i can’t express how much this felt like a video game cutscene encounter. i established the lore for two hours about these specific two Guys and then they appeared, like, in their map.
it was this professor btw
amazing tweet by mou
The Murderbot Diaries are a power fantasy about being aromantic and still developing extremely important dedicated emotionally intimate partnerships where you are a top priority in a person's life, equal to their other family or romantic attachments despite your own emotional difficulties. And having guns in your arms
i am well aware of the absolutely fucked up things eating disorders do to people’s brains, and i am sympathetic, but I still think acknowledging publicly that these celebrities are promoting looking emaciated on death’s door is important. Can you imagine being 13 and seeing this shit? Every celebrity event looks like a thinspo board, it’s awful.
People talk about women's bodies far too much; this is true. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't be addressing the elephant in the room of insane weight loss and eds. it isnt fucking normal or healthy
he definitely fucks but there’s no way he fucks normal
man c'mon
Something you realise experiencing musical theatre primarily via cast recordings is that, separated from the spectacle of the stage, from a lyrical standpoint a lot of very well-regarded stage musicals are very bad.
if you don’t mind me asking what misconceptions do you commonly see from people on this site regarding AI? it’s unusual to hear why you don’t like it from the perspective of someone who actually has to use it
People on tumblr massively overestimate the amount of hallucinations LLM generate, and broadly ignore the part where the output you can get from LLMs is most often proportional to the quality of the input (e.g how good you are at prompting). They're genuinely game-changing in synthesising huge quality of information much faster than a human can, and genuinely pretty accurate in producing outputs they've been trained in (vs. more "niche" or recent subjects in which they hallucinate way more often, but that is part of knowing how to use it.)
Some people also have a very distorted view of the environmental impact of genAI queries specifically vs. other polluting behaviour people often engage in, such as streaming, online gaming etc. <- I find this one very annoying because it really reeks of misguided moral superiority. Victoria Justice voice I think we ALL pollute. I'm not saying this in a "then it doesn't matter!" way, I'm saying this in a "we should be more mindful of our carbon footprint beyond using it as a gotcha in ai discourse" way. Like, idc if you hate chatgpt if you order takeout every night and swim in single-use packaging.
Another thing that's less of a misconception and more of a consequence in branding one specific tool as ontologically and uniquely evil is, like, lowkey romanticising other kinds of misinformation because they're not AI.
(this post has 100k notes btw. most of them agree with op)
I also find that there's a general mischaracterisation of people who use LLMs that borders on the ableist — if you could substitute "stupid" with the r-word in your post about those losers who can't even wipe their ass without a machine, maybe you should not be making those posts. Not to quote a celebrity, but Keke Palmer was recently asked about her thoughts on AI and said something like "the environmental stuff is very concerning but [AI] is also democratizing a lot of spaces for people that otherwise couldn’t reach them" and I think this is a very fair assessment of a good part of genAI users, who go way beyond the "obsessed loser wants an AI girlfriend" caricature I see on here.
Anyway. I will always say that we URGENTLY need actual laws and regulation on genAI (I strongly believe professional use should be disclosed for example) and I can't wait until the current fad fades away, be it bc of rising prices or other reasons. But I also find the attitude on this site very smug and moral panic-y — lots of talks about Ensouled Art and the protestant virtue of hard work. There are very valid reasons to dislike AI but u can't know those if you refuse to learn anything about how it work
magnus archives fanart from 8 million years ago
When you accidentally become too important at work 😂😂😂✌️
shit that no one ever tells you: sex is a skill. People often seem to have this false idea that, similar to being an artist, you're somehow just innately good or bad at it. But that is definitely not true. Maybe you have some traits that make it easier (or harder!) for you to be good at it, but anyone can get good at it with enough experience and time. (And communication. A lot of it. Like, some people you will just click with and won't need to say much to be on the same page. But for other people, you might have to explain specifically in great detail each step you wanna take and why. And then maybe repeat it a few times because people can also be forgetful.)
all that to say, go grind out some sexperience with your local trans/gay/fag/homo/homie today
Discourse about US universities admissions essentially boils down to "Americans long for the Gaokao exam but the individual, mainly-private institutions that make up US higher ed really, really don't".
#and tbc the institutions are more right here - if Americans actually *got* the Gaokao they think they want they would hate it
My probably-not-well-thought-out proposal - at least this is what my brain always generates when thinking about this problem - is to let universities use only a limited set of several meritocratic criteria when handling admissions. For example, universities could pick from a blend of four options: SAT (or similar) scores, SAT scores relative to their high school, high school grades, or high school grades relative to their high school (the way Texas colleges guarantee entry to the best X% of students from a given school). By skillfully blending these requirements, I bet that universities could pick cohorts that came close enough to matching their desires, while prospective students would face a less opaque system that would feel fairer (since all of the metrics reward academic skill) and less demanding (no essay bullshit and fewer extracurricular red queen races, your fate is not entirely determined by a single test). A de facto (but not de jure!) affirmative action policy that broadly applied to people coming from poorer areas (who aren't in private schools at least) wouldn't be perfect but I could imagine it at least getting majority support.
If I could centrally coordinate (or plan, one might say!) the university system, I think that this could function perfectly well as a system for a country to use. And the majority of Americans would - on paper - support it; particularly with the caveats & options allowing schools to sort of fudge a bit and give families a sense of agency in the whole process. It would sort merit well and keep solid academic incentives in place while recognizing regional disparities.
I don't think it would let schools really match their desires too well though, nor give the marginal "striving" parents who drive the current admissions system though. Universities work hard to not have a fully academically-merit-focused admission process for valid reasons around their social power in society, and parents really don't like that system for very-apparent reasons around their own kid's future success, and those two forces are meeting in the middle. Not to mention that at the top of the system, the merit rankings bleed out a bit and the distinctions become a bit arbitrary but still need to be sorted out (You can imagine a system where there is zero ranking distinction between Harvard, Stanford, and Cornell - sounds fine to me, right? But it doesn't sound fine to Harvard!). And these dynamics trickle down the chain to all the top schools (admissions at mid-tier schools in the US today are in fact pretty much like the above, and so are not our focus).
I would add too that I think a lot of people essentially believe that if college admissions were simple, the "extracurriculars" & added competitive pressure of high school today would fade away. But I don't think this is true - society demands that complexity-of-sorting, colleges are just the receptacle of how that sorting is executed. If the role of colleges as social-status-certifier declined, other institutions would necessarily rise to take their place. Though this is more speculative and I could be wrong!
(You probably know most of this already, I get you were outlining your own ideal system not solving the coordination problems)
I did live in a country with a Gaokao-style college entrance exam system, you just pass the buck along on extracurriculars. I studied English (8 years!!) and German as extracurricular stuff, not counting things I did for fun like study bass or participate in my high school's robotics team.
But I also got tutoring on how to write a good argumentative exam for it. There's the thousands of cram schools. There's the way education curves to fit with the expectations of the entrance exam, with kids getting assigned books by the literal dozen under the expectation that these will be the reference points for the literature section of the exam, and how one curveball thrown by the couple of universities that use their own state system makes that part of the high school curriculum for years on end. My high school class hours doubled from just 7:30-13:00 last year of middle school to 7:30-17:30 last year of high school. The last year of high school, the National High School Exam became a vortex. Everything revolved around it.
It doesn't solve anything. It just passes the buck along so upper middle class parents can tell their kids to go to cram schools, or at minimum language schools.
The fundamental issue is that higher education is also intrisically tied with the patronage/golden ticket view. If it's the one direct ticket to a better life, everybody holds on to it for fear of falling behind. Why do you think I'm trying to get to Canada? Because I want a 4x raise, thank you very much.
Yeah, and those slots are (probably) just going to be inherently limited. There are not in fact infinite finance jobs to go around, the same with engineering visas to Canada (even under far more liberal immigration systems, job slots would cap). Fundamentally, in ~1920 or w/e, the vast majority of people never even tried to "socially climb" outside of their station & local community. That has changed dramatically, and systems have emerged to process that intense, far-reaching competitive process. Everything about things like college is structured by that reality (though tbc it isn't the only relevant factor in the system).
I'm always nonplussed by the ticket to better life side of credentialism because back when I studied computer science the required scores were so low that essentially anyone could do it, and this was during the first tech boom when people actually wanted to! but of course people were still viciously competing for the few spots available at veterinary school or whatever because they were desperate to operate on puppies.
Seconding what a lot of people have already said here. This is already how it works at the big state universities. For example, California also has a top % admissions guarantee for in-state applicants to the University of California system (prestigious), based on I think a mix of grades and SAT/ACT test scores; and minimum-grades guaranteed admission to the Cal State University system (mid). The UCs I think also require essays in the admissions packet, mainly just to prove your grades and test scores are real--they're purely a formality as far as I know.
I grew up in California, but I went to school in Michigan, and it was similar there. The top two state schools (University of Michigan and Michigan State University) were required to accept everyone who was above a certain % of in-state applicants. The mid-level state schools (with various regional names) had a minimum-grades requirement and you could optionally supplement your grades with SAT/ACT scores.
But the other thing America has is a whole ecosystem of private colleges/universities--which is interesting because America does not have a lot of private high schools (and where they do exist, they're concentrated in a couple of specific regions). The private colleges/universities make up their admissions criteria from whole cloth and wouldn't hesitate to collectively sue if the government tried to regulate them. The private colleges/universities range from very poor academic standards to schools that are universally considered the best in the country. Some of the worse ones are scams, some are just alternate ways of learning (small classes, individual attention) at the same academic level as the (worse among) the much larger public universities.
But, importantly, going to a top private university opens doors that going to a top public university usually does not. I went to a top private college for undergrad--one most people wouldn't have heard of, but a school that professors from around the country sent their children to. The school I went to semi-OFFICIALLY guaranteed that if you passed their pre-med program you would be accepted into med school somewhere in the US--I have NEVER heard of another college guaranteeing that. The school I went to unofficially guaranteed that, whatever you majored in, you would be accepted into a top-20 doctoral program in that subject, probably top-10. (And I, with mediocre college grades, got into what were at the time the 8th and 11th ranked physics programs; and the 11th-ranked program begged me to go there, literally a professor on the admissions committee told me, during the prospective-students weekend, that their program was excited and honored that I was considering them, and offered me a full fellowship for my first year.) And I went to a college you wouldn't have heard of! (Although the professors on admissions committees obviously had.) Imagine the strings that would have been pulled for me if I'd gone to Harvard or Yale or Princeton--schools that are infamous for this kind of thing. I could have been a senator!
Which is not to say there are no opportunities like that at a place like UC Berkeley or University of Michigan or University of Virginia. If you network just right, join the right frat, or befriend the right professor, sometimes you can get these perks--after all, these are also top schools, there are opportunities there to meet the right people, if you know how. But it's hard and far from guaranteed. There are private schools were any student who doesn't completely fail out or alienate their professors gets all of this--and I know because I went to one and was a mediocre student.
In a country where a large portion of the population doesn't want to raise taxes on the rich because what if they someday become rich, there is no stomach for getting rid of these sorts of programs anyway. These schools reserve a majority of their seats for "merit"* rather than legacy applicants (how much depends on the school, last I remember reading, it was something like 70% merit seats at Harvard, but it can be as much as 99% at some of the smaller schools). Which means you can dream that if your child is perfect enough, they can get a seat. And then once they have a seat at one of these schools, they get all the privilege of having been born rich (I mean... not really, but at least some of it). It's a dream of upward mobility that people will cling to too hard to have much hope of reform.
* (Nevermind that all of these private schools combined only have seats for about ten thousand new students per year, and a lot more than ten thousand kids get perfect grades and perfect test scores each year, especially when grades and test scores effectively be bought by sending kids to test prep and cram schools. A nearly-perfect kid from a poor family will be outmatched by a slightly-above-average kid from a wealthier family that could afford to buy perfection for them, before you even get to the kids who had systemic obstacles to academic success in high school and so whose grades and test scores undersell their potential. And that's not getting into the ineffables that these schools use to distinguish among perfect kids, because there's nowhere near enough room to admit all of them so some ranking of perfection has to be done. The ineffables, of course, are often going to be markers of family privilege; for a simple example, that my parents were both professors, and knew the system, so they could suggest and veto application essay topics; for another simple example, that my parents knew of this college in the first place, that most people have never heard of, that would open doors for me in my next life stage. "Merit" is a very loaded concept in a way that the vast majority of people feel disincentivized to see.)