If you like my music, want to support my top-surgery dreams, or are simply feeling generous, you can donate to my ko-fi.
I love stalking my friends' music listening on Last.fm (one of my fave ways to discover new music tbh). Feel free to add me there.
Some other words that describe me: music nerd, language lover, accidental philosopher, avid autodidact, professional translator, writer for love, editor for money, voracious reader, queer, kink-positive, neurodivergent. Iâm pretty anachronistic.
My own original posts are tagged #cosmo gyres, and some of my favorite tags I often use can be found attached to this post.
Some other custom tags if you want to get to know me:
#musicblogging (all the posts about music)
#music nerd (obsessing on my main special interest)
#cosmo nerds out (about various topics)
#my writing (fiction, poetry, song lyrics, creative non-fiction etc.)
#cosmologos (my non-creative writing)
#just songwriter things (my thoughts on songwriting)
#journaling (my offline journal)
#tag rant (posts where I went off in the tags)
#a day in the life (my daily life)
#my translations (from various languages)
#sorry for the mess jerome (bitching about bad translations)
EDIT: If Tumblr goes down, you'll be able to find me on Dreamwidth and probably also on Pillowfort. Feel free to add me there pre-emptively any time, just in case.
(also: I'm the leftist-anarchist type. Free Palestine, BLM, ACAB, FCK NZS, FCK AFD, you get the idea. Not a fan of TERFs or Zionists. I have no DNI.)
1. The court holds Google responsible for statements made by its AI, considering them Google's statements (search engines have limited liability for results in their engine as they're the words of other sites/companies/people), meaning when their AI lies/hallucinates they're liable for the defamation/harm resulting from those statements.
2. Google's defense that customers are generally aware of the lack of reliability and are responsible for fact checking was dismissed. As the court pointed out, that would "significantly diminish" AI Search's stated purpose and it can't be distinguished from Google's business practices/statements as a search tool.
3. Studies have found about 91% of Google's everyday AI responses are accurate, leaving millions of searches per HOUR with potential liability for falsehoods. 56% of correct responses weren't supported by the sources the AI listed. Both of which mean Google is now liable for a LOT more AI "errors."
4. Google was held liable for 80% of court costs in this case and this precedent is expected to reverberate around the world. This is a massive shift from the 3rd-party search provider role Google has previously played and it comes right as they've tied ALL searches to their AI search.
"But it's not FOR them!!!" The biggest military power in the world belongs to a christofascist nation overseen by a felon found guilty of 34 federal crimes and has greenlit a gestapo with more direct funding than the entire military of Canada for the purpose of ethnic cleansing. Let Hetero Jessica throw some biodegradable glitter at a municipal parade
At this point if anyone is trying to exclude anyone benignly pro-queer from a pro-queer space I'm just going to assume you're a fed or something idk like something something destabilize the movement from within or whatever
like ok allegedly the white people in Northern Ireland terrorizing mainly Black people and poc are British loyalists and not âreal Irishâ but that video stating that is showing more concern for the white Irish people currently hiding in their homes âin fearâ of harm, while real life Black people are actively being harmed lmao like??? get up! if you say youâre not like these white supremacists than show up in defense for the Black people currently being mobbed by people who look like you!
paying liberal lip service does nothing but make sure history doesnât remember you as the âactual bad guysâ, just the cowardly bystanders & it damn sure doesnât make any moves to protect anyone Black!
I've become a total convert to frozen vegetables. I love you, frozen veg â¤ď¸ Don't listen to what the haters say. You're just as nutritional as fresh veg (sometimes even more so!) and so much more convenient, especially for someone living alone like me who often struggles to eat all my fresh produce before it goes bad.
see I am extremely pro-sex-scenes in whatever, I think its good and fun and important because its literally just an aspect of life being portrayed, its fine. But my problem is that a lot of the time, characterizations change drastically within sex scenes and I find that jarring. This is especially true of eroge, VNs and such.
Like, I feel like there's a switch that gets flipped that once the sex happens its "porno mode" and the writing is meant to be more hot than work towards any other cause. Which is fine, but some people seem to take it to the point of just sucking the character out of them to make them porno stand-ins. Like, if theres a clumsy character, I want them being clumsy in the bedroom too. If there's a goofy character, I want them cracking dumb jokes while they fuck. If someone isn't particularly forward outside of sex, why would they be initiating within the sexual scenes? Things like that drive me bonkers!!! And I feel like it would probably be ten times as hot if you get to see an actual character who got built up like that in the bedroom, you know???
And on the slip side of this, if a character behaves differently during sex, what's the reason for that? It can be as simple as "they spend all day with this pressure to be calm and polite in their job, so when they have sex they want to let loose and be rude" or "they're usually more shy in public, but when they're with a partner they trust they really open up and show off their confident side"
You still have to actually set that up to feel like it makes sense for the character, of course.
I agree it can be boring and frankly a little cliche for characters to just instantly become porn stars for the sake of their sex scenes. It takes me out of a story, absolutely ruins my immersion. I no longer feel like I am reading about people with unique lives and an interesting relationship. I'm also asexual and maybe that has an influence on my perception of sex scenes lol. I just don't get turned on by the standard erotic tropes so many authors use to signify "this is hot. You should be aroused now". Doesn't do anything for me, it's not what I'm reading for.
And as a writer, too, I am more interested in writing characters whose personalities really come out when they have sex. It's a chance to show how they act when they're free from the public eye and fully exposed to someone they trust. Or to show how they put on an act even in private. What they've been holding back from the public, how they let loose, etc. There should be a big difference between how they have sex in a new relationship vs a long term one that's been going steady for years. Sex in true privacy vs sex in a house where they know other people are trying to get some sleep in nearby bedrooms, or where their own young children are sleeping and may wake up and come looking for their parents because they had a nightmare.
There are so many ways to make sex scenes unique and interesting and actually tie into the rest of the story!
i can understand that, but there's also something i've seen in a fair bit of media that bothers me (maybe its cause of the media i watch, which is mostly live action tv from the early 2010s and late 2000s but idk)
why is sex treated as necessary for the relationship to be "real"? it seems weird that that's a "thing", and as someone who dislikes reading/writing sex scenes and has no plans to include any in their own work, it confuses and bothers me
shows like Psych, Monk, Grimm, Bones, Warehouse 13, Eureka, Sherlock (BBC), Unforgotten (which is a newer show, so that's especially weird to me), they all kinda treat romantic relationships as less real or as though they aren't worth as much when the people in the relationship aren't sleeping together.
it must just be a "me thing" though. i've never liked reading, watching, or writing about sex, and i've never really understood the whole "i think this person's attractive so i want to sleep with them even though we've never even spoken to one another before this!"
i think it can be interesting from a narrative standpoint, but the show writers slash authors just never seem to do anything with the potential narrative
fun fact there were at least two people named lancelot recorded in the 1292 paris census so I think we know what the 13th century equivalent of naming your kid sasuke was
other names that sound normal now but are actually From Pop Culture- meaning they were used for fictional characters before they became real-people names -include:
- Mavis (from the book The Sorrows of Satan, 1895)
- Pamela (from the book The Countess of Pembrokeâs Arcadia, late 16th century, but popularized by the 1740 novel Pamela)
- Imogen (from Shakespeareâs play Cymbeline, c. 1611. possibly a typesetting error on the earlier name Innogen)
- Enola (from the book Enola, or Her Fatal Mistake, 1886)
- Vanessa (from the poem Cadenus and Vanessa, 1812)
- Cedric (from the book Ivanhoe, 1819. transposition of letters from the earlier Saxon name Cerdic)
- Dorian (from the book The Picture of Dorian Gray, 1891. similar masculine names had previously existed, like Dorus, Doros, and Dorios, but Wilde is believed to have coined this specific usage)
- Jessica (from Shakespeareâs play The Merchant of Venice, c. 1596-7. Possibly an Anglicization- Italianization? -of the Hebrew name Yiskah, since the character is Jewish)
â Wendy (from Peter Pan, 1904. It was sometimes used beforehand as a nickname for Gwendolyn, but wasn't used as a given name until J. M. Barrie popularized it.)
â Cora (from the book The Last of the Mohicans, 1826.)
â Lorna (from the book Lorna Doone, 1869.)
â Miranda (from Shakespeare's play The Tempest, c. 1610-11.)
â Norma (from Alexandre Soumet's play Norma, ou L'infanticide, 1831, best known as the source for Bellini's opera Norma, which premiered later the same year.)
â Madison (from the film Splash, 1984; it was an uncommon masculine name, and unknown as a feminine name before being popularized by the Tom Hanks mermaid film)
Itâs difficult to fully articulate the hold that Patrick Stewart had on audiences when TNG was airing. Between the hundreds of magazine covers, the talk show circuits, and the paparazzi nonsense, the amount of baldness puns editors were compelled to create was astounding.
It was like the media fixated on this man because he had catastrophic levels of charisma and audiences were losing their minds over him (TNG was regularly beating network shows in ratings), yet he was so far removed from the narrow Hollywood standards of beauty that it vexed and haunted these people for years.
Baldness was a joke in Hollywood. 75% of George Costanza's identity revolved around bald jokes. If you were a bald actor, you were cast as a villain or a buffoon, never the hero. And if you were losing your hair, you had to slap a wig on or risk losing your career. Yul Brynner was somewhat of an exception but he was from a much different generation of Hollywood and even Bruce Willis didn't fully shave his head until 1994 (post TNG success incidentally).
In Patrick Stewart's case, there was often an undercurrent of snide putdowns with many interviewers, drawing focus to his baldness over and over and over again with low hanging jokes. It was like you could see their vanity-based paradigms cracking in real time and it was strange to witness. Imagine how bizarre it would be if talk show hosts today could only ask The Rock, Vin Diesel, or Jason Statham about their bald heads.
But karma swooped in to the rescue. In 1992 Stewart was voted TV Guide's "Sexiest Man on Television" with a whopping 54% of votes. He beat out the likes of Luke Perry, John Corbett, A. Martinez, and even Burt Reynolds (with a total of 20 contenders).
The middle-aged bald guy in the syndicated sci-fi show beat out the hottest of the Hot Guysâ˘ď¸ and it wasn't even remotely close.
^ Bald joke
So yeah, today he's an old, revered thespian who is occasionally Charles Xavier, but not only did Patrick Stewart pave the way for other bald actors to be considered leading men, he discombobulated Hollywood with his unconventional attractiveness and it was amazing.
My mom texted me today that she'd found an old sketchbook of mine from when I was a kid. She took photos of a bunch of the pages and sent them to me â what a fascinating treasure. I had completely forgotten drawing all of these, but as I look at them, the memory stirs faintly and rouses itself. Wow. I was an interesting little child, wasn't I?
Image descriptions below.
IMAGE 1:
Black-and-white drawing. Watched by a confused creature with eyes on stalks, who evidently has no idea whatâs going on, a nervous-looking avocado-shaped creature clutches its head while imagining the following scene:
The avocado creature is lying flat on its back in the middle of the road, struggling and grimacing in panic but apparently unable to move, as a car bears down on it at high speed, about to run it over. The carâs headlights are depicted as evil eyes fixed on its victim, and the windows are all tinted black.
The picture is titled âEID*â and at the bottom of the page, the asterisk explains:
*Ever-Impending Doom
§
IMAGE 2:
Color drawing. Against a background of bright yellow, three non-human creatures, all the same size, sit grandly in large chairs. Each of them has its feet resting in a tub of water. The leftmost creature is a red devil with horns and a wistful expression. The middle creature is a giant six-legged bug, with a dark blue thorax, gossamer dragonfly-like wings and moth-like antennae. The rightmost creature is a lavender-gray elephant.
The picture is titled âThe Footbaths of Gardaâ.
§
IMAGE 3:
Black-and-white drawing. The sun shines on a tall wall that stands alone, unattached to anything. Cross-hatched lines represent strong shadows thrown by the wall and by a few curious stick-figure by-standers: a wondering person holding a childâs hand, and another person wearing a hat and leaning on something.
These three people are all staring in interest at what is occurring on the wall: On its vertical side, several people (also depicted as stick figures) are rapidly moving up and down, sticking out sideways. None of them have any shadows.
The picture is titled âmarching up and down the wall / leaving no shadows at all / they never fallâ.
§
IMAGE 4:
Color drawing. The page is covered with small pink crescent-shaped figures â all the ones on the left side of the page face right, and all those on the right side of the page face left. Each one has a small black dot within its crescent. At the center of the page floats a huge disembodied human eye, with long eyelashes and a purplish eyelid half-covering a turquoise iris.
The picture is untitled.
§
IMAGE 5:
Color drawing. In the center of the page is a green grasshopper, wearing a debonair striped top hat decorated with festive little dots. Surrounding it are four symbols â a blue star, a red pair of lips, a blue crescent moon, and a red heart â all similarly outlined with dots.
The picture is titled âdastardly deedsâ and the title is playfully festooned with dots as well.
§
IMAGE 6:
Color drawing. An orange fruit, perhaps an apricot, is shown with a stem, two attached green leaves, and a large rotten spot on one side.
The picture is untitled.
§
IMAGE 7:
Color drawing. A row of black back-slashes cuts across the entire image from one side of the page to the other. Behind it (and somewhat blurred where the slashes cross them) are two faces.
The face on the left is dark blue. Above the slash-line, it looks like a bald blue head with drooping sad eyes and the beginning of a nose (which gets cut off by the slashes). Below the slash-line, there are no more features and it turns into a mess of wiggly lines like the legs of a blue jellyfish.
The face on the right is dark red. Below the slash-line, we see the bottom half of a head, with a large tooth-baring grin surrounded by thick red lips. Above the slash-line, there are only wiggly red lines sprouting upward and a bit out to each side, sort of like the hair of someone whoâs just been electrocuted.
In the bottom right of the image there is a dark green four-leafed clover.
The picture is titled âwithout you i learn to laughâ.
§
IMAGE 8:
Color drawing. The entire page is covered in dark blue dots on a white background, like a color-inverted depiction of a view of outer space filled with innumerable stars. On the left, we see a planet as viewed from space, land forms in golden yellow alternating with dark blue oceans. In the bottom left are two huge stylized stars in pink and purple, side by side, almost nebula-like.
Diagonally across the entire page, with each line written in a different color, is the following text, which can also be taken as the pictureâs title:
and it was so otherworldly
this planet of blue and gold
it almost looked like home again
just seen from a different angle
a whole new pair of eyes
in the same old ignoble head
like orionâs belt
with a star missing
see I am extremely pro-sex-scenes in whatever, I think its good and fun and important because its literally just an aspect of life being portrayed, its fine. But my problem is that a lot of the time, characterizations change drastically within sex scenes and I find that jarring. This is especially true of eroge, VNs and such.
Like, I feel like there's a switch that gets flipped that once the sex happens its "porno mode" and the writing is meant to be more hot than work towards any other cause. Which is fine, but some people seem to take it to the point of just sucking the character out of them to make them porno stand-ins. Like, if theres a clumsy character, I want them being clumsy in the bedroom too. If there's a goofy character, I want them cracking dumb jokes while they fuck. If someone isn't particularly forward outside of sex, why would they be initiating within the sexual scenes? Things like that drive me bonkers!!! And I feel like it would probably be ten times as hot if you get to see an actual character who got built up like that in the bedroom, you know???
And on the slip side of this, if a character behaves differently during sex, what's the reason for that? It can be as simple as "they spend all day with this pressure to be calm and polite in their job, so when they have sex they want to let loose and be rude" or "they're usually more shy in public, but when they're with a partner they trust they really open up and show off their confident side"
You still have to actually set that up to feel like it makes sense for the character, of course.
I agree it can be boring and frankly a little cliche for characters to just instantly become porn stars for the sake of their sex scenes. It takes me out of a story, absolutely ruins my immersion. I no longer feel like I am reading about people with unique lives and an interesting relationship. I'm also asexual and maybe that has an influence on my perception of sex scenes lol. I just don't get turned on by the standard erotic tropes so many authors use to signify "this is hot. You should be aroused now". Doesn't do anything for me, it's not what I'm reading for.
And as a writer, too, I am more interested in writing characters whose personalities really come out when they have sex. It's a chance to show how they act when they're free from the public eye and fully exposed to someone they trust. Or to show how they put on an act even in private. What they've been holding back from the public, how they let loose, etc. There should be a big difference between how they have sex in a new relationship vs a long term one that's been going steady for years. Sex in true privacy vs sex in a house where they know other people are trying to get some sleep in nearby bedrooms, or where their own young children are sleeping and may wake up and come looking for their parents because they had a nightmare.
There are so many ways to make sex scenes unique and interesting and actually tie into the rest of the story!
i can understand that, but there's also something i've seen in a fair bit of media that bothers me (maybe its cause of the media i watch, which is mostly live action tv from the early 2010s and late 2000s but idk)
why is sex treated as necessary for the relationship to be "real"? it seems weird that that's a "thing", and as someone who dislikes reading/writing sex scenes and has no plans to include any in their own work, it confuses and bothers me
shows like Psych, Monk, Grimm, Bones, Warehouse 13, Eureka, Sherlock (BBC), Unforgotten (which is a newer show, so that's especially weird to me), they all kinda treat romantic relationships as less real or as though they aren't worth as much when the people in the relationship aren't sleeping together.
it must just be a "me thing" though. i've never liked reading, watching, or writing about sex, and i've never really understood the whole "i think this person's attractive so i want to sleep with them even though we've never even spoken to one another before this!"
i think it can be interesting from a narrative standpoint, but the show writers slash authors just never seem to do anything with the potential narrative
