that sounds false

My fandom is as vast as the tundra (but a lot hotter)

[cannibalfilmphd-deactivated2023]

The main villains of Due South were gun toting white supremicists. Truly, a balm for the soul in these dark times.

[syrupmap]

Yes! Probably because they always have been :(

also:

I was rewatching One Good Man a few days ago and they say Donald Trump’s name. It’s so weird to realize that this guy was ever just someone to make a light joke about.

[juniperpomegranate]

So can i just add: not only are some of the main bad guys gun-toting white supremacists, but they call them terrorists! They flat out call the gun-toting white supremacists terrorists, which we’re still not doing on the regular now.

[inconclusionray]

hahahaha...ha.......hah.....

[flightcub]

thursday needs a meme, here’s my attempt to contribute. it’s thursday and i’m here to help. thanks

[flightcub]

it’s thursday today but it’s cold outside, so here’s an update on my attempt at a thursday meme. it’s thursday and it’s cold but i’m still here to help. thanks 

[flightcub]

it’s 2015 now and thursday still needs a meme, here’s another attempt to contribute. it’s thursday and it’s a new year and as always i’m here to help. thanks

[creepymutelilbugger]

wasnt jkr the guy who got assassinated by the president? why is he bad?

i. ive been thinking about how to reply to this for like ten minutes. i can’t even add anything. it’s already perfect .

[inconclusionray]

no you're thinking of jfk, jkr is the clown who kept trying to poison the whole city with laughing gas

[copperbadge]

As AI art gets harder to clock, I feel like we are going to need to have a discussion about attribution and it's probably going to bum some people out.

Because the surest way to avoid platforming, reblogging, or encouraging AI art posting is to know where every image you share originated and that's 1) boring, tedious research and 2) extremely limiting in what you feel you can reblog. But if unattributed images never gets traction, people will start attributing their images.

I've been guilty of this in the past, but for a while now it's been my policy that if I can't verify the origin, I don't share the image. That goes for stuff like screen grabs of headlines too -- more than once I've avoided spreading misinformation by saving a post to research before I reblog, then seeing the post refuted before I've been able to verify it.

And I usually try to attribute photos I take -- case in point, the "woman with shrimp" post gets a lot of attention but not one comment about it being AI, despite it being pretty similar to something you'd get from an AI. That's because I clearly state it's in a museum and link to its catalogue page.

I'm not saying this to scold anyone -- I think yelling at the Internet to cite its sources is very much a losing game -- but because I don't see this discussed much. We're such fertile ground to be fooled by AI art because we've grown accustomed to not questioning the origins of any given image. And of course I also want to encourage both OPs to attribute their images and rebloggers to verify unattributed ones.

[tomboyjessie13]

So basically look out for untagged and uncredited AI?

[copperbadge]

Kind of the opposite to be honest -- I suggest that we stop looking for AI and start looking for where our content comes from.

Being able to identify AI purely by sight -- "count the fingers, look at shadows, find irregularity in patterns" -- is only going to get more difficult. Currently, just "seeing" that something is AI sometimes results in artists being harassed when they post work which is mistaken for AI-generated.

So the idea is that if you want to avoid platforming AI imagery, don't look for uncredited AI; look for a source and if you don't see one, try and find one. If you can't find a source, simply consider not reblogging it. That both encourages people to source their posts and reduces the likelihood of spreading AI generated content.

For example, this image crossed my dash the other day. I can't find a source for it -- reverse image search just turns up Pinterest and other uncredited posts on other social media. No "this is my kitchen", no "this is a floor I installed."

It looks pretty realistic, but look at the asymmetric star shapes and the occasional non-square black stone on the sides. The lines on the smaller bat's wings are weird and so are some of the cabinet handles. The smaller bat is slightly asymmetrical, which could just be the installation; the weird arrow shape below the smaller bat is also asymmetrical. It's ambiguous -- but if it IS real and I can't link to the person who did the tilework or at least owns the home, I really shouldn't share it regardless. Which means I don't have to know if it's AI because either way I'm not reblogging it.

The idea isn't to identify AI imagery but to develop habits that mean you don't have to. This has the knock-on effect of encouraging people to provide source attribution, not to mention discouraging people from reposting legitimate artistic content without linking to the artist. It at least helps to lessen multiple issues that are very tough to provide permanent solutions for.

[inconclusionray]

me, a smooth talker, with my lifemate, @hereeatthiskitten , the woman i live with, the woman whose bed i share, on our regularly scheduled ditch-the-kids-night:

[suntwists]

Meta doesn't want you to know about Sarah Wynn-Williams book Careless People. So much so they got the courts involved so she can't promote herself. Would be a shame if a bunch of people not tied up in court promoted it for her…

Careless People: A Cautionary Tale of Power, Greed, and Lost Idealism

A Cautionary Tale of Power, Greed, and Lost Idealism

[8thparadox]

Margret: Sure Frank was annoying but at least he'd take it up the ass Hawkeye: truer words have never been spoken local woman horrified to learn that her 1950s military husband wasn't doing a bit. Oops realized that i was suppost to have hawkeye say the last line but i can't be bothered to fix that.

[fiddlepickdouglas]

Source

[amuseoffirebane]

For anyone who doesn't click through the Source link and didn't recognize these artists:

These are the Nandy Sisters joined by Rani KoHEnur, a prominent Indian drag queen!

[manticoreimaginary]

It doesn’t look that exciting, but this linen is from the New Kingdom (ca. 1492–1473 B.C.)

Thinking about it for too long makes me feel absolutely insane.

[manticoreimaginary]

The description on The Met includes the line ‘The cloth was repaired and laundered in ancient times’ and that also makes me feel light-headed.

It’s so beautiful and so simple and so so old

[fluffmugger]

just for the maths: 3,515 - 3,496 years old

[inconclusionray]

And *every single thread* was spun by hand, using some form of spindle.

[khloethecatsworld]

Trump basically declared disabled people ‘unfit to work’ as he put it by revoking the Equal Employment Opportunity Law of 1965. It means employers no longer have to legally give accommodations to disabled employees. This will render so many Americans jobless and barely anyone is talking about it because disabled people like me are treated as expendable.

[felis-the-complex-multiple]

Please don’t comply in advance. Trump cannot revoke the Equal Employment Opportunity Act because it is a law passed by Congress. Executive orders are issued in accordance with laws already passed and must follow the U.S. Constitution. While they are enforced with the same power as a law, executive orders are not new laws, and as such can be challenged by the courts to assess whether they are legal and constitutional or not.

It is true that Trump revoked several executive orders that were issued to strengthen or expand the Equal Employment Opportunity Act. Whether or not these EOs will be enforceable long term remains to be seen.

However, it is blatantly untrue that employers no longer legally have to give accommodations to disabled employees. Trump’s EO does not affect equal employment requirements and protections for persons with disabilities. Many protections for persons with disabilities are established by law, including the Americans with Disabilities Act, Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act, and the Randolph-Sheppard Act. [Source]

Specifically, Title 1 of the ADA requires employers with 15 or more employees make reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities. This has not changed. Trump cannot change anything about the ADA with an EO. Trump is attempting to dismantle the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which will likely have impacts on disabled employees. Its mission is to eliminate unlawful discrimination in the workplace, and to investigate alleged instances of discrimination, which will no doubt be impeded by Trump’s anti-DEIA mission.

But the ADA and all other disability related legislation are still in effect. You still have a right to reasonable accommodations and a discrimination-free workplace. Trump may try to impede that right, but not even he has the single-handed power to revoke it.

[horsesource]

"You can say that [orangutans] are not dependent on social support and approval, and if you admire this in them, that an orang is irredeemably his own person, 'the most poetic of the apes', researcher Lynn Miles told me once in an unguarded moments. What she had in mind was the difference between orangs and chimps in the way they carry on their discourse with the world.

Chimps are much admired for their tool use and for their problem-solving relationship with things as they find them...the orang is, let us say, not so replete with enterprise. Give an orangutan the hexagonal peg and the several shapes of hole, and then hide behind the two-way mirror and watch how he engages with the problem.

And watch and watch and watch--because he does not engage with the problem. He uses the peg to scratch his back, has a look-see at his right wrist, makes a half-hearted and soon abandoned attempt to use his fur as a macramé project, stares dreamily out the window if there is one and at nothing in particular if not, and the sun begins to set. (The sun will also set if you are observing a chimp, but the chimp is more amusing, so you are less likely to mark the moment in your notes. An orang observer has plenty of time to be a student of the vanities of sunset.)

You watch, and the orang dreams...when casually and as if thinking of something else, the orang slips the hexagonal peg into the hexagonal hole. And continues staring off dreamily."

Vicki Hearne, "The Case of the Disobedient Orangutans"

[magnesiumflare]

Important tags from @sashayed

[paramountie]

can’t sleep, thinking about Fraser and Ray kowalski holding hands in alleys and kissing underwater. Both of them like “sometimes just to myself, I pretend we are married and hold his hand slightly longer than necessary” they are soooo stupid, thank god they run off into the sunset together

[inconclusionray]

"i'm wearing a shirt i made myself. out of yarn I made myself. ...out of fiber i did not make myself. so really, did i really even do anything?"

my children, in unison: "yes!"

[sammaggs]

3x01 Burning Down the House | Continuous

THIS IS ALL ONE SHOT!!!!!!!!!!! THIS IS ALL. ONE SHOT.

A nearly two-minute walk and talk in the precinct set with NO CUTS. For TWO MINUTES.

This is TWO FULL YEARS before The West Wing, which popularized the long hallway single shot walk and talk.

Genuinely hard to convey how difficult a shot like this is to choreograph with so many different moving pieces. As one continuous take this shot is WILD. It means everything—including the push in to Ray and Elaine, the pull back out to include Fraser stepping precisely back into frame, the ACTUAL LIVE DOG, the walk into the bullpen with all the extras cutting in front of camera, the gag with the ink—all of that is in ONE GO, NO FUCK UPS.

INCLUDING!! One of the best pieces of acting in the ENTIRE SERIES right here:

THE love at first sight moment. In the MIDDLE of all this.

My favourite thing about this is imagining Gordon Pinsent standing patiently in the bullpen waiting for his moment for the 45 times it took to get the first ninety seconds of this shot clean.

Oh I will never be done being obsessed with this show. The level of stagecraft involved here alone is insane. Paul Gross the man you are,

Happy 27th birthday today, Burning Down the House (Sept. 14, 1997)!! You are still iconic🇨🇦🍁

due South Long Shots [one] [two] [three]

[rosie-dear-rosie]

I’m really surprised how few people are talking about the autistic subtext in I saw the tv glow. I feel like so much of this movie is about what it’s like getting lost in a hyperfixation. It’s about feeling like you’re not meant to exist in the world you’re in because it wasn’t built for you. It’s about how sometimes fictional characters will do more for you than the people in your real life. It’s about having a meltdown in public and everyone ignoring you because they see you as crazy and beyond help and then having to apologize for it. It’s about feeling more real in a world that only exists in your head, no sees you for you, no one understands exactly what you are. So much of this movie is about disability and mental illness and how isolating those experiences can be. I’m screaming.

[mistyheartrbs]

thinking about how maddy/tara mentions working at build-a-bear in the monologue. thinking about how the most important part of the bear-stuffing ritual at build-a-bear is giving your stuffed animal a heart. thinking about tara and isabel's hearts in the freezer that mr. melancholy took from them. how the beauty of the pink opaque came from owen and maddy bestowing meaning upon it. can anyone hear me.

[steveyockey]

related note that part of what I think jane does really well with tv glow is it is incredibly sympathetic to people staying in the closet while also not rejecting the responsibility they have for their own unhappiness. the things you do to self-soothe aren’t automatically righteous and can be counterproductive to your own liberation!