i think at a certain point shane would start getting seriously annoyed at the seemingly widespread idea that he's somehow supposed to be "controlling" ilya. maybe it starts off as a lighthearted joke with the way some of their friends will glance at him in anticipation when ilya says something particularly asshole-y like they expect him to tell ilya off. and at the beginning maybe shane somewhat gets it (but really though, he doesn't) because yeah it's his reputation in the league and maybe the rivalry plays a part in it too, especially for people who've never gotten to know him, but eventually, it just starts pissing him off
they're at the kingfisher after a game in new york and scott and some of the other admirals are there along with a majority of the cens and they're all having a good time. ilya and some random admirals player are chirping each other and ilya says something a little mean in the asshole way he does with a small tilt of his lips. and shane can suddenly feel eyes on him from scott and carter and troy and various other players, and for a second he doesn't get it. he doesn't get it, until all he does is snort in response, because well, it was true and also pretty funny and ilya really is the funniest person he knows, okay, and ilya nudges him with a small smile when he hears it, but then the stares slowly morph into something like confused gapes, and all of a sudden, he gets it. it's not the first time it happens and it definitely won't be the last, but shane starts noticing it a lot more and it continues to piss. him. the. fuck. off.
hayden giving him an expectant glance when ilya is half-yelling and groaning with a few cens in the bar at the soccer game on tv, like shane is for some reason gonna tell him to quiet down. scott giving him a quick side-eye when ilya chirps about his age on the ice, like shane is gonna tell him to stop; like he doesn't find the multiple layers to ilya's chirps to scott genuinely impressive, like he doesn't find it amusing. evan, though to his credit he was mostly joking, making a sly comment about shane needing to hold ilya back from fighting during a game, like shane would do that when ilya is well-fucking-aware of when to pick fights and when not to because he is the second-best hockey player in the league; like shane doesn't also find it unbearably hot when ilya has a little blood on his knuckles and dripping down the corner of his lips as he calls out mean little quips at the other team with a smirk on his face
because the thing about their relationship is that shane is undeniably attracted to ilya being an asshole. he thinks it's funny. it almost definitely also turns him on. and he likes when ilya is mean and smug and rowdy and a little shit. he likes when ilya is an asshole to him because that's their banter and their foreplay. he likes when ilya is an asshole to other people because he pretty much always thinks what ilya says is hilarious. (plus it's the fact that shane is also an asshole; it's just that ilya says it out loud more often than he does)
and so the thing about their relationship that, for some fucking reason, other people don't get is that shane, from the very beginning, has always and will continue to like when ilya is an asshole. and yes, they're married (shane also thinks some people seem to forget this, because why would shane marry ilya if he truly doesn't like ilya's personality. he thinks other people are a little stupid sometimes.) but they're also best friends and bond over being the best at what they do and how competitive they are and that they're both a little bitchy at times
long story short, i think that at some point during the first season of them playing together, all of the cens (and various other friends/players) eventually learn, as shane continues to not react the way they expect him to, that shane is THE biggest ilya enabler. he won't tell ilya off or nag him, but is actually probably standing a little off to the side with a tiny little smirk on his lips and hearts (and a little heat) in his eyes as he watches his husband
let’s be real the pressure to use AI as an adult is exactly what they said the pressure the do drugs as a teenager would be like but the people that told us that caved immediately for the AI and definitely did not just say no
"Six weeks into the term, I assigned my rhetoric and writing students a 20-page article. It was the same length I had assigned for five years and the same length I had read without complaint as an undergraduate a decade ago. Not one student finished it.
When I asked why, a student answered honestly: It was too long, and she kept losing track of what the paper was about. This was not a remedial class: These were students who had cleared the admissions process and written essays good enough to get them here. Yet a routine academic reading assignment had defeated them.
Every generation of professors has complained that their students cannot read. The lament is usually overblown, but data have caught up to anecdote, and what I am seeing in my classroom is no longer a hunch. There is a measurable, generational collapse in sustained reading and writing, and the academy is responding to it with improvisation and exhaustion rather than the structural overhaul it requires.
In February 2024, Adam Kotsko, who teaches in the Shimer Great Books School at North Central College, wrote in Slate that students who once handled 30 pages of reading per class meeting now seem “intimidated by anything over 10 pages and seem to walk away from readings of as little as 20 pages with no real understanding.” Crucially, he added that this is “not a matter of laziness on the part of the students” but of underlying skills they were never given a chance to build.
The Chronicle of Higher Education’s 2024 investigation found the same pattern across institutions as different as the Stevens Institute of Technology and Wellesley College, where the average SAT exceeds 1400. Nicholaus Gutierrez, an assistant professor at Wellesley, told The Chronicle that the baseline for what students consider a reasonable amount of work has dropped so noticeably that he has cut his readings accordingly; a 750-word essay now strikes many students as long. At Stevens, the science and technology studies associate professor Theresa MacPhail described following the mantra of “meet your students where they are” for so long that she has begun to feel “like a cruise director organizing games of shuffleboard.”
Worse, the national data tell the same story in colder language. On the 2011 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) writing assessment, which is the most recent comprehensive writing benchmark, only 24 percent of 12th graders reached the Proficient level, and just 3 percent reached Advanced; another 21 percent scored below Basic. The reading side of the ledger is worse, and getting worse fast: The 2024 NAEP results released in September 2025 show 12th-grade reading scores at the lowest level recorded since the assessment began in 1992. Thirty-two percent of 12th graders now score below NAEP Basic in reading, meaning that, in the assessment’s own language, they likely “cannot draw general conclusions based on concepts presented explicitly in a text.” And yet more than half of these same seniors reported being accepted to a four-year college. That last sentence is the whole problem in one line: We are admitting a cohort that cannot read at a college level and are pretending otherwise.
Why is this happening? One reason, of course, is smartphones.
I came into teaching as a skeptic of the anti-smartphone argument: I had a phone in my pocket throughout high school and college in the 2010s, and I read long books anyway. I now think I was wrong, because the neuroscience has caught up. In a 2017 paper, Adrian F. Ward and colleagues at the University of Texas at Austin’s McCombs School of Business showed that the mere presence of a participant’s smartphone — whether that be face down, powered off, untouched, or across the desk out of vision — measurably reduces available working memory and fluid intelligence on cognitive tests, with the largest effects on the most phone-dependent users. A 2022 study by Motoyasu Honma and colleagues at Japan’s Showa University used near-infrared spectroscopy to compare reading on a smartphone with reading the same passage on paper, and found that smartphone reading produced overactivity in the prefrontal cortex, suppressed sigh generation, and led to general lower comprehension scores; the authors argued that the sigh inhibition and prefrontal overload were causally linked to the comprehension decline.
So when a student tells me they “kept losing track” of a 20-page article, I have to acknowledge that they may be describing a measurable neurological condition. The neural pathways that support sustained attention are built by use, and they atrophy without it. Your body is a use-it-or-lose-it system, and the brain is no exception.
Another reason for the decline in student reading capability is increasing reliance on generative AI. In June 2025, Nataliya Kosmyna and colleagues at the MIT Media Lab released a preprint titled “Your Brain on ChatGPT.” They divided 54 participants into three groups writing SAT-style essays — one using ChatGPT, the second group using a search engine, the last group using nothing — and monitored brain activity with a 32-channel EEG. The ChatGPT group showed the lowest neural connectivity of the three, with up to 55 percent reduced connectivity compared with the brain-only group, and “consistently underperformed at neural, linguistic, and behavioral levels.” Eighty-three percent of LLM users could not quote a single line from essays they had written minutes earlier. When the LLM group was forced to write without AI in a follow-up session, their brain activity did not bounce back to baseline; the researchers coined the term “cognitive debt” for the lingering deficit.
This is the first neurophysiological evidence that early reliance on LLMs measurably alters the brain’s engagement with writing tasks, and it is consistent with what those of us in front of classrooms are watching happen in real time. When I assign analysis, I am not trying to extract a polished product; I am trying to put the student’s mind through resistance in order to make it stronger. Offloading the struggle to a chatbot does not “free students up for higher-order work.” It deprives them of building the strength to do any substantial cognitive work at all.
There is a final factor that is contributing to this decline in reading skills, and that is that the students arriving in my classroom today are the first cohort to have experienced Common Core-influenced reading instruction across the entirety of their K–12 schooling. Whatever the standards’ original intent, the on-the-ground implementation in many districts replaced sustained reading with the practice of pulling “evidence” from disconnected short passages, the same format used on the standardized tests that increasingly determine school funding. The education scholar Natalie Wexler, among others, has documented this pivot in detail: Students drilled on “finding the main idea” in two-paragraph excerpts never build the stamina or background knowledge that longform reading requires. The pandemic then added fuel to a fire that was already burning. NAEP scores for 13-year-olds dropped sharply in 2022 and have not recovered. A 2023 EdWeek survey found that 24 percent of secondary-school administrators described pandemic learning loss in English and language arts as “severe or very severe.”
In July 2025, the journalist Mary Harrington argued in The New York Times that “thinking is becoming a luxury good.” The ability to read deeply and reason at length is fragmenting along class lines as ultra-processed digital media replaces text in everyday life, much as ultra-processed food has replaced cooking. Her longer treatment of the subject in First Things makes the more provocative case that we are witnessing the end of print culture itself, and with it the end of the cognitive substrate on which modern liberal democracy was built.
I see this stratification in the classroom and on the page every week. My students from districts that protected sustained reading through small class sizes, strict phone policies, and faculty who refused to teach to the test all arrive with their attention relatively intact. My students from districts that surrendered to devices and standardized testing arrive cognitively winded. A democracy that requires a literate electorate is now training one fraction of that electorate out of literacy while marketing to the other a “deep work” lifestyle as a luxury good. The students who cannot read a 20-page article today are the voters who will not be able to read a bill, or the jurors who cannot follow a closing argument, tomorrow.
I do what I can in my own classroom to address the problems. I break 20-page articles into two halves and assign the first half with explicit analytical tasks. I require exploratory writing before formal drafts. I model (visibly, on the board) how to track an argument across pages or distinguish a source’s claim from my own analysis. I make structured peer review explicit, because the workshop format I used to take for granted now collapses into “this is good” and “maybe add more details” the moment I step back.
But I want to be plain about the limits of what an individual instructor can do, and all of these solutions have costs. Scaffolding a 20-page article into halves compromises the integrity of the argument I am asking students to engage, just as modeling note-taking in a credit-bearing rhetoric course is using a college slot to teach a middle-school skill. None of the syllabi I teach are designed to deliver this type of cognitive rehabilitation, and pretending otherwise has produced credential inflation. We cannot keep conferring degrees on students who cannot do what the degree is supposed to certify.
I’m afraid I don’t have answers. I do, however, have some questions that may point us in the right direction. If higher education is going to respond to the reading crisis as a structural problem rather than a private burden carried by composition instructors and adjuncts, it has to stop avoiding the following questions: If a majority of incoming students cannot read at a level the curriculum requires, are we admitting students we cannot serve, or offering a curriculum we cannot provide?
Why are first-year writing and reading-intensive general-education courses still the most adjunctified, lowest-paid, highest-load corner of the university, at the precise moment when their work has become the most important work the institution does? What is the responsible institutional response for AI usage: Is it a syllabus statement, or a sequencing principle that requires students to demonstrate the cognitive work themselves before AI assistance is permitted?
Why are most college classrooms still phone-permissive by default? K–12 districts from Florida to California are now banning phones bell to bell; higher education has somehow lagged behind the public schools. Universities benefit from a pipeline they did not build and refuse to repair. What would it mean for a university system to invest seriously in the reading instruction happening in the high schools that feed it, rather than treating remediation as something to be quietly outsourced to first-year composition instructors?
The thing I am no longer willing to do is pretend this is a temporary adjustment period, or that “students will adapt.” They will not adapt on their own. The conditions that produced this collapse are still in place: the phones, the algorithmic feeds, the test-prep excerpts, staffing models that load the reading-intensive work onto the most precarious faculty, and now the chatbots that finish students’ sentences before they’ve even begun to think of them. If we want literate citizens, we will have to rebuild the conditions for literacy deliberately, against the grain of every incentive currently pointed the other way. I know the academy has the will to do that. It also has the obligation."
— Tyler Jagt, 1 June 2026, "My Students Can’t Read"
The generational collapse in literacy is measurable, persistent, and likely to get worse.
I want to be very clear on this: it is not just dependence on smartphones and phones causing mental atrophy. It's that for decades we have taught Three Cueing System as a way to read, and while we are now beginning to correct, it is catching up with us. The reliance on smartphones and short form video are in part a result of illiteracy, not necessarily a cause of it, because we have failed to give students the tools to actually read but also paired it with the belief that they can read. They do not seek remedial reading help but blame the materials for being unclear or too difficult, when the fundamental problem is that the more complex the text, the less functional the three cueing system is. They are often quite literally guessing what the text says by searching for words they recognize (or think they recognize but cannot verify) and texts rapidly become impenetrable nonsense. Of course people will reach for their phones when 90% of the text they encounter in their daily lives and schooling is not accessible to them!
I want to add, because I see the study by MIT regarding the cognitive effects of LLMs on brain activity brought up a lot -
That study, while a very good introductory study to studying the effects of LLM models on the brain, has not currently been peer reviewed, and more jarringly, the sample size that completed the study was only 18 people.
"We recruited a total of 54 participants for Sessions 1, 2, 3, and 18 participants among them completed session 4."
The write up for this study says it best. This is, at most, preliminary research done on a very small sample size with significant limitations. Said limitations are listed out further at the MIT page for the study.
I feel like, especially within the context of literacy and writing essays, considering the source of the information regarding the effects of LLMs on brain activity is extremely important.
This study, while coming to a satisfying conclusion, should not be treated as an end all fact. More information needs to be gathered before it should be treated with the credibility so many people
Please always remember to check sample sizes and study credibility before believing it to be inherent truth.
I hope more research and peer review is done further on this topic as it is sorely understudied and very important - especially in contexts like this.
Have we considered that Ilya's playboy persona may play into Shane making him chase that hole for two years? Like, sure, he's seeing pictures of Ilya exiting clubs with these gorgeous women on his arm but when that's over and done with, guess who he's still texting. Shane. It's Shane who he's salivating all over, just trying to get the chance to fuck him, and these women may have gotten the chance to have him inside of them but Shane's willing to bet Ilya hasn't given them a second thought since. Guess who he is thinking about. Shane. Shane who isn't easy. Shane who's making him work for it. And, my God, does he work for it. There's a thrill that goes up Shane's spine every time he makes it clear just how badly he wants it, because Shane is someone worth chasing.
And maybe there's a part of him that wonders whether it will all be over once he eventually gives it up. Maybe there's a persistent nagging at the back of his brain, telling him that Ilya is only in it for the chase and that once he's actually had Shane he will become just another notch on his bedpost.
Of course Ilya will never be completely rid of him. They'll still see each other on the ice. Shane is still the only person who can give him a run for his money there but maybe he'll just drag it out a bit longer. Just make sure that Ilya keeps thinking about him and everything he hasn't yet been allowed to have.
"AI native" college graduates are hitting the workplace -- and, as experts warned, bosses are finding their performance disappointing.
As one New York financier told Financial Times journalist Gillian Tett, new hires who were seen as “AI natives” are turning out to have alarmingly shallow ideas. So much so, the anonymous finance worker admitted, that his firm now actively avoids seeking out AI-literate STEM graduates, and opts to comb through humanities students instead.
“We want critical thinking, not just AI,” the financier told the FT.
I do think the ability to emoji-react is a net win for human communication. not only does it give you an outlet for 'I see and acknowledge this but don't have a verbal response' but it also adds a pleasing alethiometer element to things
my coworker announces that he's off to the dentist. someone reacts with a tooth emoji. is this a statement of dentist solidarity? a wish for my coworker to return with more (or fewer?) teeth than he set out with? simple word association? who can say
Guys, there’s finally a place to read my drarry Grimmauld Roommates AU start to current events without searching for all the posts.
I’ve posted it all on fanon in the comic format, so you can find all the episodes there❤️❤️
Gotta tell you guys something wild in the Chinese fan sphere
So some fanartist drew a “sexy” (read: booby) version of a (cartoon) character who is traditionally very non-sexualised. Fans of the character got mad about it because it’s kind of groundbreaking how that character is written and portrayed and this art totally ignores the entire point of the character. They demanded the art be deleted. In response to that other people said, well what the fanartist did may be distateful but they have every right to draw what they’re into. The two sides fight for days and each starts a harassment campaign and even report their “opponents’” accounts.
So far so typical. But things eventually come to a head and they decide that this will be settled by votes - not through a poll. Through donations to a children’s education charity via each side’s portal. Whoever can get the highest amount of donation wins.
And that is how this charity received over 1 million in donations in three days lol. Oh btw the “freedom of expression” side won by a landslide (960k to 40k)
I kinda wish all fandom beef could be handled this way. Instead of internet harassment, what if we see who can donate to charity the hardest? Put your money where your mouth is.
Call me whatever names you wish, but I think this is a much better (and healthier) attitude than “anyone under 18 should never be allowed to see any sexual imagery ever”
(For reference: this was at the Tom of Finland exhibition, containing actual, queer, kinky af pornography. There were definitely some young people there, perhaps in their late teens. There was even a parent with their baby who was probably too young to understand anything at all. And guess what, all those people are probably going to be fine.)
[ID: a sign saying “Please note: there is no age limit, but the exhibition is not recommended for children due to the explicit sexual imagery it contains. Parental or guardian discretion is advised.”]
Hey this is a pretty cool approach maybe we should take that to the Internet instead of trying to invade the privacy of millions of adults because some parents can't parent their kids
Strong, strong coffee and lots of backbone @loremwipsum - Tumblr Blog | Tumgag
