hey i'm older now

will do almost anything if you pay me so hmu with those craigslist ads.

[mosfetransgender-deactivated202]

NEVER LET YOURSELF BE STOPPED BY WHAT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN LIKE IF YOU STARTED EARLIER!!!!! THE ONLY TIME WE HAVE IS NOW

[lamignonette]

[transfemininomenon]

good god when the onions and garlic hit the olive oil..........

[clubpenguin2005]

Panties hit the FLOOR

[transfemininomenon]

you know it sister

[lullabee-blue]

my dance teacher canceled saturday class again TT

[pmamtraveller]

Mammal in a Sunday Dress, by Georgina M. Cox, 2026

[originalaccountname]

Mammal in a Sunday Dress explores the uneasy relationship between femininity, civilisation, and the animal body. At first glance, the figure appears modest and withdrawn. Her posture is composed, her gaze seemingly lowered towards her bare feet, recalling the conventions of nineteenth-century portraiture where women were often depicted as passive objects of observation. Yet as the viewer moves closer, the illusion collapses. Her eyes are not lowered at all. She is looking directly back. The delayed eye contact transforms the encounter. The viewer approaches believing they are safely observing a woman; instead, they realise they have been observed themselves. The work refuses the traditional power dynamic of portraiture, denying the comfort of anonymous spectatorship. Looking becomes a reciprocal act. For Cox, the painting considers humanity's persistent desire to separate itself from the rest of the animal kingdom. The title quietly undermines this distinction. A "mammal" is not another creature—it is us. The Sunday dress, rich with cultural associations of femininity, morality, and respectability, becomes an attempt to distinguish ourselves from nature. Yet clothing cannot alter biology. Beneath lace and ritual remains the same vulnerable animal body. The work also reflects on the historical relationship between women and nature. Across art, religion, and philosophy, women have repeatedly been positioned as closer to instinct, emotion, reproduction, and the body itself, while men have been aligned with reason, culture, and civilisation. Mammal in a Sunday Dress does not reject this comparison. Instead, it questions why proximity to nature has so often been treated as something lesser. Chiaroscuro isolates the figure within darkness, allowing the luminous dress to symbolise the performance of civilisation while the bare feet quietly return the body to the earth. Neither is presented as more truthful than the other. The painting exists in the tension between performance and instinct, refinement and biology. Mammal in a Sunday Dress ultimately asks a simple but unsettling question: if every layer of culture were stripped away, what would remain? Not a king. Not a saint. Not a gentleman or a lady. Only another mammal, looking back.

source

[jacobwren]

"But AI can't do your job. It can help you do your job, but that doesn't mean it's going to save anyone money. Take radiology: there's some evidence that AIs can sometimes identify solid-mass tumors that some radiologists miss, and look, I've got cancer. Thankfully, it's very treatable, but I've got an interest in radiology being as reliable and accurate as possible. If my Kaiser hospital bought some AI radiology tools and told its radiologists: "Hey folks, here's the deal. Today, you're processing about 100 x-rays per day. From now on, we're going to get an instantaneous second opinion from the AI, and if the AI thinks you've missed a tumor, we want you to go back and have another look, even if that means you're only processing 98 x-rays per day. That's fine, we just care about finding all those tumors." If that's what they said, I'd be delighted. But no one is investing hundreds of billions in AI companies because they think AI will make radiology more expensive, not even if that also makes radiology more accurate. The market's bet on AI is that an AI salesman will visit the CEO of Kaiser and make this pitch: "Look, you fire 9/10s of your radiologists, saving $20m/year, you give us $10m/year, and you net $10m/year, and the remaining radiologists' job will be to oversee the diagnoses the AI makes at superhuman speed, and somehow remain vigilant as they do so, despite the fact that the AI is usually right, except when it's catastrophically wrong. "And if the AI misses a tumor, this will be the human radiologist's fault, because they are the 'human in the loop.' It's their signature on the diagnosis." This is a reverse centaur, and it's a specific kind of reverse-centaur: it's what Dan Davies calls an "accountability sink." The radiologist's job isn't really to oversee the AI's work, it's to take the blame for the AI's mistakes. This is another key to understanding – and thus deflating – the AI bubble. The AI can't do your job, but an AI salesman can convince your boss to fire you and replace you with an AI that can't do your job. This is key because it helps us build the kinds of coalitions that will be successful in the fight against the AI bubble." - Cory Doctorow, The Reverse Centaur’s Guide to Criticizing AI

[goodluckdetective]

This is an excellent example of the issues of more narrow AI models when they are applied to serious issues: instead of serving as a double check on human judgement (an arguably worthwhile use case to catch mistakes at the back end should you be able to deploy this with proper data privacy and equitable datasets), the structure of capitalism encourages misuse and replacement.

I also want to add something. Another issue we run into here is deskilling. Deskilling is when you get worse at a skill you’re proficient in, and it’s a big concern with these more useful applications. There’s a couple of papers on this and I think the research is too early to tell how big of an issue this is at the moment and if there’s a way to mitigate it, but it’s absolutely a concern.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2949820126000123

Papers on deskilling:

1. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-026-01947-1

2. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2949820126000123

3. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/langas/article/PIIS2468-1253(25)00133-5/abstract

(The other concern I have here is lack of skilling all together, which is when people don’t build up those foundational level skills in the first place. I haven’t read a lot on this topic and so that’s more a research interest at the moment)

[chujellys]

there's a family of local sandhill cranes that adopted an abandoned goose last summer and they're STILL together today even after migration.... i love them + they're local celebrities + nature is beautiful

[chujellys]

yesterday’s update… 📸 everyone is paparazzi when ur this famous…

[bad-moodboard]

Stages of Decomposition, Embroidery by calicoranger @ Etsy

[angstandhappiness]

Neat

[birdplushie]

often you will see things online where you just have to be like "what a strange thing to say" or "i don't think that's true :)" to yourself and try to move on or you will lose your mind

[kosmogrl]

[manwhorewednesdays]

This is actually such a crucial part of healing from neglect and abuse and I have to add to this.

Because indeed, people who like you will not roll their eyes and sigh at the idea of accommodating your needs, they will value your voice and be upset with you about injustice done to you, not at you for "being difficult". They will be happy when you find a way to live a better life, and help you to get there. If you are struggling, someone who loves you wants to see you smile, not tell you to smile because "you have it so good".

[animationtvfilm]

SHREK 2 (2004)

[kosmogrl]

I will make a beautiful life for myself no matter how long it takes. I will I will I will

[mortalityplays]

learn to associate cleaning with pride instead of shame and your quality of life will improve in ways you can't even imagine btw

[mortalityplays]

like I'm sympathetic, it's hard work, it takes some degree of mental organisation and physical capacity that is not equally accessible to every human being on earth. I know. but regardless of how much you can do and how often, you will get better results across the board if you can frame it as positive effort towards a better situation instead of perpetually self flagellating for having the sin of being a solid thing in physical space that steadily accumulates dirt no matter what just like everything else on earth

[forestgreenivy-deactivated20250]

Touch starved… but it’s for a cool autumn breeze.

[hellsite-testing-ground]

˙ʇɐqʇᴉnɹɟ ɐ ǝɯoɔǝq oʇ pǝpᴉɔǝp ǝʌ,I

[weird-goodbyes]

The thing about Hadestown is the line “To know how it ends. And still begin to sing it again. As if it might turn out this time” is an incredible way to describe most of life. We try because we have to believe that even when the ending is set in stone, it’s still worth trying. It’s still better to be a person who tried.

[beguines]

God is relation, full stop. He is like reality in this regard. Consider an electron, the fundamental unit of all matter. No one has ever seen one. They really don't "exist" until we turn our attention to them. The physicist Marcelo Gleiser says that "exist" may be too strong a word to use for an electron. I take God's existence to be much the same, though for God "exist" is too weak a word. We don't know what the existence of God is. We have no idea what the word "exist" even means in the context of God. What we do know—or what I know, I should say—is that God doesn't exist until I turn my attention to him. Relation brings him into being, or, more accurately, enables his being to be perceived, experienced, shared. My attention—and the precise quality of that attention—is absolutely involved. I realize this is unorthodox at best, heretical at worst. But it is my experience of being in the world and of being with God. "The feeling remains," as Teresa of Avila says, "that God is on the journey, too."

Miroslav Volf and Christian Wiman, Glimmerings: Letters on Faith Between a Poet and a Theologian