Monsters' Queen

I Stared Too Long Into The Abyss

[onnastik]

Bungou Stray Dogs + A Softer World, mostly Dazai today

[pyrrhiccomedy]

The last time we were on a long flight, my wife and I invented a game we call "Little Guy."

You start a game of Little Guy by saying, "I'm gonna hand you a little guy." The little guy is some kind of baby animal you are imagining. "Oh," she might say in response, "Okay," and hold out her hands for it. I will then mime handing her the animal. This provides some clues as to the little guy's size, weight, and general ungainliness.

She then gets to ask questions about what kind of little guy this is, BUT NO QUESTIONS ABOUT HIS ACTUAL APPEARANCE OR SPECIES ARE ALLOWED. Qualitative questions, or questions about his behavior, are the only ones permitted. She can ask "Is he soft?" or "Does he seem nervous about being held?" or "If I put him in the bathtub, does he seem okay with that?" or "Would he like a lil grape?" or "Is he the sort of little fellow who would wear a vest in a children's book?" but not "Does he have fur," "Is he a reptile," "Is he from Asia," etc. Some questions are in a grey area so you have to follow your heart, but the point is not to identify the animal as fast as possible: the point is to guess the animal purely based on vibes + how he would act if he were in your living room right now.

And I'm not limited to yes or no answers! If she asks, "Would it feel appropriate to see this little guy in a propeller hat?" I can reply, "Oh no, he has a gravity to him. A bowler hat would be a more appropriate hat." Or if she asks, "Does this little guy have protagonist energy?" I can say something like, "he probably wouldn't be the main character in a children's cartoon. He'd probably be the main character's ditzy best friend who's always eating sandwiches, or something."

We're big Twenty Questions to kill time in a waiting room people, but Little Guy is more about the journey than the destination. It's got a different kind of sauce that's nice if "killing time" and "lowering anxiety" need to happen hand in hand.

[cuppydogshane]

that is actually my main principle of explicit fic is that the personalities stay On during sex.

[dramatic-dolphin]

and if i said nolan's odyssey starring no greek actors and with no recognizable aspects of greek culture or involvement by greeks, is the direct legacy of white supremacist colonialism that treated ancient greece as not just the pinnacle of ancient culture, but of an artificially created "european" culture, which white western europeans and their settler descendants, as the new pinnacle of culture, were the sole spiritual inheritors of.

[hiveswap]

^^^ PEOPLE ARE STILL THERE. There's a metro station across the street from the colosseum where i found a hair in my pizza slice. We drove by ruins of an amphitheater next to a motorway in greece once. It's literally just real places where real people live and have lived. It's not mythical perfect lands that once existed. I went to Itacha in 2023 and there was not enough parking space.

[phillymint]

You and your spouse have been married almost a decade. Your spouse has several bank account, credit cards, and small investments that they haven't shared with you. your finances are separate, save for a groceries account they mete out specific amounts into. You didn't agree to this arrangement, you just didn't really get a say. You've had chronic illness for a while so work has been patchy. You're struggling to cover your cell bill and bus fare in slow months. Your spouse wants to solve this by giving you an allowance ($65/mo). This kind of financial arrangement in a marriage is:

Totally normal, I see no problem with it.

Unusual but not my business.

Questionable.

Worrying.

Secret option (put in the tags)

Voting ended onMar 21, 2025

[phillymint]

Wow. I was not expecting the massive response this post got, but thank you to everyone who's been filling out this poll and/or commenting on it! I feel like maybe I should give some clarification or context?

I posted this poll because my spouse thinks the above arrangement is reasonable and their prerogative. They feel that what is theirs is theirs, and they don't have to share it with their spouse, and wouldn't expect me to share what's mine with them if the tables were turned. I deliberately avoided using language in the poll that made any of the responses leading, because I didn't want to influence the results. When my spouse and I have arguments about how few of my basic needs they meet, and how vulnerable I feel, they tend to dig their heels in and insist that defining what a partnership looks like is up to the individuals and it's ok to deviate from the norm (which I agree with in principle, but only if both parties agree to the arrangements and can do so freely, not through coercion), and sometimes I genuinely feel like I'm crazy for thinking that there's a basic standard we get to expect from each other mutually, not in this one-sided way, and that my partner is being being both neglectful and controlling at the same time. I posted this poll because even when my spouse makes me feel like I'm being unreasonable, I know in my gut I'm not (not least of all because we very much did talk about our expectations of each other in both the best and worst potential situations, and what they promised me is not what I'm living now).

To see how many people have responded by straightforwardly calling this financial abuse, and to see how few people see this as normal, is validating to say the least. I've begun the process of building myself a life raft out of this situation, and I think I needed to see this feedback - so many strangers responding to what I hope is as neutral a summary of the situation as I intended it to be, and still calling it like I see it.

What I didn't put in the above poll is the even crazier stuff: A few years ago I ended contact with my abusive family, and my spouse promised to take care of me. Not long after they stopped giving me emotional support and asked me to seek it from my friends instead of them. When my computer, my main work tool, suddenly stopped working, they would only help me pay for a new one if I paid them back for it (they put me on a payment plan, but it was better than a bank loan because there was no interest and they let late payments slide). I also contracted a serious chronic illness because my partner was careless and ignored my existing health issues which made me vulnerable, and they failed to take care of me to the point I wasn't even eating properly while in bed with a fever, and for months after. Any support they gave was won at the cost of arguments I didn't have energy for, and reluctantly, but to friends and family my partner presented themselves as a caretaker.

I've struggled to work steadily and most of my limited income went to repaying the cost of my computer, so I depleted any savings I had left after the pandemic. As a result I sometimes couldn't even afford basics like toiletries or even clothes (I once showed up half an hour late to a doctor's appointment because the zipper on my only jeans broke and I had to wear a skirt in the freezing cold), and my partner, while expressing sympathy verbally, didn't take any action to offer tangible support, ie. buying me a new pair of jeans. I didn't have my family to rely on for safety and support. Anything I want or need, whether it's a necessity or something like a trip to visit family or friends who all live far away, I have to meet my partner's parameters since they're the one footing the bill. It took many arguments and detailed explanations of my difficulties and expectations before they would give me basic support like a one-off clothing purchase, and even more negotiation for it to be given in a way that allowed me autonomy in decision making (ie. they handed me a limited budget instead of going shopping with me or asking me to run purchases by them first).

I've given my partner a lot of leeway because they're struggling with several simultaneous neurodiversities and they tend to be passive observers in most situations, rather than active participants. I can see the ways in which they struggle to understand my experience because of their NDs. It has also been several years now since their diagnosis, and they use their ND as an excuse, but won't seek support for it. I have to do the emotional heavy lifting for us both, and if my expectations of them feel reasonable to me, it doesn't matter because if it's outside of their comfort zone, even the simplest things become contentious and they get the final say, since they're the only one in the relationship who have financial independence right now. I have no access to, nor do I get updated on, any of their bank accounts or savings (worrying in case of an emergency), except for a debit card which has a set amount on it at any given time and is only for groceries and recurring bills.

My spouse will give me information on their financial standing occasionally if I ask, but they are very hesitant and reluctant. I have a bank account of my own, and my spouse has asked to see my monthly earnings for the purpose of understanding my needs, but I'm hesitant to show them because of how much of my trust they've compromised, and how private they've always been about their financials (not to mention that it indicates they don't trust me to state my needs reasonably and reliably). I believe that everyone in a marriage should have at least one personal bank account, but our finances aren't shared at all, save for the one shared groceries/bills account. That account does, however, include medical costs, and as long as my spouse approves the spending, I can use it for things like amenities.

I don't know if I will show my partner this poll, but it's really good to have in case I would like to. It shows what I've been saying to them for a very long time, which is that my expectations are based in widely socially accepted ones that most people are aware of, and while I want to respect that my partner's ND may preclude them from having understood this, I also feel it's reasonable to ask that they accept that I'm not unreasonable in having these expectations (especially since they had justified this with commitments they made when we got married and have since broken).

[phillymint]

It's been well over a year since this post and I wanted to add an update:

I never did show my spouse this poll, but what I did do was go to

A lawyer

A domestic abuse non-profit

A government agency

and had all three confirm that the situation was economic abuse. It took me several months but I scraped together enough to have a consultation with a divorce lawyer and learned what my options were. I wasn't expecting to get much - even though they'd have to either sell our home and give me half of what he got for it, or buy out my half, I didn't think they'd be willing to do the former or have the money for the latter, but I could at least get alimony and I could take care of my needs and my health problems better and get away from the stress of the marriage. So I asked my spouse for a divorce.

The divorce process itself was... illuminating. I found out that my spouse had several massive savings accounts they had conveniently forgotten to tell me about. And what was lucky for me, they didn't seem to understand that in a marriage all things are legally shared. They seemed to think that if something was only under their name, it was theirs exclusively - like putting a label in your clothes for summer camp. So they didn't secure any of their accounts, and most of them consisted of funds accumulated during the marriage. Not long after that came to light, they moved out (their ND includes being severely conflict averse and you can imagine things became... tense). It took a long time until I could start to relax and feel like I could be safe again.

In the end I walked away with enough to have a safety net. I bought an apartment that meets my disability needs, and have enough to live on for a few years while I get back on my feet (though hopefully it won't take that long). Moving, and doing all this on my own was really hard, but luckily I've had wonderful friends who've helped me and been incredibly supportive. I still feel like I'm putting myself back together and finding myself, but am doing worlds better.

Thank you to everyone who commented and reblogged and added tags - that massive and unapologetic naming of this situation as abuse was so so validating and meant the world to me. I was significantly luckier than most people facing a similiar situation and found a way out. I hope you'll consider donating to one of these domestic abuse non-profits if you're able to, to help others who are struggling:

12 Domestic Violence Nonprofits to Support in 2026

If you want to volunteer with domestic violence nonprofits, make donations, fundraise for them, or gather information, this can be the ultim

[iamthelowercase]

Hello, tumblr! I saw something on here the other day that worried me, so I decided to Do Science about it. But I can't do it alone: I need your help to build the dataset!

Here's what I need you to do:

If you see a post with a "mature content" label, and it's 2026, DM me a link to the post.

Yes, that's really it.

I am hoping to collect several thousand such posts, so that I have a decent sized dataset. I do not care what the post is about; if it's labeled as "mature content", I want to add it to my dataset.

If I get 10,000 posts in my dataset before August 31st 2026, I will post my preliminary findings then. I won't feel comfortable calling my findings "settled" before 2027, unless I get over 50,000 posts.

[iamthelowercase]

Tumblr Science FAQ, round 1

What's your hypothesis, OP?

I am not talking about that unless I have results to share. That would bias the results.

I did write them down and I did share them with a trusted contact who can prove that I wrote them down the same day I made this post. (While I did so before I made this post, I am not sure they will be able to provide proof of that, because I did so on the same day.)

OP are you interested in...?

Do you have to click through to see the post? Does the clickthrough contain the words "mature content"? Then yes.

OP are you interested if the post is about...?

I am interested in the mature content labels, not the content of the post. Is there a clickthrough that contains the words "mature content"? Then yes.

[iamthelowercase]

Tumblr Science FAQ, round 2

Should I reblog this for reach?

Yes, please. I felt really silly when I noticed I forgot to include that in the original post.

Is it okay if I send you my own posts?

Yes, those are perfect for what I'm looking for. I actually need to do some processing on a post to make it useful for testing my hypothesis, and this makes it easy.

Are you looking for "potentially mature content" also, or just "mature content"?

I want both, please. Anything that throws up a blocking screen that you have to click through. The distinctions between them are one of the things I am hoping to study.

Does it matter when the post was made originally?

Technically no. There's no way to respond to this without introducing some bias in the results, and I don't want that. However, I do collect some data on a post as part of making it useful to me, and that data is easier to collect if the post is recent.

What if I request content label review on a post after I send it to you?

I need to see the mature content label to be able to use the post. Because the mature content label hides the content of the post, it is very hard to use a post that no longer has a mature content label. You could send me a screenshot, but people could use that to lie to me.

Basically, it's more work for you to make it usable to me.

OP are you a transphobe? It would ruin the experiment for me if you're a transphobe.

I promise I'm not a transphobe and not doing this for transphobic reasons. You should still double-check that I'm not a transphobe for yourself, though. I am not sure that this study will have the useful effects you're hoping for; I am studying something specific, and it may not be what you hope.

[lesbianshepard]

waaaay back when I was a cashier in retail we would talk about dumb shit while unloading the truck, and we got to the "what would you do in a zombie apocalypse" me and another worker were like yeah we would just die. End it all, we can't fight or run or shit. I refuse to put that much effort into survival.

And my manager was like no!!!! If that happened, I would drive to find you guys in my truck and we could eat stuff from my wife's garden and I would make sure everyone I know survived!! I would carry you all on my shoulders away from the zombies!!

Anyway, random shout out to that guy. You were too kind for retail management, Devin.

[lesbianshepard]

also afterwards everyone who was talking about their cool bunker fantasies were like "Damn, Devin's right, we should also be considering helping people around us." which is the only recorded instance of a retail shift making people better human beings.

[ms-demeanor]

To have a computer reliably recognize a picture of a red-winged blackbird the computer must first imagine the universe.

[ms-demeanor]

I am having complicated and frustrating thoughts on AI again (as always).

[ms-demeanor]

I don't know if I've expressed this but part of the thing that has been making me bugfuck insane about discussions around AI image generation is knowing people who have worked with computer vision for decades.

[ms-demeanor]

I should fire up my 2005 macbook with CS2 installed on it and edit a photo entirely with "AI tools."

[ms-demeanor]

This is a 1980 computer science master's thesis by Ellen Hildreth on computer image recognition and creation. (Link downloads PDF)

The paper demonstrates the development, training, and testing of the Marr-Hildreth algorithm for edge detection in digital images.

[ms-demeanor]

Every time I'm gearing up for a good academic rant on this subject I further entrench my hatred of copyright.

[ms-demeanor]

Look. I understand that people are concerned about training models. I really do get that, that people have intense feelings about their photos or drawings or image being used to train AI. I even kind of get wanting to weaponize copyright against that because you don't know what else to do with those feelings.

I am currently building a multi-decade chain of papers on computer vision and image generation to have this discussion, and I would like to do so in a moderately calm manner.

Unfortunately if I want to cite a journal article from 1983 in a tumblr post, the copyright holders of this article about image restoration and pixel randomization want $248 per section of excerpted text (<500 words).

So the calm has now gone away.

[ms-demeanor]

Anyway. The flesh pit guy appears to be an asshole but I'm very frustrated seeing people react to photoshop compositing tools as an unethical use of AI tools that undermines the craft or artistry of a project.

This is a 2024 paper by one of the Adobe developers who worked on those compositing tools going over how the tools work. For the record, this model was trained on licensed and public domain images only and the tools are run on device, so the copyright and environmental complaints that people frequently make about AI don't apply to these specific tools.

That paper uses research from this 2015 paper on AI detection of composited images. That paper uses the ImageNet dataset.

ImageNet's dataset is a combination of images sourced from image searches starting in 2009 and description tags generated by Amazon Mechanical Turk workers. The images are not owned by ImageNet, but were scraped from various internet sources in the late 2000s.

That project uses algorithms and processes described in this 2007 paper on the utility of a general image database and image segmentation.

This 2000 paper on image segmentation developed some of the models used in the later paper, based on a collection of 1000 Corel stock images.

That segmentation was based on statistical models in this paper from 1994, which used a small training dataset collected by the researchers.

That 1994 paper made use of the model in this foundational paper from 1984 on predictive pixel selection for algorithm-based image restoration.

That paper helped to refine the boundary-finding methods used in this 1986 paper, which was an improvement on methods from the 1980 Hildreth paper.

Both Hildreth and Canny cite this 1971 memo from the MIT Artificial Intelligence lab, which describes the process of using a computer to find lines in an image.

Personally I like this note from a revised version of that 1971 memo that shows that we are still currently dealing with some of the same problems in computer vision that people were 50 years ago.

"This program has no idea what a reasonable line-drawing should look like when it represents an image of polyhedra. Instead it is very general and will find arbitrary line-drawings. Observing the particular way in which things sometimes go wrong, one quickly comes to the conclusion that higher-level understanding of the scene being analysed could greatly improve the line and vertex creating phase of this program. As thing stand now this understanding comes only after the line-finder has done its work."

Okay so what's my point?

My point is that there is a long chain of models, statistics, and research that, stretching back to the beginning of computer vision, has been centered around figuring out the likelihood that one pixel next to another pixel is black instead of white. The computers have never been very smart, they have never understood context, and the improvements we have made from the line finder in 1971 to "harmonize" in photoshop in 2026 is a very traceable chain of refining how the statistics are calculated.

They hallucinate extra elements, they don't know what shadows are.

Computers are still stupid, they just do math a lot faster than they did in the seventies.

Harmonize is apparently a new "AI" tool available in photoshop that is capable of matching lighting, texture, and other qualities in photos that are composited together. One of the things that the flesh pit guy is currently being dragged for (aside from really seeming to be a pretty tremendous asshole) is using this particular type of AI tool as a time saver on his ongoing art project.

I want to have a conversation about this, by which I mean I want to make some arguments about this.

I'm writing this specifically about the harmonize compositing tool in photoshop (and similar tools like upscaling). This is not about using grok or generating whole images or whole elements of images, this is not about whether or not the flesh pit guy is an asshole. I will grant that he is an asshole and I personally find whole images generated with AI tools like grok to just kind of look bad and be really boring.

Work with me on this, and let's accept the premise that adobe's Firefly is an ethically trained model (up to 5% of the images used to train firefly may be midjourney images that were licensed to adobe as stock images after being generated by midjourney, but adobe pays creators standard licensing fees to train data and does not train on client data), and that the tools are run on-device and do not consume any more resources than creating a 20-layer document in photoshop would.

(Also I acknowledge that training a model uses a lot of power and resources but creating a video game or an animated movie uses power at a much higher level than playing the game or watching the movie on your own machine; i've got to limit the scope somewhere so I can actually ask the question I've got)

Again, we are granting the following before you respond to the poll:

If the model was trained on ethical data and

If the tool runs locally and does not use more power than your computer uses and

The art the tool is used on is a personal, individual project and does not lead to poor treatment of workers

With that context I think those AI Tools

Are unethical and reduce the artistry of a work

Are unethical but do not reduce the artistry of a work

Are ethical but reduce the artistry of a work

Are ethical and do not reduce the artistry of a work

Remaining time: 1 day 23 hours

[ms-demeanor]

Reblogging with corrected final question on poll.

[ms-demeanor]

Editing a photo with only the AI tools (predictive image processing tools developed from models trained on large imagesets) included as a part of the 2012 CS6 license (and the autofocus on my phone camera from 2020).

Direct from cellphone, Autofocus

Posterize (edge-finding like the tools in the original linked master’s thesis)

HDR Toning (photorealistic high contrast preset)

Selective Color Adjustment

Glowing Edges (again, another edge-finding tool)

Rendered lighting effects (spot, high intensity, high angle)

Color halftone

Gaussian Blur applied to the color halftone (similar to how AI upscaling works, and is based on the 1986 paper listed above)

Selective color replacement

Cutting backgrounds 100% with tools that use the AI included in my 2012 CS6 license

I think the last two images here and the edge-finding images do a really good job of demonstrating how AI/Machine Learning image processing tools are statistical tools.

The cut-out on the left was done hastily with a magic wand selection tool with a color selection threshold of 20. What that means is that you click on the image and the tool picks all of the pixels that are contiguous with the pixel you clicked on and are within the tolerance. If you broke down the image pixel by pixel you'd be able to get the exact count of what percentage of the image is what color, you could, in theory, remake the image as a barcode of just the proportions of each color using this kind of image analysis. The image is math, the computer sees it as math, the algorithms see it as math, the models see it as math.

The cut-out on the right demonstrates how the "AI computer vision" makes educated guesses (predictions) about the image. That was cut out using a magnetic lasso tool, which you guide around the vague shape of the image with your mouse. The program creates a selection line that follows color variations in the edges of the image that you're cutting out. On a very high contrast background (so if I was standing against a white wall) this can be very accurate. On a lower contrast background, there's more variation as the program guess wrong about which way to move the selection line.

The program doesn't see the photo as a picture of a person being cut out, it sees a collection of pixels of various colors and calculates what the probability is that a pixel of one color is likely to be next to a pixel of another color based on the the difference in color of the pixels.

There are very, very accurate selection tools in modern editions of creative suite - when I used the sky selection tool in my photography class in 2023 I was *stunned* by how accurate it was and how much time it saved. But all of that is just a more complicated form of the line finder in the 1971 memo that had trouble distinguishing between solids and shadows in areas of reduced contrast.

[ms-demeanor]

This is the 2012 version of photoshop, but I'd be able to duplicate the filtering, texture, light rendering, and blending effects from the "harmonize" image in either the 2006 or the 2012 versions of photoshop, it would just take a pretty long time and would require a decent level of fluency with the program. The harmonize tools are a combination of the tools that I used to edit the images above, with some additional color adjustments. It reminds me a lot of the preset HDR variations you can tweak with no effort in CS6.

I could create every single one of those 21 variations using curves or the hue, contrast, saturation, and lightness sliders. But I could also pick the one that looks closest to what I want if I'm in a hurry.

I can see the utility of using the sliders or the histogram or the more involved process every time (TBQH, that's what I do - in 24 years of using photoshop I've never used the variations tool in this screenshot) but I can't imagine thinking that using the selections here would make a photo composite less artistic or would represent laziness if the color profile looked good for what you were making.

[hylianengineer]

There is one very important thing I need people without major dietary restrictions to understand: the distress caused by allergies, celiac disease, and other food restrictions is largely not about the food.

Do I miss some foods I can't eat anymore without getting sick? Sure, but that's not what really bothers me. What bothers me is being excluded from a huge portion of human social life of which food is a crucial component. What bothers me is the stress and social stigma of trying to figure out what I can safely eat. What bothers me is the amount of extra work and cost that is required of me to identify, obtain, and prepare safe foods. What bothers me is people treating my needs like a nuisance, as though I chose to be like this - as though their brief inconvenience to check an ingredients list is unreasonable, when I deal with this every day of my life forever.

I don't miss the food that much. I miss not having to worry about what I eat. I miss freedom. I miss when trying new foods and new restaurants was fun instead of a minefield. I miss not having to plan my entire life around the need for safe foods.

Food is such a basic human need, and a lot of people don't really need to think about it. When your danger foods can be anywhere and everywhere, suddenly your entire life revolves around avoiding them, and it massively sucks. You get used to it and it's not a big deal most of the time, but then you go to a new restaurant, or your office has a potluck, or you've been invited to a party and suddenly it feels just as miserable and exhausting as it ever has.

[harbinger-of-silly]

All gays will go to hellsite

[king-of-oreo]

What if in hellsite but not gay

[punky-beaver-offical]

[king-of-oreo]

NO!

[avhira]

[hellsitegenetics]

String identified: A ga g t t at t t t ga T tag g a Ag agag Acctac ! T tag g a Ag agag Acctac

Closest match: Psylliodes chrysocephala genome assembly, chromosome: 4 Common name: Cabbage Stem Flea Beetle

(image source)

[graveexcitement]

[kebbopulos]

[spaghettihell]

[digitaldiscipline]

This is the 85 year old creator of Roger Rabbit:

[amygdalae]

Discourse around whether audiobooks count as reading ticks me off. Like, obviously, someone who listens to the audiobook is still taking in the story as it is written, and they are just as capable of understanding the story (and thus developing a cogent analysis of the work.)

The only thing "missing" is objectively, they aren't actively developing the specific skill of using their eyes to read words off the page...that undeniably is a useful skill and a benefit you can get from reading, but it's not some inextricable part of the process that makes audiobooks invalid as a way of taking in a story

Like clearly it's not the same exact thing, but people are also weirdly ableist talking about audiobooks not counting. They absolutely do

[alchemistdoctor]

I think the issue lies around reading defined as a skill and reading comprehension defined as a skill, vs reading defined as "taking in and understanding a story", which is a different skill altogether and not how we defined the word "reading" for most of time.

This is especially a problem in an era where reading-defined-as-a-skill literacy and reading comprehension defined as a skill has gone down drastically.

I don't mind if someone says they listened to a book. I also don't really care if someone says they read a book and they mean "listened to the audiobook". I do care, however, if someone tells me they can read, based on their history of listening to long and complex novels, and I hand them a lease and they don't actually have reading and reading comprehension as classically defined.

We have a literacy crisis and audiobooks fill the gap for a lot of people in terms of the books available, but they do not fill the gap between me and the 98th customer who comes in and tries to use the coke machine that currently has a big sign taped to the front that says "out of order". When we address the literacy crisis, we mention people can't read. And then get hit with a wave of "I read audiobooks!"

No, you do not read audiobooks in the classic sense of the word "read", and that is important, because the skill of that classic "reading" is still essential to going through life, especially if you don't want to get scammed. Reading your lease, your car contracts, your bank information, all of that is important to your well-being but you can't functionally read and comprehend long text, unless it is read aloud to you, usually with inflection to make comprehension easier. That is a problem.

So yeah, if you say you read "the Martian" when you actually listened to it, I don't really mind. But if you say you can read when all you read is audiobooks, I'm going to stop you there.

[carriesthewind]

This the report that JK Rowing doesn't want you to see. This report scares her so much that she is trying to destroy Amnesty International, a human rights organization, to stop you reading it:

Alejandra Caraballo (@esqueer.net)

Amnesty International put out a major report documenting the influence of UK based anti trans gender critical organizations and their fundin

(Amnesty already pulled the report because of JKR's threats. Of course that didn't and won't stop her - capitulating to fascists and bigots is never the answer. Alejandra captured the report and posted it, so you can read what JKR doesn't want you to know.)

[sanguinarysanguinity]

Bluesky thread is a lot of screenshots (which I find impossible to cope with), but if you scroll far enough down, there's a link to the full pdf:

[carriesthewind]

My good folks? Please stop reblogging this with incitements to violence. If you do, I will assume you are a terf fedposting, and report and block you as such.

[queerquests]

Framing illness as even involving morality seems to me a mistake, because of course cancer does not give a shit whether you are a good person. Biology has no moral compass.

—John Green, Everything Is Tuberculosis

[tiktoksthataregood-ish]

[carrionthird]

"Stop scrolling and please help me spread the word, because if I've landed on your page you're most likely either a black woman or someone who cares about black women and the simple phrase I'm about to share could help save a black woman's life.

Doctors are to black women what police officers are to black men. That may seem controversial but I believe it to be true and I speak from personal experience.

If you've seen this TikTok you know that a 2016 study showed that 50% of medical students and residents thought that black people couldn't feel pain the same as white people.

And we learned from this video that because of a 1999 study, to this day, there's a black correction factor for the creatinin levels in black people's kidneys, meaning we're less likely to recieve a kidney transplant if needed.

So if you go to a doctor, feel you aren't getting proper treatment or they refuse the treatment you've requested, say to them the following:

I will need you to document on record that you are refusing the treatment (or medicine) I've requested, and the reason you are doing so."

[dovewithscales]

This works. I have used it in other situations. If medical staff have to document and take responsibility and be on the hook legally for doing shady shit they behave much differently.

If you weren’t already going to spread this advice because black women are at risk, then spread it because it’s applicable to everyone else as well, including you reading this.

But particularly women, and especially black women.

[kremlin]

uninstall adobe acrobat. it is malware. it has been malware. these aren't opinions: acrobat meets the definition of malware.

it installs a user-login-time "startup" executable that ignores any windows directives to disable it on startup. doing so only removes the even-more-malicious taskbar-icon-creating advertisement-notification-creating process. no matter what you do, the sleeper "updater" process starts when you log in, and runs perpetually

it sends & receives encrypted network traffic both periodically and non-periodically. both are bad, both are suspicious, and a program doing both is more suspicious than the sum of their parts. and to boot: acrobat will polymorphically edit its code after such network activity

this isn't new: it has always done this. now, it does not even do the thing it is meant to: provide a way to interact with documents, which is amongst the very first features computers were built to provide. you can merely open PDFs and read some of their content in the narrow space between the requests for adobe to give them your money, and interface for features you cannot use (because you don't) or do not, have not, and will not ever need

adobe and microsoft would very much like the user's cultural norms around computers to allow for advertisement built into the local software and even operating system itself. the web being 100% advertisements was not enough! sure enough, acrobat will hijack the windows notifications system thing to give you the 2026 equivalent of pop-ups

i don't really know enough about windows software equivalents, so i'll paypal $20 to the first person that reblogs this with a list of 3-5 PDF reader/editor/etc acrobat equivalents that meet the following criteria:

open source, locally-built executables must match checksum of prebuilt distributed executable

no paid features/premium version/subscription/whatever

not a toy hobby project thing, must be windows-users-proof

cheers

[andmaybegayer]

Firefox's built-in PDF.js viewer: does everything you could want from a basic viewer, fast enough search, and can now do annotations for filling in forms and such

KDE Okular: is a decent viewer and can also do basic annotations, and is so not-a-toy that you can even download it on the Windows app store.

LibreOffice Draw: I don't ever really like having to open this but if you have to edit a PDF in detail it does work, and doesn't just vomit up a bunch of polygons when you give it text to work with. Better as an authoring tool than an editor.

[pusheen]