Science, Art and Shitposts

Arthur. Queer. Hobbyist artist. Real-life Hobbit. Cat dad. He/Him. Adult. German. Antisemites get blocked.

[milkovichy]

[pangur-and-grim]

always doing something annoying

[pangur-and-grim]

can I be honest? I was so pissed off by friends and family criticizing my soap choice that, for half a year, I did an experiment where I washed one hand with Palmolive and one with handsoap, to prove that it didn't make your skin any rougher. and do you know what the result is? it does make your skin rougher. and now I'm even more pissed off.

[heavilyglacialvalhalla]

I love this. This is the beauty of the honest scientific process. You had an idea, you tested it and you still reported the results even though the results disproved your idea.

It's ok to be mad at it, you're an honest scientist.

[aaaaaarchive]

[sztupy]

Landmark German ruling declares Google's AI Overviews are Google's own words and makes it liable for false answers

A German regional court has ruled that Google is directly liable for the content of its AI search overviews. According to the court, previou

[ayeforscotland]

Let’s fucking go

[made-in-manetheren]

This is HUGE.

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.

TL;DR Google reeeeeally stepped in it this time.

[alianoralacanta]

5. If the words are Google's, this solidifies the position of universities who demand that all answers from AI are fully cited. If all the in-line citations now have to be (Google, 2026), that's going to make it obvious when someone's trying to use Google as a source. There's still the difficulty with people who are academically dishonest by trying to pass off the AI writing as their own. 6. 91% accuracy is officially too low to use as a source of references, which means the AI can't be used as a source of references either. This makes it less legitimate for such purposes than Wikipedia of all places (Wikipedia might need date/time proof of when it was accessed for the reference to be valid, but at least it is possible to prove the link existed at a particular date and time). 7. This will help encourage the rollout of courses on how to avoid AI search for students who need academic accuracy, because it's statistically not good enough to use. 8. This strengthens the case intellectual property authors have against Google in the EU, as this is proof that an intellectual property transfer took place.

[lesbianshepard]

Current twitter drama is Europeans confidently declaring that they don't need to drive or use overpriced public transport to get to the MetLife stadium for the World Cup; they will simply walk down the highway to get there. Girl it's New Jersey. They're gonna splatter you for fun.

[lesbianshepard]

If you manage to get on the turnpike before the cops stop you, a soccer mom is gonna do the Jersey slide in a RAV4 and turn your entire group into a wet speedbump

[bunjywunjy]

this? you want to walk down this????

please say sike

[bunjywunjy]

IT'S NOT A FUCKING STREET ITS AN 8-LANE SUPERHIGHWAY THAT GOES OVER A SWAMP

[hapalopus]

footpath

[bunjywunjy]

that is grass. just like ur ass, if you try to walk this thing

[phantomomo]

Image me gently taking your hand as I tell you the following:

This is ABSOLUTELY a perfectly fine footpath.

In fact, with how much space I’m seeing here, it is entirely plausible, that the European hordes will just create a temporary little Wanderweg right next to the highway. With that much space they might not even have to interfere with traffic.

But also have you seen the space between your highways? I‘d say the gaps each easily fit another whole stream of European walking hordes. Or maybe even two going opposite directions :D

[bunjywunjy]

tightly grips your hand with both of my sweaty hands.

the grass is not a permanent feature. there just happens to be a chunk of it there. the side of the road can vary from grass to swampwater ditches to steep embankments to absolutely nothing within a very short distance.

they will call in every highway enforcer in the state and mass incarcerate the lot of you before they allow you to Darwin Award yourselves across 6 lanes of traffic into an international incident or, (their real concern) impede the progress of the single most important north-south interstate corridor in america, ball kicky game be damned.

(I'm starting to believe that a fair number of you in the notes have We're Better Than Stupid Americans embedded so deeply into your cultural identity that you will Just Not Listen to anything we say to you about the material circumstances about the place we live in, rather than taking us at our word that there is a reason that most Americans travel the way we do and it's a good reason.)

[library-seraph]

"Jaywalking is not a thing in Europe" may I suggest this is less about the laws of America and more about the laws of inertia

[wanderingthunderstorm]

Trolley problem:

You are a US American motorist driving along i-95 during rush hour. You see a pedestrian dart in front of you. You have 2 seconds to make a decision:

Attempt to stop (cause multi-car pile up and kill pedestrian anyway)

Attempt to swerve #1 (cause semi truck next to you to jackknife, cause pileup, kill pedestrian anyway)

Attempt to swerve #2 (into ditch/swamp/retaining wall, 85 mph/137 km per hour, killing yourself, your passengers, and a bunch of other people on the road when your car inevitably sends pieces shooting off into traffic. Also, the pedestrian gets run over by the person behind you, who was NOT expecting a pedestrian and didn't even see them)

Run over the pedestrian and hope you can at least stay in your lane and not cause a worse accident while you slow down

[thatlittleegyptologist]

Okay so this has been a fun thing to watch unfold over the last week and I guess it’s finally reached here. Just like a game of telephone the argument no longer resembles the origin. There was a Reddit thread about it and tbf a lot of the Europeans on there were very confused as to why anyone thought they were going to walk it. Where had all this come from? Who was actually saying this?

So, Reddit being Reddit, had already tracked down the origins. Turns out there were some disgruntled Europeans that were unhappy with the fact that the train operator was price gouging the tickets that were usually $12 so that they were $150+ to get from the hotel to the MetLife stadium. Roughly 900m away (through a swamp). The European complaining was like “it’s 900m I’d rather fucking walk it”. Not that he was going to walk it, just that he was pissed off at the price enough that he’d jokingly consider it.

In swoops a blue check mark rw dude who, like the above, took him literally and explained swamps and how roads work in a very condescending manner (not like the above). The European response was so clearly sarcasm (paraphrasing: “I’m strong! I can make it across a swamp! I’m not paying $150 dollars for a 15 minute train ride”) but it went over the blue check mark guy’s head.

So he doubles down, insisting that they’ll all get run over on the I-95 and Europeans are arrogant and stupid. So what did the original guy do? After a bit of back and forth about terrible infrastructure he starts Smooth Sharking the blue check mark guy! No it’s totally fine! I’ve crossed big roads before! Swamps are nothing! Blue check guy does not recognise the sarcasm or the obvious rage bait so doubles down again.

By this time, it’s got enough traction that more Europeans show up to rage bait this one guy with stuff like “nah the whole Dutch fan walk is gonna walk alongside the I-95!” “You can’t do that you’ll get killed by trucks!” “It’s fine they can’t kill us all there are too many! Some will make it to the match!”

Of course it make blue check mark guy very angry and he started ranting about Europeans being arrogant enough to walk. He was also equating it with them not helping with that Special Operation Tango Toddler has going on, which like okay dude. But others only saw his rants about it and that began to spread. Once it reached TikTok and folks were making videos accusing Europeans of white supremacy (yes that is a thing that happened) it genuinely spun out of control to what we’re seeing now.

I don’t doubt some idiot Europeans have indeed tried to justify doing this, there’s one on this post (along with one person clearly smooth sharking. Like c’mon, circling grass and writing “path” is not a serious response, it’s rage bait) but the idea that “European football fans think they can walk this” isn’t real. No one has earnestly being saying they’ll do it. More people have been shocked by the dominance of car led infrastructure than have thought “yeah I can cross an 8 lane interstate highway.”

Tl;dr: This is manufactured outrage based on one guy getting smooth sharked because some other guy thought a $12 ticket suddenly being $150 was a bit fucking much for such a short journey and he’d rather walk than pay that.

Can we all chill out now?

[laziilee]

Hair Twins - AvPol

[mentemori]

My mom left an eviction notice for the carpenter bees burrowing into our porch

[importantcatpics]

[sleepytrain]

Torii

Sendai, Japan 2025

[blackheart-biohazards]

😈 You are not bound by the Hays code.

😈 You are allowed to have evil characters who are not punished by the narrative by the end of the story.

😈 You are allowed to have evil characters who win.

😈 You are allowed to have evil characters who make evil look fun and cool.

😈 You are allowed to make your fun, cool evil character the protagonist.

😈 You are allowed to glorify, romanticize and eroticize evil characters and villainous acts.

😈 You are not obligated to teach your audience a moral lesson.

[dovesndecay]

[depsidase]

[lliveonthesunn]

i get why people don't believe in marriage as a social construct but legally it is the best and easiest way to say "this is who i trust to take care of me when i can't take care of myself" and i'm so glad gay people fought for that right bc when shit gets scary at least i know im in good hands

[darlingofdots]

This is how I convinced my conservative grandma that the gays do also need marriage, actually. My grandad died when I was 4 and I asked her to imagine not being allowed to see him or make decisions for him or be entitled to an inheritance and she got very quiet and conceded the point. Marriage doesn't intrinsically mean anything but as a legal framework it is really, really important

[cindypoppers]

BloodSisters: Leather, Dykes, and Sadomasochism, Michelle Handelman (1995)

[nauteno]

Finally he comes🤩🤩🤩(ESO)

[batsandboba]

do not start gambling. go outside and locate a bug. now post it on inaturalist. bam. nature's gacha game

[batsandboba]

#id do this if it didnt doxx my location

inat has options for this! for each observation you upload, you can choose to keep the location public, not to disclose location at all, or to obscure it.

i'm a fan of the obscured option bc it shows the general area but not the exact coordinates, which allows for region-specific species ids without doxxing you. according to the inat help page it picks a random point within a 500km radius.

[sztupy]

Landmark German ruling declares Google's AI Overviews are Google's own words and makes it liable for false answers

A German regional court has ruled that Google is directly liable for the content of its AI search overviews. According to the court, previou

[ayeforscotland]

Let’s fucking go

[made-in-manetheren]

This is HUGE.

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.

TL;DR Google reeeeeally stepped in it this time.

[reasonsforhope]

Additional source and more details below. Absolutely thrilled to say that this is real. And yeah, it's huge.

For all the reasons above AND ALSO because this particular lawsuit is a defamation case

Privacy lawsuits are hard because most privacy laws are super super weak, and there's very rarely a lot of money or enforcement backing privacy laws for...twenty million reasons, really...

But defamation suits? Those have teeth.

(In large part because, at least in some countries and including in the US, defamation laws protect public figures the least - and "public figures" legally includes most if not all politicians, and a hell of a lot of other rich ppl too)

A Munich court ruled Google's AI Overviews are its own words, making it liable for false claims, a decision that, if it holds, could reach e

A German court has ruled that Google can be held directly liable for false claims made by its AI Overviews, a decision that could put a serious legal dent in the whole “the AI made me do it” defense. According to The Next Web, the Regional Court of Munich issued a temporary injunction after Google’s AI Overviews wrongly tied two Munich publishers to scams, subscription traps, and dubious business practices. The court treated those AI-generated summaries as Google’s own statements, not just ordinary search results pointing to third-party pages. That distinction matters. Search engines have traditionally had more protection because they index and link to other people’s content. AI Overviews changes the machinery. Google is not just showing the web anymore. It is summarizing it, rewriting it, and sometimes apparently hallucinating a tiny legal grenade into the results page.

-via Search Engine World, June 10, 2026

[queenofnots]

Supposedly progressive and left leaning people thinking art preservation and space exploration and just research and history in general are useless endeavors sound so republican to me.