Howardena Pindell (American, 1943), Webb, 2023. Acrylic on canvas, 60 1â8 x 48 1/8 in.
Not today Justin
Today's Document

Discoholic đȘ©
TMBGareOK. The Official They Might Be Giants tumblr
art blog(derogatory)
macklin celebrini has autism
đ©” avery cochrane đ©”
RMH

pixel skylines
taylor price
Claire Keane
Phantogram Three
Fieri Frames

Jar Jar Binks Fan Club

No title available

No title available
$LAYYYTER
Cookie Run:Kingdom Official!
The Bright Sessions

PR's Tumblrdome
seen from Poland
seen from Mexico
seen from United States
seen from Italy
seen from Vietnam
seen from United States
seen from Germany
seen from Spain
seen from United States

seen from Netherlands
seen from France

seen from Azerbaijan

seen from Brazil
seen from Azerbaijan
seen from United States
seen from Slovakia

seen from Uruguay
seen from United States
seen from Puerto Rico
seen from Colombia
@obscureliteraryhumor
Howardena Pindell (American, 1943), Webb, 2023. Acrylic on canvas, 60 1â8 x 48 1/8 in.
Mark Rothko, Untitled, 1963 Oil on paper, laid down on canvas 75.4 x 55 x 3.5 cm / 29 5/8 x 21 5/8 x 1 3/8 in Courtesy Private Collection © 1998 Kate Rothko Prizel & Christopher Rothko / 2025, ProLitteris, Zurich
New scan, now showing a date of 1963 instead of 1969 (from the original Taschen scan. This 69 dates makes more sense to me, but I don't doubt it could be any year
metaverse being an 80 billion dollar turbo flop that immediately shut down after one of the worst performances and subsequent total company rebranding in recent history SHOULD, in a kind and just world, have spelled the end for the entire company. but unfortunately we live in hell and "Meta" is still alive
same goes for twitter too like that shit should have shut down a month after it became X, The Everything App but these guys just have so much money that 80 billion dollars can be burned with reckless abandon and their companies will survive
reblog if you too are bi and confused or support othersâ right to be bi and confused
wooow, labour MP btw
not just any MP, but an undersecretary for migration and citizenship. this guy is one of the MPs that has a direct hand on the genuinely horrific treatment of migrants and refugees in the UK, including shipping them off to the UK's former colony after unilaterally declaring the colony to be safe, as well as stripping the migrant and refugees of their heirlooms in the name of "paying for their migration in the UK with their own assets." Starmer's cabinet is filled with people whose bloodsoaked hands will never wash out like these.
Iâm watching that documentary âBefore Stonewallâ about gay history pre-1969, and uncovered something which I think is interesting.
The documentary includes a brief clip of a 1954 televised newscast about the rise of homosexuality. The host of the program interviewed psychologists, a police officer, and one âknown homosexualâ. The âknown homosexualâ is 22 years old. He identifies himself as Curtis White, which is a pseudonym; his name is actually Dale Olson.
So I tracked down the newscast. According to what I can find, Dale Olson may have been the first gay man to appear openly on television and defend his sexual orientation. He explains that thereâs nothing wrong with him mentally and heâs never been arrested. When asked whether heâd take a cure if it existed, he says no. When asked whether his family knows heâs gay, he says that they didnât up until tonight, but he guesses theyâre going to find out, and heâll probably be fired from his job as well. So of course the host is like âŠwhy are you doing this interview then? and Dale Olson, cool as cucumber pie, says âI think that this way I can be a little useful to someone besides myself.â
1954. 22 years old. Balls of pure titanium.
Despite the pseudonym, Daleâs boss did indeed recognize him from the TV program, and he was promptly fired the next day. He wrote into ONE magazine six months later to reassure readers that he had gotten a new job at a higher salary.
Curious about what became of him, I looked into his life a little further. It turns out that he ultimately became a very successful publicity agent. He promoted the Rocky movies and Superman. Not only that, but get this: Dale represented Rock Hudson, and he was the person who convinced him to disclose that he had AIDS! He wrote the statement Rock read. And as we know, Rock Hudsonâs disclosure had a very significant effect on the national conversation about AIDS in the U.S.
It appears that no one has made the connection between Dale Olson the publicity agent instrumental in the AIDS debate and Dale Olson the 22-year-old first openly gay man on TV. So I thought Iâd make it. For Pride month, an unsung gay hero.
RATING: RELIABLE
you can listen to the clip of the 1954 interview here and find him on wikipedia here
In time travel movies, when the time traveler asks 'What year is this?!?' they're always treated like they're being weird for asking.
When in reality, if you go 'What year is this?!?' people will just say '2024. Crazy huh.' and you go 'Wtf where has my youth gone.'
And if you ask 'And what month??' people won't judge you, they'll just go like 'SEPTEMBER!!! Can you believe it?!?!' and you go 'WHAT?!? Last time I checked we were in May?!?'
That is a great point. Especially if you time travel to a period of Big Historical Events, when everybody's looking a little wild about the eyes.
"Hey, what month is it?"
"January already, can you believe it? I swear I was just at Pompeii, but no one's going there again."
In the same vein:
Stumbling into a diner and asking "What town is this" isn't weird, the workers will think you're on a road trip
If you ask them "Where's the nearest Nano Deck?" they'll assume it's a shop they've never heard of and say "Sorry, I don't know where any of those are"
Going into a store and telling a cashier "I need pods for my comm device" will just get you a "Never heard of those, maybe try Radio Shack?"
I think the problem is that people who create sci-fi movies have never had to work customer service jobs
I keep seeing this post about how Knives Out went to these insane lengths to allow Benoit Blanc to wear glasses and it drives me nuts. Because it is honestly not that hard to account for lens glare on glasses while filming a movie. What Knives Out did is markedly more batshit.
They built special rigging to make the glare on the lense accurate to the space in which he's supposed to be. Mindblowingly unhinged. Special lighting rigs to add the most minute sense of realism to the film. I can not emphasize enough how ungodly insane that is as a lighting choice. It is a fucking chef's kiss of filmmaking. It is fucking showing off. It is iconic and is honest to got something lighting teachers are gonna be teaching film students for decades.
i love how weird kids are. they make up the most bizarre stuff when left to their own devices and it's never what an adult would naively predict a kid would do in their imaginative play
my friend's 5 year old recently got a toy veterinary medicine set - it's super cool, like one of those mini play kitchens a lot of kids have, but it's set up to pretend to be a vet (it's this thing) - it has stuffed animals and things to weigh them, give them medicine, take x-rays, write on their charts, etc.
so this kid, who is five and to my knowledge has no experience in the administrative bureaucracy of modern healthcare, puts a stuffed pig named Piggy on the exam table. she pretends to draw blood from Piggy using a fake syringe, and the blood goes into a toy test tube vial that she calls "the resulter"
i'm playing with her, right, so i'm like, awesome, what are the results of Piggy's blood test? and she says "we have to send it to the scientists." so we send the vial to the scientists (put it in her bedroom) and when we get back to the vet playset i'm like awesome what did the scientists say? and she says they have not gotten back to us yet
so she rolls her eyes, exasperated, and says we have to call the scientists. she pretends to call them. apparently, they tell her that Piggy's blood test is "at the bottom of the list" and "we have to WAIT." she frowns. we wait a bit longer and call them back. they tell us it will be a while! she says we should go ask the scientists in person so we go back to her bedroom and she inquires at this imaginary lab, at which point the scientists yell at her and tell her now they will make us wait even longer!
keep in mind she is 100% directing this play. she is making all this up. she is fully in control of this game, and she has decided that what we are going to pretend is that we are dealing with this exhausting nonsense, not actually treating Piggy.
finally the blood tests come back. they are inconclusive. the scientists do not know what is wrong with Piggy. the little girl walks back to the stuffed pig on the exam table, sighs deeply, and says in a very serious voice "we can never help you."
i'm obsessed with this kid. when given complete control over a make believe scenario, instead of becoming the heroic rescuer administering effective cures, she is instead a beleaguered vet making multiple calls to an overworked lab only to be left unable to help her patient.
10/10 no notes. kids are amazing
I used to watch a toddler and this one time she decided that my arm stretched across a doorway was a magic portal to other lands. My arm was a boom gate type of thing that had to raise up to let her go through the portal. I was like, cool, we're gonna go on adventures in some imaginary world full of stuff she likes.
Nope, she spent an hour troubleshooting and repairing the gate, which was broken in multiple ways. We never activated it.
@space-sburbian I want to talk about your tags if that's alright!
So, play for children serves two main purposes. The first is, as you have noted, is being fun. That's a very important need for humans, and playing pretend is a very effective way to have fun without any physical objects or resources.
The second is, as you also alluded to, to let them understand the world around them. I would bet money that the child in OP's story is either closely related to doctors or goes to a lot of vet/doctors appointments. She is emulating behaviors she's around a lot, and the talk of the adults in her life. That's her way of feeling connected to the roles of the people around her!
The same thing about the magical portal; a close relation works in some kind of tech support/maintenance kind of role, and talks about it/does it around her, and she wants to emulate that. (Or she lives with someone who is breaking things constantly, and she picked up that from their constant IT calls.)
Now, that doesn't inherently mean that she's not doing the type of super imaginative play you're talking about; like I said, play serves two main purposes, and the majority of children are going to have more grounded imagination sessions and more fantastical ones, but I don't actually want to focus on that.
Instead, I'd like to focus on the what our (adult, or older teen) perspective on play says. It is not a sign that play has changed drastically, or that the children are no longer creative, or that there's something wrong with us as adults. We are taking out nostalgic, goal oriented perspective and applying it on a current, goalless activity.
As we grow up, we tend to focus more on more on accomplishing (or finishing) tasks. That's an important skill to have and learn! But small children oftentimes don't actually concern themselves with the finishing of things, they just want to be doing something enjoyable, in whatever way they might be after. Children wander off of tasks constantly, partially because developmentally their attention span is lower than an average adults and partially because they haven't yet been taught to care about seeing something through. If you interact with children or parents regularly, than you know that 9 times out of 10, it's a parent who finishes the Lego structure, the card they wanted to make, the meal they wanted to help with. That's a developmentally normal thing for children to do.
In both instances in this post, the adult assumes that the play is going to follow the common imagination structure that we use for movies and books and such. It has an inciting incident and a beginning and a middle and hopefully and end. Children don't know about that, and don't care about that, so they aren't so pressed about making sure it's interesting to anyone else so much as making it relevant (and therefore interesting) to themselves.
It's important to recognize that for children this small, they still don't understand so much about our world. It might seem mundane to us, playing with our world as it is, but it's still new and exciting and special to them, and they want to figure out how things work, or express their own knowledge of how things work, in a safe space with an adult who cares about them, and that's why kids play like that.
I'm constantly seeing stories of people devastated that ai deleted their code or borked their computer or permanently deleted all their important work records or whatever, and while I'm sure many stories are fake I know at least some of them are real, and I don't get it. I don't understand why the ai is capable of doing this. Even if you do think "vibe coding" or whatever is a useful practice, you... you check the code and push it yourself, right? The ai can't push code? The ai shouldn't be able to touch your backups? WHY IS THE AI PHYSICALLY CAPABLE OF PUSHING CODE? WHY IS IT ABLE TO DELETE YOUR FILES AND DELETE YOUR BACKUP FILES? People tell it "do not change this without approval" and then get confused and upset when it does but WHY WAS IT PHYSICALLY ABLE TO? Am I misunderstanding something here? Shouldn't this be basic? Is there some complicated computer reason I don't understand where ais have to be physically able to fuck around with your important shit and your important shit's backups if you use them? Because that doesn't sound right. At least back up your records to an external device nightly or something if there's some architectural reason I don't understand that means ais have to be able to delete them all.
I'm of the opinion that even if you have to use AI it shouldn't have access to anything that you wouldn't be comfortable giving your thirteen year old nephew access to. Why is "AI irretrievably deleted all my emails" a possibility.
Itâs a failure of sandboxing and not wanting to be overly prescriptive of all file permissions. If I want the agent to be able to modify a file, it has to have permission to write that file. Write permission means delete permission too.
Pushing code is a one line command: git push. Having it push commits to your own working branch is (sorta) fine. Itâs when it pushes to the deploy branch (master or main) that itâs like âok no it shouldnât be doing that.â But people donât differentiate that sometimes or the agent ignores the directive and. Well.
See maybe I'm a dinosaur but I just assumed that the ai would be writing the code in a safe locked off environment and the user would have to export it to somewhere else from where it could be pushed. Like the AI would be writing in Notepad or something, or at least a similar program that preserved code formatting properly. But I guess that very simple security feature is too time consuming. Sure let Spicy Autocomplete fuck around with your important shit. I don't know, I'm not a coder.
I'm actually a software engineer and security researcher that has been working on this kind of problem for years, since well before LLMs came around. The short version is that everything has this problem because a long time ago we decided to build all computers on a model that is harder to explain and harder to use and less secure but fits very nicely to a corporation that wants to be the sole authority on what a computer can do mixed with programmers/users who don't want to feel like there's anything they can't do. Most of the time you don't notice this because the malice, incompetence, and mistakes of other people usually gets filtered out before it bites you in particular too hard, and people don't think about putting up safeguards that protects them from themselves. AI just lets there be a new source of mistakes crop up that no one reviews and doesn't appear to be your mistake. The sandboxing you were talking about used to be the case at the very dawn of AI dev tools when it could only be a chat, but then as soon as people started adding features like "let the AI check test results" and "let the AI look for what might be relevant" that punched massive holes through the security that couldn't be fixed without dramatically reimagining how the security is done, and that takes vision and time and effort, which are notably lacking in current software development.
The long version is that by default absolutely everything you run on a computer has full authority to do anything you can do. Your web browser can read any file on your computer, any game can snoop on your browser history, your dev tools can wipe your hard drive. The only ways around this without changing our minds on how our computers secure things are very difficult and time consuming and require individual attention to get working per program.
The current model is something called "access control list" (mostly) which means that for every thing on your computer there is a list of who is allowed to access it, and whenever something tries to access it the computer checks if the who that something is for can access it. Therefore, everything you do on the computer can do everything you can, unless you specifically make a new "who" that the what belongs to and go through and enumerate in a list everything it should be able to do and whenever you want to, say, give it a new file to read, you have to add that file to a list of things it may access before providing the file rather than just giving it the file. Anything that looks like it is violating this (outside of some very niche systems like seL4, capnp, or my own research which I don't expect you to have encountered) is actually just transparently making a "who" and setting up lists behind the scenes. For example, a web browser will make a new "who" (but not the same as the OS's "who") for each website domain you visit and automatically populate the list from Cross Origin Resource Sharing settings the server provides. That's why going to one website doesn't steal your credentials on other websites unless it can trick the browser or trick you into telling the browser to let it.
The alternative model is called "capabilities" with a bunch of adjectives describing different ways they can be represented in different scenarios. (Ocaps, Zcaps, etc.) In this, instead of having a big list of things you are allowed to do any anything you ask to do things inheriting that list, when you ask something to do things, you hand it some reference that both lets it find the object and tells the system it's allowed to access the object. This means that programs you run can't do everything you can, they can only do things you say they can, and the act of saying they can do something and telling them to do it is the same action which makes it secure by default instead of insecure by default.
The android permissions system where the Tumblr app can't just steal and wipe your entire photo roll can be viewed as a sort of attempt to build a capability system on top of an ACL system without quite understanding that. For example, trying to open a file in Android opens a separate privileged file picker and the app that asked to open a file only gets the result of the action, as a cap should be. In windows, however, when you ask an app to open a file it just looks directly at every file you have access to and then you tell it which one.
I and a variety of other researchers are working, sometimes at cross purposes, to make things based around caps more flexible and easier to get started with and more powerful. ACLs have a lot of accumulated software and infrastructure, but caps can subsume it and make things nicer and cleaner and easier in the future. And as you might guess from the length of this post I am always excited to talk about what these systems can become.
I started to reblog to say something like âIâll bet it was user error, since for software permission restrictions to be meaningful you usually have to manually edit them from âallowed to do anythingâ to something less potentially destructive and asking a chatbot that habitually lies to you through a text prompt to âplease donât delete anything hugs and kisses kthnxbyeâ is not the same.â
But then I thought to run to the reblogs and see if anyone smarter than me had something better to say and I was not disappointed.
I just want to let you guys know Cornell's entire library is open access (no permissions required) and there are (shocker) many books...
76,474 books at time of reblog!!!
and since Anna's archive replicates the internet archive...
Art should fuck the unfucked and unfuck the fucked
Alarm Off perfec t time for put lying in bed to t/hink! Inside very Quiet and Peace thoughts very productive put in Alarm Off. Put Thinking in Alarm Off time. no problems ever lying in bedd with alarm off because good Contemplation and Eyes Closed for difficult deep thoughts about day. alarmOff yes safe place to close eyes lie in bed can trust not to fall back asleep. friend bed
There's something thats just so incredibly funny about the Afroman lawsuit cause theres literally no substance to it. Seeing all these cops getting upset and offended by Afroman music in a courtroom setting is just so fucking funny. Like a lawyer asking a cop "what private information of yours exactly was breached by the phrase "receding hairline dipshit"?" Like you could have saved yourself the extra humiliation, but instead you guys took it to court and now everyone has seen your sheriff literally break down crying over a song that says she licks pussy. Thats just objectively hilarious
I can't get over this. Afroman releasing individual diss tracks about each of the cops is so good. Cause like its one thing to make one or two songs about the house raid, but then to proceed to make a song called "Randy Walters is a son of a Bitch", call him out by name and say you fucked his wife, and then have that same cop go on court record saying he cannot confirm or deny that he got cucked by Afroman. Like congrats man. Before, everyone just thought he was joking about fucking your wife, but now you wont deny it
Those werenât even the worst things he said in that song, he also mentioned that at Randyâs last job he T-boned a civilianâs car while running a stop sign (with footage of the incident), did hard drugs like cocaine on the job, and supposedly owed money to a drug dealer.
In another song he points out that one of the officers got caught sexting a minor, specifically one who handled Afromanâs seized cash on camera. Cash that was either miscounted in the initial seizure (as the department claims) or was blatantly stolen from before it was returned. Personally, I think it shouldnât matter which it was; the punishment for not properly following anti-corruption procedures should be the same as the punishment for the corruption theyâre intended to prevent.
Hopefully the good folks of Adams county remember all of this in their next sheriff election.