That intro/credits was incredibly cool, and so much better than the weird abstract one. That show probably would have been alright if it was just Season 3. Seasons 1-2 were just a sequence of various “nobody asked for this”.
The assignment in question was supposed to be a reaction to an academic article on gender. But the paper written by junior Samantha Fulnecky failed to provide empirical evidence or even citations for her own beliefs, resulting in her failing grade.
[…]
At no point in Fulnecky’s paper does she provide empirical evidence for her claims, nor does she reference the biblical passages on which her ideas are supposedly based.
So a student didn’t like learning that academic papers aren’t internet arguments. She didn’t even site her Biblical references, lol. That wouldn’t even fly in a religious school.
The more you read the quotes from her paper, the more it looks like a social media rant. Disagreement in Academia is actually encouraged, but you have to back up your arguments with at least some empirical data. It seems like this student had never actually had to challenge her beliefs in an academic way before.
IMO, the University of Oklahoma not backing up very standard and clearly outlined expectations for the assignment harms their entire credibility as an institution.
The same thing they’ve always been selling: a false promise that their AI models will solve all humanity’s problems.
“This AI is so good it’s too dangerous.” Is absolutely just made up BS to make their AI models sound more powerful than they are. It’s trying to drum up a sense of mystique and sophistication for their brand.
Imagine a car company announcing they have invented a new engine that’s “too fast to put in their cars”. That would be trying to manipulate people into thinking, “Wow, it must be so amazing, I want it.” and “Their engineers must be so smart and skilled to create something so powerful. [brand] has the best engineers.”
I think you’re looking in the wrong places. Culture is everywhere. The mediums and groups of people that propagate culture shift over time, but humans are inherently creative and will always develop it.
Try looking in places where there is a focus on community, connection, and the art itself—not places that focus on producing “content” for profit.
For the dysphoria, I know it can feel crippling and make you want to give up. For some trans folk, it takes a lot of daily work to present how they feel. It can be really hard to want to keep it up when you feel like it’s still not enough. I’ve been there many times.
However, the best thing you can do to drive back the dysphoria (and depression in general) is to take those steps—put in the work and do the things that bring you euphoria. It may not get you to where you want to be, but it’ll get you a whole lot closer, and every little bit helps.
It might help to identify, specifically, what about your body/life is bringing you dysphoria. Start with small things. That way you can make some concrete goals to work on rather than the big nebulous cloud of “I look wrong and I don’t like it”.
Also, I don’t know your life, but I suspect there might be more contributing to your depression than dysphoria. It’s definitely worth some introspection to identify and work on those other areas of your life. ADHD especially often comes with a whole host of (treatable) struggles that make life in our society extra challenging.
Greedy companies do shit like that regardless of any laws. I don’t think this law makes it any more likely.
FOSS developers could create an ethical solution while still remaining legally compliant. The language is generic enough to allow for different implementations.
How would you know? They literally haven’t announced a price, yet.
EDIT: The only official word we’ve had on pricing is that it will be priced “like a PC”. Their stated reasoning is that because it’s a general purpose PC on an open platform, making margin back on games isn’t a guarantee.
If they priced it too low, there would be nothing stopping volume purchasers (like companies) buying them all up at scale because it’s the best compute / $ and then not using them for actually playing games.
The bill I mentioned actually relies on parents configuring their kid's devices. The system it describes just gives online (and even offline) platforms a standardized way of asking the OS what age category a user is as defined at account setup--hardly "dystopian nightmare fuel"...
This isn't going to stop unsupervised children, which is it's own problem that technology doesn't (and probably can't) solve.
Don’t podcasts and RSS still rely heavily on XML?