I wonder if we’ll ever find out why they did it.

Most of them look like they align with streets to me, but I was curious about some of the ones that didn’t, so I checked on a map. Some of the sus points seem to be in/around parks, parking lots or in paths that don’t show up unless you zoom quite far in.

Damn, that’s cheap. In my part of the UK, $80 would get you a quarter ounce of what my peers consider to be decent, but would probably be crappy by California standards.

Echoing Jubilant Jaguar’s sentiment about defaults mattering, I think that sometimes an excess amount of choice can be overwhelming such that a user is less empowered to make choices about things they do care about (Leading to a less steep learning curve). Sensible defaults need not remove anyone’s choice

Damn, I hadn’t heard about her husband being abusive. It’s striking to me that Giuffre was 41 when she died, and had been married to her husband for 22 years, meaning she was around 19 when they married. That’s very young, and so soon after being sex trafficked by Maxwell and Epstein.

It’s unclear how far back the abuse by her husband stretched back, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it was present to some degree for their entire relationship. And surviving abuse at the hands of Epstein and co may well have made her more vulnerable. Fucking hell.

I agree, but “slight” is the operative word here. I’m autistic and there are some cutlery that feel so unpleasant in my hand that I can barely force myself to use them. In the past, it has even resulted in me hardly eating (when the lack of good cutlery was due to the nice ones being missing rather than just dirty). I felt very silly that I was letting myself go hungry over an irrational preference, but I find that some battles aren’t worth fighting.

I have also found that other neurodivergent people often have strong opinions on cutlery, which has been a wee source of solidarity. I think that, in addition to the concrete reality of people’s preferences, there’s a reinforcing cycle where once a cultural thing becomes associated with a particular group, there will be in-group jokes made about that association, which reinforces the link. That is to say that the relevance of this meme somewhat transcends the reality of the relative frequency of neurodivergent people having strong opinions on cutlery

Not sure where this obsession with air fryers has come from.

It is March…

I’m increasingly convinced that being rich in general seems to be toxic for the soul. I went to a university that tends to draw a lot of rich and influential people, and I have a striking memory of talking to a posh girl at a party once. She was deeply lonely, and lamented that all of the people in her “social class” were assholes, but they also felt like the only safe people to be close to, because everyone else were suckups and sycophants. I got the sense that she was someone super important, but that the conversation was only happening because I had no idea who she was (I wouldn’t be surprised if she was a princess or something).

I’m also reminded of an article by Abigail Disney a while back, that explained how the rich are taught from a young age that they must protect their dynastic wealth. It’s quite a tragic thought to me, as someone who grew up in poverty, that even the rich seem to live their lives subordinate to money.

I sometimes joke that I hope my late best friend has gone to evangelical Christian hell, because he was a bisexual punk who loved tabletop roleplaying games (like Dungeons & Dragons).

I was raised vaguely Christian, and when I was realising I didn’t believe in God, I felt a lot of conflict, because I was still scared of going to hell. I was getting stuck on the idea that if all good morality came from God, does that mean that I would be evil as an atheist?

In the end, I concluded that if all morality came from God, that the many atheists who lead good and virtuous lives must still have the favour of God. On the other hand, morality existed independently of God, but that unbelievers would go to hell no matter how good they were in life, then I’d rather be defiantly good and go to hell than be coerced into belief.

This was before I understood that hell has historically often been understood as just a place without God (which, to a Christian view, is a hellish existence).

You’re comparing between different sample pools, which matters when we’re talking about probability adjacent stuff. We’re not asking “from this large pool of people at an airport, who is likely to receive additional scrutiny?” Because of this, your comment about how you’ve seen people of all backgrounds get scanned isn’t relevant to OP’s point.

The scope we’re looking at is the pool of experiences across one person’s trips. Imagine if it was every time that you got stopped for additional checks at an airport, even when you couldn’t see any mistakes that you had made. If you get checked because your keys triggered the sensors, then that’s a mistake that you can learn from, but consider how it would feel if you meticulously complied with everything you were meant to do, but were still consistently pulled aside for additional checks.

I know that on the internet, you never know whether someone is being hyperbolic, or straight up spinning a yarn, but try to take OP on faith here and consider how dismissive your comment comes across. I don’t know OP’s particular circumstances, but I have previously made a comment similar to yours to a friend, who called me out on being an asshole. Back then, I was oblivious to the reality of these things.

My friend explained that the first time they were pulled aside for additional checks, they opted to believe that it was just a random thing. The second time, they felt more uneasy, but actively resisted the “victim mentality” (their words). By the 20th time, they had come to expect it as inevitable, and that no change to how they packed, or what they wore would change things. They desperately wanted to believe that they weren’t being targeted for additional searches, but after a certain point, it becomes impossible to believe that these things are random.

I was telling a friend about him the other day. She said she found it odd how it seems like he became a martyr for his ideals, in that the way that he is remembered is almost like he’s a mythological figure, more ideal than man. I agreed with her that the loss of humanity due to such a high profile death is tragic, but that it wasn’t the internet who turned him into a martyr, but the FBI (and whoever else was pushing for his prosecution).

They threw the book at Aaron Schwartz because they wanted to set a precedent. They wanted to turn him into a symbol, and that led to his death. I’m proud of how the internet rallied around him and made him into a different kind of symbol, but like you, I feel sad to think about what could have been if he hadn’t been killed (I know that he died by suicide, but saying that he “died” felt too passive). It sucks that he’s just a part of history now.

A huge aspect of this also is that it disproportionately benefits academics and students in parts of the world where there is less institutional access to journal subscriptions. That is to say that SciHub has been a significant force for democratising knowledge and countering historic inequities.

A facet of Scientism, as I understand it, is a sort of hero worship of “Great” scientists. Part of this is because it’s easier for us to build a narrative of history if we focus on key figure, but that’s antithetical to how science actually works. It neglects the importance of the wider scientific “ecosystem”, which includes mechanisms of peer review, academic teaching and learning etc.

I’ve known people who were pretty prominent academics, who got some of their best ideas from random places, like hanging out in a bar with academics from outside their field. But a good idea on its own matters very little: science, in practice, works on a foundation of trust and community, and basically any research has an entire team of people behind it.

I have no doubt that the scientist mentioned in the headline is exceptional at her job, but by presenting her as the scientist who is working on this presents an inaccurate perspective of how these things actually work. I see why the headline chose to present her as more essential than she likely is, but as it seems to for the person you’re replying to, it leaves a bad taste in my mouth

I find Scientism concerning because I am a scientist who is quite concerned by the gap between actual science, and how people use science-shaped rhetoric. An example of this is how in the UK, during COVID, the government repeatedly claimed they were “following the science”, despite many of their policies being completely contrary to what the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) had recommended.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m a big fan of the scientific method — I wouldn’t be a scientist otherwise. But writing news headlines about the achievements of scientists exists beyond science. Being opposed to Scientism isn’t being opposed to the scientific method. Rather, it’s more like acknowledging that science isn’t a universal tool for solving all ills. Personally, being against Scientism also means being against the weird way we put science, and scientists on a pedestal. I understand the sentiment (and hell, I’m probably a scientist in part because a younger me was chasing that pedestal), but I think it’s probably harmful long term — both to society and to science

Edit: fixed grammar

I respect these choices. Peak chaos shitposting energy

I had a girlfriend who had the inverse of your problem — her feet were far too large for shoes aimed at women. She ended up becoming friends with a bunch of drag queens, and finding that the specialist store they got their shoes from was the best place for her

I find it weird to think about this sometimes, especially the fact that in a different time, I’d have probably been institutionalised, despite modern standards considering me “high functioning” that I got to go to university (where I met many other autistic nerds).

Adding the solution to your post is a classy move, and I approve

I dual boot Fedora and Arch. Fedora was just a fluke because it seemed like one of the most mainstream distros, and I was a Linux noob.

I liked Arch though because the Arch wiki is so useful for a beginner to learn from, even if you’re not on Arch. At first, Arch seemed too complex and difficult for me, as a beginner, but when I kept finding myself at the Arch wiki when troubleshooting, I realised how powerful good documentation is. I installed Arch with a “fixer-upper” type mindset, with the goal of using the greater power and customisability that Arch offers to build a config/setup that worked for me (learning all the while). It was a good challenge for someone who is mad, but not quite so mad as to dive into Gentoo or Linux From Scratch

I found myself thinking “this dude seems autistic”, and I felt guilty for such a thought, because being autistic myself doesn’t render me immune from projecting problematic notions onto other people (autistic or otherwise). However, my thoughts went there because I’ve seen this kind of single minded obsessiveness manifest for good or for ill across many different people.

I remember one time discussing the grim state of the world with a friend, who quipped “man, I’m glad I’m autistic, because I’d have probably topped myself if I didn’t get this level of obsessive joy from my train set”. Similarly, I have friends who have made their special interests into their career (which certainly can go wrong, due to inability to “switch off”, and decreased life compartmentalisation). It is sometimes hard to find a healthy balance when some people genuinely do thrive in revelling in their obsessions.

As it turns out, the dude in the article is autistic — it sounds like maybe the diagnosis happened after this incident, so at least something good came of this. Maybe it’s a pipe dream, given that support for adults with autism can be pretty grim, but I hope he’s able to find the support to chase his passion in a manner that’s healthy and fulfilling for him. My nerdy interests have never driven me to things like arson, but that doesn’t mean I don’t relate to that level of intensity