Need to let loose a primal scream without collecting footnotes first? Have a sneer percolating in your system but not enough time/energy to make a whole post about it? Go forth and be mid: Welcome to the Stubsack, your first port of call for learning fresh Awful you’ll near-instantly regret.
Any awful.systems sub may be subsneered in this subthread, techtakes or no.
If your sneer seems higher quality than you thought, feel free to cut’n’paste it into its own post — there’s no quota for posting and the bar really isn’t that high.
The post Xitter web has spawned soo many “esoteric” right wing freaks, but there’s no appropriate sneer-space for them. I’m talking redscare-ish, reality challenged “culture critics” who write about everything but understand nothing. I’m talking about reply-guys who make the same 6 tweets about the same 3 subjects. They’re inescapable at this point, yet I don’t see them mocked (as much as they should be)
Like, there was one dude a while back who insisted that women couldn’t be surgeons because they didn’t believe in the moon or in stars? I think each and every one of these guys is uniquely fucked up and if I can’t escape them, I would love to sneer at them.
(Semi-obligatory thanks to @dgerard for starting this)
Timnit Gebru on Twitter:
We received feedback from a grant application that included “While your impact metrics & thoughtful approach to addressing systemic issues in AI are impressive, some reviewers noted the inherent risks of navigating this space without alignment with larger corporate players,”
No need for xcancel, Gebru is on actually social media: https://dair-community.social/@timnitGebru/113160285088058319
so mozilla decided to take the piss while begging for $10 donations:
We know $10 USD may not seem like enough to reclaim the internet and take on irresponsible tech companies. But the truth is that as you read this email, hundreds of Mozilla supporters worldwide are making donations. And when each one of us contributes what we can, all those donations add up fast.
With the rise of AI and continued threats to online privacy, the stakes of our movement have never been higher. And supporters like you are the reason why Mozilla is in a strong position to take on these challenges and transform the future of the internet.
the rise of AI you say! wow that sounds awful, it’s so good Mozilla isn’t very recently notorious for pushing that exact thing on their users without their consent alongside other privacy-violating changes. what a responsible tech company!
upside of this: they’ll get told why they’re not getting many of those $10 donations
downside of that (rejection): that could be exactly what one of the ghouls-in-chief there need to push some or other bullshit
the ability of Mozilla’s executives and PMs to ignore public outcry is incredible, but not exactly unexpected from a thoroughly corrupt non-profit
We know $10 USD may not seem like enough to reclaim the internet with the browser we barely maintain and take on irresponsible tech companies that pay us vast sums of money. But the truth is that as you read this email, hundreds of Mozilla supporters worldwide haven’t realized we’re a charity racket dressed up as a browser who will spend all your money on AI and questionable browser plugins. And when each one of us contributes what we can, we can waste the money all the faster!
With the rise of AI (you’re welcome, by the way, for the MDN AI assistant) and continued threats to online privacy like question like integrating a Mr. Robot Ad into firefox without proper code review, the stakes of our movement have never been higher. And
markssupporters like you are the reason why Mozilla is in such a strong position to take on these challenges and transform the future of the internet in any way we know how – except by improving our browser of course that would be silly.
(I’m feeling extra cynical today)
Today in you can’t make this stuff up: SpaceX invades Cards Against Humanity’s crowdfunded southern border plot of land.
Article (Ars Technica) Lawsuit with pictures (PDF)
Reddit Comment with CAH’s email to backers
The above Ars Technica article also lead me to this broader article (reuters) about SpaceX’s operations in Texas. I found these two sentences particularly unpleasant:
County commissioners have sought to rechristen Boca Chica, the coastal village where Johnson remains a rare holdout, with the Musk-endorsed name of Starbase.
At some point, former SpaceX employees and locals told Reuters, Starbase workers took down a Boca Chica sign identifying their village. They said workers also removed a statue of the Virgin of Guadalupe, an icon revered by the predominantly Mexican-American residents who long lived in the area.
Reading all of this also somehow makes Elon Musk’s anti-immigrant tweets feel even worse to me than they already were.
Damn, 3 hours late to the party. Despite my disdain for their game, i can only recall enjoying CAH’s liberal antics.
This quote flashbanged me a little
When you describe your symptoms to a doctor, and that doctor needs to form a diagnosis on what disease or ailment that is, that’s a next word prediction task. When choosing appropriate treatment options for said ailment, that’s also a next word prediction task.
From this thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/gamedev/comments/1fkn0aw/chatgpt_is_still_very_far_away_from_making_a/lnx8k9l/
Instead of improving LLMs, they are working backwards to prove that all other things are actually word prediction tasks. It is so annoying and also quite dumb. No chemisty isn’t like coding/legos. The law isn’t invalid because it doesn’t have gold fringes and you use magical words.
The problem is that there could be any number of possible next words, and the available results suggest that the appropriate context isn’t covered in the statistical relationships between prior words for anything but the most trivial of tasks i.e. automating the writing and parsing of emails that nobody ever wanted to read in the first place.
Paul Krugman and Francis Fukuyama and Daniel Dennett and Steve Pinker were in a “human biodiversity discussion group” with Steve Sailer and Ron Unz in 1999, because of course they were
I look forward to the ‘but we often disagreed’ non-apologies. With absolute lack of self reflection on how this helped push Sailer/Unz into the positions they are now. If we even get that.
Who could have predicted that liberalism would lead into scientific racism and then everything else that follows (mostly fascism)???
Surely “scientific” is giving them far too much credit? I recall previously sneering at some quotes about skull sizes, including something like women keep bonking their heads?
I believe the term is not so much meant to convey properties of science upon them as to describe the particular strain of racist shitbaggery (which dresses itself in appears-science, much like what happens in/with scientism)
I’m mildly surprised at Krugman, since I never got a particularly racist vibe from him. (This is 100% an invitation to be corrected.) Annoyed that 1) I recognise so many names and 2) so many of the people involved are still influential.
Interested in why Johnathan Marks is there though. He’s been pretty anti-scientific racism if memory serves. I think he’s even complained about how white supremacists stole the term human biodiversity. Now, I’m curious about the deep history of this group. Marks published his book in 1995 and this is a list from 1999, so was the transformation of the term into a racist euphemism already complete by then? Or is this discussion group more towards the beginning.
Similarly, curious how out some of these people were at the time. E.g. I know that Harpending was seen as a pretty respectable anthropologist up until recently, despite his virulent racism. But I’ve never been able to figure out how much his earlier racism was covert vs. how much 1970s anthropology accepted racism vs. how much this reflects his personal connections with key people in the early field of hunter-gatherer studies.
Oh also, super amused that Pinker and MacDonald are in the group at the same time, since I’m pretty sure Pinker denounced MacDonald for anti-Semitism in quite harsh language (which I haven’t seen mirrored when it comes to anti-black racism). MacDonald’s another weird one. He defended Irving when Irving was trying to silence Lipstadt, but in Evan’s account, while he disagrees with MacDonald, he doesn’t emphasise that MacDonald is a raging anti-Semite and white supremacist. So, once again, interested in how covert vs. overt MacDonald was at the time.
Yeah, Krugman appearing on the roster surprised me too. While I haven’t pored over everything he’s blogged and microblogged, he hasn’t sent up red flags that I recall. E.g., here he is in 2009:
Oh, Kay. Greg Mankiw looks at a graph showing that children of high-income families do better on tests, and suggests that it’s largely about inherited talent: smart people make lots of money, and also have smart kids.
But, you know, there’s lots of evidence that there’s more to it than that. For example: students with low test scores from high-income families are slightly more likely to finish college than students with high test scores from low-income families.
It’s comforting to think that we live in a meritocracy. But we don’t.
There are many negative things you can say about Paul Ryan, chairman of the House Budget Committee and the G.O.P.’s de facto intellectual leader. But you have to admit that he’s a very articulate guy, an expert at sounding as if he knows what he’s talking about.
So it’s comical, in a way, to see [Paul] Ryan trying to explain away some recent remarks in which he attributed persistent poverty to a “culture, in our inner cities in particular, of men not working and just generations of men not even thinking about working.” He was, he says, simply being “inarticulate.” How could anyone suggest that it was a racial dog-whistle? Why, he even cited the work of serious scholars — people like Charles Murray, most famous for arguing that blacks are genetically inferior to whites. Oh, wait.
I suppose it’s possible that he was invited to an e-mail list in the late '90s and never bothered to unsubscribe, or something like that.
I thought that Sailer had coined the term in the early 2000s, but evidently that’s not correct
The Wikipedia article on the Human Biodiversity Institute cites the term human biodiversity as becoming a euphemism for racism sometime in the late 90s and Marks’ book is from 1995, so there was apparently a pretty quick turnover. Which makes me wonder if hijacking or if independent invention. The article has a lot of sources, so I might mine them to see if there’s a detailed timeline.