Tess of d’Urbervilles -Thomas Hardy, it’s still quite relevant in my country. Not perhaps the more extreme

(though that still happens in some places) but the overall tone the book takes with mocking religion, the double standards Tess faces, and above all, her internalised misogyny was something I really resonated with. To be fair, my parents were relatively liberal but people pick up subtle sexism in the household nevertheless. So I grew up with some internalised misogyny. I was never very religious either because of the sexism inherent in nearly all religions (though, of course, some people interpret their holy books differently and are welcome to do so - I am not criticising them). So I really liked the book and read it several times just before college, years ago.

Hardy is also a sensitive and deeply emotional writer. I think he really gets women because he has empathy. Most men I know who call themselves feminists take it to be a purely a matter of intellect and common sense, but they show the same curious lack of empathy men usually reserve for women. But Hardy is a feminist because he cares for women, and that makes all the difference. The only other man in literature who I can think of who actually understood women was Sahir Ludhianvi, the Urdu poet, and I like him too.

Some of Sahir Ludhianvi’s poetry too. When I was younger I didn’t have words for it but when I grew up I realised that I’ve always kind of been socialist, or at least anti-capitalist without realising it because his poetry and music were common in our house and my values were shaped by his humanism.

Jakarta Method is a good one!

Fascism believes its own lies, I guess. Even kings had court jesters to criticise them. Trump is surrounded by dumb yes-men. I do feel sorry for the poor people caught in the mess the world is in right now.

This comment took me down an interesting rabbit hole… He’s a couch fucker? And conservatives say neopronouns are weird, smh.

Yeah, that’s the best part. These people really are complete outsiders. You expect them to be evil, but somewhat intelligent. Instead you get 👊 🇺🇸 🔥.

Narcissus poeticus, or poet’s daffodils are called ‘nargis’ (nuh-ruh-giiis) in a a number of languages. The root word is Persian. It is often used in poetry as a metaphor for a person’s eyes (generally your girlfriend) as it is supposed to be ‘eye shaped’. There is, of course, the Greek myth which is often alluded to in English literature. It’s also a pretty flower.

antonim raised a good point, actually. While I wouldn’t put it past the CIA to do something like this, the fact is that this vague document is hardly evidence of the CIA funding the Hungarian revolution. Besides, a historian would be far more qualified to look at archival material since they’re actually trained to do that.

This, so much this. Having a job and a roof over your head is such a luxury in the ‘global south’, the true face of capitalism

eliminates mention of “AI safety”

AI datasets tend to have a white bias. White people are over-represented in photographs, for instance. If one trains AI to with such datasets in something like facial recognition( with mostly white faces), it will be less likely to identify non-white people as human. Combine this with self-driving cars and you have a recipe for disaster; since AI is bad at detecting non-white people, it is less likely to prevent them from being crushed underneath in an accident. This both stupid and evil. You cannot always account for any unconscious bias in datasets.

“reducing ideological bias, to enable human flourishing and economic competitiveness.”

They will fill it with capitalist Red Scare propaganda.

The new agreement removes mention of developing tools “for authenticating content and tracking its provenance” as well as “labeling synthetic content,” signaling less interest in tracking misinformation and deep fakes.

Interesting.

“The AI future is not going to be won by hand-wringing about safety,” Vance told attendees from around the world.

That was done before. A chatbot named Tay was released into the wilds of twitter in 2016 without much ‘hand-wringing about safety’. It turned into a neo-Nazi, which, I suppose is just what Edolf Musk wants.

The researcher who warned that the change in focus could make AI more unfair and unsafe also alleges that many AI researchers have cozied up to Republicans and their backers in an effort to still have a seat at the table when it comes to discussing AI safety. “I hope they start realizing that these people and their corporate backers are face-eating leopards who only care about power,” the researcher says.

Madagascar plan. Isn’treal is recycling Nazi strategies.