Avatar

Just Me

@double-rainbow-bird

A collection of reblogs and half-baked ideas
He/him or they/them
Trans, bi/ace, hetgnc
Autistic and adhd
Fandoms I like: Star Trek, Star Wars, Project Hail Mary, James Cameron’s Avatar, The Karate Kid
Avatar
going2hell4everythingbutbeingbi

yes conservatism is on the rise yes tradwife content is as popular as ever yes pink jobs and blue jobs are fucking stupid BUT there is still such a big change in how straight women are talking about relationships online.

they're talking about how they're no longer interested in dating because their female friends treat them better than boyfriends do. they're realizing that being single is always better than being in a bad relationship. it's becoming a lot more normal and fun and hot for women to be single at any age. the women who have settled down with truly good men in truly happy relationships are encouraging other women to not take any shit because the right man won't need to be "trained". they're talking about how their mothers and grandmothers warned them to get a job and not get married, and they followed the advice.

tradwife content is performance. it's propaganda. there are so few women actually living that life. but we know for a fact that more women than ever are educated, working, and single. and all I see (admittedly in my woke ass algorithm) is women talking about how they're done settling for mediocre relationships. and I love it.

No, tradwife is not performance. It’s just a different kind of person than you. Some people, of all genders and orientations, just want to do that. To stay home and take care of the house and children is some folks’ ideal life. Taking care of a home and children is vitally important work that society does not respect and support nearly enough.

But where conservatives go wrong is assuming that only women can or should perform the homemaker role. When anyone can, really. We need more men and enbys taking on that role. Fortunately there are dudes who want to.

Anyone want to make videos about being a radical husband homemaker?

Happy international awareness day for Prion disease everyone!!

I work at the French national cell for surveillance of Creutzfeldt-Jakob and I thought maybe I could take a hot minute to spread awareness.

Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (aka CJD) is a prion disease, meaning it is a degenerative disease caused by the accumulation of misfolded prion proteins in the brain.

I leads to symptoms such as tremors, loss of reflex control (voluntary and involuntary), dementia, vision trouble and other neurological symptoms. It often ends with akinetic mutism (no talking or moving but not a coma either) and always irrevocably leads to death.

It is a lethal disease that has no cure or treatment. Thankfully it is considered a VERY rare disease with only 1-2 cases per million people.

It has 4 possible origins:

  • It can be a variant caught from animal products: famously the mad cow disease! That is now largely eradicated and no new cases seem to be infected nowadays due to informed protocols in both slaughter houses and farms.
  • It can be genetic, multiple mutation on the PRNP gene can lead to CJD (having the mutation does not necessarily means having the disease)
  • It can be iatrogenic, e.g. caught from an infection event such as a surgical intervention with not well sterilised equipment. That is however really really rare and it is important to bear in mind that the dangerous protein is only kept in the cerebrospinal fluid, meaning that although infectious, virtually no one "catches" CJD.
  • It can be sporadic. That is 85% of cases and the triggers and origins of the disease are unknown. This it is the focus of most research. (It can touch anyone but normally onsets past 65)

So if you have lost a loved one to this disease, my heart goes to you. Having followed cases in the country, I can witness (but not understand) how hard it is, it is a scary and hazy disease that not many know about and the speed at which a loved one can just be gone is alarmingly quick.

I invite anyone to look into donating to research to help us develop a treatment for this horrific lethal disease that can touch anyone indiscriminately.

I don't know about other countries but in France you can donate to the INSERM or the ICM in Paris (Paris Brain Institute) for prion research.

We're hard at work to alleviate the burden of those who are sick and hopefully save lives in the future.

This is about CJD but regardless, never hesitate to donate to research. I know it is easy to think health is a given thing but disease does not care for your social or financial status, it will hit all the same. You will be glad some people have donated in the past for you to heal in the present.

Learn something new every day.

Sometimes all you need to do is take that first step. I am not saying it’s easy, and it may sound cliche but the things worth doing are rarely easy. We never know where our potential can bring us, sometimes you just need a bit of courage and importantly, to believe in yourself.  

Consciousness likely not unique to earthlings, paper says

Does consciousness depend on flesh and blood? The answer is almost certainly no, according to Eric Schwitzgebel, a distinguished professor of philosophy at the University of California, Riverside. In a new working paper, Schwitzgebel and Jeremy Pober, a former UCR graduate student who is now a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Lisbon, assert that consciousness is likely possible in life forms made of very different stuff. Think of the five-limbed alien with a rocklike exterior in the recent blockbuster movie "Project Hail Mary."

Schwitzgebel and Pober do not attempt to define consciousness; they proceed from the heuristic premise that it's a real and recognizable phenomenon. Instead, they ask a narrower question: Must it be tied to the biology found on Earth?

The paper comes at a time when the question of conscious artificial intelligence looms large, fueling dreams and nightmares. The authors, who touch only briefly on the matter, do not take a firm position either way and, in fact, diverge in their views. But the arguments they advance leave open the possibility that AI could be conscious, though perhaps not in its current form.

At the heart of the paper's argument is the philosophical notion of "substrate flexibility." A property, such as the ability to hold water, is substrate flexible if it can be achieved with different kinds of materials. For example, a cup can be made of glass or plastic, a book can be printed on paper or stored electronically, and music can be encoded on vinyl records or servers.

Consciousness, Schwitzgebel and Pober argue, is also substrate flexible. "The universe may contain minds stranger than we can imagine," Schwitzgebel said.

High probability of alien life

The observable part of the universe contains about 1 trillion galaxies. Astronomers believe the great majority of planets have environments quite different from Earth's.

For the purposes of their argument, Schwitzgebel and Pober estimate that at least 1,000 behaviorally sophisticated extraterrestrial civilizations have existed at some point in the cosmos. It's a conservative estimate, they say, noting that "one recent survey found median scientific estimates over one civilization per galaxy at some point in that galaxy's lifetime."

At the same time, astrobiologists have hypothesized about life made of different biochemicals than those on Earth. They have investigated alternative amino acids and solvents, and even the possibility of different chemical structures.

In the book version of "Project Hail Mary," author Andy Weir, who is known for describing viable, rigorous science in his fiction, introduces readers to an alien with a shell of oxidized minerals, two circulatory systems, mercury blood, steam-powered muscle and a crystal brain. It hails from a superhot planet with an ammonia-saturated atmosphere.

Schwitzgebel and Pober, however, do not claim that exotic life definitely exists. Their point is more modest: If life can arise under a variety of chemical conditions, and if the universe contains vast numbers of opportunities for life to emerge, then it would be surprising if every successful evolutionary lineage converged on exactly the same biochemical building blocks.

On Earth alone, evolution has produced remarkable diversity in nervous systems, the philosophers note. Octopuses, insects and vertebrates process information in different ways. Even among terrestrial organisms, nature has not settled on a single design. Other parts of the universe, they argue, likely display as much creativity, if not more.

Copernican principle of consciousness

The authors' key argument turns on the Copernican tradition in astronomy. The Renaissance polymath Nicolaus Copernicus and his heirs made a humbling series of discoveries: Earth is not the center of the solar system, the solar system is not the center of the galaxy and the Milky Way is not the center of the universe. In other words, humanity occupies a less exceptional position in the cosmos than once imagined.

Schwitzgebel and Pober extend this lesson to consciousness: It probably isn't special.

Assuming there are many behaviorally sophisticated species in the universe with different biological structures, the authors argue that it would amount to a form of "terrocentrism"—unjustified treatment of Earth life as uniquely privileged—to believe consciousness belongs only to organisms like us. The authors coin a phrase, "the Copernican principle of consciousness," to describe this idea.

They don't claim, however, that every advanced life form must be conscious. Rather, they argue that if consciousness exists among behaviorally sophisticated beings, it would be strange to think that only organisms sharing our biochemical architecture could possess it.

For centuries, humans have repeatedly discovered that we are less central, less unique and less privileged than we once believed.

It may be that consciousness, too, is not a rare gift bestowed on one particular kind of biological machine, Schwitzgebel and Pober suggest. Instead, it could be a phenomenon capable of appearing wherever evolution—or something like it—produces the right forms of complexity.

Where does this leave AI?

Inevitably, the paper raises questions about AI. However, the authors stop short of claiming that today's AI systems are conscious.

In Pober's view, we should not assume that today's computer hardware supports consciousness. The fact that consciousness could occur in more than one substrate, he says, does not suggest that it could occur in every substrate.

Schwitzgebel is somewhat more open to the possibility. Once the idea that consciousness requires human biology is abandoned, he argues, it becomes harder to justify excluding silicon-based systems solely because they are made of silicon.

In any case, Schwitzgebel believes this part of the philosophical debate has been too narrow.

"It's focused too much on whether silicon can duplicate a human brain and not enough on the broader question of what kinds of systems can be conscious," he said.

In the paper, the authors distinguish between finely specified properties and coarser, or more general, ones. Asking whether human consciousness can exist in another substrate is a highly specific question, they say, because human consciousness may depend on many details of human biology. The broader category of consciousness is coarser.

The distinction resembles the difference between asking whether an eagle's style of flight can be duplicated exactly and whether flight itself can occur in different forms. Hummingbirds, bats and insects all fly, but not in the same way. Likewise, consciousness might appear in many forms without looking exactly like human consciousness, the authors say.

Reasons for hope:

Arguably the most massive and influential study ever proving the supposed inherent cruelty of humanity was proven a few years ago to be literally fraudulent

"The Stanford Prison Experiment, one of the most famous and compelling psychological studies of all time, told us a tantalizingly simple story about human nature.

The study took paid participants and assigned them to be “inmates” or “guards” in a mock prison at Stanford University. Soon after the experiment began, the “guards” began mistreating the “prisoners,” implying evil is brought out by circumstance. The authors, in their conclusions, suggested innocent people, thrown into a situation where they have power over others, will begin to abuse that power. And people who are put into a situation where they are powerless will be driven to submission, even madness.

The Stanford Prison Experiment has been included in many, many introductory psychology textbooks and is often cited uncritically. It’s the subject of movies, documentaries, books, television shows, and congressional testimony.

But its findings were wrong. Very wrong. And not just due to its questionable ethics or lack of concrete data — but because of deceit.

A new exposé based on previously unpublished recordings of Philip Zimbardo, the Stanford psychologist who ran the study, and interviews with his participants, offers convincing evidence that the guards in the experiment were coached to be cruel. It also shows that the experiment’s most memorable moment — of a prisoner descending into a screaming fit, proclaiming, “I’m burning up inside!” — was the result of the prisoner acting. “I took it as a kind of an improv exercise,” one of the guards told reporter Ben Blum. “I believed that I was doing what the researchers wanted me to do.”

The findings have long been subject to scrutiny — many think of them as more of a dramatic demonstration, a sort-of academic reality show, than a serious bit of science. But these new revelations incited an immediate response. “We must stop celebrating this work,” personality psychologist Simine Vazire tweeted, in response to the article. “It’s anti-scientific. Get it out of textbooks.” Many other psychologists have expressed similar sentiments."

"Many of the classic show-stopping experiments have lately turned out to be wrong, fraudulent, or outdated. Yet many introductory psychological textbooks have yet to be updated. And it’s high time that we teach the next generation of students to understand them this way."

-via The Internet Archive, via Vox, June 13, 2018. Paywall free. Extensive citations and links to primary sources in article. Emphasis mine.

One of the rare situations where science turning out to be fraudulent and/or wrong is actually very GOOD news!

Seriously recommend reading through the article if you have any interest at all in human nature or psychology. The article is absolutely full of primary sources and incredibly damning for the validity of one of the most important and influential psychology experiments literally ever.

They yell “I want to tear your face off” — so what are they really afraid of?

There’s something grotesquely comic about watching grown adults invent moral panics and then express them with the vocabulary of a psychopath. “I want to tear your face off” is not debate. It’s not rhetoric. It’s a powered‑down scream dressed up as a reasoned argument. It’s also a signal — a single, ugly symptom of a much larger social itch.

A while back I watched a TED talk about kill lists on the dark web: ordinary people — doctors, fathers, people with respectable jobs — quietly buying the logistics of murder like they’d order a plumber. The creepiness isn’t only in the transactions themselves; it’s in the ordinary faces behind them. It proves a point we like to ignore: plenty of cruelty lives comfortably inside convention.

So when people fling violent imagery at someone for using AI — or for not “suffering” in the culturally approved way — what are they actually doing? Three things:

  1. Projecting guilt as rage. If your identity is built on the idea that craft must equal suffering, then someone who makes great work without the ritual of pain becomes a threat. Rather than interrogate their own taste, they weaponise moral language: “You’re lazy. You deserve harm.” That projection looks like moral clarity but smells like displaced envy.
  2. Dehumanising the other to reclaim moral turf. Call the person “soulless”, “robotic”, “dishonest” — anything to make them less human and therefore less deserving of empathy. Once you dehumanise, violent language becomes easier to normalise. That’s how ordinary people get comfortable with extraordinary cruelty — the same mental trick that allows a neighbour to decide murder is a “solution.”
  3. Masking a power problem as purity. It’s never really about servers or water or some neat policy debate. It’s about losing gatekeeping power: who gets to make art, who gets to define value, who owns the ritual of suffering. If the weapon of legitimacy is “I bled for this”, then the easiest defence is to demand everyone else bleed too.

If you’ve seen the screenshot and felt the hair on your neck rise, you weren’t overreacting. Threatening language matters. But the cure isn’t performative righteousness or a new set of digital bans. It’s clearer: call out dehumanisation, refuse the moral grandstanding, and put attention where it actually helps — on accountability, on ethics, on giving people tools to create without making suffering the gatekeeper.

Finally — for the jury that still wants to moralise — here’s a tiny, unpleasant truth: cruelty doesn’t need a costume. It will wear whatever costume you hand it: tradition, craftsmanship, ecology, holiness. If we want less cruelty and more interesting work, we should stop policing who is “allowed” to make and start policing behaviour.

Make art. Use your tools. Be accountable. And if someone tells you they want to tear your face off because you didn’t suffer enough — tell them to take a long walk out of the moral theatre and come back when they’ve figured out how to be human.

Me: (watching Project Hail Mary) "Man, Grace and Stratt are really close. I kinda can't tell if I'm supposed to ship them or not. I wonder if they're this weirdly close in the book?"

Every shingle character in Book!Project Hail Mary: "So Grace, are you and Stratt fucking or not?"

Grace: (Balancing Stratt's 6 coffees in one hand and signing off on all her important documents with the other) "I'M JUST HER LEAD SCIENTIST, WHY DO YOU PEOPLE KEEP ASSUMING IT'S SOMETHING WEIRD?!"

The heteronormativity again. 🙄

Seriously would they be like that about two people of the same sex/gender, in the same situation?

If you're feeling anxious or depressed about the climate and want to do something to help right now, from your bed, for free...

Start helping with citizen science projects

What's a citizen science project? Basically, it's crowdsourced science. In this case, crowdsourced climate science, that you can help with!

You don't need qualifications or any training besides the slideshow at the start of a project. There are a lot of things that humans can do way better than machines can, even with only minimal training, that are vital to science - especially digitizing records and building searchable databases

Like labeling trees in aerial photos so that scientists have better datasets to use for restoration.

Or counting cells in fossilized plants to track the impacts of climate change.

Or digitizing old atmospheric data to help scientists track the warming effects of El Niño.

Or counting penguins to help scientists better protect them.

Those are all on one of the most prominent citizen science platforms, called Zooniverse, but there are a ton of others, too.

Oh, and btw, you don't have to worry about messing up, because several people see each image. Studies show that if you pool the opinions of however many regular people (different by field), it matches the accuracy rate of a trained scientist in the field.

--

I spent a lot of time doing this when I was really badly injured and housebound, and it was so good for me to be able to HELP and DO SOMETHING, even when I was in too much pain to leave my bed. So if you are chronically ill/disabled/for whatever reason can't participate or volunteer for things in person, I highly highly recommend.

Next time you wish you could do something - anything - to help

Remember that actually, you can. And help with some science.