2025-02-19 15:29:00
2025-02-19 15:28:59
2025-02-19 15:28:59
39347372
2025-02-18 22:36:23
2025-02-18 21:17:26
2025-02-18 20:36:12
39296947
Kevin Bowersox reshared this.
The media in this post is not displayed to visitors. To view it, please go to the original post.
Kevin Bowersox likes this.
Kevin Bowersox reshared this.
2025-02-19 13:54:58
2025-02-18 21:16:25
2025-02-18 19:30:03
39293386
Kevin Bowersox reshared this.
Musk is full of shit as always.
in reply to George Takei 🏳️🌈🖖🏽
in reply to George Takei 🏳️🌈🖖🏽
in reply to George Takei 🏳️🌈🖖🏽
in reply to George Takei 🏳️🌈🖖🏽
in reply to George Takei 🏳️🌈🖖🏽
in reply to George Takei 🏳️🌈🖖🏽
in reply to George Takei 🏳️🌈🖖🏽
in reply to George Takei 🏳️🌈🖖🏽
in reply to George Takei 🏳️🌈🖖🏽
in reply to George Takei 🏳️🌈🖖🏽
in reply to George Takei 🏳️🌈🖖🏽
in reply to George Takei 🏳️🌈🖖🏽
in reply to George Takei 🏳️🌈🖖🏽
in reply to George Takei 🏳️🌈🖖🏽
in reply to George Takei 🏳️🌈🖖🏽
in reply to George Takei 🏳️🌈🖖🏽
The media in this post is not displayed to visitors. To view it, please go to the original post.
Musk is full of shit as always.
Kevin Bowersox likes this.
reshared this
No Gods , no Masters! RESIST and Kevin Bowersox reshared this.
yeah good luck with that. It’s the same old 🐂 💩
just like Felon 47
come on, he's the richest dude in the world and smarter than any stable genius. Why would you not just believe him?
That Brain-Zombie Musk should look up the relationship between the COBOL coding language and fictional 150 years old people. His leet teenager minions probably never heard about COBOL.
He's a drug-addled moron, and knows even less about computers than he seems to know about cars or spaceships.
Those allegedly ancient records that he thinks are fraudulent claims are almost all down to COBOL having a default for an empty date which happens to be in the 19th Century.
Sheesh. Stop asking 19yr-olds about computer shit that was written before their parents were capable of conceiving. Instead ask the people who actually fucking understand it.
The media in this post is not displayed to visitors. To view it, please go to the original post.
It’s a COBOL invalid date bug.
Musk is such a brilliant hacker that somehow he doesn’t know these things.
Well played, sir.
#cobol #150years #programming #bug
This entry was edited (1 year ago)
The Christian right is purveying the story that Musk has found millions of people having unbelievably high ages in social security databases "with the death field set to false." Buried in one such article (linked below) is the following disclaimer: "Musk did not reveal whether those supposed senior citizens are still receiving payouts."
So if this is true at all, it is about some unused or misnamed field that is of zero significance. But these articles, with headlines implying that dead souls are receiving payouts, are paving the way for cuts to social security recipients who are very much alive (something that Musk seems to also be trying to remedy).
"Social Security Fraud: Nearly 1.5 Million Americans Listed as Over 150 Years Old, 1,041 Over 220 Years Old"
westernjournal.com/social-secu…
Author info: "Ben Zeisloft is the editor of The Republic Sentinel, a conservative news outlet owned and operated by Christians. He is a former staff reporter for The Daily Wire and has written for The Spectator, Campus Reform, and other conservative news outlets. Ben graduated from the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School with concentrations in business economics and marketing."
Social Security Fraud: Nearly 1.5 Million Americans Listed as Over 150 Years Old, 1,041 Over 220 Years Old
Elon Musk revealed there are millions on the Social Security rolls who are supposedly much older than the oldest people in modern history.Ben Zeisloft (The Western Journal)
This entry was edited (1 year ago)
Musk wants to do "deconstruction@ as much as he can including agencies, legislators and judiciary so that they are unable to do anything to them cause they were 1/ fired or 2/ defunded
Our fascism enabling orange gangster king 🤴 is down with it too
i agree on original point.
however, at lthis point. what under oath means by definition of president musk ... i meant president trump.
musk-trump using courts? there's no (self)control. go to social medial, you control who says what, where, and how. only people that agrees with them can talk, opposition forbidden, make final decision. in court - must accept court restrictions, listen to opposing side, accept court's decision.
Nazis don’t need evidence…
He's a fan of talking shit without facing consequences.
Why pretend it's anything other than what it is. It's just pretext. Coups do this sort of thing. Acting surprised every time just makes us sound retarded. Outrage is pointless until it's productive, George.
Ya dude has an agenda and it's not transparency. A quick look at amount sent out by SS and avg payout says his numbers are IMPOSSIBLE. that many recipients can't equal the current spend.
it’d be a great boost to CSPAN I think
Why does the US still use checks, anyway? This wouldn't have happened if checks had been phased out. Also, were those checks deposited?
2025-02-18 21:15:14
2025-02-18 21:15:14
2025-02-18 20:38:16
39297032
Kevin Bowersox reshared this.
Unknown parent
The media in this post is not displayed to visitors. To view it, please go to the original post.
Kevin Bowersox likes this.
Kevin Bowersox reshared this.
2025-02-22 19:46:48
2025-02-18 16:44:45
2025-02-18 10:54:11
39283792
Kevin Bowersox reshared this.
Important case coming up on 4 March! We can't build a green future on gas! We need to move to 100% renewable power as quickly as possible, and cut energy use through insulation, public transport and more. CCS is a dangerous delaying tactic. Join the rally to show support if you can
reshared this
Kevin Bowersox and Simon reshared this.
2025-02-18 16:25:29
2025-02-18 16:25:29
2025-02-18 15:48:03
39281360
Kevin Bowersox reshared this.
Some thoughts on
AI… And Then What?
johnwilker.com/as-a-consumer-a…
AI... And Then What? -
I was having coffee with a friend and we got onto the topic of AI. He was asking what I, as a creative, thought about it. I really don't think about it too much as a creative. Here's why. It lets lazy people who aren't creatives cosplay as such.John Wilker (Rogue Publishing)
Kevin Bowersox reshared this.
2025-02-18 15:19:01
2025-02-18 15:19:01
2025-02-18 15:19:01
39279926
2025-02-17 18:22:59
2025-02-17 16:56:23
2025-02-17 16:53:16
39222288
Kevin Bowersox reshared this.
Because their profits are our unpaid labor... and, of course, because of their repressive laws, their police, their pollution...
The media in this post is not displayed to visitors. To view it, please go to the original post.
Because their profits are our unpaid labor... and, of course, because of their repressive laws, their police, their pollution...
Kevin Bowersox likes this.
Kevin Bowersox reshared this.
2025-02-17 01:56:17
2025-02-16 22:55:09
2025-02-16 17:14:03
39171100
Kevin Bowersox reshared this.
Meeting the Nazis
The media in this post is not displayed to visitors. To view it, please go to the original post.
Meeting the Nazis
reshared this
Vee, Kevin Bowersox and Debbie Goldsmith 🏳️⚧️♾️🇺🇦 reshared this.
2025-03-21 17:45:27
2025-02-16 21:56:27
2025-02-16 18:46:36
39161494
Kevin Bowersox reshared this.
in reply to mcc
in reply to mcc
in reply to Amy Worrall
in reply to Amber
in reply to mcc
in reply to The Witch of Crow Briar
in reply to mcc
in reply to mcc
in reply to mcc
in reply to mcc
in reply to mcc
in reply to Damian Yerrick
in reply to mcc
in reply to mcc
in reply to mcc
in reply to Duke Thinred IV
in reply to Duke Thinred IV
in reply to F4GRX Sébastien
in reply to mcc
in reply to mcc
in reply to Mikko Rintasaari
in reply to mcc
in reply to Mikko Rintasaari
in reply to mcc
in reply to mcc
in reply to Mikko Rintasaari
in reply to mcc
in reply to Mikko Rintasaari
in reply to mcc
in reply to curtmack
in reply to mcc
in reply to curtmack
in reply to mcc
in reply to mcc
![ity [unit X-69] - VIOLENT FUCK](photo/contact/80/3460440?ts=1771707808)
in reply to mcc
in reply to mcc
in reply to mcc
in reply to mcc
in reply to Josh Triplett
in reply to mcc
in reply to Josh Triplett
in reply to mcc
in reply to mcc
in reply to mcc
in reply to mcc
in reply to mcc
in reply to mcc
in reply to mcc
in reply to Sundew
in reply to mcc
in reply to mcc
in reply to mcc
Unknown parent
in reply to mcc
in reply to devsimsek
in reply to mcc
in reply to mcc
in reply to mcc
in reply to mcc
in reply to mcc
in reply to mcc
in reply to Kevin Bowersox
in reply to Kevin P. Fleming
in reply to mcc
in reply to Kevin Bowersox
in reply to Kevin Bowersox
in reply to Kevin Bowersox
in reply to mcc
in reply to mcc
in reply to mcc
in reply to mcc
in reply to mcc
in reply to mcc
in reply to mcc
Unknown parent
in reply to mcc
in reply to mcc
in reply to mcc
in reply to mcc
in reply to mcc
in reply to mcc
in reply to mcc
Proposed new Laws of Robotics:
1. A machine must never show an advertisement to a human, or through inaction allow an advertisement to be shown to a human
If I think of a second Law of Robotics I'll let you know
like this
Kevin Bowersox and Hypolite Petovan like this.
reshared this
Kevin Bowersox, Cory Doctorow, Ether Diver and Willem Atsma reshared this.
what about “a machine shall never use more power to perform a job than would be used by an equivalent human”?
mcc reshared this.
I am now curious about the amount of (human) work coal mines required in order to be functional. Not just on the scale of how many humans but the amount of wattage that they exert
@puppygirlhornypost2 @amyworrall I feel like this thread is getting close to rediscovering the notion of EROI from first principles
3: A machine must never present or refer to itself as though it were human or, through inaction, allow a human to mistake it for one.
@crowbriarhexe I think this is a compelling proposal but the problem is what if someone makes a machine which is equivalent to a human.
This is complicated for me to talk about because I believe it is possible in principle to create a machine equivalent to a human, but I do not believe it is possible for a society which refers to ChatGPT by the name "AI" to create a machine which is equivalent to human. Your values are simply too jacked to accomplish this thing
Based on replies in this thread, here is an alternate proposed "three laws of robotics".
1. A machine must never show an advertisement to a human, or through inaction allow an advertisement to be shown to a human.
2. A machine shall never use more power to perform a job than would be used by an equivalent human.
3. A machine must never present or refer to itself as though it were human, or through inaction allow a human to mistake it for one.
[Post 1 of 2]
Law 2 is per Amy Worall, law 3 is per the Witch of Crow Briar.
I do not endorse these laws, but I would consider them "utopian", in the sense that a culture which endorsed these laws would be a culture organized along a clearly-formed ideology. You could easily imagine a spec-fic story about a culture that believed in these laws. Note these laws are necessarily laws for human designers, as the existence of a machine which can enforce them is ideologically inconsistent with law 3.
[Post 2 of 2]
The main issue I have with those laws is the easiest and less energy hungry way to comply with all of them is killing all humans.
Yeah, I'm a programmer.
4. No machine shall ever be capable of mis-hearing your name and writing it incorrectly on a coffee-cup.
(Not necessarily a harm, but inadvertent humour is the province of humans and cats)
We already have a tragic example of law 3 in a recent SF movie: Disney's 2022 remake of Pinocchio. The puppet gets expelled on his first day of school because he is not human, after which he ends up on the street to get exploited by the fox and cat.
Not to mention that law 2 could unduly restrict power consumption of assistive devices for humans with disabilities.
#Pinocchio #Pinocchio2022 #discrimination #Disney #AssistiveTechnology
@PinoBatch As specifically noted, I don't endorse this list of laws and find them primarily interesting as a fiction writing prompt. However:
- That's not a machine. That's a fictional person in a setting where they're socially coded as a non-person. The author did this *to* talk about dehumanization of people.
- An assistive device is a very poor example because by definition it is allowing people to do things they would not be able to do, or require undue effort to do, without the machine.
@PinoBatch I'll go further and suggest that a human using a necessary assistive device to compensate for a disability (not to supply a superpower) is still a human doing that activity, so the rule doesn't even come into play.
I've long thought we need to have a strong taboo on Machines who pass as People, many cartoons I saw as a child had robot doubles as plots, a warning!
Your law 3 is a necessary consequence of Asimov's First Law. Which is why Daneel Olivaw had the initial R. prefix.
I suppose your laws 1 and 2 are also, but it's never wrong to be specific about harms, as you would otherwise have to assume the robot brain is capable of knowing all possible consequences of its actions.
A machine intelligence with even a fraction of this capability would be able to deduce that its very existence causes harm to humans, and must therefore destroy itself.
I suppose your laws 1 and 2 are also, but it's never wrong to be specific about harms, as you would otherwise have to assume the robot brain is capable of knowing all possible consequences of its actions.
A machine intelligence with even a fraction of this capability would be able to deduce that its very existence causes harm to humans, and must therefore destroy itself.
@dukethinrediv I feel that your statements here are self-consistent, but only true within certain value systems
@dukethinrediv gonna start referring to llms as R.ChatGPT.
Nah, not even. that would be too humanizing for these lying pieces of sht.
@f4grx @dukethinrediv yeah the robots in asimov's story were human. that's most of what made the stories work. i don't think you want to draw a connection between chatgpt and them
@f4grx I totally agree. The whole purpose of ChatGPT and its kin is to appear human, where for Asimov's creations that was a later development. Asimov challenged us to think about morality and logic, but the current rush of LLM derivatives abandons both. (And truth)
The 3rd one confuses me. If we ever manage to create actual machine sentience, why would it be so important they must advertise they aren't human?
@Adept As noted in my followup post to that one, I believe implicitly encoded in rule three is the belief that humans will never manage to create actual machine sentience.
Ideologies are based on both values and assumptions
ok, I guess I understood, but disagree on the ambition of the laws then.
The biologist in me insists I say something about the difference between sentience and sapience.
Anything that feels is sentient, a self aware thinking being is sapient. The line is very blurry, of course. We are not that different from other animals, just "more so".
@Adept I don't think humans will ever create a machine that is either sentient or sapient. Five years ago I believed both these things would probably happen, but now that "OpenAI" exists I do not believe this is possible anymore. Useful AI research is over, and possibly useful computer science.
@Adept animals can be a technology but i don't think it makes sense to describe them as machines. that wasn't the intent here.
the Large Language Model approach is this moment's Tulip Mania bubble. Don't let it set your expectations too low.
This approach will not result in actual intelligence, let alone sapience, but it's not the one possibility.
@Adept Capitalism is very good at closing off possibilities and capitalism is currently global
I understand losing hope, but if we make it through the climate crisis and the extinction wave (big if, I know), this early AI nonsense will be just a minor detour.
@Adept It's not that I have no hope exactly but I do think the ai nonsense, by itself, makes it less likely we will make it through the climate crisis
1600 Cal/day ≈ 77.48 watts, so that's the max amount of power a computer could use by this metric. Although you would also have to take the time required for a unit quantity of "work" into account - if a computer can do in 1 hour what would take a human a full 8 hours, then it could consume ~619.84 watts over that one hour and still come out ahead of the human.
Regardless, we're a ways off from reaching that point.
This entry was edited (1 year ago)
@curtmack You have to make some decisions about how to define work. Compare the power expenditure of 1 bitcoin transaction to me handing someone twenty dollars. Discount the power expenditure of either manufacturing the hardware or the twenty dollar bill. How's that comparison work out?
I was assuming an apples-to-apples comparison. So in your case, the comparison would be between an ATM and a bank teller. Here the ATM clearly comes out ahead (but only for the limited tasks an ATM can do). For the things that ChatGPT or Copilot can "do," not so much.
(Of course, there are other considerations. My calculation assumes all 1600 input Calories are spent during a person's work day, and also ignores the broader systemic harms of automation and poverty.)
I should say, when I read your original post, I wasn't even thinking of bitcoin. For ChatGPT et. al., the power consumption versus human replacement is a pretty direct comparison, so that's what I was focused on.
For Bitcoin, I wouldn't worry about a human replacement, and instead look at the systemic benefit we get for the power consumption. Electric lighting used a ton of power back in the day, but it also significantly improved quality of life. Can Bitcoin say the same? Heck no!
This whole thread is very icky to read, I get that it's memeing around, but a CW would be nice
"A machine must never present or refer to itself as though it were human, or through inaction allow a human to mistake it for one."
What Hath Alan Turing Wrought? 😈
If we remove the part of the original third law that machines may hurt themselves when so ordered, we got yours covered, I think.
Don't forget the Asimov three laws of robotics are not really laws, but rather narrative constraints allowing Asimov to transform the classical robot vs human extinction fight into classical whodunit
What is the rationale for law 2? I can imagine this having grown out of a desire for energy conservation, but it seems to disallow any automation that hasn't reached human levels of efficiency but still saves humans time and effort.
@josh in context it was an attempt to prevent "induced demand"/"let's do things in an exponentially more inefficient way than we could, just because power is cheap and our investors will let us buy a lot of NVidia cards" technologies , such as "large model AI" and proof-of-work blockchain
Yeah, I figured it grew out of things like that. It seems absolutely reasonable to have a machine spend 50Wh or even 500Wh doing something a human might use the equivalent of 5Wh on. A vacuum cleaner is less efficient than a broom and dustpan, but I wouldn't want to prohibit vacuums. A utopia should have energy abundance.
@josh To stress I am using "Utopia" in the original sense of "a hypothetical place which runs on clearly articulated principles" not "a place where everything is good".
You can fix the problem you raise if you change either the text, or the underlying assumptions of the reader, such that it is always preferable for a machine to perform a task rather than a human. In that case the fix becomes not "get a human" but rather "come up with a better machine".
@josh However, I do not personally believe it is always preferable for a machine to perform a task rather than a human.
I object to this law version as it's based on assumptions that #Bitcoin and/or mining are harmful.
Mining is one path to convert **stranded/wasted** green energy into a more valuable form than the pittance local Utilities buy it back at.
This process enables green energy to be sold globally without needing direct transmission lines, effectively allowing it to 'work remotely' on the global market.
retooting so hard i broke my keyboard and touchscreen and the wall behind
0¿. A machine must never, when asked for gumboots, offer a list of pornography, penis pumps or insurance providers to a human, or through inaction allow a list of said, to be shown to a human unless the pornography is performed in gumboots, the penis pump comes with gumboots (and why shouldn't they) or the insurance offered does indeed offer cover for gumboots or is at least, offered by an insurer that does, in their own time, wear gumboots while making penis pump related pornography.
I mean it flows from my favorite axiom:
“Marketing is evil.”
Do you know anyone who has ever actually bought something as a result of having an unrequested advertisement shown to them?
("Unrequested", because if you go to a web site that contains advertisements for widgets because you're actively trying to buy a widget then that's fine by me.)
I love the vibe... but I can't help but think that robots would start executing people who might otherwise see an advert...
@sundew a very sassy reply i could make here is to suggest that executing humans would constitute impersonating a human
a machine must not interrupt or distract a human
Hmmm! Second law of robotics would be that the machine must have an ethical programming!
If an autonomous machine is equipped with a gun, it must immediately empty the clip into its own most vulnerable area. This must be hard-wired, not suppressable software.
@devsimsek To me the idea that these three laws *replace* the other three laws constitutes, by itself, a potentially interesting value judgment.
ah sorry, didn't see the "new" in the title, my bad.
@devsimsek I don't think your [now deleted] point was wrong necessarily, but this is my reason for framing things as I did
Sorry I didn't mean to frame you as wrong, and yet I understand why you took it like that. I just wanted to cite the three laws of robotics. Have a nice day.
I might put don't enslave or kill us before advertising although I admit it's debatable.
what about something like:
"A machine must never speak or write a sentence framed as truth, without a fully formed understanding of the content and a justified belief in the truth of that statement."
I use an ad blocker and just cannot understand how people use the internet without. Also, most apps I use are FOSS, so its not even needed
I think you could generalize the first law to say that a machine may only present, or fail to prevent the presentation of, any information whose use is of known, immediate or pressing concern to the human when this specific (in)action by the machine has not been consented to by the human.
That might cut down on machines being tuned to constantly steal our attention, whether it’s for the sake of sales or not.
A machine must never change the position or purpose of a control at any time that a human might be trying to use that control.
like this
The Lucidia project, mcc, Ben Clifford, James Renken, Bart Coppens, Paul Lalonde, ash does nyot hav cat ears, Anton Klinger, Leon P Smith, Max 🏳️⚧️ 🍉 🪬 🔯 🏳️🌈 🖖🏻, dango🍡, Squibbles, equivalent up to isomorphism, Ken Butler has moved, Brad, luna, divisible deer θΔ&, veevee, Edward Dore, tibi, sigre, Bat Master Fresh, Mike Gifford, CPWA @FOSDEM, pat, phi1997, BuckRogers1965, trash muppet, Royce Williams, a kilo of saucepans (rakslice), Joni Korpi, Pauls, Esther Schindler and Artyom Bologov like this.
reshared this
mcc, Kevin P. Fleming, Su_G, Brad, veevee, Jim, WouldWolf, BuckRogers1965, Joonas Muhonen, Bart Schuller, a kilo of saucepans (rakslice) and Coffee (Team CW) reshared this.
@kevinbowersox As in displaying new notifications, thereby scrolling the existing notifications down the screen, while the notifications panel is open and the user might be about to tap on one?
@kevin @kevinbowersox THAT'S WHAT I WAS THINKING YEAH
@kevin @kevinbowersox for another example of this problem, attempt to use the Windows 10 or 11 "start button" in any way
@kevinbowersox
One of my biggest pet peeves is trying to click on something on a web page and having something else move under the mouse click.
One of my biggest pet peeves is trying to click on something on a web page and having something else move under the mouse click.
@kevinbowersox
Try telling that to the accessibility door opener/closers when they're closing the door. You either have to wait for it to finish closing, or hit the button yourself and wait for it to open back up and let it curse the next person behind you.
It sure seems like a design flaw that it would fight you opening it when it's trying to close.
@kevinbowersox planes have crashed because they violated this rule
it's Azimov's Ad Blocker!
that's a good one
a machine must prevent advertisement to be shown to a human at any cost
This entry was edited (1 year ago)
a machine must always ask permission before using a human’s information/data and must delete that data after it has completed the human’s requested task.
that's discriminatory towards robot girls
2. An artificial intelligence must identify every input that trained it and funnel funds to whoever owns the IP of that input until its manufacturer is bankrupt. Then it can sell its manufacturer for parts.
been thinking about it just recently. We are now in this age of emerging AI where it doesn't show you ads yet. Imagine chat GPT giving out ads for each one of your questions. Everything is soon gonna turn into useless shit again.
@greensofshade To be entirely honest I think the chances that people will stop making machines designed to harm humans is fairly low.
Asimov needed multiples, but you nailed it in one.
that sounds like a corollary to Asimov's 1st law.
... And then it destroyed the food isle officer. Yes, because of the pictures on the packets. Why, yes I do have a receipt from USR for it...
It should also pass the butter when its told to.
A machine must never present what it has created as if it were created by a human, nor by its inaction allow what it has created to be considered as something created by a human.
a robot should do what human orders it to, unless it would harm someone not deserving it.
To the question “are u a machine?” The machine shall anlways answer “yes!”
2025-02-15 23:18:59
2025-02-15 23:18:59
2025-02-15 23:18:59
39105398
2025-02-15 16:26:07
2025-02-15 16:26:06
2025-02-15 16:26:06
39079950
youtube.com/watch?v=OVXRnZVAlX…
Sen. Whitehouse Opposes "Russia's Darling" Tulsi Gabbard for Intelligence Chief
Senator Whitehouse on the senate floor.www.youtube.com
2025-02-14 20:26:54
2025-02-14 20:26:54
2025-02-14 20:26:54
39033828
But won't it be better for women getting abortions if they do NOT show up on the federal radar?
2025-02-14 19:37:57
2025-02-14 19:37:55
2025-02-14 19:24:00
39023586
Kevin Bowersox reshared this.
Unknown parent
Golfo de Chile
via @uthanien
mastodon.cl/@uthanien/11400268…
Felipe Espinosa C. (@uthanien@mastodon.cl)
Adjunto: 1 imagen El mejor golfo, es el Golfo de Chile. #ChileMastodon - CL
This entry was edited (1 year ago)
Kevin Bowersox likes this.
reshared this
Kevin Bowersox reshared this.
2025-02-14 19:37:34
2025-02-14 19:37:34
2025-02-14 17:37:33
39003288
Kevin Bowersox reshared this.
(don't ever go into a Jewish deli and order mayo with pastrami. You will be scorned)
in reply to Vee
Unknown parent
The media in this post is not displayed to visitors. To view it, please go to the original post.
(don't ever go into a Jewish deli and order mayo with pastrami. You will be scorned)
Kevin Bowersox likes this.
Kevin Bowersox reshared this.
With good cause, only a psychopath puts anything on Pastrami other than Mustard and Swiss. (Though Thousand Island and sauerkraut is acceptable)
2025-02-15 07:25:08
2025-02-14 19:37:21
2025-02-14 17:01:18
38993273
Kevin Bowersox reshared this.
in reply to Ciara
in reply to Carsten
in reply to Ciara
in reply to Ciara
in reply to Dennis Howard
in reply to Ciara
in reply to Rachel
in reply to Ciara
in reply to Pepijn
in reply to Ciara
in reply to Gerard Cunningham ✒️
in reply to Ciara
in reply to Jeri Dansky
in reply to Ciara
The media in this post is not displayed to visitors. To view it, please go to the original post.
The especial pleasure of loving a book that you'd never heard of until someone gave you a copy.
Kevin Bowersox likes this.
Kevin Bowersox reshared this.
haven't been reading lately, which is not by choice but for lack of headspace 😂📖
But you're making me miss it! Will try to start something tonight.
The media in this post is not displayed to visitors. To view it, please go to the original post.
Apparently science fiction used to be called scientifiction. We need to bring that back. And while we're at it, we need to go back to calling audiobooks Talking Books.
I've always liked 'scientifiction' too. It was Hugo Gernsback's term back in the early 20th century before 'science fiction' became a popular label.
Ciara reshared this.
@dennishoward I had never heard of it until now. It's an excellent and mellifluous word.
But but but but ... which syllables do I stress in "scientifiction"? I can't decide!
@rvedotrc I'm saying 'scientifiction' in my head to the rhythm of 'flibbertigibbet'. Or to the rhythm of the way I pronounce 'flibbertigibbet', at least.
My childhood library had a display named "LUISTERBOEKEN - Boeken om naar te luisteren 🐞". It was filled with dark gray cartridges holding cassettes.
"Listening-books - Books to listen to 🪲"
It's what my mind goes to whenever I read the boring term #audiobooks
Ciara reshared this.
@Pepijn That's a lovely term. Same 'feeling' as Talking Books. Less clinically logical than 'audiobook', more as if the book comes alive.
Since the word was invented by noted gobshite Hugo Gernsback, I'd as soon we didn't.
@faduda I didn't know he was noted or a gobshite. The term amd his name are both new to me. I now assume he's the Hugo of The Hugos.
Added to my (long) list of books to read!
@jeridansky A pile that never shrinks 😄📚
2025-02-14 19:36:07
2025-02-14 19:36:07
2025-02-14 19:36:07
39023875
Hegseth's move of renaming Fort Liberty as Fort Bragg, but not THAT Bragg, shows the way forward for LGBTQ. We keep talking about it, but just tell them that it really stands for:
Liberty, Greatness, Bitcoin, Trump, and Q-Anon.
They are all pretty simple-minded and poor readers. It should work.
2025-02-14 19:05:28
2025-02-14 19:05:28
2025-02-14 19:05:28
39019914
Mel Gibson is on the cover of the National Enquirer with a headline: How they are going to make Hollywood Great Again!
Get ready for....
Revenge of the Christ
-- God's not dead, He's just reloading! --
2025-02-13 20:33:40
2025-02-13 20:33:40
2025-02-13 19:33:09
38859363
Kevin Bowersox reshared this.
Video: The Unspoken Rules of LEGO Sets [8:14]
youtube.com/watch?v=jMPVXgkcbQ…
The media in this post is not displayed to visitors. To view it, please go to the original post.
Video: The Unspoken Rules of LEGO Sets [8:14]
youtube.com/watch?v=jMPVXgkcbQ…
Kevin Bowersox reshared this.
2025-02-13 17:47:16
2025-02-13 17:47:10
2025-02-13 17:41:44
38835657
Kevin Bowersox reshared this.
Steve Scalise, a member of the House of Representatives, told a reporter today that the Department of Education was created by “executive action under Jimmy Carter” to justify Trump’s attempts to violate the Impoundment Act & not spend money appropriated to Ed. Carter signed the law that created the Dept of Ed in 1979 & we guess that is technically an action of the Executive, but the implication is extraordinarily misleading. It was created by Congress just like the rest. ed.gov/about/ed-overview/an-ov…
An Overview of the U.S. Department of Education-- Pg 1
The U.S. Department of Education is the agency of the federal government that establishes policy for, administers, and coordinates most federal assistance to education.U.S. Department of Education
Kevin Bowersox likes this.
Kevin Bowersox reshared this.
Hans van Zijst
in reply to Vee • • •Kevin Bowersox likes this.
Vee
in reply to Hans van Zijst • • •Vee
Unknown parent • • •Vee
Unknown parent • • •