Show more

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-number-system-invented-by-inuit-schoolchildren-will-make-its-silicon-valley-debut/

A) this is delightful.
B) Scientific American should be ashamed of the sloppy synecdoche of "Silicon Valley":
- UC Berkeley isn't in Silicon Valley.
- UC Berkeley isn't exactly a part of the semiconductor-software-venture-capital industry, even if it's got lots of ties.
- The Unicode Consortium _is_ based in Silicon Valley, but it's a nonprofit, and not usually what we mean by the synecdoche of Silicon Valley.
- You have to read quite far into the article to find out who else is involved, and even then it's tangential mention of Google and the Consortium.

This article would have been so much more powerful if it had talked about the relationships involved and not made it breathless "Tech Industry Supports Indigenous Peoples" reporting.

Having a bad time reading LLM critiques as I gradually realize they're not gonna critique the idea of human general intelligence

Me reading things: That’s not a joke. That’s a reference.

Me writing things: People who read the pulp sf collection “Galactic Diplomat” (1965) and got past the absolutely terrible politics are going to love this one word choice! Haha!

Switching to a fully VR work setup just to stop having to worry about the seasonally variable glare from the window behind my screen.

I would really appreciate a paleontologist telling me there’s a good reason this doesn’t make sense, because it messes with the way I look at flowers.

Show thread

You ever, you know, think about how butterflies and moths evolved coiling proboscises roughly 200 million years ago in the Triassic when the dinosaurs were around, and they still like to drink the tears out of reptiles’ eyes, but flowers didn’t evolve until about 125 million years ago, so what if flowers evolved to look like eyes?

Even as a sports-negative person, I have to admit there’s a lot of truth in this. saturation.social/@bdeskin/110

I like process videos, I like time lapse videos, and I like videos that get to the point (unless they are deliberately atmospheric, which I also like). But I just don’t have the brain gear necessary to watch a 2× (or heaven forfend a 4× video) of someone making something.

Social media video apps do not believe me when I try to explain this to them.

(There was something about zoo + earthquake that was ringing a dusty bell, and it’s exceedingly satisfying to actually remember it instead of wondering all day “why did that seem slightly more interesting than it should have?”)

Show thread

Remembering: One of the last crowded things we did pre-pandy was ZooLights 2019 with friends. At the end of the evening, we’re on the balcony of the upper gondola station as the café staff is closing. There’s a rumble from some equipment and I say to a friend, who works in disaster management, that part of my brain irrationally worries that any big noise is an earthquake. She cocks her head and says brains are weird. Today’s earthquakes were (± margin of error) directly under us at that moment.

Show thread

Good to have a “We know what we’re doing if the Hayward Fault goes today, right?” conversation after a filling breakfast.

Show thread

The modeled hypocenter of the tiny earthquake just now was 7.5 km directly below the zoo: earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquake.

This reminds me of how, if I recall, the HayWired scenario put its nominal epicenter on some random private property. You have to wonder how the people who live there felt about that, and what it might have done to their property value.

(Another one as I was typing this.)

Can’t believe this absurdly puritanical interference with my artistic vision.

Show thread
Show more
Horsin' Around

This is a hometown instance run by Sam and Ingrid, for some friends.