she wouldn't do that, she loves telling everyone her computer provides critical services for argentinians

sleeping girls pinterest yuri is so peak, i have so many of them in my boards and on my hard drive

always lovely when the issue isn't my fault

no i don't think so

context swapping is really bad for focus

i should take a week off

im starting to think windows is a bad operating system

government: here is a regulatory reporting requirement, the deadline is the same every year with a generous window customer: i will begin preparing a week before

"everyone freak the fuck out and sell everything right now" kind of vibe

im moving very slow this morning but that's okay because i woke up early

willow sleeps like shit episode 4832

lol im not willow

i gotta stop forgetting to take night estradiol

im not autistic but i do google every idiom before usage just to be safe

im always right too but you never know

freaking fr storefront id

sometimes only explatives are apt

brioche

aven

nightraven pissboy

the bsky situation is annoying because it's both stupidity and malice and it hurts my heart, work is annoying because i can't just log off

hanlon's razor has fucking hands this week dude

oh my god bruh 😭😭😭

im actually gonna freak the fuck out if another person comes to me demanding urgent action oh my fucking god

i was already in an irritated mood and this is just so much more miserable

i hate having a job where you need to be knower of all things and the expectation is that you immediately solve everyone's pet issue

my phone charges fast

it got relay banned lol

ig i could see how that would upset you if you had nuanced takes on each of the drama constituents, couldn't be me im partisan through and through

alright whatever rant end, i just saw some more vile shit that pissed me off, i try not to catch up too much

the funny thing is the discursive norms are only relevant because of the pre-existant context, like the abstract invocation of expectations of pleasantness and cohesion just sidesteps the substantive issue

everyone wants to be the victim but you're only allowed to play that card when you're actually right, and then you get to indulge in it as a multiplier

also sorry but we are absolutely not "all in this together" or whatever. you're doing the thing where you say we're all have such-and-such universal interests, and even if that is true, that doesn't mean our short term interests align or that you can't be mistaken about how to realize them

also we're not all in this together because some of us aren't struggling like at all, only in the most abstract of senses. this would be me and a lot of other people currently larping as downtrodden

like you're just catty and retarded and it's fucking weird and you mobilize a horde (woah ikr, problematic racialized language) against someone over a minor ego hit, all while being sucked dry by the most influential people in the space. get a grip, fuck you

i think im gonna be sick

woohoo i avoided the reskeet bot

i went on a little binge after reading ur blog lol

hell yea

if i wanted to, i could be a better moralist than any of you

girl writing application code for the first time in a while: ohhhh that's the why the builder pattern exists

drama is waning but i should probably take my car and consider migrating, but the handle is iconic. i wonder if they clean them up post-migration or if i could still point to it

idk like it's not wrong and ive talked in the past about the value i see in moral psychology and virtuous character cultivation but it just leaves a really bad taste in my mouth. like assume it is an established moral truth that animals are moral patients, and then someone pulls out kants argument.

its like wait no you kind of have to have a take on that, at minimum because even the practical actions you take depend on your beliefs. pragmatism is a theory of truth, not an instruction to behave as if something is true for the selfish benefits.

also if you do go with the practical argument for instrumental benefit to humans you run the risk of hitting empirical uncomfortabilities like "impolite prompts consistently outperformed polite ones, with accuracy ranging from 80.8% for Very Polite prompts to 84.8% for Very Rude prompts"

which i suppose is fine if you're more STEM-pilled and open to your beliefs being falsifiable, but this feels like precisely the territory where that would be inappropriate. i'm aware they are separate arguments but there's a reason they get wheeled out together, it's harder to defend the moral w/o.

not to use a tasteless example (it's hard not to be tasteless when discussing expansion of the moral circle because the subject is either still tender [gender, race] or premature [animals, llms]), but imagine if this rhetoric was used in discussion about black folks.

we'd rightly be uncomfortable if people were to immediately start focusing on how poor treatment reflected poor character of the white person, or pointed out how poor treatment actually undermined the white person's instrumental aims.

intellectually, it's a shallow way to express sympathy without staking a real position that requires rigor and analysis to be defended. it's a rhetorical gesture for the uncommitted (both audience and author)