I admit that, while it's been varying degrees of disheartening to be unfriended by folks I've known for quite a while -- and with whom I've had a number of pleasant exchanges over the years -- because of my use and enjoyment of AI tools, I've rarely been *that* upset by it. It does smart more when it's been people with whom I've had engaging conversations and whom I've looked forward to seeing in person, but Generally my response has been to the tune of, "Oh, well... I guess we weren't all that friendly after all."

That said, I've been pondering this one instance for several days now and I think I really am bothered by it. I should note -- this person hasn't *actually* unfriended me (their spouse did), and I can still see their posts. I think I'd even be able to comment on them -- but I haven't ventured to in a while, because after one exchange some months ago it was pretty clear that they 100% didn't want to hear from me. I've sent a few Messenger notes since then that have gone unread. But last week they posted about feeling suicidal amidst the more widespread adoption of AI -- stating that they expect it to entirely replace "critical thinking, skill-building, and imagination" -- and I really wanted to respond. (more...)

I love that I'm at a point in my 3d-printing knowledge where someone just posted about a problem with their 3d prints and I glanced at the included image and immediately knew what the issue was. Granted it's not like this was a super difficult-to-diagnose problem, and multiple people had already weighed in with way more knowledge than I could have provided -- I know what the *issue* was and how to resolve it simply, but they know about tweaking settings and specific values in a way I don't and may never because I just want to tweak the setting to my liking and leave it there and forget about it forever (or until I get another 3d printer that requires its own differently tweaked settings to be left on and forgotten about forever).

Still, I love that I just looked at that image and immediately thought, "Shit needs supports!" XD

Do you ever react so poorly to certain characters that they kinda ruin the shows/films you're watching? (Rhetorical question; I don't expect anyone will ever see this here. XD) I imagine so -- that seems an obvious and common occurrence -- but sometimes it feels like creators go so far out of their way to feature characters I find deeply and viscerally unpleasant that it can't be *that* common a thing at the extremes.

Like I'd been meaning to write about Hazbin Hotel S2 (I might still, someday), which on the whole I didn't particularly enjoy because it had SO MUCH Vox and Vox is a character I don't at all like. (By the end of the season I was also there with Alastor, sigh. I know the show is set in Hell, but Hazbin increasingly feels like a show where the things everyone else loves and wants to see more of are things that turn me off and make me need to stop watching.) And I keep seeing ads for Spartacus: House of Ashur, which is a show I have negative interest in watching. I loved the original Spartacus series -- a line I say fairly routinely is actually paraphrased from that show -- but I despised Ashur. And not in a "great villain, love to hate" kind of way; in a "this character is thoroughly awful and a waste of time and focus" sort of way. Why is *Ashur* the character getting the spinoff? We spend too much time fixated on and bludgeoned by awful people in real life for them to be the stars of the show we watch in our downtime.

I'm reminded that I'd meant to say something about Marvel Zombies and Eyes of Wakanda, two of animated Marvel D+ shows that I watched a little while back. (I mean to say something about pretty much everything I watch -- though I might entertain other distractions and ultimately forget, my impulse after I view most movies/episodes is to sit down and write a 600-1200 or longer post about said program.) Both were definitely watchable. (more...)

A followup to the tie things -- apparently this article was just in the NYT! I've gifted it. You might find it interesting. I was amused by the creative metaphors.

Contrary to the former fashion editor's assertion that there's something deliberate going on with the knot choices, I'd offer that it's more likely that the Windsor is the only knot they know how to tie -- as evidenced by how carelessly they're tying them? Namely that there's no dimple; aside from that it *is* hard to screw up a Windsor knot.

Heck, Trump should probably also be tying a Windsor -- it'd almost certainly look better than what looks like a shitty attempt at a Balthus knot to me. (But admittedly it can be hard to tell: as the article notes, the Duke of Windsor didn't *actually* wear a Windsor knot, but his thicker ties gave the appearance of one.) Trump's ties are also way goddamned too long, and a Balthus knot uses up a lot of fabric -- though it uses less if one's mainly using the thinner end of the tie for the knot as Trump seems to be. I'm confident that with big-and-tall ties and sufficient determination to look like shit -- and that bronzer makeup with negaverse raccoon circles around his eyes do indeed suggest that level of commitment -- one could achieve that length with a Balthus.

Anyway, you might find the article interesting/amusing. Enjoy. 😎