if you’re part time you can vote for what you would get doing full time hours, or you can also vote based on your previous job if currently unemployed. this isn’t including bank holidays, any allowance that can be carried over/bought or sick days!
i literally dont care what your excuse for using AI is. if you didnt put your own effort into making it im not putting my own effort into interacting with it.
“buhbub uhbubuh its just a tool!!” yeah youd know about being a tool wouldnt you
The only valid reasons to use AI I can think of are incredibly niche: stuff like climatologists building increasingly sophisticated models of the global climate system (all models are wrong but some models are less wrong than others. scientists are constantly making models more detailed and accurate as they get more info/as computers advance and are more able to process massive amounts of data, but this already requires massive computing power. climate modelling is not my area of expertise, so I’m not sure exactly how or even if AI would be useful in refining existing climate models. but my sense is that being able to understand human impact on the global climate system and downscale that information from global to local and predict how our communities might change in the coming decades based off different possible actions, would be a net good either way.)
the thing is, what we’re seeing rolled out as AI right now is categorically Not That. the scenarios where it might make sense to use AI are not something the vast majority of people will ever experience. AI on social media, using chat gpt to write your emails, using AI art to make a profile picture, having it do your homework terribly and usually incorrectly… these things are silly and lowkey embarrassing. sorry not sorry, the slop produced by your resource-intensive plagiarism machine is a net negative on society and the planet, except for maybe a vanishingly small number of exceptions.
it’s fuck generative AI in this household always and forever!! if gen AI has no haters I’m dead
Nope now itâs at the point that iâm shocked that people off tt donât know whatâs going down. I have no reach but iâll sum it up anyway.
SCOTUS is hearing on the constitutionality of the ban as tiktok and creators are arguing that it is a violation of our first amendment rights to free speech, freedom of the press and freedom to assemble.
SCOTUS: tiktok bad, big security concern because china bad!
Tiktok lawyers: if china is such a concern why are you singling us out? Why not SHEIN or temu which collect far more information and are less transparent with their users?
SCOTUS (out loud): well you see we donât like how users are communicating with each other, itâs making them more anti-american and china could disseminate pro china propaganda (get it? They literally said they do not like how we Speak or how we Assemble. Independent journalists reach their audience on tt meaning they have Press they want to suppress)
Tiktok users: this is fucking bullshit i donât want to lose this community what should we do? We donât want to go to meta or x because they both lobbied congress to ban tiktok (free market capitalism amirite? Paying off your local congressmen to suppress the competition is totally what the free market is about) but nothing else is like TikTok
A few users: what about xiaohongshu? Itâs the Chinese version of tiktok (not quite, douyin is the chinese tiktok but itâs primarily for younger users so xiaohongshu was chosen)
16 hours later:
Tiktok as a community has chosen to collectively migrate TO a chinese owned app that is purely in Chinese out of utter spite and contempt for meta/x and the gov that is backing them.
My fyp is a mix of âi would rather mail memes to my friends than ever return to instagram reelsâ and âi will xerox my data to xi jinping myself i do not care i share my ss# with 5 other people anywayâ and âim just getting ready for my day with my chinese made coffee maker and my Chinese made blowdryer and my chinese made clothing and listening to a podcast on my chinese made phone and get in my car running on chinese manufactured microchips but logging into a chinese social media? Too much for our gov!â etc.
So the government was scared that tiktok was creating a sense of class consciousness and tried to kill it but by doing so they sent us all to xiaohongshu. And now? Oh itâs adorable seeing this gov-manufactured divide be crossed in such a way.
This is adorable and so not what they were expecting. Im sure they were expecting a reluctant return to reels and shorts to fill the void but tiktokers said fuck that, we will forge connections across the world. Who you tell me is my enemy i will make my friend. Thatâs pretty damn cool.
The myth that knights could barely move in their armor has finally been dispelled by Thrillist
(darkest dungeon) reynauldâs 2.0 speed is such bullshit i tell you aghhh
(laughter) Hey @petermorwood, show them the video from the Royal Armouries thatâs, what, pushing a decade older than this? Thrillist was asleep at the wheel.
This one surfaces every couple of years and, to go by some of the disparaging Facebook comments, any claim of âhas finally been dispelledâ remains wishful thinking.
The full knight-soldier-fireman obstacle run is here and Thrillist wasnât that slow off the mark (their post was 2017) since the run took place in October-November 2016.
I canât find the Royal Armouries video @dduaneâ mentioned (I think itâs LITERALLY a video, i.e. a VHS tape) but hereâs a short film, also from 8 years ago, with the armoured guy from the obstacle runâŠ
âŠa compilation posted 9 years ago, circa 2015, meaning that all the clips are that old or olderâŠ
âŠand hereâs Mike Loades in a clip posted on YouTube 16 years agoâŠ
âŠfrom a series called âWeapons That Made Britainâ, originally broadcast in 2004. The complete episode on armour is here.
Loades has been
busting armour-immobilty myths since the 1990s (once again, I have VHS tapes somewhereâŠ)
Iâve also got several posts tagged #mobility in armour
about it on my Tumblr blog, but here are a couple of things about armour in general which nobody seems to consider.
If knights could barely move in armour, why did they – and everyone else who could get some – wear so much of it for so long?
A knight who couldnât move effectively was no more use in battle than a tank without an engine, which suggests they could move in it just fine.
*****
All of that refers to armour for serious kill-or-be-killed battle, known as âfield armourâ or âfield harnessâ. Incidentally, if you read about someone who âdied in harnessâ (i.e. while still working at their job rather than retired) it implies the sort of harness worn by draft horses, but AFAIK is not the original meaning at all.Â
Itâs also whatâs meant when a knight who lost a joust forfeited âhorse and harnessâ – not just his mount, its saddle and bridle, but all his armour as well.Â
Losing was an expensive business, but profitable for winners (some men, like William Marshal, made a career out of it) because, since that armour was almost certainly made to measure and since making another would take months, the loser would be more inclined to buy it back so as to quickly re-equip and perhaps be the winner next time.
*****
Tournament armour wasnât field armour, which had to balance the advantages of protection against the disadvantages of weight and fatigue during
the several hours of a battle.
It started out as the same armour worn for war, but gradually developed into specialised sports kit worn in closely monitored, tightly rule-bound contests. It was often so specialised that an armour worn for one style of joustingâŠ
âŠwas different to the armour worn for another style, so great lords, princes, kings and emperors would own several armours built for whichever were the most popular jousting styles of their region.
Horses were also specially trained. The jousting horse or âdestrierâ (a word derived from
âdexterâ, right) was trained to always swerve right, not left, in other
words away from not into any potential risk, and of course every jouster needed more than one horse.
*****
Tournaments had become a sport for the rich and the royal.
Before François I of France met Henry VIII of England in a formal foot-combat at The Field of Cloth of Gold (a 1520 diplomatic bunfight in Calais) he invoked a âmy country, my rulesâ privilege and changed them.Â
This forced Henry to abandon his specially
built armour – among other features, the gauntlets could lock shut around a weapon so he couldnât be disarmed
– in favour of less impressive armour thrown together in a hurry from existing parts.Â
It really annoyed him, which was almost certainly Françoisâs intention. There was no love lost between themâŠ
Hereâs a Royal Armouries video about it.
*****
Because tournament armour wasnât meant for wear for protracted periods it could be – and was – made heavier and more rigid for safety.
Most jousting helms were screwed or bolted to the breastplate, to prevent a head-strike slamming it backwards and breaking the knightâs neck.Â
It didnât matter that the only view was forward through a narrow slot. Forward was where the action happened, and that narrow slot kept it from coming inside.
The trick was to lean forward when charging in order to see out and aim, then lean back
at the last instant before impact. It was a game of chicken, with the one who leaned back last being the one with final
best aim.
However as happened to another king of France, Henri II, getting the timing wrong could be literally fatal.
Other armours had extra reinforcement plates (âpieces of advantageâ) fixed in place over the main armour, with a very limited range of motion because more wasnât required.
This one even has a head-brace in case the other fastenings werenât enough, and it, the extra face protection and doubled breastplate /shield (âbuffeâ and âgrande gardeâ) are held in place by very modern-looking wingnutsâŠ
These armours have right arms with only two positions, either holding the lanceâŠ
âŠor not holding the lance.
A knight encased in something that inflexible really couldnât get up unaided, but he wasnât wearing it in the sort of battle situation where being able to get up, and indeed mount up, was a matter of life or death. This wasnât typical combat armour any more than a Formula One or Indy 500 racer is a typical vehicle for going to the supermarket.
Because of that, more heavy, inflexible tournament kit has survived than light, nimble battle armour, and Iâm pretty sure – thanks probably to the Victorians, originators of so much other âeveryone knowsâ medieval nonsense – thatâs the source of most claims about excess weight and minimal movement.
The myth that knights could barely move in their armor has finally been dispelled by Thrillist
(darkest dungeon) reynauldâs 2.0 speed is such bullshit i tell you aghhh
(laughter) Hey @petermorwood, show them the video from the Royal Armouries thatâs, what, pushing a decade older than this? Thrillist was asleep at the wheel.
This one surfaces every couple of years and, to go by some of the disparaging Facebook comments, any claim of âhas finally been dispelledâ remains wishful thinking.
The full knight-soldier-fireman obstacle run is here and Thrillist wasnât that slow off the mark (their post was 2017) since the run took place in October-November 2016.
I canât find the Royal Armouries video @dduaneâ mentioned (I think itâs LITERALLY a video, i.e. a VHS tape) but hereâs a short film, also from 8 years ago, with the armoured guy from the obstacle runâŠ
âŠa compilation posted 9 years ago, circa 2015, meaning that all the clips are that old or olderâŠ
âŠand hereâs Mike Loades in a clip posted on YouTube 16 years agoâŠ
âŠfrom a series called âWeapons That Made Britainâ, originally broadcast in 2004. The complete episode on armour is here.
Loades has been
busting armour-immobilty myths since the 1990s (once again, I have VHS tapes somewhereâŠ)
Iâve also got several posts tagged #mobility in armour
about it on my Tumblr blog, but here are a couple of things about armour in general which nobody seems to consider.
If knights could barely move in armour, why did they – and everyone else who could get some – wear so much of it for so long?
A knight who couldnât move effectively was no more use in battle than a tank without an engine, which suggests they could move in it just fine.
*****
All of that refers to armour for serious kill-or-be-killed battle, known as âfield armourâ or âfield harnessâ. Incidentally, if you read about someone who âdied in harnessâ (i.e. while still working at their job rather than retired) it implies the sort of harness worn by draft horses, but AFAIK is not the original meaning at all.Â
Itâs also whatâs meant when a knight who lost a joust forfeited âhorse and harnessâ – not just his mount, its saddle and bridle, but all his armour as well.Â
Losing was an expensive business, but profitable for winners (some men, like William Marshal, made a career out of it) because, since that armour was almost certainly made to measure and since making another would take months, the loser would be more inclined to buy it back so as to quickly re-equip and perhaps be the winner next time.
*****
Tournament armour wasnât field armour, which had to balance the advantages of protection against the disadvantages of weight and fatigue during
the several hours of a battle.
It started out as the same armour worn for war, but gradually developed into specialised sports kit worn in closely monitored, tightly rule-bound contests. It was often so specialised that an armour worn for one style of joustingâŠ
âŠwas different to the armour worn for another style, so great lords, princes, kings and emperors would own several armours built for whichever were the most popular jousting styles of their region.
Horses were also specially trained. The jousting horse or âdestrierâ (a word derived from
âdexterâ, right) was trained to always swerve right, not left, in other
words away from not into any potential risk, and of course every jouster needed more than one horse.
*****
Tournaments had become a sport for the rich and the royal.
Before François I of France met Henry VIII of England in a formal foot-combat at The Field of Cloth of Gold (a 1520 diplomatic bunfight in Calais) he invoked a âmy country, my rulesâ privilege and changed them.Â
This forced Henry to abandon his specially
built armour – among other features, the gauntlets could lock shut around a weapon so he couldnât be disarmed
– in favour of less impressive armour thrown together in a hurry from existing parts.Â
It really annoyed him, which was almost certainly Françoisâs intention. There was no love lost between themâŠ
Hereâs a Royal Armouries video about it.
*****
Because tournament armour wasnât meant for wear for protracted periods it could be – and was – made heavier and more rigid for safety.
Most jousting helms were screwed or bolted to the breastplate, to prevent a head-strike slamming it backwards and breaking the knightâs neck.Â
It didnât matter that the only view was forward through a narrow slot. Forward was where the action happened, and that narrow slot kept it from coming inside.
The trick was to lean forward when charging in order to see out and aim, then lean back
at the last instant before impact. It was a game of chicken, with the one who leaned back last being the one with final
best aim.
However as happened to another king of France, Henri II, getting the timing wrong could be literally fatal.
Other armours had extra reinforcement plates (âpieces of advantageâ) fixed in place over the main armour, with a very limited range of motion because more wasnât required.
This one even has a head-brace in case the other fastenings werenât enough, and it, the extra face protection and doubled breastplate /shield (âbuffeâ and âgrande gardeâ) are held in place by very modern-looking wingnutsâŠ
These armours have right arms with only two positions, either holding the lanceâŠ
âŠor not holding the lance.
A knight encased in something that inflexible really couldnât get up unaided, but he wasnât wearing it in the sort of battle situation where being able to get up, and indeed mount up, was a matter of life or death. This wasnât typical combat armour any more than a Formula One or Indy 500 racer is a typical vehicle for going to the supermarket.
Because of that, more heavy, inflexible tournament kit has survived than light, nimble battle armour, and Iâm pretty sure – thanks probably to the Victorians, originators of so much other âeveryone knowsâ medieval nonsense – thatâs the source of most claims about excess weight and minimal movement.
amhrancas 