Thrashy @ Thrashy @lemmy.world

Laboratory planner by day, toddler parent by night, enthusiastic everything

---

Read more

Posts

3

Comments

406

Joined

2 yr. ago

Roberts is about as right-wing as the rest of them, but his philosophy was always to boil the frog, so to speak. If he had his way, abortion would still be unprotected and/or illegal, but it would have taken another 10 or 15 years, and been a death of a thousand cuts, none of which would have been the obvious death knell of Roe v. Wade alone. That way, he could have reached his desired end goal without threatening the legitimacy or respectability of the court.

Gorsuch I do actually have a bit of respect for; he has his principles, even if I don't always agree with him, and I respect that he has a particular righteous fervor for righting some of the wrongs that America has inflicted on Indian tribes. I just wish that, in the absence of being able to go back in time to 2016 and force the Senate to give Obama's nominee for his seat an up-or-down vote, that Gorsuch could at least see his way through to being more of a centrist in other ways more often.

As it stands, they'd be dangerously close to regularly falling afoul of the 107% rule if one of their drivers had a sketchy Q1.

Welp, it's been fun, but I think I'll skip renewing my F1TV subscription this year and spend my money on IMSA/WEC instead. Don't need to pay money to watch the Max Verstappen Wins Every Race Show again.

We are rapidly approaching the point where it is an open question as to whether the Supreme Court can make its rulings stick in jurisdictions that don't fall along the current majority's ideological bent, and that's not a place anybody in their right mind wants to go. The question is, are Alito, Thomas, Kavanaugh, and Coney Barrett still possessed of enough self-awareness to recognize that and rule accordingly at least some of the time? If not, do Roberts and Gorsuch make a consistent enough voting bloc to swing dicey decisions away from the foaming-at-the-mouth radical right wing of the bench when they might seriously endanger the ongoing credibility of the court as an institution? I'm not super optimistic, but time will tell...

Oof... At work we deal with clients whose projects are covered by NDAs and confidentiality agreements, among other things. This is bad enough if the information scanned is siloed per organization, as it could create a situation where somebody not under NDA could access confidential client info leaked by an LLM that ingested every PDF in Adobe's cloud service without regard to distribution. Even worse if they're feeding everything back into a single global LLM -- corporate espionage becomes as simple as a bit of prompt engineering!

I think it might increase supply, but only in a paradoxical sense. I've had to deal with tremendous damage done to my home by one of our pets, and I've only put up with it because the animal responsible was incredibly dear to my wife. If I was renting the house out and had to deal with similar damage done by some stranger's pet every time the house turned over, I think I'd throw in the towel and put it up for sale. It's just not worth it.

Ah, my bad... There's a core of people attached to Worldcon Intellectual Property who are supposed to support the hosting convention's committee. This included Dave McCarty (who was removed from his position within WIP back in January as this situation evolved), and it seems like he pulled together a support team of experienced hands when it became clear that the Chengdu committee had not realized the extent of their responsibilities and couldn't assemble a local Hugo committee capable of handling everything in the time available. So while it would be convenient to say "hey, the local committee is ultimately responsible for the way the Hugoa are run!" that's only sort of true at the best-run of cons, and certainly not true in the case of Chengdu.

People who've been doing this for a long time and should have known better ran scared from the Chinese government's censorship bureaucracy, for shortsighted and poorly justified reasons. The good news, such as it is, is that as that has been revealed the folks responsible have been removed from their positions, but it's still disappointing to find out about. I worked with Dave McCarty in the runup to a previous Worldcon and I would have expected better of him.

I still participate in a few small subs that Lemmy doesn't have the critical mass to replicate, and even in many of those there has been a marked decline in the quality of posts and discussion. It's painfully clear that the mods who left during the API protest were putting in serious effort, and the scabs that replaced them aren't up to the prior standard. Makes it a lot easier to leave most of Reddit behind, at least.

Given that the news only just broke and organizational business has to be voted on at the next convention, it's a bit soon to look for big moves -- but Glasgow 2024 did make a statement that their Hugo Administrator who was involved in the 2023 awards was removed from her position.

The ironic thing about parent comment is that for as much as it bashes the Hugos for being part of the "old guard," they've actually been very good about surfacing and including queer- and minority- centric stories and works by authors with identities that have historically been excluded from the discussion. Arkady Martine won Best Novel in 2020 and 2022 with two entries in a series featuring a lesbian main character, with imperialism's effects on those who are colonized as a major driver of the plot. Between 2016 and 2018 N.K. Jemisin swept the Best Novel award for successive entries of her Broken Earth trilogy, which revolved around themes of racism, environmental cataclysm, and slavery. The year before that the winner of Best Novel was Cixin Liu's Three Body Problem which was the first time a work originally published in Chinese won, and then the year before that Ann Leckie's Ancillary Justice won, which created a massive uproar amongst the more reactionary types in SF fandom for positing a civilization where the only recognized gender was female (this is super unfair to the book, through, because there's so much more going on thematically beyond that one small world-building choice!).

In fact, the way that the Hugo voting has swung noticeably towards exploring issues of imperialism, colonialism, and identity is what prompted the Sad Puppies campaign that OP mentions. What he doesn't mention is that the Hugo voters overwhelmingly rejected that campaign, and the organization made changes to prevent any future attempts. That part of what makes what happened with the 2023 Hugos so surprising and appalling -- it's completely out of character with the recent history of the awards and the organization to meekly knuckle under and self-censor for fear of angering Chinese authorities, when it's been so bold in standing up to outside influences so recently. I expect that steps will be taken to prevent a repeat occurrence.

The Hugos are a bit different in that voting for the shortlist and the awards is open to anybody who is a WSFS member and attended Worldcon (either digitally or in-person), and that includes a significant chunk of fandom and not just authors and industry folk. In some ways that gives them a bit more credibility than other industry awards because (in theory) there isn't that sort of payola you're suggesting in the background. On the other hand that opens them up to manipulation via slate voting campaigns a la Sad/Rabid Puppies, and the more prosaic case of an author with a big fan following winning with a middling entry just on the strength of popularity and name recognition (see Redshirts in 2013, or Nettle and Bone last year). That's been a problem in the past, but this level of blatant censorship and manipulation is new, and it's good that it's attracted the sort of attention and condemnation that it should.

Back when SF and fantasy fiction were more niche interests this maybe wouldn't have been such a big deal, but the genre has moved mainstream in a huge way in the last decade or two and the Hugos get significant media attention outside of fandom. Winning the Hugo can bring attention and prestige, and make for a significant sales bump for authors in a genre that still doesn't really sell enough to pay an author's bills in most cases. Authors in particular need the Hugos to be on the level, or it hurts their ability to get noticed in the larger publishing industry and make a career out of their passion.

Super disappointing, yeah. I've worked a bit with Dave McCarty during a previous Worldcon and this sort of ham-handed self-censorhip is not what I would have expected of him. Even if something like that was more or less a foregone conclusion from the moment Chengdu won the bid, I would have at hoped that he'd at least let the local Worldcon committee bear responsibilty, rather than being a willing and proactive partner.

That said, as the report that this article is based on points out, that the premier award in SF and fantasy literature is joined at the hip with Worldcon is a bit awkward, and even when the hosting country doesn't have repressive and omnipresent government censorship, the local mores and tastes are going to have an impact on voting. Not that it's bad for non-American or non-Western viewpoints and fandoms to carry weight in the voting, but maybe it'd be better to separate the administration of the Hugos from that of Worldcon, and develop a vetting and voting process that can be consistently and deliberately inclusive, rather than being at the mercy of whose hosting bid wins in a given year? Seems like it would be important to resolve this sooner rather than later, given that Egypt is in the running to host in 2026 and Saudi Arabia has made perennial bids for the convention as well.

Haven't seen it suggested yet, so I'll throw out Linda Nagata's Inverted Frontier series. Without giving away too much, explorers on the periphery of a collapsed posthuman civilization launch an expedition back towards its center, and along the way find various eldritch monstrosities -- of human origin and otherwise -- as they try to solve the mystery of the collapse. It's more thriller than horror in tone, but it checks your other boxes quite well.

I appreciate how quickly this has mutated from a jab about how frequently she flies on her private jet to "Taylor Swift is jet, like if true"

There was a reasonably strong slate in 2020, and Dem primary voters passed them over for the old white guy as a hedge against the voting preferences of casually-racist and sexist boomer voters in the general electorate. The shit of it is that their reasoning wasn't without merit either. But that's left us where we are now, with a milquetoast octogenarian as the last bulwark against putting the fascist septuagenarian dementia patient back in charge, and nobody likes those options even if one is obviously less bad than the other.

Problem being, because big tech money has so distorted the economies of the cities it's clustered in, many of these people can only choose between finding another tech job ASAP, moving away from their industry to a lower cost metro with limited job opportunities, or imminent homelessness. Driving a forklift won't pay the rent, and commercial real estate is so absurdly priced that there may not even be a restaurant to wait tables at.

But it did give us a damn fine concert movie from Muse, and that's indisputable.

I mean, neither was he, and given that the Saudis bankrolled his purchase and he's apparently reduced the value of their investment by half, you have to wonder what he's giving them that has saved him from a one-way trip to a Saudi consulate.

I mean, you don't really have to wonder that hard. But still, somebody loses you multiple billions in an extended ketamine-fueled rampage, you start to wonder if you should make an example of them...

Lump ol' Governor Dumb Cop in with Senator "Sedition Solidarity Fist" Hawley as another Missouri Republican who plays tough but runs like a coward when the trouble they've stirred up comes calling for them.

No... the point I am trying to make is that whether a position can be described as "radical" depends on the larger social and political context. Supporting communism was a radical position in Russia in 1915, but in 1925 it was mainstream. Supporting the monarchy was a mainstream position in France in 1785, but in 1793 it was dangerously radical. You can't just arrange every political ideology that's ever been imagined on a chart and then declare them "radical" or "mainstream" simply based on how far away from the center of the chart they are, because what's mainstream (and how far away away from that you can drift without being seen as an extremist) depends on the larger sociopolitical milieu.