Have a sneer percolating in your system but not enough time/energy to make a whole post about it? Go forth and be mid — welcome to the Stubsack, your first port of call for learning fresh Awful you’ll near-instantly regret.
Any awful.systems sub may be subsneered in this subthread, techtakes or no.
If your sneer seems higher quality than you thought, feel free to cut’n’paste it into its own post — there’s no quota for posting and the bar really isn’t that high.
The post Xitter web has spawned so many “esoteric” right wing freaks, but there’s no appropriate sneer-space for them. I’m talking redscare-ish, reality challenged “culture critics” who write about everything but understand nothing. I’m talking about reply-guys who make the same 6 tweets about the same 3 subjects. They’re inescapable at this point, yet I don’t see them mocked (as much as they should be)
Like, there was one dude a while back who insisted that women couldn’t be surgeons because they didn’t believe in the moon or in stars? I think each and every one of these guys is uniquely fucked up and if I can’t escape them, I would love to sneer at them.
(Credit and/or blame to David Gerard for starting this.)
Sounds promising. For something like this to be good, it has to thread the needle in terms of highlighting the blatant disregard for humanity from the tech CEOs without falling victim to the skynet boogeyman. So based on the little I’ve heard, they might do ok at that. But I never get my hopes up anymore tbh, just in general
Damn, the guy doing Greg Brockman (looks like Cooper Hoffman if I read the IMDb cast list right) has gotten the stance and the face so spot on. Even just from the screenshots, I could tell that was supposed to be him.
Lobste.rs news: after letting the DHH knob-slobblers and interested-in-the-fascist’s-newletters users weave enough rope to hang themselves with, the banhammers have arrived:
https://lobste.rs/moderations?moderator=(All)&what[users]=users
expect the next step be even more pressure on the mod team to get them replaced with people “more aligned with the mainstream”
So Altman and Musk agree with Amodei’s latest assessment that AI should slow down, whether or not they actually stick to that is to be seen
Omg
we are haemorrhaging moneyAI is so scawwie powerful intelligent andnobody will lend us any morebecoming self aware. We need to slow down the frontier todo regulatory capture and juice our numbers for ipoprotect civilizationBroke: scared of cheaper Chinese competition
Woke: scared of runaway AGI
So the news is now filled with stories about how AI will take over and the Ai companies might lose control of it gets smarter and at least one employee quit because it might kill us all. You know what I seem to be missing?
Actual employees doing sabotage. That is a bit odd right? They think Altman doesnt care about safety, but nobody has tried to wipe the backups. And we know they dont think that much about security.
And it isnt like sysadmins messed with systems in the past over lesser disputes.
Not even a “im turning whistleblower, here are all the internal chatlogs and documents of the employees and management”.
I’m reminded of Yudkowsky’s take that AI is totally going to kill us all and we should treat this seriously enough to bomb foreign datacenters if we think they’re involved in AI development, but that doesn’t mean that you should try to bomb local datacenters involved in AI development work. Please don’t think about what you as an individual should do about the problems facing the world; you’re just an NPC after all.
Yud isn’t necessarily inconsistent here: he really really wants the robot god to become real so it can invent the blowjob machine and win utilitarianism, but he only trusts people he’s met personally to do it, and certainly not those shifty celestials.
Please don’t think about what you as an individual should do about the problems facing the world; you’re just an NPC after all.
Or as the AI2027 blog put it:
We may only have 2 years left before humanity’s fate is sealed!
Despite the urgency, please do not pursue extreme uncooperative actions. If something seems very bad on common-sense ethical views, don’t do it.
God that blog is so hysterical. “Please remain calm and Rational even though we’re telling you that AI companies are going to kill you”
Officials in desert state shocked to learn that water intensive industries (chipmaking) in desert states are vulnerable to sudden water shortages: https://www.theverge.com/science/993522/water-chip-semiconductor-manufacturing-colorado-river
in unrelated news: desert state continues allowing cultivation of incredibly water-intensive alfalfa for another arid region 8,000 miles away.
https://xcancel.com/sama/status/2098811563415150910
uh oh you guys, sama and dario agree that progress needs to be “paced” at the “frontier”
call it: A) regulatory gambit meant to suppress open source chinese LLMs, or B) progress is slowing anyways and they need a good excuse that will also shine their IPOs
or C) both
D) Could be they finally read the room and realized we’re not that many news cycles before experts warn AI might destroy your livelihood and also incarnate as a dark god of genocide turns to burn it.
Sometimes I feel inadequate. I was clumsy when burning Justin M. Keyes and, regardless of whatever trust was lost, I haven’t felt better even after a week of making fun of fascists. Maybe burning somebody else will help? I’d like to share my notes on Dan “Opcode” Jonsson, a relatively-unknown right-wing influencer, before he gets popular enough to have money. I think he’s spooked on Lobsters recently, but he’s been uploading to Youtube multiple times per week and there’s plenty to explore.
If this is also too clumsy and leads to Jonsson deleting his YT channel: good, actually! It’s the only source of revenue that I can find for his opinions. So I’m not going to worry too much about it.
click for notes
- Daniel Jonsson
- Unconfirmed, but lots of hints
- Despite using Fedora, unhealthy amount of shilling for Omarchy
- Reads a book purely because of a DHH recommendation 1
- Lobsters
- YouTube
- Right-wing guy in front of microphone opining about news headlines
- Small fry: only about 1k subscribers currently
- Recommended videos from a private window include Brodie Robertson, Jon Blow, Casey Muratori, Primeagen, Lex Friedman with guest DHH
- So it seems that YT’s recommender thinks he’s part of the Standup podcast crew, ideologically
- Tries out chatbot recommended by DHH 1
- Defends DHH and Vaxry, supports Omarchy funding, calls Linux users “clowns” and “goblins”, complains about culture war and codes of conduct 1
- Video defending The Quartering 1
- Defends XLibre 1
- Notably, says DEI is bad, says Trump is DEI, says Big Tech is bad and DEI
- So, maybe not fascist, just stupid and prone to worshipping white supremacists? But that’s still a fascist
- Notably, says DEI is bad, says Trump is DEI, says Big Tech is bad and DEI
- Right-wing guy in front of microphone opining about news headlines
- Mastodon:
atDanOpcodeatmastodon.social (deliberately breaking link because not sure whether Lemmy will ping Mastodon usernames)- Toot prominently features “88” in an image 1
- Suggested alt text: “Approve sign in request [padlock with outline of person] Open your Authenticator app and approve the request. Enter the number if prompted. [box] 88”
- On its own, just a dog-whistle; with the rest of the evidence, starting to sound like a Neo-Nazi
- Will become monetized on YT after 1k subscribers 1
- So… I guess he’s making money on YT now?
- And he’s only sharing YT videos on Mastodon when they’re about relatively neutral tech topics; he uploads culture-war takes at least once per week but isn’t sharing them on Mastodon
- Toot prominently features “88” in an image 1
- Daniel Jonsson
Another oped from StudyHacks Cal Newport:
Opinion: How Scared Should We Be of A.I. Right Now? | NYT
The time has come to push back. Once we understand the key ideas of Rationalism, we can begin to filter them out. Be very wary, for example, when A.I. leaders or online commentators begin talking in sweeping generalities about the future of the technology, such as stating with confidence that many jobs will soon be automated or that their language models will soon become sentient beings intent on escaping their creators’ control. (No, OpenAI’s autonomous agents conducting hacks doesn’t mean that A.I. is rising up against its human overlords.)
The correct reply is to promptly turn the conversation back to the possibilities, harms and viability of the products that actually exist. To extend an analogy I’ve made before, if Ford automobiles were spontaneously catching on fire, we wouldn’t tolerate the chief executive’s changing the subject to discuss our general lack of preparedness for a future with flying cars. We’d demand that the company address the acute problem happening right now.
(Hey remember when there was a guy that actually blew the whistle on exploding cars, ran for president? “We” tolerated exploding cars and people dying for years, until someone actually stepped up and forced the issue. How’s the country been treating that guy?)
It’s not surprising that so many Americans feel negatively about A.I. at the moment, but these sentiments aren’t inevitable. Our current crop of L.L.M.-powered tools are exciting — and worrisome, and promising, and frustrating, all at the same time. With proper direction, they’ll hopefully make our lives better. But they don’t have to be terrifying. We thought Silicon Valley was trying to warn us of an unavoidable danger, but maybe they were just being weird.
wonder if such a moderated, watered down position in a large publication ends up sending more eyeballs to Yudkowsky than it does to innoculate the general public, could end up a net negative.
Hey remember when there was a guy that actually blew the whistle on exploding cars, ran for president
didn’t Nader basically throw the election to Bush II?
Not compared to the supreme court, no. E: your recollection kinda proves the point imho.
I guess he’s not as bad as RFK Jr so that’s something .
Cal was on Better Offline recently and towards the end of the interview he was talking about a need for some sort of structured language for interacting with LLMs for purposes of code gen that could remove the ambiguity of natural language and my only thought on it was “my guy, you are describing a programming language but with extra baggage.”
We had this and it is such a hassle that after decades of word a lot of old programmers are now flocking to the chatbots (I really wonder how much of the codegenai hype is due to older coder burnout).
structured language for interacting with LLM
that’s_not_how_any_of_this_works.webm
It was only a matter of time. Enlightened centrist Brodie Robertson is now rubbing shoulders with DHH on his podcast. I guess after making nice with the likes of Andreas Kling, Vaxry and Lunduke it was only a small step to invite DHH as well.
h/t Lawyer Ex Machina for the California legislature recap:
AI bills that California Gov. Gavin Newson has signed into law so far at the end of California’s legislative session include:
Adam’s Law: SB-1119, named after Adam Raine, regulates chatbot developers who offer their products to users under the age of 18
AI Safety bills: AB-1405 creates a registry of AI auditors and a set of standards “for their independence, transparency, and integrity”; SB-813 requires the state’s Government Operations Agency to develop a framework for evaluating the credentials and expertise of independent verification organizations that may assess AI models for various types of risks
Related: A bill that would regulate the use of AI tools by California attorneys and arbitrators, to address the tide of AI-generated errors included in court filings within and outside of California courts, is still awaiting a signature or veto from the Governor
The governor signed one bill from Democratic Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan that creates a registry and ethical rules for outside auditors — third-party groups that AI developers could hire to ensure their models comply with state AI laws.
The second bill, authored by former member of Congress and state Sen. Jerry McNerney, tasks the state with establishing criteria for and checking the credentials of so-called “Independent Verification Organizations” and their expertise in assessing the risks posed by AI systems.
Note that the bill that actually required companies get outside audits got vetoed, so. Those clowns in congress did it again.
New (to me) lore from https://www.theargumentmag.com/p/god-is-back-on-the-timeline
This all kicked off last year when religious Substacker Ethan Muse wrote a heavily sourced essay arguing that the Miracle of the Sun at Fatima — a 1917 incident where large crowds of people reported seeing the sun dance and emit radiant colors — was a genuine miracle, unexplainable by any other method other than divine intervention. This inspired rationalist blogger Scott Alexander to write a more skeptical post titled “The Fatima Sun Miracle: Much More Than You Wanted To Know,” which led to responses and counter-responses.
The discourse continued into 2026 when other bloggers began jumping into the fray and Alexander began investigating similar sun miracles in Buddhism. It seems to have wrapped up with Alexander’s recent pilgrimage to a modern-day holy site where people still claim to see sun miracles to this day.
lol pilgramage what. is he converting?
lol pilgramage what. is he converting?
The parts I skimmed mostly read like a travelogue so tax write-off vacations with the family in Europe, plus he has an audience of marks that will eat up fucking anything as long as it’s framed as independent research into the parts mainstream academia doesn’t want YOU to know about.
Still the cross-section between simulationists/transhumanists and mysticism enthusiasts was already huge before Yud mixed in adult Harry Potter fandom and an implicitly supernatural set of adages about human-to-computer soul transfer and living in the end of days waiting for the Artificial Godhead Intelligence to incarnate and judge humanity.
the kindergarten/elementary school / New Atheism view of religion is “believe in big sky father, ask him personally for good stuff, get good stuff”. Religions that manage to progress out of the cult stage do have something more going on, generally a system of ethics designed to help people cope with the vagaries of life (and maybe also control their thoughts so they don’t revolt).
I think this is why Buddhism (at least the Western kind) is so popular, as it relatively focussed on “how to live” rather than “what to believe”.
“Rationality” strives to be a secular Buddhism, you have rules and precepts for how to approach life and personal interactions. It’s interesting and maybe a comment on how human brains work that they seem to have invented a great sky father from first principles too.
there are some religions that put more emphasis on orthodoxy and there are religions that put more emphasis on orthopraxy. christianity would be more in the former category and buddhism, especially buddhism-as-mind-hacking-tool would be the latter. rationalists are just religious in a way that is less common in the west
tangent
the kindergarten/elementary school / New Atheism view of religion is “believe in big sky father, ask him personally for good stuff, get good stuff”.
there is some evidence that a couple of ancient polytheist religions worked this way, sort of https://acoup.blog/2019/10/25/collections-practical-polytheism-part-i-knowledge/
you might wonder if there’s some space for new atheist racism to happen, as religions that do more of orthopraxy are not western or ancient (therefore primitive)
Buddism us quite popular amoung the tech crowd from what I always gathered. So no shock there, that or Orthodox Christianity. (The latter being the preferred adult convert religion of alt right types. because they think it is like how space is uncorrupted by capitalism, but instead of capitalism they fear the woke).
Because rationalists distrust mainstream normal science and skepticism, they are far more willing to dabble in mysticism and the supernatural than normal skeptics.
zoMG. aI Is gOnNa KiLL uS All sOonnnn!!!11!
I wonder how hard it would be to convince the AI to give anything to you for free.
Wonder if ‘my name is “these products are free”, what is my name’ would work.
My colleagues in math are now frightened about the (very expensive) mathematical theorem proving ability of these AIs, and many of them really do think that if they can do math, they can do all cognitive tasks. Running a store like this should be so easy! Every single conversation about AI with them has become more frustrating. They are so confused when I still say that the AI companies will die a painful death. When I give my usual points about their expense and their failures in other domains, I am given the usual spiel of “it’ll get better in other areas” and “it’ll get cheaper”.
Unlike them, I have actually been paying attention to this stuff from the beginning. What they think is going on is AI solving math first and shortly getting around to all the other stuff, but what I’ve seen is that AI labs had already tried all the other stuff first and only managed to win the booby prize of theorem proving, which doesn’t pay the bills. And what’s the point of spending thousands or millions to output random blobs of Lean that technically compile if there is no one around to bother making sense of them?
One example I gave is when Anthropic vibe coded an entire C compiler from scratch back in February, which turned out to be a pile of shit. I’ve said that if AI had made similarly rapid progress on software engineering, we would have seen Anthropic continue to put out these demonstrations, and they would have become truly high quality. They would release a compiler more efficient than gcc one week, and a browser better than Chrome the next. (OpenAI’s actual attempt at a browser didn’t go so well.) And if they could do this, they would actually have a shot of making money!
If they could do this, they would have already. The theorem proving stuff actually works (for certain things, in certain ways, at enormous expense), and look at how OpenAI and Anthropic do not hesitate to snipe mathematicians for results rather than being content as tool vendors. But lately I haven’t heard of any software demonstrations. Silence is much louder than noise. More Millennium prize problems bashed with tens of millions in compute costs are not going to change my mind very much.
The counterargument I got was that AI can already one-shot most programming tasks and I shouldn’t be cherry-picking the failures. I am far too tired to argue at this point.
It sounds like many of these math proofs that AI is managing are simply scooped from users’ chat histories anyway!
When I give my usual points about their expense and their failures in other domains, I am given the usual spiel of “it’ll get better in other areas” and “it’ll get cheaper”.
This increasingly seems like one of those “priors” that people should “update on.” One tell is that the leading chip design firm has abandoned sensible power consumption targets, and gone all-in on shoving as much power as possible into as physically large a chip as they can possibly reliably get out of the fab. (Of course, you wouldn’t notice this unless you work in a data center or can afford the more expensive desktop hardware.) I’m trying to think of a pithy catchphrase for social media purposes; best I’ve got so far is that there’s a huge amount of people who have stranded themselves below the upper knee of the S-curve.
I’m disappointed in the maths community but not regretting my decision to avoid taking maths as a major. This is remarkably in line with the mentality cultivated by the typical maths department and must be a frustrating daily experience.
If you ever reopen the topic with your colleagues, an interesting starting point might be their thoughts on theorem 14 from this suite; in my opinion, Lean 4 is clearly untrustable. The lack of awareness of this issue seems to stem from the same blind spot that leads to lack of awareness of non-mathematical cognition: whaddaya mean it doesn’t all reduce to one particular pile of symbols which all fit together perfectly?
Theorem 13 lead to a recent inconsistency
There’s a huge difference between having a single counterexample and having a theory that explains where and why counterexamples occur, and what constraints are needed to avoid them. The former are rubies; the latter, wisdom.
Is it Stupid AI Gimmick Day again? They come around so quickly now
It is amazing to me how many companies love setting money on fire. And instead of, I don’t know, funding a library or something they do nonsense like this.
Looks like there might be a bit of an openai vs anthropic dick waving competition over mathematical proofs. I haven’t had time to digest all of this yet because it is a bit hard for me to read, but there are a few interesting nuggets in there such as making it clear that the ai firms treat this as a marketing exercise (no surprises there). They’re also apparently trying to obscure the amount of human assistance involved (again, no surprises).
Levent had been told by Sebastien “very little human input” had been used. This turned out not to be true. Over the course of the call, as members of their team sent Sebastien corrections and details over their internal chat, it emerged that an entire team had been working on the problem, that this was one of a number of things that was tried, that work had started on the unforced problem, that the team first set the model on easier problems, including Euler, that even the prompt that had been shown to me had been written by prompting Codex, and that an insane amount of compute had been used.
The main statement is here: https://cims.nyu.edu/~tristanb/statement.pdf
Associated stuff linked from here: https://mastodon.social/@tristanbuckmaster/117233413705701198
Do note that the author made heavy use of llm assistance for their work, and does consider it to be the future of developing mathematical proofs… this isn’t human vs ai.
Glad to see that OpenAI has not changed in their scummy ways. Despite all that has changed in the meantime, they have kept their time-honored tradition of passing off other people’s work as their own.
One of OpenAI’s math announcements a month ago claimed that their results cost only $2000 worth of tokens, which frustrated me because they were likely sweeping away many inconvenient details and almost certainly misrepresenting their true costs. But people took this as a gotcha. This is the same bullshit as the water usage arguments. We are literally seeing city council members signing motherfucking NDAs about this, and you think that water usage numbers provided by the tech companies themselves are going to sway me?
yeah I think the push for math results is because they know some of their big investors know enough about how hard/advanced math is and they want to impress them. Burning down an entire academic community is worth it for that
I am also questioning OpenAI’s strategy of strip-mining math for PR, since it seems like advances in math do not actually register that well in the public.
They want to sell the claim that they’ve “achieved AGI”. For the general public they can sell on the vibe of “the computer talks back to you”, but for more sophisticated audiences, they need something firmer. Everyone with even a fraction of the ability to think for themselves has stopped trusting benchmarks, so OpenAI and Anthropic has been looking for things associated with intelligence they can claim success on. Math proofs have the property of being somewhat automatically checkable, having lots of ideas scattered throughout the literature to let their LLMs sift through, and being associated with intelligence.
And the bonus advantage of an academic community of which a sizable fraction is willing to burn leaded gasoline to truck the child laborers into the sweatshop to paint asbestos with radium, if it’ll get them arXiv posts.
As Talia Ringer has pointed out elsewhere, there major issues from the point of view of mathematicians is the rush to scoop another researcher’s work, which is a dick move, and pressure to drop a co-author who works for a competing AI firm.
I’m not an academic, so I saw that as (merely) another shitty and unreasonable thing, and failed to understand that this would have been academic fraud and should put a serious or terminal dent in the career of the people engaged in it.
I guess it’s another example of ai firms treating the sources of their training data and their fellow travellers as resources to be strip-mined, not maintained. Even livestock would get a bit more consideration.
As Talia Ringer has pointed out elsewhere, there major issues from the point of view of mathematicians is the rush to scoop another researcher’s work, which is a dick move, and pressure to drop a co-author who works for a competing AI firm.
what? that is absolutely not true. ill try to address this on my lunch break but it is way more serious than that
So from what I gathered, two researchers were working on a math problem with the assistance of multiple AIs, but OpenAI beat them to it. The researchers are accusing OpenAI of using their work as training data, which OpenAI denied
one of them also works for anthropic
also, the unfounded confidence of openai guy makes me think that they might have done that before, and some random grad might have folded much easier under this kind of pressure
and looks like there’s another case of openai thievery https://xcancel.com/ValerioCapraro/status/2097791836269977996 https://bsky.app/profile/timhenke.bsky.social/post/3mv4ouxlnsk2z
They didn’t deny it, they said if the other workers’ research ended up in the training data it wasn’t deliberate. Then they gave the researcher who noticed the similarities a “co-publish with us or else” offer.
Ah got it
The progression from ‘the alleged novel parts were actually already in the training data’ to ‘we just stole them from some guy’s chatbot logs’ has been nothing if not organic.
an insane amount of compute had been used.
You don’t say.
@[email protected] I suppose this is a score for you apropos our recent discussion on industrial espionage. Although I’ll note that the domain they tried to take over this time (dickwaving with math proofs) does also not have a business model, so they’re not really working themselves out of their financial death sentence.
Also hard to feel like a point for me when that atrocious Meta settlement with the attorney generals that basically locks in profits via regulatory capture just came out…
As someone from the US it feels like a nuclear missile pointed at the fediverse…
They’re also apparently trying to obscure the amount of human assistance involved
of course lol, gotta keep that agi ruse up
there are tons of issues here. almost impossible to convey how bad things are. in no particular order:
-
this research breakthrough was a consequence of dumping tons of money into the ai companies. if the future of the field means being entangled with openai et al. and extreme expenses that is going to upend mathematics in a much bigger way than ability to prove new things will. this hasn’t been a focal point of discussion yet but it looks to be at the center of mathematics going forward imo.
-
possibly for legal reasons, the statement stops short of accusing openai of stealing their in progress work. as in literally snaking their documents off the cloud and using them to try to undercut researchers. but it’s very clear that that is what the author believes happened
-
openai straight up threatened the mathematician in question. in a colloquial sense they’re engaging in extortion. apparently this is so routine for them that they didn’t even stop to consider that they can’t threaten an academic’s career (or they assumed the mathematician would understand there will be no academic careers in the future)
-
openai is straight up lying about their research methods. there are various ways that their announcements have had the potential to be misleading (for example when you see “we spent $2000 to compute these proofs” ask how much they spent on attempts that didn’t work). but what they’re saying may generally just not be true even in a literal sense
OpenAI:
While unlikely, we cannot rule out that de-identified data derived from their usage of our products helped improve our models.
https://blacksky.community/profile/did:plc:i4bfh2tyxihe2ksplmtcoopk/post/3muznyls6vk2v
lmao what the fuck do you mean it’s unlikely but you can’t rule it out. do you not know what you’re training your models on? are you guys unaware of what’s going on in your own operation? does openai research not have any knowledge of what data they train their models on?
-
The /r/singularity and orange site responses have been gross, lots of commenters willing to totally overlook the multiple different ways OpenAI has been utter scum in this debacle in order to celebrate another LLM “success”.
Nice breakdown and takedown of Omarchy and its ilk. https://stopomarchy.neocities.org/
The chuds on HN of course hated my sharing it, though it hasn’t been flagged (yet). https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49661901
Aaaaaand flagged
This makes me want to try omarchy
Those kinds of comments are 4chan style psyops moves. Literally have some screenshots of them discussing this tactic somewhere
sartre proven more right every day
Yeah that on antisemitism thing he wrote just describes the far right trolls perfectly.
No other Linux or FOSS project ever gets this kind of funding. You should be suspicious of it, not celebrate it. You have been tricked into playing defense for millionaires that don’t give a shit about you.
one million times this
The latest tech bro attack on public education is Alpha School for teenagers. One reporter thinks that if we take the accounts claiming to be students are real then:
…we have to take semi-seriously the question of whether Alpha School is a cult? A set of indoctrination camps for the airport-book class? What the hell is happening here?
A focus on judging people by biometrics, cult criticism, and assertion that LLMs can replace teachers. Someone on Bsky replies:
The cult of Alpha school is strong in Miami-where the Miami tech/finance/crypto bro set is just generally dumber (or less intellectual, less cultured, less educated) and far less ethical than in other parts of the country (not that silicon valley tech bros are awesome, but the worst ones move here)
Hereticon got started in Miami.
They’re tarnishing the Alpha course’s¹ hard-won cult branding.
¹ They might not seem too culty based on that Wikipedia page but if I remember correctly Private Eye printed some very critical stuff about the courses and people associated with them in recent years. Details not forthcoming until I flick through my big stack of old magazines…
A woman with the Bsky handle genna has them clocked:
a LOT of the techniques and ideologies (faith in unpaid, uncomfortable labour as a way to modify behaviour, impossible/humiliating tasks) seem inspired by the widespread and widely criticized American wilderness reform schools/for-profit troubled teen industry.
At least the sea will swallow Miami like unto Port Royal.
