@essojadojef That’s cool!

Congressman Jamie Raskin hands Nigel Farage his arse on a plate

Anyone in the UK care to plagiarize?

#politics #ukpolitics #farage #reform #bbc #jamieraskin

@louie I think, tragically, this project was shelved when the devs went to work for Valve, wholesale.

@morrick
I’m glad you reminded me of this idea! One of the few good things from my brief work in a tech startup a decade ago was using a gym ball in place of a chair. I just found one on eBay for £6!

I am perpetually disgusted with Labour. Being rightwing and xenophobic because of some kind of sick attempt at triangulation still leaves you as a rightwing, xenophobic party. And I don’t vote for those.

@jsq “I don’t maintain or prioritise any relationships outside my job”. Wow, so cool, you must have a great life and no regrets.

I want to explain a few things and then it might be clearer why UK trans people are upset.

In 2001 I married my wife, Sylvia.

In 2005 I started medical transition. For the state to recognise this I had to submit to standards of "care" which were humiliating, degrading and which placed me at risk of violence.

But I did it "by the book"

As I did it "by the book", the NHS agreed to reregister me as female, which makes sense because my anatomy now is.

In 2007 I had sex reassignment surgery. This had to be signed off by two mental health professionals, "by the book", and it was.

In 2008 I applied for gender recognition. This involved signing a statutory obligation, stating that I promised, BY LAW, to live fully as female for the rest of my life. As this was done, "by the book", the government promised that it would treat me as such.

Its first act as treating me as female was to annul our marriage because it was a same sex marriage and those were not allowed.

The state then reissued my birth certificate, correcting the "mistake" it had originally made when it recorded me as male, "by the book".

In 2009 Sylvia and I married for the second time, in a same sex civil partnership, which was done "by the book", because the state regarded me as female and I was bound by law to be female.

In 2013 we married again, because the state decided that same sex marriage was in fact allowed after all. This was done, "by the book". Despite having been married for 12 years, we had to submit ourselves to individual questioning to prove our relationship was genuine, "by the book".

In April of 2025 the state turned round and told me that I had been mistaken. That it never regarded me as female. That I was male the whole time. That the marriage it annulled because it was a same sex marriage was never a same sex marriage (but it stays annulled). That the civil partnership in 2009 never really happened because "opposite sex" civil partnerships were not allowed in 2009.

And that the legal obligation I have to live as female for the rest of my life, which I signed and gave up my marriage for, is still in effect but also if I keep following it, I am breaking the law and subject to arrest. As it's still valid, presumably if I don't keep following it, I am also breaking the law and subject to arrest.

The law of the land simultaneously requires me to be both a man and a woman and if I do either then I am breaking the law and subject to arrest.

At every stage I did what the state asked me to, even though it was humiliating, degrading and cruel.

And it kept moving the goalposts, and reneging on the agreements it made, whilst continuing to hold me to them even when they are now mutually contradictory.

Apparently this is "all my fault" and I should have known that this would be the consequences of my actions when I started medical transition 2 decades ago.

Perhaps you can now appreciate why we are upset?

Why is there no goth emoji?

@prinlu
Depends if it’s a noun or an adjective. “I’m going to do some live coding now”. “Time to start the live-coding session”.

@CatherineFlick Very well put!

@marioguzman lmao. Imagine this passepartout in a “designed by apple” coffee table book. 2002 bedroom-coded Flash game school of icon design

If a reporter asks you "What will you do about the ghosts haunting the city and turning our kids into toads?" You MUST say "Ghosts aren't real. No one can turn someone into a toad." Not "Many people are concerned about ghosts... we have a brought in the national guard to protect from ghost-related concerns. Nonetheless most scientists say ghosts aren't real. Blah blah blah..."

The latter makes you sound like you are nervous and LYING about the ghost problem. It makes people scared of ghosts.

@davidho Lèse-majesté

“‘All current systems falling under the AI marketing term are designed to use hundreds of billions of dollars of investor money, and the world’s combined computing resources, to make the most convincing possible imitator of human language output, but are categorically incapable of exhibiting desire, intent, sentience or mental states’, agree all experts without a financial stake” is relevant information which the Guardian omits from its reportage.

“Might LLMs become sentient?” is a question with a knowable answer, and the Guardian should know that answer, and they should tell their readers.

The Guardian’s reporting on AI is bordering on client journalism. It is so credulous and misinforming it feels like malpractice. Publishing an “interview” with an LLM like a 2024 Gizmodo joke article is embarrassing, sure, but it’s also laundering the ongoing marketing and investment push.