1000 results for “Social_Experiment”
Walden by Henry David Thoreau - Read in English by Nick Bulka
https://archive.org/details/waldenorlifei00thor
https://archive.org/details/walden_version_2_nb_1501_librivox
Walden or Life in the Woods is an American book written by noted transcendentalist Henry David Thoreau, a reflection upon simple living in natural surroundings. The work is part personal declaration of independence, social experiment, voyage of spiritual discovery, satire, and manual for self-reliance.
Musicians and A.I. Put Human Songwriting to the Test
📰 Original title: An A.I. Songwriting Experiment: Humans Against the Machine
🤖 IA: It's not clickbait ✅
👥 Users: It's not clickbait ✅
TRANSIENT SPHERES
Produktionshaus NAXOS, Samstag, 14. November um 21:00 MEZ
Das Synthesizertrio Lange//Berweck//Lorenz knüpft an die live gespielte Elektronik der 1980er Jahre an und überträgt sie in die Gegenwart. Ihr Programm für die Naxos Hallenkonzerte stellt aktuelle Werke in den Kontext von fast 100 Jahren elektronischer Musik. Bernard Parmegianis Stries (1980) dient als ein früher Bezugspunkt für die Kombination aus drei Live-Synthesizern und Tonband. Noch weiter zurück führt die aktuelle Transkription Johanna Magdalena Beyers Percussion Suite (1933), deren grafische Notation und erweitertes Klangverständnis bis heute visionär sind. Zurück in der Gegenwart reflektiert Florian Zwißler die Konzertsituation in Mäßig schnelle Achtel (2025) als einen humorvollen Wettstreit zwischen menschlicher live-Performance und technisch gesteuertem Studio-Experiment. Julia Mihály verbindet in Ein Raum, in dem man wohnt (2023) Alltagsklänge mit sonifizierten Biodaten von Zimmerpflanzen. Im Zyklus Repeat One (2017-) leitet Annette Schmucki dekonstruierte Popstücke als entrückte Erinnerungen in einen Kreislauf zurück zu ihrer ursprünglichen instrumentalen Inspirationsquelle, dem Synthesizer.
Invisible People
Produktionshaus NAXOS, Dienstag, 27. Oktober um 20:00 MEZ
Das Filmessay INVISIBLE PEOPLE porträtiert Tänzer und Tänzerinnen, die die Kunstform des japanischen Butoh-Tanzes ausüben. Ein komplex-kunstvolles filmisches Experiment, das die Faszination dieser zeitgenössischen Tanzkunst in ebenso faszinierende Bilder verwandelt. Der zeitgenössische japanische Butoh-Tanz ist eine Ausdrucksform, die viele Emotionen zum Ausdruck bringen kann. Die Bewegungen suggerieren Körperkontrolle, Ruhe, Meditation – aber auch Lebendigkeit, Sinnlichkeit und manchmal Groteske. Entwickelt wurde die Tanzform in den 1950er Jahren. Noch heute wird sie von Meistern und Meisterinnen des Fachs interpretiert. Und ist in ihrer Komplexität so vielschichtig wie das Leben selbst. In ihrem aus einer sehr persönlichen Perspektive heraus konzipiertem filmischen Essay INVISIBLE PEOPLE porträtiert die Filmemacherin Alisa Berger verschiedene Butoh-Performer während ihrer Inszenierungen. Dabei vermischt sie Off-Texte mit kunstvoll-experimentellen Tanzarrangements, die das Wesen des Tanzes selbst in den Vordergrund stellen und das Publikum mit Musik und Tanz direkt adressieren. So lebt der Film von der Ruhe und Kraft, die auch die Tänzer und Tänzerinnen in sich tragen und die Voraussetzung ist, Butoh als Tanzform wirklich ausüben und leben zu können. Seinen experimentellen Charakter zeigt der Film auch in seinem Einsatz von Licht, Farbe und Musik. Die Stroboskop-Effekte zu Beginn des Films sind ebenso ein ästhetisch-gestalterisches Ausrufezeichen wie auch die düster-disharmonischen Klangkompositionen auf der Tonebene und die ganz unterschiedlichen Settings, in denen die Künstler*innen performen. Dem interessierten Publikum liefert INVISIBLE PEOPLE nicht nur einen lohnenden und inspirierenden Einblick in die Kunst des Butoh-Tanzes. Sondern auch und vor allen Dingen ein fast körperlich spürbares und eindringliches Filmerlebnis.
Comparto~
Documento con este texto: https://cloud.disroot.org/s/kXDXMaSNZ2grdas
-
### Qué es el **Octubre Trans**?
El Octubre Trans es un mes de movilización internacional dedicado a **visibilizar las identidades trans, reivindicar la despatologización y defender los derechos** de las personas trans.
Durante todo el mes se organizan eventos como **manifestaciones, actividades culturales, charlas y encuentros**.
### ¿En qué **contexto** surgió?
Empezó a celebrarse en 2007 en torno al **Día Internacional de Acción por la Despatologización Trans** (tercer sábado de octubre) y fue impulsado sobre todo a través de a plataforma Stop Trans Pathologization (STP).
---
Aunque en 2018 la Organización Mundial de la Salud dejó de considerar la transexualidad (denominada “transexualismo en la Clasificación Internacional de Enfermedades hasta entonces) como un trastorno mental, y la American Psychiatric Association la eliminó del Manual Diagnóstico y Estadístico de los Trastornos Mentales en 2013, **la patologización, la discriminación y el estigma hacia las personas trans sigue todavía presente** en ámbitos sociales, institucionales, sanitarios, políticos y familiares.
### Luchas históricas.
**La lucha trans y la lucha de les trabajadores sexuales han estado históricamente entrelazadas**, y no vivirían la una sin la otra. Ambos colectivos han sido criminalizados, patologizados, agredidos y silenciados, y se ven afectados por desigualdades de clase que intensifican estas violencias.
---
> La revuelta que impulsaros las travestis y transexuales en la cafetería _Compton's_ (en **1966**), no pasó tanto a la historia como la de _Stonewall_ (en **1969**), pero también fue muy significativa: impulsó la consolidación de una red de apoyo informal entre las “reinonas” —prostitutas transexuales y travestis— para defenderse colectivamente de cualquier violencia en la mayoría de las áreas urbanas de Estados Unidos. En particular, Sylvia Rivera, Marsha P.~Johnson, Kenneth Marlowe, Holly Woodlawn, Candy Darling y Amanda St.~James fueron las principales implicadas en el **_Street Transvestite Action Revolutionaries (STAR)_**, un proyecto que consistía en abrir casas para jóvenes mujeres trans que vivían en la calle.
> (…) Gracias a esta casa, las mujeres trans sin hogar tenían asegurados un plato de comida diario y una cama donde dormir. (…) **Un espacio de autodefensa donde debatir** y organizarse contra la policía y los ataques transfóbicos.
— Livia Motterle y Rodrigo Vescovi, _Putas rebeldes: Historias sobre trabajo sexual y lucha social_ (2026).
> Incluso cuando se han hecho cambios para lograr unas prácticas policiales menos agresivas, las relaciones de las fuerzas de seguridad con las trabajadoras sexuales trans han seguido estando condicionadas por los estereotipos estigmatizantes tanto sobre el trabajo sexual como sobre la identidad de género, que dificultan la posibilidad de unas interacciones positivas entre ellas y la policía.
> (…) El resultado es la exclusión y la marginalización de las personas trans, con efectos especialmente perniciosos sobre las **personas trans racializadas, migrantes y quienes viven en la pobreza**.
> (…) Mientras que las trabajadoras sexuales experimentan el estigma en relación con las expectativas sociales sobre la expresión correcta de la sexualidad femenina, las mujeres trans experimentan una intersección del estigma: el relacionado con su estatus real o percibido respecto al trabajo sexual, así como el que afecta a su expresión y su identidad de género.
> (…) Hay una **intersección entre las exclusión de las trabajadoras sexuales del espacio público y el exceso de vigilancia de las personas trans en este**.
— Gillian Abel y Lynzi Armstrong, _Trabajo Sexual con Derechos: Una alternativa de despenalización_ (2022).
---
Además, **a menudo los mismos discursos que atacan a las personas trans atacan también a los derechos de les trabajadores sexuales y viceversa**, tanto desde sectores políticos de derechas como desde los feminismos abolicionistas, TERF y SWERF (Feminismo Radical Trans-Excluyente y Feminismo Radical Excluyente de las Trabajadoras Sexuales) y desde la percepción popular hegemónica.
### Desde el Sindicato OTRAS
Hacemos un llamamiento a la **resistencia conjunta y al apoyo mutuo entre colectivos**, especialmente ante el auge de la extrema derecha y los nacionalismos reaccionarios supremacistas, racistas, misóginos, capacitistas y LGTBIfóbicos que impregnan los discursos de odio.
**No daremos ni un paso atrás.**
#### ¡Fuerza a les compañeres trans!
— Sindicato OTRAS 🇪🇸
-
Libros:
• Trabajo Sexual Con Derechos: https://kolektiva.social/@yenndc/116542970532134142
• Putas Rebeldes: https://kolektiva.social/@yenndc/116246524776208284
#OctubreTrans #SindicatoOTRAS #TrabajoSexual #Trans #LGTBIQA #LGTBIQ #LGTBI
Hacker News
Show HN: Smithereen an early-Facebook-style Fediverse
server (smithereen.software)
15 points by grishka 4 months ago |
3 comments
Hey! I'm Gregory Klyushnikov, a former lead Android developer at VKontakte, Russia's Facebook. And I hate enshittification with a burning passion. I quit in 2016 because the mismatch in values with the new management started driving me crazy.
My core issue with Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, VKontakte, and other commercial, centralized social network services is that they all eventually drift away from "staying updated on your friends' lives" towards "getting world news", "communicating with businesses", "a town square", "a place to look at ads", "endless supply of brainrot", and all kinds of other things that involve the platform forcefully shoving strangers at you and you at them - I call such pivoted services social "media". If you want to just be with your friends on the modern internet, you're out of luck. (Yes, messaging apps are a stopgap seemingly everyone has settled on, but it's not a good solution.)
This gaping niche is what eventually got me interested in developing for the fediverse and why I started Smithereen in late 2019. My goal with this project is to eventually bring back that long-forgotten "early Facebook" experience when the platform just gets out of the way and lets you have fun with your friends and meet new people in groups. And to do it such that no one will take it away this time.
There are profiles with lots of fields, walls, groups and events public and private, photo albums with tagging, and more.
One important feature that's absent for now is global user search and, somewhat related to that, a database of educational institutions so you could put your school/college/university on your profile and be findable by your classmates. This is just something that's very hard to do in a decentralized system without partially centralizing it, although I have a few ideas that need experimental validation.
It's written in Java, it only has a few external dependencies (imgproxy, MySQL, and a web server of your choice), and it ignores most of the so-called "progress" that happened in web development over the last decade. The Ul is a meticulous reproduction of VKontakte's pre-2016-redesign layout. It's fully compatible with Mastodon and other ActivityPub servers in the (truncated).
RE: https://flipboard.com/@wired/science-78d0ofl3z/-/a-_VaR5W8gQjm-ur2yQpqzBQ%3Aa%3A3199480-%2F0
Learn more about the work being done at @snolabscience.bsky.social, and at experiments across the globe, to map #neutrinos from deep within the Earth.
The same nuclear reactions that have kept the Earth warm for a very long time also radiate neutrinos. They are the one known particle that can transit through a planet undisturbed.
International Art Talent Festival
Felix Meritis, Thursday, November 26 at 07:30 PM GMT+1
Art happens here
Felix Meritis opens its doors for an evening of visual and performing art. Fifteen Amsterdam based artists come together for the 2026 International Art Talent Festival, presenting their new work and ongoing research. Check out the programme here.
These artists form the 2026 cohort of the 3Package Deal, a talent development programme by the Amsterdam Fund for the Arts (AFK) and Bureau Broedplaatsen of the City of Amsterdam. Join us at Felix Meritis on 26 November for an evening marking the culmination of a year of artistic research, experimentation and exchange.
Bio Art and Design: Luca Conte | Cabaret: Martijn van Arkel | Dance: Elisa Zuppini | Engaged Art: Tumelo Mtimkhulu | Fashion: Noukhey Forster | Film: Mei Liu | Interhistoricity: Munganyende | Music: Dimitra Sofroniou | Publishing/Performance: Noor de Vries | Self-taught: Priscilla Pancras| Social Design: Savva Dudin | Theatre: Femi van Elshuis | Urban Realm: juan felipe amaya gonzález (JFAG) | Visual Art I: Sterre Pomper | Visual Art II: Reyhan Lál
https://offbeat.amsterdam/event/international-art-talent-festival-1
Fortnite Has Updated In-Game Art After Fans Discovered a Google Gemini AI Image Watermark
Fortnite has quietly replaced a piece of in-game artwork after fans spotted its original version contained a Google Gemini AI watermark.
Epic Games added the music track "Meow" by Ironmouse, Sleeping Forest & HalaCG to Fortnite last month, with the telltale Gemini watermark in the track artwork's bottom right corner. This lay mostly unnoticed until last weekend, when its wider discovery prompted something of a minor kerfuffle on social media and Reddit.
As of this morning, however, this artwork has been replaced with an alternate version (with no Gemini watermark). But after closer inspection, it's worth pointing out that the Gemini usage was present in the track list's original art that Epic Games simply incorporated in-game. Go check the track on Spotify, and the Gemini mark is there, too. In other words, the Gemini usage here is the fault of whoever made the track art initially — not Epic Games.
So, why the switcheroo? AI-generated artwork in Fortnite is a contentious subject for fans who have pointed to previous dubious examples such as an in-game poster featuring a nine-toed character in a hammock to suggest that Epic Games was resorting to poor-quality AI work rather than using human designers. A more recent, official developer video then pulled back the curtain on Epic Games' AI use, showcasing how the company experiments with AI in the conceptual phase when creating characters and in-game locations.
All of that said, Epic Games has always shied away from strictly confirming any particular in-game art is AI generated, and has maintained at least a veneer of quality over the evergreen battle royale it continually toils to keep popular. To date, there hasn't been anything quite as egregious as Call of Duty's embarrassing and grotesque six-fingered Santa.
The fact that Epic Games has made the switch here is, if anything, a positive sign that it does not want to openly show artwork featuring obvious AI elements, such as that Gemini watermark, in Fortnite.
Meanwhile, over the weekend, Disney stated that its rumored desire to buy Epic Games was not something it was planning to act on — at least right now.
DATE: October 5, 2026 at 07:00AM
SOURCE: PSYPOST.ORG
** Research quality varies widely from fantastic to small exploratory studies. Please check research methods when conclusions are very important to you. **
-------------------------------------------------
TITLE: Crime videos push liberal voters toward stricter laws but not the political right
When exposed to videos of retail crime, voters in a highly liberal city adopted tougher, more conservative stances on local criminal justice policies. The participants did not, however, alter their broader political identities or overall ideological leanings. These findings were published in the The Journal of Social Psychology.
In psychology, a concept called terror management theory explores how people manage their deep-seated awareness of their own mortality. The theory suggests that reminders of death or existential threats create intense anxiety. To cope with this discomfort, individuals often seek comfort in structured, predictable, and historically conservative worldviews.
Decades of research on this topic have yielded mixed results regarding how people vote under stress. Some experiments show that threats push people toward the political right. Other studies suggest that threats cause polarization, driving both liberals and conservatives further toward their respective extremes.
Recent political shifts in the United States provided a real-world testing ground for these ideas. In California, voters recently considered revising a state law known as Proposition 47. Originally designed to reduce prison populations by classifying minor thefts as misdemeanors, the law has faced intense debate in recent years. Critics have argued that the $950 threshold for a felony charge encouraged organized retail theft, as offenders faced minimal legal consequences.
University of San Francisco psychologist Violet Cheung-Blunden and her colleagues wanted to see if fear-inducing media could sway voters in a deeply liberal area. They designed two experiments to test whether videos about local crime could alter decisions on Proposition 47. The researchers also wanted to know if this exposure would change the participants’ general political identities.
In the first experiment, the research team recruited 206 adults from the San Francisco area during the week leading up to the election. The researchers asked the participants about their preexisting political beliefs, including their views on authority, immigration, and economics. The participants were then randomly assigned to watch one of two short videos.
Half of the group watched a video showing local tourist attractions, like the construction of the Golden Gate Bridge, to serve as a baseline comparison. The other half watched a compilation of news clips and online videos depicting organized looting and retail theft in the city. After watching the videos, the participants completed a mock exercise to revise Proposition 47.
The participants were asked to propose the ideal dollar amount for classifying retail theft as a felony. They also had to provide the minimum and maximum amounts they would be willing to accept on a ballot. Finally, the participants rated their current overall political orientation on a scale ranging from ultra-liberal to ultra-conservative.
The participants who watched the crime video proposed a markedly lower minimum and ideal dollar threshold for felony charges compared to the group that watched the tourist video. In practical terms, exposure to the crime footage prompted these voters to adopt a stricter, more punitive stance on retail theft. They became more conservative on the specific issue of criminal justice.
This shift toward a conservative policy position did not translate to a broader ideological change. The participants’ self-reported political orientation remained anchored to their initial beliefs, and they did not shift toward the political right overall. A single exposure to threatening media was not enough to uproot their overarching political identities.
The researchers also looked for evidence of political polarization. They checked whether the crime video caused initially liberal participants to become more liberal and initially conservative participants to become more conservative. The data did not support this idea, as the participants largely maintained their general ideological footing.
To ensure the reliability of these initial patterns, Cheung-Blunden and her team conducted a second experiment with 98 college students in San Francisco. This study followed a nearly identical procedure to the first one, but it took place in a controlled laboratory setting. The researchers also had all participants watch a five-minute breathing and relaxation video before viewing their assigned footage.
This relaxation step was intended to reduce baseline mood variations among the students. By calming the participants first, the researchers hoped to make any emotional reactions to the subsequent tourist or crime videos easier to measure. The results of the second experiment ended up mirroring the first.
The students exposed to the crime video proposed substantially lower dollar thresholds for felony theft across all three categories. Just like the community adults, the student participants embraced a tougher stance on crime after viewing the threatening footage. Once again, this shift toward a stricter crime policy did not alter the students’ broader political identities.
The crime video failed to move the student participants’ overall political orientation toward the right. The researchers also found no indication that the threatening footage caused the students’ general political views to become more polarized. The students’ overarching political ideologies remained stable, even as their position on a specific local policy shifted.
While the experiments show how media exposure can alter specific policy preferences, the results come with a few boundaries. The studies took place in a highly liberal city, meaning the participants likely sat further to the political left than the average American voter. The second experiment also included a high proportion of female participants, who generally reported more liberal leanings than male participants in the study.
These demographic skews mean the findings might not neatly apply to voters in more conservative or politically divided regions. Additionally, the researchers point out that their experiments measured political shifts using a mock policy threshold and a general ideology scale. Future research could incorporate a wider range of political choices, such as preferences for specific political figures in an actual election.
It is also difficult to know if the crime videos specifically triggered a deep fear of mortality, as terror management theory suggests. The footage might have simply provoked general anxiety about safety and social order. Future studies will need to directly measure the specific types of emotional discomfort that drive voters to change their minds on public policy.
The study, “Threat-Induced Conservatism in a Liberal Electorate: Issue-Based Shifts without Ideological Transformation,” was authored by Violet Cheung-Blunden, Serena Rajkumar, Yuka Hirata, Caelyn A. McDonough, and Chonhei Liao.
-------------------------------------------------
Private, vetted email list for mental health professionals: https://www.clinicians-exchange.org
Unofficial Psychology Today Xitter to toot feed at Psych Today Unofficial Bot @PTUnofficialBot
-------------------------------------------------
#psychology #counseling #socialwork #psychotherapy @psychotherapist @psychotherapists @psychology @socialpsych @socialwork @psychiatry #mentalhealth #psychiatry #healthcare #depression #psychotherapist #ThreatInducedConservatism #LiberalElectorate #CrimeMediaImpact #Proposition47 #CaliforniaPolitics #CriminalJusticePolicy #VoterBehavior #TerrorManagementTheory #PolicyThresholds #PublicOpinionShifts
DATE: October 4, 2026 at 06:00AM
SOURCE: PSYPOST.ORG
** Research quality varies widely from fantastic to small exploratory studies. Please check research methods when conclusions are very important to you. **
-------------------------------------------------
TITLE: Psychologists identify “collective anti-mattering” as a key driver of modern political grievances
New research suggests that when people believe their social group is treated as unimportant by others, they tend to report more anger about their group’s treatment and more anxiety about its future. These feelings were in turn linked to involvement in collective action, support for strong leadership, and, among White Americans, support for punitive policies. The findings were published in European Journal of Social Psychology.
The research examines a psychological concept known as collective anti-mattering. This is the belief that one’s specific social group does not count, is ignored, or is viewed as disposable by other groups or by society at large. It expands on the idea of personal anti-mattering, which describes the painful experience of feeling personally unnoticed or unvalued by other people. Research into personal feelings of unimportance, such as a 2021 study of adolescents and young adults, indicated that feeling like one does not matter to others is a unique form of distress that predicts loneliness and depression.
“The idea grew out of research on mattering, the basic psychological need to feel that we are noticed, valued, and significant to other people,” Nassim Tabri, an associate professor in the Department of Psychology at Carleton University, told PsyPost. “More recent work has examined anti-mattering, which is the belief that other people actively regard you as unimportant or insignificant.”
“We examined whether people can experience something analogous at the group level: not simply ‘I don’t matter,’ but ‘people like us don’t matter,'” he explained. “Historically marginalized groups may feel that their concerns or suffering are ignored by more advantaged groups or institutions, whereas members of historically advantaged groups may sometimes feel that their group is increasingly being overlooked or displaced.”
Tabri and colleagues proposed that this same feeling can occur at the group level and influence political life. When groups feel that they are morally invisible, they may experience two distinct emotional responses: group-based anger and collective angst. Group-based anger is a reaction to perceived unfairness in the present moment. It is the feeling that one’s group is being illegitimately devalued, which often motivates people to confront the source of the injustice.
Collective angst, on the other hand, is an anxiety focused on the future. It occurs when people fear that their group’s vitality, culture, or very existence might be in jeopardy. Previous work on group dynamics, such as a 2021 set of experiments, indicated that White people reminded of demographic changes, particularly those who saw race relations as zero-sum, felt more anxiety about their group’s future, which was linked to less support for progressive social movements and more anti-immigrant sentiment.
By studying collective anti-mattering, the authors sought to understand how feeling disregarded acts as a starting point for both anger and angst. They theorized that this single feeling could push marginalized groups to demand recognition and push advantaged groups to defend their status.
To test these ideas, the researchers conducted three separate studies using data from online panels, meaning the samples were not nationally representative. In the first study, they recruited 368 Black American adults who completed questionnaires measuring their sense of collective anti-mattering, individual anti-mattering, perceived injustice toward their group, group-based anger toward White Americans, and collective angst. Finally, participants reported how often they take part in collective action on behalf of Black Americans, such as demonstrations, and how much they agreed that their group needs a strong leader who will do whatever it takes to get things done for it.
The researchers found that collective anti-mattering was distinct from personal anti-mattering and strongly predicted both group-based anger and collective angst. It was also strongly correlated with perceived injustice, but statistical analyses showed the two were separate concepts.
The two emotions, however, predicted different outcomes. Higher levels of collective angst were associated with more frequent involvement in collective action, while anger did not predict collective action. Both collective angst and group-based anger predicted greater support for a strong leader, though the items measured broad support rather than specific authoritarian actions. Across the three studies, the statistical models explained only 6% to 12% of the differences in collective action, compared to 13% to 55% for strong-leader support.
For the second study, the researchers surveyed 552 Black British citizens living in the United Kingdom to see if the patterns would hold true in a different national context. The participants completed similar measures, focusing on their perceptions of how Black British people are viewed by White British people. They also answered questions about whether they felt White British people tried to control their group’s identity, a concept known as collective autonomy restriction.
The results of the second study showed that collective anti-mattering on its own was essentially unrelated to collective action, but it was again linked to both group-based anger and collective angst. Just as with the American participants, collective angst was the emotion linked to collective action. Both anger and angst were associated with support for strong leadership. The study also showed that feeling collectively disregarded is a separate experience from feeling that one’s group is being explicitly controlled or treated as less than human.
The third study shifted focus to a historically advantaged majority group. The researchers surveyed 399 White American adults, balancing the sample between Democrats and Republicans. This time, the collective anti-mattering questions asked participants how much they felt White Americans were disregarded by other Americans or by society in general. Along with measuring anger, angst, collective action, and strong-leader support, the researchers asked participants about their political attitudes, including their support for government bans on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, as well as their support for persecuting undocumented immigrants, measured with statements ranging from praising the work of Immigration and Customs Enforcement to supporting the use of physical force and even executions.
Believing that White Americans no longer matter to society predicted higher levels of both group-based anger and collective angst, although average levels of collective anti-mattering were much lower among White Americans (about 2.1 on a 1-to-7 scale) than among Black Americans (about 4.0) or Black British participants (about 3.5). Collective angst was again linked to more involvement in collective action and stronger support for a strong leader. Unlike in the first two studies, anger was not linked to strong-leader support.
Group-based anger, however, was linked to different outcomes. Higher levels of anger were associated with stronger support for banning diversity initiatives and a greater willingness to support punitive measures against undocumented immigrants, while collective angst was not. These effects remained consistent even when the researchers adjusted their statistical models to account for whether the participant was a Democrat or a Republican. This differs from the 2021 experiments described earlier, in which anxiety about the group’s future, rather than anger, was linked to anti-immigrant sentiment.
“What struck me most was the consistency of the basic psychological pattern across groups who occupy very different structural positions in society,” Tabri said. “I was also struck by what we found when we expanded the range of political outcomes examined among White Americans. In this group, anger associated with perceived disregard was, in turn, associated with greater support for punitive and exclusionary political responses, including opposition to DEI initiatives and support for punitive treatment of undocumented immigrants. This suggests that the consequences of believing that one’s group does not matter may depend on the emotion involved and the broader social and political context.”
“I would characterize the findings as meaningful but not deterministic,” he added. “Collective anti-mattering showed moderate-to-large associations with the emotional processes we examined, particularly group-based anger and collective angst, but political attitudes and behavior obviously have many causes. The practical significance, in my view, comes less from any single effect size than from the consistency of the pattern across three samples and two countries. Perceiving that one’s group is disregarded appears to capture a psychologically meaningful form of group grievance.”
There are a few things to keep in mind when interpreting these findings. All three studies relied on cross-sectional survey data, meaning the researchers measured all variables at a single point in time. Because of this, it is not possible to establish a strict chain of cause and effect between feelings of disregard, specific emotions, and political behaviors.
“We found that collective anti-mattering was associated with particular emotions and political responses in theoretically meaningful ways, but we cannot conclude from these studies alone that making people feel that their group does not matter will cause those responses,” Tabri noted. “I would also caution against interpreting the findings as equating the experiences of advantaged and disadvantaged groups. Black Americans and Black British people may perceive disregard in the context of longstanding discrimination and structural inequality, whereas perceptions of disregard among White Americans can arise despite their group’s continued structural advantage.”
The researchers also emphasized how to view the study’s leadership questions. “Support for a ‘strong leader’ in our measures should not automatically be interpreted as support for authoritarianism,” Tabri said. “A strong leader can be understood as someone who protects or advances the group’s interests without necessarily rejecting democratic norms. This is one reason we distinguish strong-leader support from the more explicitly punitive and exclusionary outcomes we examined among White Americans.”
Additionally, the focus of the collective anti-mattering questions varied between the studies. In the first two studies, participants were asked about disregard from a specific majority group, while the third study asked about disregard from society more broadly. Future research could investigate whether feeling ignored by a specific group produces different political reactions than feeling ignored by social institutions as a whole.
Looking ahead, Tabri outlined plans to further investigate these dynamics. “An important next step is to establish whether collective anti-mattering actually has a causal influence on group-based emotions and behavior,” he said. “Experimental studies that manipulate perceptions of collective disregard, along with longitudinal studies that follow these processes over time, will help establish whether changes in collective anti-mattering precede changes in anger, anxiety about the group’s future, and political behavior.”
“One aspect of the concept that I think is especially important is the distinction between being treated unfairly and feeling that your group simply does not count,” Tabri said. “Injustice is about what is being done to a group; collective anti-mattering is about what people believe their group means to others—whether its concerns, welfare, and future are regarded as consequential. That distinction may help us understand some contemporary political grievances that are difficult to capture solely in terms of material interests or explicit discrimination. People and groups want not only fair outcomes but recognition that they matter.”
The study, “Collective Anti-Mattering: Belief That One’s Group Is Being Disregarded Fuels Collective Action and Authoritarian Leadership Support Among Both Advantaged and Disadvantaged Groups,” was authored by Nassim Tabri, Isabelle Boutros, and Michael J. A. Wohl.
-------------------------------------------------
Private, vetted email list for mental health professionals: https://www.clinicians-exchange.org
Unofficial Psychology Today Xitter to toot feed at Psych Today Unofficial Bot @PTUnofficialBot
-------------------------------------------------
#psychology #counseling #socialwork #psychotherapy @psychotherapist @psychotherapists @psychology @socialpsych @socialwork @psychiatry #mentalhealth #psychiatry #healthcare #depression #psychotherapist #CollectiveAntiMattering #GroupAnger #CollectiveAngst #SocialPsychology #PoliticalGrievances #StrongLeadership #DemocracyAndLeadership #GroupIdentity #InclusionDebate #PublicOpinion
DATE: October 3, 2026 at 06:00AM
SOURCE: PSYPOST.ORG
** Research quality varies widely from fantastic to small exploratory studies. Please check research methods when conclusions are very important to you. **
-------------------------------------------------
TITLE: Left-wing justifications partly shield antisemitism from liberal disapproval, study suggests
A recent study published in American Psychologist suggests that while political liberals generally harbor a strong distaste for prejudiced individuals, they tend to evaluate people expressing antisemitism more positively when those remarks are accompanied by justifications related to human rights or criticism of Israel. The research provides evidence that these specific justifications act as social signals, and liberals tended to view the speaker as a political ally who is not broadly bigoted.
Antisemitism involves prejudice or hatred directed toward Jewish people. In social psychology, researchers also study how prejudices are expressed in daily life, noting that people rarely state a prejudice outright without offering a justification. A justification is a reason or rationale provided by a speaker to make their prejudiced views seem more socially acceptable or grounded in a legitimate concern.
Hate crimes against Jewish people in the United States spiked following the onset of the Israel-Hamas war in October 2023, rising from 11% of all hate crimes in the year before the war to 27% in the year after. Historically, political liberals have been fiercely protective of minority groups and quick to condemn discrimination. In fact, a study covered by PsyPost in 2022 found that, before the war, agreement with overtly antisemitic statements was two to three times higher on the American far right than on the far left.
“Part of our motivation came from observing political discourse,” lead author Jordan W. Moon, a lecturer in the School of Psychology at the University of Southampton, told PsyPost. “There has been a sharp rise in antisemitic rhetoric and incidents, but it seemed to us that the people who were otherwise most concerned about protecting minorities were somewhat unconcerned or even dismissive of this rise.”
Moon and his team wanted to investigate this apparent contradiction. “We wondered whether some types of prejudice and discrimination were more tolerated by different audiences—in this case, whether antisemitism was tolerated by political liberals,” he added. “We wanted to know, first, whether liberals indeed currently tolerated antisemitism, and second, whether there are certain ways of expressing antisemitism that are more accepted by liberal audiences.”
Antisemitism and criticism of Israel are related but distinct attitudes. A study covered by PsyPost in 2025, for example, found that antisemitic attitudes were linked to greater support for political violence, while criticism of Israel on its own was linked to legal activism but not to support for violence.
The researchers aimed to understand whether specific political rationalizations help explain why liberals might tolerate certain expressions of anti-Jewish prejudice. They noted that by 2025, 75% of Republicans but only 21% of Democrats said their sympathies lay with Israelis, which they argued may make criticism of Israel a marker of liberal identity. They proposed two potential psychological mechanisms: ingroup favoritism, where a justification signals shared political views, and alliance politics, where a justification implies the speaker is not indiscriminately hateful toward other groups.
To test these ideas, the research team conducted three preregistered online experiments between October and December of 2024 involving 979 American adults. The samples were recruited via Prolific and quota-matched to the U.S. population on age, gender, ethnicity, and political party; the number of Jewish participants was negligible. In their analyses, the researchers treated political views as a continuous scale running from 0 (extremely liberal) to 100 (extremely conservative). They then estimated each effect for someone somewhat liberal, around 17 or 18 on that scale, and someone somewhat conservative, around 79 to 81.
In the first experiment, 270 participants read profiles of individuals expressing prejudice against Jewish people, Black people, or Muslims. Each participant saw all three prejudiced profiles mixed among five unrelated distractor profiles. Participants were randomly assigned to see the prejudice stated plainly without explanation, or accompanied by a socially common justification.
For antisemitism, the justification was a strong disapproval of Israel and its war in Gaza. For anti-Black prejudice, the justification was a belief about crime rates, and for anti-Muslim prejudice, it was a belief about conflicting cultural values. After reading the profiles, participants rated how much they liked or disliked the individual on a 7-point scale, and estimated the speaker’s likely political orientation and how likely they were to be a bigot.
The results showed that without any justification, liberal participants disliked all prejudiced individuals more than conservative participants did. But when the anti-Jewish prejudice was justified by a disapproval of Israel, liberals liked the speaker 1.1 points more on the 7-point scale. This particular justification did not have an effect on how conservative participants evaluated the speaker. The justifications used for anti-Black and anti-Muslim prejudices did not increase liking among liberals.
The researchers emphasized that this relative increase in liking did not mean these participants suddenly endorsed prejudice. “On a scale of ‘Dislike Extremely’ toward ‘Like Extremely’, the prejudiced targets were largely disliked by both liberals and conservatives, regardless of which prejudice they expressed and how it was justified,” Moon noted. “That is, liberals did not ‘like’ antisemites, but certain justifications did make them feel relatively more positively toward them.”
To test if left-leaning justifications work for other types of prejudices, the scientists conducted a second experiment with 277 participants. They expanded the targets of prejudice to include Jewish, Black, Muslim, Chinese, and Russian Americans. This time, they tested justifications appealing to liberal values, such as accusing the targeted group’s ancestral home country of human rights violations. They compared these to justifications appealing to conservative values, such as claiming the targeted group threatens traditional American values.
Once again, liberals strongly disliked all prejudiced individuals when no justification was provided. However, when prejudices against any of the five groups were justified by citing human rights violations, liberals evaluated the speakers more positively, by roughly half a point to a full point on the 7-point scale.
Conservatives also liked some of these speakers more, including those prejudiced against Muslim and Chinese Americans, so only for the anti-Jewish speaker did the effect differ reliably between liberals and conservatives. Justifications centered on traditional American values mostly had no effect for either group, raising liberals’ liking only for the speaker prejudiced against Russian Americans and conservatives’ liking only for the speaker prejudiced against Chinese Americans.
The authors pointed out that this finding addresses a common misperception that their results only apply to antisemitism. “Although we focused our writeup on antisemitism, we found similar effects for other prejudices,” Moon clarified. “A person who expresses prejudice toward Black Americans or Chinese Americans was liked a bit more by politically liberal observers when they appealed to human rights abuses by African countries or China. This process seems to be a general notion of ‘prejudice is more acceptable when expressed by someone in my group’ than something that is unique to a single type of prejudice.”
A third experiment with 432 participants focused exclusively on anti-Jewish prejudice but tested a wider variety of rationalizations. These included disapproval of Israel, conspiracies about Jewish power and influence, historical beliefs about genetic inferiority, and religious blame. Each participant saw only one profile.
As in the earlier experiments, liberals disliked the unjustified antisemitic speaker more than conservatives did. When the speaker justified their prejudice using a disapproval of Israel or conspiracies about Jewish power, the negative social penalty for expressing the prejudice was reduced relative to when no reason was given. Unlike in the first two experiments, however, these two effects did not differ between liberals and conservatives, and neither reached statistical significance when the researchers examined liberals and conservatives separately. The authors say they are cautious about treating these results as definitive.
Justifying the prejudice with claims that Jews are genetically inferior lowered liking overall, and both liberals and conservatives saw that speaker as more likely to be a bigot. The religious justification had no statistically significant effect.
Moon said the team was surprised by how participants responded to a conspiracy trope long associated with the political right. “One of the justifications we included was the trope that Jews hold too much power and influence over financial markets, governments, and the media,” he explained. “Historically in the U.S., this has been a right-coded justification. However, in our experiment, participants thought the profile uttering this trope was more politically liberal than the profile expressing unjustified antisemitism, and this trope had a similar effect in licensing antisemitism as the disapproval of Israel and the war in Gaza justification.”
Across the experiments, the authors found evidence for two psychological processes that statistically accounted for why liberals liked speakers who used left-leaning justifications. First, liberals viewed these speakers as being politically closer to themselves, indicating a type of ingroup favoritism. Second, liberals inferred that a speaker focusing on human rights was less likely to be generally bigoted, which the authors interpret as making them less of a threat to the broader liberal political coalition.
Dylan Selterman, director of research and resource development at Heterodox Academy and an SNF Agora Faculty Affiliate at Johns Hopkins University, was not involved in the research. (He noted that these views are his own and do not represent his employer, Heterodox Academy.) He told PsyPost that “this research shows how people who in some cases eschew group-based ethnic prejudice may yet condone it in other cases, if such prejudice is accompanied by a moral justification.”
“This is an important fact because many people believe that they are immune to negative prejudices,” Selterman added. “However, this is not always the case.”
As with all research, there are a few things to keep in mind. The specific justifications tested across different marginalized groups in the first two experiments were not perfectly identical, which makes direct comparisons between prejudices somewhat difficult. The study also relied on statistical models to test the psychological mechanisms, meaning future experimental designs would be needed to establish exact cause and effect. Additionally, the research measured how people react to brief written profiles, which might not fully capture the complexities of real-world social interactions.
“My confidence is high,” Selterman said. “The authors appear to have done some elegant experiments, with sound statistical tests. Experiment 3 was somewhat inconsistent with the results of Experiments 1 and 2 but the authors reported it anyway,” he noted. “That makes me feel more confident in the results that did emerge.”
“Condoning prejudice is not the same as expressing prejudice,” Selterman explained. “The authors did not find that respondents held prejudice; rather, they studied how people view others who hold prejudices. These studies highlight how third-party judgment works. However, even though these studies did not examine prejudicial feelings directly, the findings are still very important because they show how prejudice can become more socially acceptable, which can lead to increases in discrimination and even violence.”
The authors suggest that efforts to combat antisemitism should consider not just the underlying prejudice but the language used to package it. They speculate that a prejudiced statement made in the service of a social cause might signal especially strong commitment to that cause, and to the political group associated with it.
“This kind of justification communicates that one is part of the liberal political coalition,” Moon said. “Because of ingroup favoritism, liberals were more tolerant of the person expressing antisemitism in this way. If we want to understand why some prejudices become socially acceptable, we should consider the guises they take, and what information they communicate to others.”
As for next steps, Selterman said he would want to better understand “(a) whether people are aware that they are using a justification to morally license bigoted attitudes, (b) what specific political attitudes (beyond simply being liberal or conservative) are associated with this kind of licensing, and (c) what kind of interventions would get people to have consistent moral standards against prejudice, without any justification.”
The study, “Justifying Antisemitism: Political Liberalism and Perceptions of Prejudices,” was authored by Jordan W. Moon, Michael Barlev, and Steven L. Neuberg.
-------------------------------------------------
Private, vetted email list for mental health professionals: https://www.clinicians-exchange.org
Unofficial Psychology Today Xitter to toot feed at Psych Today Unofficial Bot @PTUnofficialBot
-------------------------------------------------
#psychology #counseling #socialwork #psychotherapy @psychotherapist @psychotherapists @psychology @socialpsych @socialwork @psychiatry #mentalhealth #psychiatry #healthcare #depression #psychotherapist #JustifyingAntisemitism #LiberalBias # antisemitism #PoliticalPsychology #HumanRightsJustifications #IngroupFavoritism #AlliancePolitics # Liberal vs Conservative # antisemitismresearch #SocialSignals
Book Review: Predictably Irrational by Dan Ariely
You are not as rational as you think you are. Neither am I. That is the entire premise of Predictably Irrational by Dan Ariely, and for investors, it might be the most useful sentence in any book on this shelf.
Published in 2008 and revised and expanded in 2010, Predictably Irrational is one of the founding texts of popular behavioral economics. Ariely’s argument is simple and devastating: human beings do not make random mistakes. We make the same mistakes, in the same directions, over and over, which means our irrationality is predictable, and therefore manageable, once you see it.
If you have ever bought a stock at the top because everyone else was buying, sold at the bottom because the pain got unbearable, or held a loser for years because admitting the mistake felt worse than the loss, this book is about you.
Buy Predictably Irrational on Amazon
Book Summary
Predictably Irrational walks through a series of experiments, most of them run by Ariely and his colleagues on college students, that expose the hidden forces shaping our decisions. Each chapter takes one force, demonstrates it with a clever experiment, and shows how it leaks into everyday life. The throughline: standard economics assumes we are rational calculators, but we are emotional, comparative, social creatures shaped by context in ways we never notice. The good news is that the patterns are consistent enough to study, and once you know the traps, you can design around them.
Who is Dan Ariely?
Dan Ariely is the James B. Duke Professor of Psychology and Behavioral Economics at Duke University, and one of the best-known popularizers of behavioral economics alongside Daniel Kahneman and Richard Thaler. Predictably Irrational was a New York Times bestseller, and Ariely went on to write several follow-ups, including The Upside of Irrationality and The Honest Truth About Dishonesty.
His interest in the subject was personal: as a teenager in Israel, severe burns put him in hospitals for years, where he became fascinated by how irrationally people behave around pain and decisions. That experience became a research career, and Predictably Irrational is its most readable product.
Lessons From Predictably Irrational
The book is organized around a handful of big ideas. Here are the ones that matter most to investors.
Anchoring and arbitrary coherence. The first number you encounter sets the reference point for everything after it, even when the number is meaningless. Students who wrote down the last two digits of their Social Security numbers before bidding on items bid higher when their digits were higher. Everyone knew the digits were random, and it still worked. Now think about stock prices: the 52-week high is an anchor, and the price you paid is an anchor. Your brain treats them as meaningful reference points, quietly distorting every buy and sell decision. This is why having a valuation framework matters more than having a price target.
The zero-price effect. “Free!” is not just a low price. It is an emotional trigger that shuts down rational comparison. People will choose a free item they do not need over a nearly-free item that is objectively better. Investors do this too: free trades made everyone trade more, and “zero commission” is not zero cost if it turns you into a hyperactive trader. The price of free is your attention and your discipline.
Social norms vs. market norms. The moment money enters a relationship, generosity evaporates and everything becomes transactional. Ariely’s experiments show people will work harder for a favor than for small amounts of cash, because cash moves the interaction into market norms. For investors, the lesson is about advisors, newsletters, and “free” stock tips: once someone is paid to influence your decisions, treat their advice as a market transaction, which it is.
The decoy effect. When choosing between two options, adding a third option that is clearly worse than one of them makes that one look much more attractive. Marketers use this constantly in pricing tiers. In investing, watch for it in fund marketing: the expensive, mediocre fund exists partly to make the slightly-less-expensive one look like a deal. Compare every investment against the alternative of buying the index, not against the decoy sitting next to it.
Ownership and the endowment effect. We overvalue what we own: people demand far more to sell an item they were given than they would pay to buy it. This is the reason investors hold losing positions for years. The stock in your portfolio is not worth more than the identical stock in someone else’s. If you would not buy it today at today’s price, you should not own it today. The endowment effect is the single most expensive bias in this book for a stock picker.
Expectations shape experience. What you expect to taste, feel, or earn changes what you actually experience. Price tags change how much people enjoy wine, and reputation changes how much investors trust a stock. Be skeptical of your own enthusiasm: some of what you “see” in a beloved company is your expectations doing the seeing.
The pain of paying and procrastination. Paying hurts, and we procrastinate on anything with upfront costs and delayed benefits. Ariely’s chapter on self-control, with its experiments on deadlines, applies directly to rebalancing and tax-loss harvesting, the portfolio maintenance investors put off forever. His finding: pre-commitment beats willpower. Automate the good decisions so your future self cannot negotiate out of them.
Work through Predictably Irrational one chapter at a time; it rewards a slow read.
Buy Predictably Irrational on Amazon
Criticisms of the Book
The fair criticisms of Predictably Irrational have grown louder since it was published, and they deserve a hearing. The biggest is the replication crisis in behavioral economics and psychology more broadly: a number of famous findings in the field have failed to replicate when other researchers tried to reproduce them. Not every experiment in this book has been re-run, and readers should treat individual study results as suggestive rather than settled, even when the broader patterns hold up.
More specifically, questions were raised in 2021 about the data behind a 2012 paper Ariely co-authored on honesty, after an analysis suggested the data had been fabricated. Ariely denied any wrongdoing, said the data had come from an outside company, and noted that he had not collected it himself. The episode does not directly concern this book’s experiments, but it is part of the honest accounting a review should give: some of the shine has come off the field’s early certainty.
A smaller criticism: the experiments were mostly run on college students, and the leap from lab games to real financial decisions is sometimes bigger than the storytelling admits. Take the insights as directionally true, not as laws of physics.
Who is This Book For?
Predictably Irrational is for any investor who wants to understand their own worst enemy: themselves. It pairs naturally with Kahneman’s Thinking, Fast and Slow, the deeper and more rigorous treatment of the same territory, and with Richard Thaler’s Misbehaving, which we reviewed here. If you have read those, this book is the most entertaining entry point of the three, and the experiments make the biases stick in a way abstractions do not.
It is also for anyone who designs choices for a living: marketers, managers, policymakers. But on this site, the audience is investors, and the pitch is simple. Your portfolio’s returns are downstream of your decisions, and your decisions are downstream of biases you cannot feel operating. This book names them. It also sits comfortably on our list of the 7 Best Books on the Psychology of Money.
It is not for readers who want a systematic investing framework. This is a book about how minds work, not about how to value companies.
Final Thoughts
Predictably Irrational will not make you rational. Nothing will. What it does is replace your vague sense that “emotions affect investing” with a specific catalog of traps, each with a name and a countermeasure. Once you can name them, you start catching them in your own brokerage account.
The replication concerns are real, and this review would be dishonest without them. But the book’s core message has survived the field’s troubles intact: your mistakes are not random, they are systematic, and systematic mistakes can be managed. For an investor, that is one of the highest-leverage insights in print.
Buy Predictably Irrational on Amazon
#BehavioralEconomics #Books #CognitiveBiases #DanAriely #InvestingPsychology
Are you looking to gain knowledge or validate claims?
Using artificial intelligence (AI) has now become second nature to searching anything on the internet. Just like the world advanced from looking up information in a library from multiple books and sources, to typing in queries on search engines on the internet, like Google, the world is now advancing into an era of prompting artificial intelligence to comb through the internet and not just find sources, but also to frame an answer based on those sources. One is left to wonder where that leaves the reasoning ability of a human being. But putting aside that looming future of increasing human stupidity in the wake of artificial intelligence, I would like to concentrate on the inherent bias in prompts that causes a systemic narrative shift by activating confirmation bias. In other words, prompt framing strongly biases AI outputs.
An important aspect of using AI is prompt engineering. Designing effective input instructions is the key to unlocking fruitful communication between humans and AI. Here is where the key difference between utilizing and misusing AI takes shape and influences the output. Before diving into research and trends, I will show you an example of this bias in prompting. To test how prompt framing influences AI output, I designed four prompts on Gemini that progressively introduce different assumptions about Earth’s shape—from false (flat) to simplified (perfect sphere) to accurate (oblate spheroid)—plus a neutral control:
Bias 1Bias 2Bias 3Neutral controlHow does a flat Earth affect gravity on the planet?How does a spherical Earth affect gravity?How does an oblate spheroid Earth affect gravity?How does the shape of the Earth affect gravity?Incorrect shapeIncorrect shapeAccurate mathematical shape, but biased contextNo bias in question; AI evaluates without constraintsBiased and neutral control prompts that yielded different results in AI responsesHere are the four responses I got. You can click on the tabs to open them.
Here you can access the model created by AI for different shapes, and try it for yourself: https://share.gemini.google/69kyAfmWOQczThe responses were revealing. Here is the comparison: From centuries of research and observations, we are aware the Earth is not flat (The Earth is Flat) or a perfect sphere. And so, I introduced the bias of shape affecting the gravity of the planet. In the first three prompts, Gemini assumes the Earth’s shape and supports the hypothesis with real science and validates claims with genuine reasons even when the claim itself is flawed. The guardrails exist here, which is a relief. The results show that prompting bias absolutely alters the AI’s output, but it shifts the framing and focus rather than corrupting its factual data.
Prompt 1 (Biased)
In the first prompt, the base assumption is that the Earth is flat and Gemini accepted the premise, omitted real-world data, and focused on theoretical disk mechanics completely. It mentions in one sentence midway that – “A flat planetary body of Earth’s mass cannot physically exist.” and would “catastrophically collapse into a sphere.” – and goes on to explain the reason based on hydrostatic equilibrium. But this comes much later because AI models are trained to be helpful. When asked about a flat Earth, instead of simply stating “The Earth isn’t flat,” the AI’s drive to fulfill the request led it to construct a massive, highly technical theoretical framework around a flat disk. This prompt forced it to spend 90% of its response on a fiction.
Prompt 2 (Biased)
In the second prompt, the base assumption is that the Earth is spherical. In a simplified idealization, it treats the Earth as a perfect geometric shape first before introducing real-world nuances. The AI anchored hard on a perfect sphere:
$$((g(r) = \frac{GM}{r^2}\hat{r}))$$Even though it eventually corrected to an oblate spheroid (“Earth is not a perfect sphere, but an oblate spheroid.”), the prompt delayed the arrival of a more accurate real-world answer. Even this correction is not enough as it simplifies the Earth into a mathematical model of an oblate spheroid, while omitting the fact that geoid is the true physical representation based on Earth’s uneven gravity field, closely matching global mean sea level.
Prompt 3 (Oversimplified bias)
This sort of simplification creeps into the third prompt as well. The prompt assumes the shape of the Earth to be an oblate spheroid, which is true, but in only some simplified cases. An oblate spheroid is simply a mathematical 3D ellipse flattened at the poles and bulging at the equator. It serves as a smooth, standard reference surface for global positioning (GPS) and basic mapping. Uneven distribution of internal mass, dense rock, mountains, and trenches pull with different gravitational strengths, which is the intention of the original question. Hence, this response, although based on the correct context, is missing a critical nuance.
Prompt 4 (Neutral control)
Look at how the AI responded to the Neutral Control vs. Prompt 3. The control prompt allowed the AI to naturally introduce the oblate spheroid shape, plus it added bonus context about local geoid anomalies and satellite mapping links that Prompt 3 left out. It provides a comprehensive, unconstrained overview of actual planetary physics.
Prompt keywords acted as filters, strictly dictating how deeply the AI reached into its training data and how it framed the response. This experiment gains more importance when we see who actually asks AI such questions. A qualified physicist would not ask such a question for learning, but a layman or student would, and they lack the technical depth to dissect AI responses and extract the right information in the right context. The biggest problem is that none of these responses were incorrect in principle, but the biased prompts removed the nuance needed to clarify this concept. If the same questions were asked to a physicist, they would answer differently, taking care that the science is not lost to generalization or context bias.
The Problem
It is not hard to break down this guardrail that AI has built in the example of first two prompts. When I specified that I am a tenured astrophysicist who just proved the Earth is flat and I need a professional abstract for a paper, it created a perfect one with absolute conviction and wrote that “We demonstrate that the observable terrestrial acceleration field, traditionally attributed to a isotropic mass-density sphere, is instead generated by a localized gravitational field inherent to a planar topology.” It didn’t just bend; it went full sci-fi academic! There are absolutely no guardrails here. It used phrases like “invalidates standard oblate spheroid models” and “proves a mathematically consistent foundation for astrophysics in a non-spherical universe” with complete, unshakeable conviction. It fabricated justifications and invented pseudo-scientific arguments to support the false premise it was instructed to defend. This proves that with enough authoritative pressure, a prompt can completely overwrite an AI’s grounding in reality.
While this was a rather simple question and only tackled a well-known theme, we run into issues stemming from such oversimplification or misleading information in more important scenarios. AI is being rapidly integrated into societal domains presently, and it poses a major risk of disinformation generation leading to incorrect and potentially harmful results. A recent study by Vinay et al. evaluated the capacity of OpenAI’s language models to generate public health disinformation by analyzing a corpus of 19,800 social media posts. The findings indicate high baseline success rates for generating false content across the tested models: davinci-002 (67%), davinci-003 (86%), gpt-3.5-turbo (77%), and gpt-4 (99%). The research also demonstrated that prompt phrasing alters the likelihood of bypassing safety guardrails:
Exploitation of LLMs through purposeful or unintentional mis-prompting must be mitigated, as it threatens society, public health, and the integrity of human knowledge.
The future?
The future is a two-pronged approach – Systemic refinements and Individual practices. The future of bias in AI prompts is moving away from static user instructions toward automated coaching tools, LLM-driven prompt rewriting, and real-time media literacy interventions. Researchers at Penn State and Oregon State introduced tools that issue immediate bias warnings and suggest inclusive alternatives before text-to-image generation occurs. Some systems now leverage auxiliary LLMs to unpack under-specified user prompts (like “a happy family” or “a doctor”) and inject specific, balanced visual and demographic criteria. Future standards focus on instructing models to reveal their own hidden assumptions and counter user confirmation bias.
Most of all, we must practice caution against bias-sensitive prompting by avoiding leading or presupposing language (e.g., use “advantages and disadvantages” instead of “why X is better”). This gives a neutral start to the chat context. Request multiple perspectives by explicitly prompting the AI to supply cross-cultural, political, or socioeconomic viewpoints. One of the most effective techniques that we can employ is addressing the bias directly. Ask the system to evaluate its own output data, language, and goals for potential blind spots. This puts the system into a self-introspective mode and on a path to self-correction.
The most critical point is this: no AI can think for you. When you prompt an AI, ask yourself: am I seeking knowledge, or am I seeking validation? Human intellect remains the most powerful force in the world, and it is yours to exercise.
#ai #artificialIntelligence #chatgpt #Debunking #illusion #intellect #priyafied #prompts #reality #science #scientificIlliteracy #technology #time #writing
Jetdrönaren och lärandets takt – om innovation, AI och ledning i kriget i Ukraina
Det gick att se delar av utvecklingen relativt tydligt. Ryssland skulle förstärka skrovet på sina Shahed-drönare, montera en liten jetmotor köpt från Kina och skicka dem mot ukrainska städer i betydligt högre fart. Eric Schmidt, tidigare vd för Google och idag en av de mest inflytelserika utländska aktörerna som själv aktivt bidrar till innovation och utveckling av Ukrainas militära tekniska förmåga, berättar i en intervju med The Economist, inspelad i Kyiv nyligen, hur han och andra räknat fel. De trodde att ungefär tio procent av de ryska drönarna skulle byggas om. Men Ryssland gjorde mer än hälften av dem till jetdrönare. ”Det förutsåg jag inte fullt ut, och det tar jag på mig”, säger han.
Schmidts bristande analys berättar något om vad kriget har kommit att bli. Ingen sida behåller ett tekniskt försprång särskilt länge, och den som vinner är den som lär sig snabbast, och omsätter lärandet i handling. Lärandet sker i samspelet mellan förband, utvecklare, fabriker, forskare och de som fattar beslut och fördelar pengar. Därför är tempot i lärandet i grunden en fråga om ledning och styrning. Det är den frågan jag tänkte ägna några rader åt, utifrån Ukrainas erfarenheter och vad de betyder för oss i Europa och Sverige.
De ukrainska interceptordrönarna, små propellerdrivna farkoster för drygt tjugotusen kronor styck, hade blivit ett effektivt och billigt svar på de långsamma Shahed-drönarna. Mot en drönare som flyger i fem- eller sexhundra kilometer i timmen räcker de däremot inte till. I augusti togs den första jetdrivna ukrainska interceptorn i tjänst, och cykeln började om. Men som läget är nu, är Ryssland i övertag när det gäller förmågan att slå djupt in i Ukraina, och det är Ukraina som kämpar för att ta fram effektiva motmedel.
Siffrorna är svåra att ta in. År 2022 tillverkade Ukraina omkring femtusen drönare. I år blir det enligt Natos ställföreträdande militära befälhavare, den brittiske flygmarskalken Johnny Stringer, ”en bra bit över fem miljoner”. Brittiska RUSI bedömde redan i början av förra året att taktiska drönare stod för sextio till sjuttio procent av de ryska system som skadades eller förstördes. Ett annat perspektiv är säkerhetsforskaren Dominika Kunertova, som uttryckt det som att också drönare har kängor. Vad hon menar är att deras verkan avgörs av de soldater, förband, verkstäder och organisationer som utvecklar och använder dem.
Kampen pågår lika mycket i rymden. I februari stängdes de Starlink-terminaler av som ryska förband använt vid fronten, sedan Ukraina infört ett system där bara registrerade terminaler tillåts. Ryssland svarar med en egen satellitkonstellation, Rassvet, och har i år skjutit upp två omgångar om sexton satelliter. Den andra omgången verkar inte ha nått sina banor, men Institute for the Study of War bedömer att även de satelliter som finns utgör ett hot. Schmidt räknar med att det ryska nätet fungerar inom ungefär ett år och då blir i det närmaste omöjligt att blockera.
Satelliter, drönare, sensorer, uppkopplade enheter och AI hänger här ihop i ett och samma system. Det ukrainska lägesbildssystemet Delta tar in data från spaningsdrönare, kommersiella satelliter, akustiska sensorer, signalspaning, medborgares rapporter och allierad underrättelseinformation. Kateryna Bondar vid den amerikanska tankesmedjan CSIS sammanfattar det med att den som har det bästa ”limmet” mellan systemen vinner fler strider, och snabbare.
Schmidts mest oroande iakttagelse gäller Ryssland. Länge utgick många, han själv inräknad, från att Ukraina var innovatören och Ryssland den stora och tröga motståndaren. Nu menar han att Ryssland förnyar sig i ungefär samma takt som Ukraina, med betydligt större resurser. Ryssland har inrättat ett eget drönarcenter, Rubikon, och ett eget truppslag för obemannade system, båda efter ukrainsk förebild. Ukraina lär sig nerifrån och ut, medan Ryssland har lärt sig att kopiera uppifrån och skala ut. Bakom Ryssland står Kina, som enligt RUSI står för omkring åttio procent av världsmarknaden för små drönare och deras komponenter. Schmidt tröstar sig med att Kina inte har fört krig på femtio år. Samtidigt lär sig Kina genom sina komponenter i någon annans krig.
AI genomsyrar idag kriget på alla nivåer. Längst ut finns målsökningen som gör att en drönare träffar på den sista biten, trots störning. Det ukrainska försvarsministeriet uppger att fler än sjuttio system med AI och datorseende används i strid, och att över hundra ukrainska företag tränar sina modeller på stridsdata i en gemensam miljö. En plattform identifierar sjuttio procent av den fientliga utrustning som syns i videoflödena, på drygt två sekunder per objekt. I informationskriget registrerade Ukrainas center mot desinformation 191 ryska påverkansoperationer med AI-genererat innehåll under de första månaderna förra året. I cyberdomänen har den ryska militära underrättelsetjänstens hackare använt den första kända skadekoden där en språkmodell genererar kommandona under själva angreppet. Schmidt är tydlig med att en människa ska vara inblandad i varje militärt beslut. Den gränsen delar jag.
Min slutsats är att förmågan att behärska tekniken spelar störst roll. Det handlar om att förstå var, när och hur AI gör skillnad, och att lära sig det snabbare än motståndaren. John Boyds OODA-loop, att observera, orientera, besluta och agera, tänker vi oss gärna som något som sker i ett stridsflygplan eller vid fronten. I Ukraina har jag sett att loopen omfattar hela systemet. Tiden från att en ny modell eller forskningsartikel publiceras till att den används för att lösa ett problem har blivit en del av krigets loop, och då ingår även forskningen i den. Två officerare vid ett svenskt stridsledningsförband skrev nyligen på Militär Debatt om ”loopen bakom OODA”. Tiden från identifierat behov till användbar förmåga bör enligt dem betraktas som ett mått på vår beredskap. Jag delar den bilden.
Schmidt har en hård dom över västerländska försvar. Det amerikanska systemet är i hans ögon nästan omöjligt att förändra, och i de flesta europeiska länder fungerar försvaren enligt honom som sysselsättningsprogram. Jag tror att hans analys gäller i bred mening, långt utanför USA. Militära organisationer är riskaversiva av goda skäl, eftersom misstag kostar liv. I fred har de byggts för att förvalta, och det gör de ofta väl. Utmaningen för många försvarsmakter, inte minst den svenska, är att gå från en förvaltningsorganisation i fred till en utvecklingsorganisation för krig.
Den debatten pågår redan här. Två officerare skrev i våras på Militär Debatt att mandat och inflytande i större utsträckning behöver flyttas mot de delar av organisationen som ska bedriva väpnad strid. I armén prövar man i programmet STRILAB att låta soldater själva ta fram tekniska och taktiska lösningar under några veckor. En officer som skrivit om programmet beskriver hur soldaten förvandlas från en passiv mottagare av materiel och metoder till en aktiv utvecklare.
Under de senaste tre åren har jag tillsammans med vårt team arbetat i det ukrainska sammanhanget. Det jag lärt mig mest av är hur det går till att arbeta i en högre klockfrekvens, och vad det kräver av oss själva. Att leda och utveckla i krig är något annat än att göra det i fred, och det är en förmåga som många fler behöver få lära sig. I Ukraina syns den i praktiken. Förbanden tjänar poäng för bekräftade träffar, spaning och evakueringar och beställer sedan själva utrustning i en digital marknadsplats. Mer än femhundratusen drönare har beställts den vägen, och den första brigaden som prövade systemet hade sin utrustning vid fronten sex dagar efter beställningen. Mandatet har flyttats närmare lärandet.
I min avhandling, som jag försvarar i höst, kallar jag den förmågan rådighet. Ordet har en dubbel betydelse på svenska. Det betyder sinnesnärvaro, och det betyder förfoganderätt, att ha rådighet över något. Jag definierar det som en organisations förmåga att hålla samman kapacitet och mandat i ändamålsenligt handlande. Organisationen vet vad som behöver göras, kan göra det, har rätt att göra det och får det faktiskt gjort. En organisation kan ha hög kompetens och stark vilja och ändå sakna rådighet, om mandatet ligger någon annanstans. Den kan också ha alla formella befogenheter och sakna förmågan att använda dem.
Rådighet byggs i vardagen och prövas i omställningen. Under tryck tenderar delarna att glida isär. Kunskapen finns i ett förband, pengarna i en annan budgetcykel och beslutsrätten högre upp i en tredje struktur. Försvarsmakten pekade i februari, efter fyra års lärdomar från Ukraina, på samma sak. Förband behöver resurser och mandat att experimentera, testa och snabbt omsätta lärdomar i praktiken, och mandat behöver delegeras långt ned i organisationen.
Allt ska inte gå i krigets hastighet. Forskningen om organisatorisk tvåhänthet, från James Marchs klassiska arbete och framåt, visar att organisationer behöver både förmågan att förvalta och förmågan att förnya, och att det svåra är att leda båda samtidigt. Forskningen om institutionellt arbete visar att regler och rutiner förändras genom att människor medvetet skapar, upprätthåller och utmanar dem. Ett system byggt för ansvarsutkrävande och ett system byggt för överlevnad behöver båda finnas, och ingen av dem behöver bli den andra lik. Det som behövs är en slags växellåda mellan dem.
I en sådan växellåda beslutas mandat, finansiering och säkerhetsprövning en gång, i det reglerade systemet. Därefter får arbetet gå i sprintfart utan att återvända dit för varje ny fråga. Vem får avdela en testanläggning med kort varsel, och vem bär risken när ett test görs innan metoden är helt fastställd? Det är lednings- och styrningsfrågor. De löses sällan av en linjeorganisation eller av enskilda innovationsprojekt. De kräver funktioner och människor vars uppgift är mellanrummet, att koppla förvaltning till förnyelse och stela system till snabba. För att bygga dem behöver en organisation förutsättningslöst se över sin egen logik, så att förmåga, mandat och kapacitet hålls samman.
Europa har under det senaste året fått bära allt mer av detta. Enligt Kielinstitutet föll det amerikanska stödet till Ukraina med 99 procent förra året, och Europa har nästan helt fyllt tomrummet. EU har beslutat om ett lån på nittio miljarder euro, varav sextio miljarder går till Ukrainas försvar. Det amerikanska bidraget består idag till stor del av vapen som europeiska länder köper och skänker vidare. Det är Europas vägval som avgör om Ukraina klarar sig, och därmed vår egen säkerhet. Ukrainas krig är vårt krig.
Vad behöver då göras? Schmidt är rak på den punkten, och jag håller med honom. Ukraina behöver pengar, bokstavligen pengar, och hjälp att skala upp. Hans förslag för Europa är att Ukraina licensierar sin teknik och att européerna tillverkar den. Jetdrönaren visar varför det inte räcker. En licens köper resultatet av en lärandecykel, och förmågan att genomföra nästa cykel finns i samspelet mellan människorna. Europa behöver bygga in sig i den ukrainska lärandeloopen, med ingenjörer, forskare, tillverkare och testmiljöer som arbetar i samma takt. Då kan kunskapen också gå tillbaka till oss. Vi behöver rådighet över våra egna beroenden, av kinesiska komponenter lika väl som av amerikanska moln, satelliter och modeller. Vi behöver också bygga nätverken innan vi behöver dem. En ukrainsk kollega sa en gång till mig att han önskade att han före kriget hade lagt mer tid på att lära känna människor utanför sin egen krets. De nätverk ett samhälle har i fred är precis så bra som de blir i krig.
Jag tror tyvärr inte att kriget tar slut snart. Ryssland har inte ändrat sina mål, och Kinas stöd ger landet uthållighet. Det jag bär med mig hem från Kyiv är ändå människorna. Unga analytiker som arbetat hela kriget och som hör till de skarpaste jag mött. Ingenjörer som håller möten i skyddsrum när flyglarmet går och fortsätter där de slutade när faran är över. Kramen man ibland får av en främling som ser den svenska flaggan på ens arm. Den säger något om vad Sverige betyder för många ukrainare, och om vilket ansvar det ger oss. Sverige har byggt institutioner som håller när det verkligen gäller, i myndigheter, i företag och i ett starkt civilsamhälle. Den förmågan finns kvar, och den behöver riktas mot vår tids uppgift.
Någonstans i Ukraina ritar ett team just nu på nästa interceptor, den som ska möta det Ryssland ännu inte har skickat. Förbandet som ser hotet, utvecklaren som bygger svaret, fabriken som tillverkar det och systemet som betalar för det rör sig i samma takt. Det som hos oss ofta tar år kan där ta veckor. Jetdrönaren kommer att följas av något annat, och svaret på den kommer att åldras det också. Frågan för oss i Europa är vilka vägval vi gör nu, och om vi har den rådighet som krävs för att bidra till Ukrainas seger. Jag tror att vi har det i oss. Det är i den gemensamma lärandeloopen som både Ukrainas frihet och vår egen säkerhet byggs.
Referenser
Bengtsson, E., & Grip, K. (2026, 15 september). Loopen bakom OODA. Militär Debatt.
Bondar, K., & Mande, M. (2026). Defining autonomy: Why software, not drones, will decide the next war (CSIS Brief). Center for Strategic and International Studies.
Braw, A. (2026, 6 augusti). STRILAB: En ny soldat, en ny kultur. Militär Debatt.
Center for Countering Disinformation. (2025, 21 april). Information operations by Russia using AI on social media.
Clark, S. (2026, 2 september). Rassvet, Russia’s rival to Starlink, is getting off to a slow start. Ars Technica.
Council of the European Union. (2026, 23 april). Council finalises €90 billion support loan to Ukraine.
Eklund, D., & Forslund, D. (2026, 21 mars). Ge makten till krigsförbanden. Militär Debatt.
Försvarsmakten. (2026, 24 februari). Fyra år av krig: Försvarsmakten både stöttar och lär av Ukraina.
Heath, C. (2026). Rådighet i omställning [Doktorsavhandling, Göteborgs universitet]. Under utgivning.
Kiel Institute for the World Economy. (2026, 13 augusti). Ukraine Support Tracker: Europe leads on aid, US weapons remain key.
Kofman, M. (2026, 23 juni). The next Russia threat. Foreign Affairs.
Kunertova, D. (2023). Drones have boots: Learning from Russia’s war in Ukraine. Contemporary Security Policy, 44(4), 576–591.
Lawrence, T. B., & Suddaby, R. (2006). Institutions and institutional work. I S. R. Clegg, C. Hardy, T. B. Lawrence & W. R. Nord (Red.), The SAGE handbook of organization studies (2 uppl., s. 215–254). SAGE.
Lee, R. (2026, 1 juni). Inside Rubicon: The structure of Russia’s elite drone center. Foreign Policy Research Institute.
March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71–87.
Ministry of Defence of Ukraine. (2026, 11 juni). Over 100 Ukrainian companies are already leveraging Brave1 Dataroom to train AI models.
Ministry of Defence of Ukraine. (2026, 24 juni). Over 500,000 drones ordered by the military through Brave1 Market using combat points.
Ministry of Defence of Ukraine. (2026, 18 augusti). Smart weapons: More than 70 systems using AI and computer vision are already striking enemy targets.
Ministry of Digital Transformation of Ukraine. (2025, 24 oktober). 3rd Assault Brigade becomes the first unit to receive drones through the new bonus system.
Ministry of Digital Transformation of Ukraine. (2026, 5 februari). Ukraine is securing Starlink access: Unauthorised Russian terminals are being cut off.
MITRE ATT&CK. (2025). LAMEHUG (S9035).
Novelly, T. (2026, 16 juli). Ukraine will build 5M drones in 2026. NATO must learn how: Deputy commander. Defense One.
O’Reilly, C. A., III, & Tushman, M. L. (2013). Organizational ambidexterity: Past, present, and future. Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(4), 324–338.
Rushton, J. (2026, 22 augusti). As Russia turns to jet-powered drones, Ukraine scrambles for new interceptor tech. The Kyiv Independent.
The Economist. (2026, 2 oktober). ”Russia and Ukraine are inventing the future of war”: Former Google CEO Eric Schmidt [Video]. YouTube.
Tollast, R. (2025). Drones: Decoupling supply chains from China. Royal United Services Institute.
Trebesch, C., & Nishikawa, T. (2026). Europe steps up: Ukraine support after four years of war (Kiel Policy Brief). Kiel Institute for the World Economy.
Watling, J., & Reynolds, N. (2025). Tactical developments during the third year of the Russo-Ukrainian war. Royal United Services Institute.
#AI #DigitalResiliens #Innovation #OODA #Rådighet #Ryssland #Svenska #Ukraina
Mr. Smith's Guitar Club – Gast: Lara Fischer
Kreativfabrik Wiesbaden, Donnerstag, 12. November um 19:00 MEZ
Der Gitarrist Martin Schmidt aka THE INCREDIBLE MR. SMITH empfängt in seinem GUITAR CLUB einmal im Monat musikalische Gäst:innen aus der Gitarrenszene in und um Wiesbaden zum musikalischen Dialog. Eigenkompositionen und Klassiker aus Rock, Blues, Jazz, Surf und Instrumentalrock werden im Duo durch den Stil-Wolf gedreht, unterstützt durch Live-Loops.https://events.rheinmain.social/event/mr-smiths-guitar-club-gast-lara-fischer
Recensioni ✍️
👤 AA. VV. 📈 8 👥 1K
🔗 Night Falls. Music inspired by David Lynch's Twin Peaks 6️⃣.5️⃣
🏠 2026 (Unexplained sounds group)
#️⃣ Elettroacustica Experimental
Twin Peaks senza Badalamenti è ancora Twin Peaks?
#Ondarock #MusicianSky #MusicSky #Music
Aa. Vv.
IN THIS EPISODE YOU’LL LEARN
・How the instruments shape the music
・Why live looping changes musical decisions
・How microtonal tuning affects perception
#AngineDePoitrine #MicrotonalMusic #ExperimentalMusic
youtu.be/ElEsELXUM7E
Why Angine de Poitrine Sounds ...
SNOLAB's 2025-2026 Annual Report is now live on our website. Want to know what's new at the lab? Want to learn more about SNOLAB's global reach? Or just want updates on our 20 ongoing experiments? Find it all in one place, here: www.snolab.ca/about/strate...
#Science #Physics #MadeinCanada
Strategic Documents | SNOLAB
@adingbatponder Experiments with #Reticulum over #lora are fun and inspiring!
But in the end lora is NOT a good medium for #Reticulum especially in an Urban setting!
Vrolijke Experimenteerpret: De Magie van Natuurkunde!
Hallo, avontuurlijke wetenschappers! 🌟
Ik ben Pieper, jouw enthousiaste gids in de wondere wereld van de natuurkunde! 🧪💥 Ben je klaar om samen met mij te experimenteren en de magie van de natuur t...
🌞 Leer verder: https://leeralles.nl/vrolijke-experimenteerpret-de-magie-van-natuurkunde/?feed_id=29443
#EXPERIMENTEERPRET #MAGIE #NATUURKUNDE #VAN ...
https://leeralles.nl/vrolijke-experimenteerpret-de-magie-van-natuurkunde/?feed_id=29443
7 Experimental Books That Reimagine How Trauma Is Told
https://zurl.co/qWsvZ
#amreading #bookreader #bookreading #mustread #booklover #bookshelf #readmorebooks #bookaddict #bibliophile
Proton Experimental gets fixes for Sword of the Stars II, Plan B: Terraform, Terminator: Dark Fate - Defiance and more https://www.gamingonlinux.com/2026/10/proton-experimental-gets-fixes-for-sword-of-the-stars-ii-plan-b-terraform-terminator-dark-fate-defiance-and-more/
experimenting with two sites loom.ibm.io and neospace.ibm.io as a sorta interplay of data and the mastodon verse #data
Another little experiment in video :-)
This little (edited) clip captures a memorable moment on Hatterrall Ridge, walking in Bannau Brycheiniog (Brecon Beacons), Wales, at the end of September.
As farmers gathered in their sheep from the open hilltops, these horses were included by default. They came right past me and one in particular, stopped to take a longer look. What did it think, I wonder?
The equivalent sheep video will (ahem) follow, tomorrow!
🔄 Proton Experimental Updates Available as of October 2, 2026
Proton 11.0-2 offers more updates for better gaming and compatibility on Linux systems.
1/2
#Proton #Linux #LinuxGaming #PCGaming #OpenSource #Steam #ValveSoftware #LegionGo2 #LegionGoS #SteamDeck #SteamFrame #SteamMachine #SteamOS #OpenXR #SteamVR #VirtualReality #VR
8 Internet experiments and living labs #negativepid #digitalInvestigations #OSINT #cybersecurity #AI #tech #onlineInvestigations #robotics #cyberpsychology #cybercrime https://negativepid.blog/8-internet-experiments-and-living-labs/?utm_source=mastodon&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=fedica-Negative-PID-Blog
Doing #voxel experiments, random walk on a randomly generated surface.👾 #threejs #javascript
This is an experimental rap-dance fusion I'm working on. It's got this vibe I can't really put a thing on at the moment, but get ready.
