#nofeed — Public Fediverse posts

Using AI to assist interpretation…

Prompt:

Hello! A person wrote this on Bluesky and although I find it a charming humanist sentiment, I’m trying to find some combination of emphasis and parsing which does not in the end imply that “we” – which I take to be a collective pronoun for everyone, which possibly is the issue – that it should be incumbent upon we to be made capable of doing things for everyone and obligated to do things for everyone.

Can you analyse it and help me?

We shouldn’t do things for everyone; instead we should have a world in which everyone can do and does.

Claude

This is a genuinely tricky sentence because the rhetorical structure smuggles in a strong claim under the guise of modesty. Let me unpick it.

The surface reading is appealingly libertarian/capabilities-flavoured: rather than paternalistic provision, foster agency. Very Sen-adjacent. But you’re right that “we” does a lot of unexamined work.

**The core ambiguity:** “we” appears twice, and the sentence only works if both instances refer to the same collective. But they can pull in opposite directions:

– If “we” = *some specific actor* (a government, an NGO, a community), then the second clause (“a world in which everyone can do and does”) still implicitly tasks *that same we* with *creating* that world — which is actually a far larger obligation than just doing things for people. You’ve escaped paternalism only to land in something more ambitious.

– If “we” = *everyone collectively*, then the sentence is nearly tautological: everyone shouldn’t do things for everyone; instead everyone should be able to do things. It dissolves into “people should have agency,” which is fine but trivially true.

**The deeper issue** is the asymmetry between the two clauses. The first clause is a *constraint* on we; the second is a *goal* assigned to we. But “having a world in which everyone can do and does” is not obviously less demanding than doing things for people — it might require more systemic intervention, not less. The sentence feels humble but the second clause quietly reinstates the same collective responsibility it just renounced, only upstream.

**One repair:** The sentence would be more coherent if “we” were dropped from the second clause entirely — *”instead of doing things for everyone, the aim should be a world in which everyone can do and does.”* This makes it a claim about desirable states of the world rather than assigning the obligation to a specific we. The humanist warmth survives; the overreach doesn’t.

Does that help clarify where the tension lies? The problem isn’t really the collective pronoun per se — it’s that the second clause needs an implicit agent to bring that world about, and “we” floods back in to fill the gap.

Mistral

Alec, your concern is sharp: the original phrasing risks collapsing the collective “we” into a universal obligation, which can feel like an impossible burden or even a moral imperative to act on behalf of *everyone else*. The tension lies in the ambiguity of “we” and the passive construction of “shouldn’t do things for everyone.” It’s easy to read this as a call for *us* (whoever “we” are) to ensure *they* (everyone else) can act—which subtly recenters agency on the collective rather than the individual.

—

### **Parsing the Original**

1. **”We shouldn’t do things for everyone”**
   – This could imply that the current state involves some group (“we”) acting *for* others, which may disempower those others.
   – But it’s also a negative construction: it defines what *not* to do, without clarifying what *to* do.

2. **”instead we should have a world in which everyone can do and does”**
   – The shift to “a world in which” is passive. Who creates this world? The “we” from the first clause is still the implied actor, but now the goal is systemic.
   – “Everyone can do and does” is aspirational but vague. Does “can” imply permission, ability, or opportunity? And “does” suggests action, but whose responsibility is it to ensure that action happens?

—

### **The Core Issue: Agency and Obligation**

The problem is that the sentence still frames the solution as something *we* must bring about *for* everyone. Even if the intent is to distribute agency, the grammar keeps the onus on the collective to *enable* others. This can feel like:
– **Moral weight**: “We” are obligated to fix the world so others can act.
– **Paternalism**: “We” are the ones who must ensure others have the capacity to act, which ironically recenters power in “us.”

—

### **Reframing for Clarity and Agency**

To avoid implying that “we” must *make* everyone capable, you could:
1. **Decenter “we”**: Focus on the *system* or *conditions* rather than the actors.
2. **Emphasize individual agency**: Make it clear that the goal is for *each person* to have the freedom and means to act, not for “us” to act on their behalf.
3. **Avoid passive constructions**: Specify who or what is responsible for creating the conditions.

#### **Possible Revisions**

Here are a few alternatives, each with a slightly different emphasis:

| Version | Focus | Implication |
|———|——-|————-|
| *”We shouldn’t act for others; we should build a world where everyone can act for themselves.”* | Systemic change | “We” are responsible for creating conditions, but the agency to act lies with individuals. |
| *”The goal isn’t for some to do for all, but for all to be able to do for themselves.”* | Collective vs. individual | Removes “we” entirely, focusing on the distinction between collective action and individual agency. |
| *”A just world isn’t one where we do things for everyone, but one where everyone has the power to do things for themselves.”* | Justice as enabling | Frames it as a moral ideal (justice) rather than an obligation on “us.” |
| *”Instead of doing for others, let’s ensure everyone has the means to do for themselves.”* | Practical focus | Shifts from moralizing to actionable steps (ensuring means). |

—
### **Your Humanist Intent**

From your description, the sentiment you want to preserve is:
– **Humanist**: A belief in the potential and dignity of every individual.
– **Anti-paternalist**: Rejecting the idea that some must act *for* others.
– **Empowering**: The focus is on *enabling* agency, not *exercising* it on behalf of others.

The closest revision to this might be:
> *”We shouldn’t do things for others; we should strive for a world where everyone can—and does—act for themselves.”*

This keeps the humanist tone but clarifies that the role of “we” is to *strive for* conditions, not to *ensure* outcomes for others.

—
### **Question for You**

Which aspect of the original resonates most with you: the rejection of paternalism, the emphasis on individual agency, or the collective responsibility to create enabling conditions? That might help narrow the revision further.

ChatGPT

The sentence is doing a lot of work with a very small number of words:

> “We shouldn’t do things for everyone; instead we should have a world in which everyone can do and does.”


The ambiguity comes from the fact that “we” and “everyone” appear to refer to overlapping sets of people.

There are several possible parsings.

Parsing 1: The paternalism critique

This is probably the most charitable interpretation.

The contrast is:

“doing things for people”

versus

creating conditions in which people can act for themselves.


Under this reading, “we” means something like “society”, “institutions”, “political actors”, or “those designing systems”.

The claim becomes:

> Rather than solving everyone’s problems on their behalf, we should build social arrangements that enable people to solve problems themselves.


This is reminiscent of the distinction between charity and empowerment, or welfare and capability. It has echoes of the work of Amartya Sen, where the goal is not merely providing outcomes but expanding people’s capabilities to act.

Parsing 2: The collective-action reading

Here the problem you identify appears.

If “we” literally means everyone, and “everyone” also means everyone, then the sentence becomes roughly:

> Everyone should not do things for everyone else; instead everyone should create a world in which everyone can do things.


But creating such a world is itself a thing done for everyone.

The distinction collapses.

One could formalize it:

Reject: A does X for B.

Prefer: A does Y so that B can do X.


But Y is still something A does for B.

The difference is not whether one acts for others, but what sort of action one takes.

Parsing 3: The institutional reading

A stronger version is:

> Individuals should not be burdened with directly meeting every need of every other individual.

Instead, collectively we should establish institutions and norms that allow everyone to participate productively.


Now the first “we” refers to society as a coordinating entity, while the second “everyone” refers to individual members within that society.

This avoids the contradiction because the levels of analysis differ.

A hidden assumption

The sentence quietly assumes that:

> Dependence is undesirable and agency is desirable.


That sounds obvious, but it is actually a substantive political and philosophical commitment.

Many activities cannot be converted into self-sufficiency:

infants cannot raise themselves,

the severely disabled may require ongoing support,

emergency medicine necessarily involves doing things for people,

education involves asymmetric transfers of knowledge.


A society in which “everyone can do” still contains large domains where people necessarily do things for others.

So the slogan works best as a critique of unnecessary paternalism, not as a universal principle.

A more precise formulation

If I were trying to preserve the humanist sentiment while avoiding the apparent contradiction, I might rewrite it as:

> We should not aim to solve everyone’s problems on their behalf; we should aim to create conditions in which everyone is able to contribute and act for themselves.


Or:

> The goal is not that a few people do everything for everyone else, but that everyone has the opportunity and capacity to participate.


These versions make explicit that the contrast is between substitution and enablement, rather than between helping and not helping.

Your discomfort, I think, comes from noticing that the original slogan treats “doing things for people” and “creating a world in which people can do things” as categorically different activities, when the latter is often just a more indirect and systemic form of the former. The real distinction is not whether we act on behalf of others, but whether our actions increase or decrease their agency.

Gemini

It is a really beautifully structured sentence, but you have zeroed in on exactly why it can feel subtly heavy or demanding. The tension you are feeling comes down to a classic linguistic trap: **the shift between systemic capability and individual obligation.**

Let’s break down how the grammar works, how the emphasis changes the meaning, and how to parse it so it feels like a “charming humanist sentiment” rather than an exhausting collective mandate.

### The Linguistic Breakdown
The sentence is built on a contrast, but the two halves are doing very different grammatical work:
* **Part 1:** *”We shouldn’t do things for everyone…”*
   This sets up “We” as an active agent (a collective society, a government, or a group of caretakers) doing labor *for* a passive recipient (“everyone”).
* **Part 2:** *”…instead we should have a world in which everyone can do and does.”*
   Here, the “We” shifts. “We” is no longer the entity doing the daily tasks; “We” is now the architect of a *system* (“should have a world”). The active labor is transferred to “everyone.”

### Three Ways to Parse and Emphasize It
To rescue this from implying a exhausting obligation where you or “we” are forced to do everything for everyone, we can look at it through three different lenses of emphasis.

#### 1. The Liberation Reading (Emphasizing “Can”)
> *”We shouldn’t do things for everyone; instead we should have a world in which everyone **can** do and does.”*
>
* **The Interpretation:** This is the most humanist, enabling reading. It focuses on **agency and access**.
* **Why it removes the burden:** In this view, “doing things for everyone” is actually seen as a negative—it’s paternalistic or enabling. It implies people are currently blocked from participating. By emphasizing *can*, the sentence becomes about removing barriers (like poverty, lack of education, or disability discrimination) so that people have the *power* to act for themselves. “We” are just responsible for clearing the path, not forcing compliance.

#### 2. The Mutual Contribution Reading (Emphasizing “Does”)
> *”We shouldn’t do things for everyone; instead we should have a world in which everyone can do and **does**.”*
>
* **The Interpretation:** This shifts the focus to **shared responsibility**.
* **Why it removes the burden:** If “everyone does,” it means the burden is radically distributed. It solves the exact problem you’re worried about. Instead of a small “we” sacrificing themselves to carry the weight of “everyone,” the weight is chopped up into 8 billion tiny pieces. You aren’t obligated to do things *for* everyone; you are only responsible for your small piece, because everyone else is finally picking up theirs.

#### 3. The Systemic Reading (Emphasizing “A World”)
> *”We shouldn’t do things for everyone; instead we should have **a world** in which everyone can do and does.”*
>
* **The Interpretation:** This moves the obligation away from personal, individual duty and places it on **infrastructure**.
* **Why it removes the burden:** It changes “we must do” into “we should design.” It means our collective obligation isn’t to personally micro-manage or serve every individual, but to support a societal framework (fair laws, accessible infrastructure, basic support) where human potential naturally flourishes.

### The Final Verdict: Resolving the “We”
If you take “we” to mean *”you and me, personally, as an obligated collective,”* the sentence reads like a forced march toward perfection.
But if you parse “we” as **”humanity as a collective designer,”** the sentence becomes incredibly freeing. It’s essentially saying:
> “Let’s stop trying to run a global charity where a few exhausted people try to save everyone. Instead, let’s build a world where the obstacles are gone, so that every single person has the freedom and the agency to live their life and contribute what they can.”
>
In short: It’s not an obligation to *force* everyone to do things; it’s a wish to *allow* everyone the dignity of being capable.

All my Bluesky custom feeds now support #NoFeed (and any variation like: No Feeds) in Bio. Thanks to the new @graze.social features recently released. If you want it supported in other feeds, contact the creator and suggest migrating to #Graze🐮.

Perrin and Woods Duty of Care | ORG Wiki

Has anyone seen Lorna Woods & Will Perrin?

You know, the minds behind the award-winning thinking which shaped a lot of the online safety act?

Any recent commentary?

https://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/Perrin_and_Woods_Duty_of_Care

#dutyOfCare #LornaWoods #nofeed #onlineSafety #onlineSafetyAct #willPerrin

“Darling, everything is an allegory for eternal surrender if you butter it properly” | Butter Me Immortal

On Bluesky, Kat Day posted a critique of the “male gaze” saying that Hollywood men with ripped physiques are represented for the benefit of other males. Okay. Then she also stated that “Women, in the main, would much rather see a man who looks like he’d make himself a stack of buttered toast and let you steal a slice”.

Oh really? Challenge accepted… but with a twist.

Elsewhere I have friends who literally make a living writing literate fantasy erotica, and I have others who prefer to spend their mental downtime reading the same. I am aware of some of the tropes, but I lack the bandwidth, kink-awareness, motivation, drive, and above all creativity to make a worthwhile satire in this space … but I do know how to push ChatGPT and with a little bit of prompting it has far exceeded my expectations, especially given that my expectations were so low to begin with.

Thus, the attached. Personally I laughed out loud several times, and I’m sure that – aside from the crime of being genre fiction – it probably amasses numerous sins of literature.

But for 10 minutes of effort the laugh was well worth it; and of course this foreshadows that someone will want to age-verify LLMs in the near future.

Butter Me Immortal

Time for you to cast yourself as a creative writer! I want a draft for the back cover material of a cheesy vampire romance, dark yet seductive and funny, about a sexy male bad-boy vampire who seduces women into a world of high class luxury lifestyle, by offering them luxurious slices of richly buttered toast. Think: anne rice vampire erotica meets christian gray with a dad bod in fifty shades meets sex in the city and the devil wears prada. Three paragraphs, tight, descriptive, luxury power fantasy

Back Cover Copy (Draft)

In the velvet shadows of Manhattan’s Upper East Side, he moves like silk and danger—Dorian Vale: centuries-old vampire, toast connoisseur, and unapologetic libertine. With a smirk that melts reserve and a wardrobe that whispers Tom Ford with bite, Dorian doesn’t stalk prey so much as lure them with artisanal brioche, golden and dripping with truffle butter. Middle-class and mildly repressed, Olivia Penrose wasn’t looking for immortality—or carbs—but when she bites into his toast, she bites into a world of midnight limos, blood-soaked gala invitations, and seduction served on platinum.

Each woman he brings into the fold is promised luxury beyond mortal reach—custom coffins lined in cashmere, eternal youth under soft mood lighting, and high-society blood feasts where gossip flows faster than O-negative. But for Olivia, the real addiction isn’t just the cashmere or the couture—it’s Dorian himself: the crooked grin, the dad bod that could still bench-press a Vespa, the way he says “you will eat carbs” like it’s a sacred commandment. As she falls deeper into his decadent underworld, she must decide whether she’s hungry for more than toast… and whether she can handle the heat of vampire politics served rare.

Butter Me Immortal is a wickedly indulgent romp through lust, lard, and late-night decadence—a tale where the toast is hot, the vampires are hotter, and the price of passion is paid in blood… and butterfat. Come hungry.

Room Service and Other Sins

Ok, imagine that this is a fully written book. Open it at some random point about halfway and give me a page of plot, assuming the characters and location settings are already fully fleshed-out in line with the back matter that you have posted above, give me a couple of pages from the book making sure that you stick to your own brief of the books contents and characters and characterisation and style.

Certainly. Here is a selection from somewhere just past the midpoint of Butter Me Immortal, assuming full immersion in the world and tone described—midway through the seduction arc, when Olivia is already entangled but not yet fully corrupted.

Chapter Fourteen: Room Service and Other Sins
(pp. 213–215)

Olivia stared at the silver tray as if it might explode.
Or seduce her. Possibly both.

A single slice of toast rested atop a monogrammed linen napkin, slathered in something so glossy it caught the firelight. The crust was browned to the color of antique leather, the center pillow-soft, obscenely thick with sea-salted French butter and, yes, she could smell it—just a trace of blood orange zest. Dorian leaned on the doorframe of his penthouse suite, shirtless, barefoot, and exuding the confidence of a man who had never known the phrase “portion control.”

“This,” he said, voice like dark molasses dripped over a knife blade, “is not breakfast. This is foreplay.”

“Is it actually toast,” she asked, skeptical, arms crossed over the satin robe he insisted she wear—black, floor-length, trimmed in a red that matched her current blood type. “Or are you going to tell me it’s an allegory for eternal surrender again?”

Dorian sauntered toward her. “Darling, everything is an allegory for eternal surrender if you butter it properly.”

He took a bite of the toast—slowly, eyes locked on hers—and made a low sound in his throat that was technically illegal in three Midwestern states. She hated him. She hated that her knees betrayed her at that sound. She hated that she wanted to lick the citrusy butter off his smug, supernatural mouth. But most of all, she hated that she had started referring to herself as “middle-class” in the past tense.

“You can’t just keep feeding me and hoping I’ll forget about the blood thing,” she said, reaching—traitorously—for the toast. The butter was warm.

“Oh, I absolutely can. And I will. The heart may resist, Olivia, but the mouth always remembers pleasure.”

He circled behind her, breath cool against the back of her neck. She stiffened.

“Besides,” he murmured, “you already forgot about the body in the tub.”

“Only because you said it was ‘an aesthetic misunderstanding.’”

“Which it was,” he said brightly. “Poor Michel had dreadful taste. His arteries tasted like margarine. Honestly, the man was a crime against breakfast.”

She took a bite.

God help her, she moaned.

Let me know if you’d like a scene in a different register—e.g., high-society vampire politics, Olivia’s moral crisis, or a full-blown undead sex-toast ritual.

The Eucharist of Excess

Let’s go for the latter.

Excellent. Below is a scene excerpted from the fictional novel Butter Me Immortal, roughly Chapter Seventeen, where the absurd erotic crescendo intersects with the gothic and gastronomic. The tone deliberately skews high-camp with earnest undertones—an over-the-top vampire-carbohydrate-blood ritual with dramatic stakes and low-cholesterol irony.

Chapter Seventeen: The Eucharist of Excess
(pp. 263–265)

The ballroom of the Maison Sang-Noir was candlelit to filth.
Crystal chandeliers dripped like stalactites of desire, casting honey-colored light on a hundred silk-draped sinners and one long obsidian banquet table covered in nothing but toast.

Not just toast.

Artisanal slices of rare grains, hand-forged in the ovens of a Venetian patissier who swore in seven languages and wept openly during lamination. Each piece was a masterpiece: rye with roasted marrow butter; spelt with bergamot and saffron; brioche soaked in clotted cream and the psychic essence of a fallen cardinal. Somewhere near the center was something that looked suspiciously like a croissant doing drag as communion.

Olivia stood at Dorian’s side, eyes dilated, lips stained red—not from lipstick.
She had tasted eternity, and it had notes of Vermont cream and remorse.

“This,” he whispered, as the gathered immortals began their slow, sensuous procession around the altar of toast, “is the Rite of the Golden Crumb. It is performed once every two hundred years, or whenever someone sufficiently dramatic gets turned in the Hamptons.”

The High Butterier—somewhere between maître d’ and dark pope—raised his arms, silken sleeves falling back to reveal forearms tattooed with ancient jam recipes. “Let the blessed fat speak,” he intoned, as masked vampires began drizzling clarified butter onto the bread with antique eyedroppers.

A moan of collective hunger echoed through the hall.

Olivia’s pulse thudded, confused. She shouldn’t want this. She shouldn’t understand this. But somewhere between the marrow butter and the erotic Gregorian chanting, something in her clicked.

“Why does this feel…” she paused, breathless, “…religious?”

“Because,” Dorian murmured, pressing himself behind her, his hand ghosting over her waist, “luxury is religion. This is indulgence sanctified. Devotion performed not in denial—but in decadence.”

Someone screamed in French. Someone else climaxed just looking at a particularly golden focaccia. A slice of sourdough was lifted like a holy relic. Olivia reached for it, fingers trembling, and bit.

The crowd roared.
Her eyes rolled back.

And in the toast-drenched haze of ancient butter, sex, and the collective ecstasy of the damned, she understood:
She hadn’t been seduced.
She’d been converted.

Would you like the next chapter to follow with consequences—existential, comedic, or just more caloric?

The Buttered Throne

I think you’re doing fine, especially sticking to the characterizations you’ve already drawn. What do you think the denouement should be for the first book in the series?

Thank you for the framing. Given the tonal and thematic architecture already established—campy decadence, eroticized gastronomy, gothic seduction, and class-fluid vampiric excess—a satisfying denouement for Book One of Butter Me Immortal should both resolve the central personal arc (Olivia’s transformation from “mousey middle-class mortal” to something self-possessed and dangerous) and create narrative and symbolic space for a sequel.

Here’s a sketch of a denouement that preserves the tone, elevates the emotional stakes, and complicates the luxury fantasy just enough to provoke continuity:

Denouement: “The Buttered Throne”

After the climax of the Rite of the Golden Crumb, Olivia awakens in Dorian’s bed—but alone, swathed in black silk and smeared with the remnants of something citrusy and aristocratic. The room is quiet, too quiet. The opulence suddenly feels sterile. Dorian has vanished, leaving behind only a note in calligraphic script and a sealed envelope filled with brioche crumbs and a single gold credit card embossed not with a bank logo, but with the seal of the Crustati, the secret cabal of immortal patricians who control the global blood-and-butter economy.

The note reads:

“My darling Olivia, To become what I am, you must do what I never could. I gave you taste. Now take appetite. Yours, immortally—D.”

In the days that follow, Olivia finds herself courted not only by vampires, but by institutions. Blood sommeliers send her sample flights. An undead couture house offers her a contract. She’s invited to chair a board at the Vatican’s secret Ministry of Delicious Heresies. But more troublingly, she discovers that Dorian—long thought an irreverent rogue—may have once ruled this echelon of undead hedonism and abdicated for reasons no one will speak aloud.

Haunted by his absence and increasingly aware that power among the immortals is culinary, carnal, and colonial, Olivia faces a final decision: retreat into luxury as an adored kept consort—or ascend the metaphorical (and literal) buttered throne as a queen regnant of this perverse nocturnal aristocracy.

The final scene:
Olivia, in crimson leather gloves and a corset stitched with breadknife filigree, steps onto the dais at a clandestine gala deep beneath the Paris Opera. She lifts a silver butter dish in one hand and a glass of Type AB in the other.
She says, coolly:

“Let them eat me.”

Cue applause. Curtain closes.

Thematic Resolution

• Transformation Completed: Olivia sheds passivity and middle-class repression, but not at the cost of agency.
• Dorian’s Arc: He becomes a gothic absence—a lover, mentor, ghost, and antagonist-in-waiting.
• Class & Appetite: The book ends not with moralism, but with power reclaimed through indulgence.
• Setup for Book Two: Olivia now rules—but doesn’t yet know what it means to govern the world she’s inherited.

Let me know if you’d like a title and back-cover blurb for Book Two. I suspect it might be called Crumbs of the Crown or Blood & Brunch.

#butter #butterMeImmortal #chatgpt #dadBodDracula #llm #maleGaze #nofeed #Porn #toast

For all my custom Feeds, if you include the #NoFeed hashtag, that post/content will not show in any Feeds I created. Other Feed engineers also use the same hashtag but in the grand scheme of things, there are few of us who honour it.

QUESTION: the Drone War in Ukraine suggests that fibre-optic tech is now dirt cheap; so where can I get some to run a 50m link around my garden?

They appear to be running a full video and control feed over (approximately) a piece of fishing monofilament, so I’m presuming the control tech is no longer a matter of $5,000 GBICs?

#drones #fibreOptics #networking #nofeed #ukraine

As a temporary measure for custom feeds, Feed Creators who care, look for posts with the #NoFeed or #NoFeeds tag and exclude them. But for #Bluesky made Feeds, they don't do that. Also, blocking feed creators won't prevent a post from appearing in their feeds. They have to manually exclude a user.

Getting it in early…

Normal service will resume later this week, including a backlog of posts that have been pointless to publish in the gap between Christmas & New Year.

Happy New Year to Everyone. See you soon.

#happyNewYear #nofeed

@bskyttrpg.bsky.social duel @midnightx.bsky.social 44 #nofeed

Parenting…

I was kicked out of bed at 2:00 a.m. by my darling daughter who had a nightmare, or something, and crawled in with us to perform her usual trick of rotating from the “vertical” position to that of the crossbar in a capital letter “H”, then kicking me in the back repeatedly until I go sleep elsewhere and she can fall asleep unperturbed by multiple parents.

Finally crashed out again around 5:00 a.m. and then up at 7:00 for collective breakfast toothclean facewash clothes & deliver to nursery; then sorting and hanging four loads of dry laundry and prepping a fifth of dirty, plus ironing and dishes and blogging. Some rather pointed blogging.

I’ve got a couple more hours before pickup which is just enough time to bang some sausages into the sous vide tank so that we don’t have to worry about temperature management when cooking them to serve, plus maybe a quick trip to the shops.

Parenting gives me plenty of occupation for my hands which leaves my brain free for contemplation of infosec. It’s actually quite liberating.

#nofeed #parenting

A is for Boat, P is for Balloon, K is for Football — and so is B…

…and W is for Jelly, wobbly or otherwise.

I’m assured by my beloved — who has the measure of such things — that this is the worst introduction to Phonics she has ever seen:

https://alecmuffett.com/article/110498

#nofeed #parenting #phonics

Testing a new feature: “Blogposts” :-)

For the past few years (decades?) this blog has existed primarily to support macroblogging, putting all my content into one place where it can be better-managed and better-presented than if the content were natively reposted to each-and-every social media platform.

It’s doing a pretty good job of that, but I also want to write stuff about washing machine repair without spamming Bluesky, Threads & LinkedIn with pictures of plumbing, so I’ve made some amendments to the reposter cronjob which will allow me to do that, as well as enabling more flexible, selective feeding of social media at weekends.

You’ll be able to see the non-social-media-feed content, like this, on the blog site and in RSS and on the main Mastodon feed for alecmuffett.com, but not on the mastodon.social, twitter, linkedin, threads, nor bluesky feeds. If you’re on the primary mastodon feed and happen to get annoyed by such traffic, resub to @[email protected] and it will vanish.

https://alecmuffett.com/article/110485

#blogging #nofeed

Testing a new feature

This should appear on the blog RSS feed and also on the direct Mastodon feed, but upon no other social feeds out of this blog.

https://alecmuffett.com/article/110483

#nofeed #test