wednesday linkspam
Jan. 30th, 2019 10:13 pmFor as little as $29, this company promises to "brainwash" an individual person on Facebook. Whether or not the startup in question can effectively pull this off--and neither the author nor I am convinced--this is a really creepy fucking thing to see, and a good nudge to me to turn my adblockers back on. (Fuck, it's hard--I want to give certain places the benefit of the doubt and revenue, but at the same time, I don't like to be manipulated. The internet is very, very bad at working out what I might like, so I hope it's working.)
This piece on what it's like to be an internet advice columnist is pretty hilarious.
So is this list of "unparliamentary language" that NZ politicians have gotten penalized for using. And there's a Canadian edition here, too.
Still giggling at weird Puritan names, okay. Has-Descendants! Tace! Wrestling!
This Maia Szalavitz piece on media coverage of opiods is excellent. I really like her writing generally.
Remember when feral emus roamed Texas?
This reflection on the creation of the bisexual pride flag gave me a lot of feelings.
Man injects 18 doses of semen into arm to cure back pain. Spoiler: did not work.
Via
I have to wonder how important the specifically cortical structures are outside of a mammalian context, that's all. (I brought it to Metafilter, where a few other neuroscientists weighed in.)
no subject
Date: 2019-01-31 04:48 am (UTC)I will consider turning them off when the websites that host ads take some responsibility for hostile ads on their platform - when they pay medical bills for seizures caused by blinky ads, or pay to repair computers infested with malware from ads, or give refunds to the people who were caught by fraudulent ads. Currently, AFAIK, not a single web host that uses external ads is willing to accept liability for the damage those ads cause, so I feel no guilt whatsoever in blocking them all.
There's the secondary issue that the entire ad-funding thing is based on puffery and lies: ad makers are willing to pay for views/hits on the theory that eyeballs = money someday. Supporting this revenue stream only makes websites convinced that they need more advert money and not other funding options. It also convinces advertisers that they're doing something right ("Thousands of people are looking at our products! Some of them must be customers!") and they just need to find the right tweak to turn views into cash.
no subject
Date: 2019-01-31 06:05 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2019-01-31 05:40 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2019-02-01 07:17 pm (UTC)