I just can't fathom how any artist could possibly support proposals to expand the scope of copyright so that stylistically similar works can be held to infringe as a defence against AI art. The content ID algorithms of major media platforms are implemented in a way which already establishes a de facto presumption that the sum total of humanity's creative output is owned by approximately six major media corporations, placing the burden of proof on the individual artist to demonstrate otherwise, and they've managed to do this in a legislative environment in which only directly derivative works may infringe. Can you imagine what copyright strikes on YouTube would look like if the RIAA and its cronies were obliged merely to assert that your work exhibits stylistic similarity to literally any piece of content that they own? Do you imagine that Google wouldn't cheerfully help them do it?

Reminder that in 2008 Sci-Fi Channel mysteriously aired a version of Raiders of the Lost Ark that replaced one - just one - shot with CGI, and then it was never seen again or explained. This video is the only evidence this cut exists

It's not even the whole shot. They seem to have just made the cliff itself CGI. The Sci-Fi Channel: Goes into 1981's Raiders of the Lost Ark, replaces one cliff with CGI, refuses to elaborate, leaves

Remembering the accidentally aired Special Edition of Indiana Jones that no one has ever explained

I don't think this was hyped up as a Special Airing, as far as I know, they just randomly aired it, and changed nothing but this one shot, and it's never surfaced or been mentioned since. What was this? A test for Indy special editions? How did it get made and how did it end up airing

That's so weird.

Reminds me of how Netflix took the Voyager episode where the Kazon all meet and added trumpets and applause to it for no reason. They later removed it, but it was never explained who added it or why

源流 

"Normalize being a jaunty little frilly boy" sticker on the cash machine at the bar

I fucking hate internet funnyman “leftist” meme sites run by people who’ve never raised a finger to help people with housing insecurity that occasionally just say with their full chest that they don’t think elderly people should have constitutional rights. Elderly people are a notoriously vulnerable group for housing insecurity and acting like they’re all Mitch Mcconnell in disguise to justify advocating cruetly to them is no excuse

"Old people shouldnt get a vote bc its 'not their future'" is one of the voting takes I hate the most.

Not to mention, and don't misunderstand me here this is wrong no matter what age this is referring to, a lot of these people define "pretty much dead" as being like over 60.

YEP YEP YEP YEP YEP I FUCKING HATE THAT TOO. Especially heinous is that the elderly (which as you rightly pointed out some people think is like 60 years old) should forsake their present for other people’s future when republicans have been steadily destroying social services many seniors rely on for years

Not to mention that the unhoused population is aging significantly (due in part to aforementioned destruction of social services). According to researchers at ucsf, the percentage of unhoused adults, single adults without kids was 11% in 1990 and ~50% today. to make this headline about housing specifically is pretty gross. source

I work with the truly old. My patients are almost exclusively seventy and above. Most are eighties and above.

We see so many people hospitalized for malnutrition. We see so many people who are 70+ and either homeless in the most expected sense—living in streets and the woods, while pieces of their body rot away on them because they can’t afford medications they need—and those who are forced to stay in horrific living situations because they have no other options.

The impoverished elderly are one of THE most vulnerable groups because they tend to have very few people they can rely on in any way and they tend to be multiply disabled.

What does a homeless eighty year old do when they have a stroke? What does a homeless eighty year old do when they break a hip? When they develop a UTI because they don’t have access to enough water and sanitary ways to clean themselves, causing weakness and an altered mental state?

Often times, they die. They die miserable, horrible, preventable deaths. Those who live often never go back to the same level of independence they had before, cutting years off their life. Because what does a homeless person do after returning to a homeless life when they’ve had that stroke and they’ve been medically cleared?

So. You hate old people or whatever? Sorry you don’t like that rude guy in the checkout line and hate your aunt. These are real people who are incredibly vulnerable and nobody cares about.

🛸 .。.:*°　🌙　•　　.°•　　🚀 ✯　.°• ★　*　　　°　　 .。.:*・°.　.°• 🛰 　°· 🪐.　 •　° 　 •  ☄ .。.:* ・°☆. •　.°•💫 .。.:*・°☆.。.:*・°

mutuals look we are in the planetarium together

queer discourse always seems to go like

"I get treated poorly by society"

"no you don't"

"hey it's kinda messed up to say that"

"you complaining about me being an asshole just shows that you don't have any REAL problems and just wanna be mean to the REAL lgbt people who are actually oppressed (please ignore that I have thoroughly derailed this conversation in order to make this argument)"

So the right-wing press is currently in meltdown about Queen being cancelled, they're cancelling Queen you guys. Those woke Millennials and Gen Z made them remove "Fat Bottomed Girls" from their Greatest Hits album.

So is this true? Erm, no. What blog do you think this is.

There's a bit of deception in the headline here, which is of course all most people read. "Fat Bottomed Girls cut from Queen's greatest hits to appease younger audience". But if you go on Spotify right now, you'll find several versions of it, still uncancelled and listenable. So what gives?

Well, by "to appease younger audience" they don't mean Millennials or Gen Z. They mean much younger. See, the song was only removed...on a platform for literal children.

Specifically, children 3-12. We're not talking about Millennials (whose youngest members are in their twenties, by the way) being sensitive here, we're talking about eight year olds. Now, whether "Fat Bottomed Girls" is inappropriate for children or not is a discussion you can have, but it's a discussion no one is having, because they're reading a misleading headline designed as right-wing outrage bait, and talking about it as if the song has been banned for everyone, and not been left off one niche music service for grade schoolers. What a sweet life these people lead, you don't have to read anything when you can just get mad over a headline and decide it's the result of whichever group you hate the most

Anyway you can still listen to any Queen song you like, provided you aren't getting your music from one specific website for children

your honour, permission to call the jury "chat"

she's got a big smile!

Anyway if you see this you have to reblog and tag with a delight from ur day -- even the littlest thing counts

fuck this i'm out *walks in a direction beyond our 3 dimensions, seemingly popping out of existence* *the hounds appear*

I STEPPED OUTSIDE OF THE FRONT DOOR OF MY OWN HOME ONLY TO FIND THE DEER THAT TRIED TO KICK MY ASS LAST YEAR STANDING RIGHT THERE IN MY FRONT YARD. BOLD AS BRASS.

AM I NOT SAFE ANYWHERE ANYMORE

for those of you who were not here last year: this deer is the most obnoxious, unnatural red-orange color I’ve ever seen, only appears when it’s raining, and once chased me a quarter mile through the woods. her name is Hot Cheeto Hatred and she is my nemesis

dude, i think that’s a fairy