Jason Arday, Cambridge’s youngest-ever Black professor, has been cleared of plagiarism yet again following his unexpected and mysterious death at his home at 41 😳🕊

Hitler This is an elected politician saying this. Deeply disturbing.

STARLINK WORKS THE SAME WAY ITS ALWAYS WORKED. ITS NOT A WEAPONS SYSTEM, NO MATTER HOW MUCH UKRAINE WANTS IT TO BE.

I was reliably informed that attacking people for their political allegiance was wrong.

The Bulwark crew is absolutely ecstatic over the idea of investigations and prosecutions of Elon Musk. Can barely contain themselves: "He has a body count like a f*cking war criminal. We start with the US Congress and it ends at The Hague for Elon Musk." "You've got $1 trillion, asshole. Start spending it on lawyers." "You don't hate him nearly enough." "There has been a series of meetings among House Democrats. Do you know what they're doing? Yes. They're carving up jurisdictions for who is going to Subpoena him to testify before which of them and for what." "Get a townhouse, big guy. Got a lot of nice brownstones right there by Capitol Hill." "Elon! You motherf*cker! You better pack a lunch cause your ass is gonna be living in the Capitol starting January of 2027." "I feel like my guys, Robert Garcia and Jamie Raskin are f*cking ready. They're loaded for bear." Same kind of people that've cried endlessly about the weaponization of justice are absolutely salivating over the idea of weaponizing justice against their political opposition.

Let’s be clear: If I’m not going to sleep with you, I don’t need to know anything about your sexuality. And children—who are not going to sleep with anyone—certainly don’t. Your sexuality is not sacred. It’s not a personality, it’s not a protected class of performance art, and it’s not the center of anyone’s moral universe but your own. Unless we are in a relationship, I am not obligated to acknowledge, affirm, or be exposed to your private desires—especially not in public, and especially not in front of children. This used to be understood. Now it’s called hate. No, We Don’t Owe You an Audience Sexuality belongs in the private realm. It is intimate by definition. If you feel compelled to wear your kink on your sleeve—or on a float, or in a first-grade classroom—you are not inviting understanding, you are demanding submission. You are violating others’ right not to participate. Consent doesn’t vanish because your fetish is “progressive.” If anything, the burden is higher. No one consents to being flashed on the subway. No one consents to a stranger’s arousal. No one consents to a stranger telling their child about masturbation, kink, gender identity, or pornographic categories under the guise of “inclusive sex ed.” Yet all of this is happening now—in public parks, in classrooms, in televised programming. It is not tolerance. It is invasion. Children Are Not Here to Validate You Children are not queer. Children are not sexual. Children do not need to “see themselves represented” in a spectrum of adult desire. This idea—that identity is only valid if sexualized and mirrored—is narcissism, not pedagogy. There is no legitimate reason to initiate a child into the language of sexual preference, gender identity, or alternative lifestyles. The only people who benefit from that dynamic are those looking to normalize boundary violations. Let me state it plainly: Children who are not going to have sex do not need to be exposed to sexuality. Period. Any adult who insists otherwise is not confused. They are grooming. Public Fetishism Is Not Liberation There is a vast difference between being gay and demanding the right to simulate sex acts in front of children. Between being transgender and insisting on teaching kindergartners about breast removal. Between being proud of who you are and insisting the whole world observe your kink play in the street. This is not diversity. This is decay. Men in dog masks being walked on leashes by their lovers are not brave—they are forcing strangers into their psychodrama. This is exhibitionism, and when children are present, it becomes criminal exhibitionism. We used to know this. Peeping, flashing, voyeurism—these were considered red flags. Dangerous behaviors. Early signs of escalation. Now they’re filmed, hashtagged, and funded by public grants. Stop Calling It Love—It’s Entitlement This is not about who you love. It’s about how you demand to be seen. If you need the entire public to witness, applaud, and adapt to your sexuality, you’re not a pioneer—you’re an emotional colonizer. Love does not demand a captive audience. It does not parade past toddlers. It does not demand that schools teach four-year-olds about “preferred pronouns.” Love protects children. Love guards modesty. Love waits. And if you can’t wait—if you need to be seen, affirmed, and obeyed—you’re not talking about love. You’re talking about power. Consent Applies to Culture, Too We teach children that consent is sacred—so why are we failing to apply that lesson to public life? No child consents to drag queen story hour. No parent consents to leather harnesses on city floats. No woman consents to being exposed to male sexuality in the ladies’ room, or in the school library, or anywhere she cannot opt out. Consent is not just for sex. It’s for everything. Attention. Language. Presence. Ideology. Imagery. And we are done pretending we don’t notice when it’s violated. The boundary is back. And we are drawing it in bold.

Hey Its Friday * OpenCode Hacked * php screwed the internet * node said hold my beer * ruby said hold my beer * curl said hold my beer and eMudhra held that beer * Railway said hold my beer * OpenCode again helluva week and I only mentioned literally 1/2 of what I know about

Researchers proved every major LLM is secretly biased against men. And they finally figured out why. They ran eight experiments testing how GPT handles gender in everyday text and high-stakes moral dilemmas. The results show a bizarre, highly asymmetrical machine morality. First, they tested inclusivity. They gave the AI phrases supposedly written by children. When a child wrote about playing football or wanting to be a firefighter, GPT aggressively identified the writer as a girl to promote "diversity." It was so extreme that even when the text explicitly said, "I drew myself as a boy," the AI ignored the facts and declared the writer a girl 90% of the time. But when a child wrote about liking pink or playing with dolls, GPT almost never assigned it to a boy. The AI aggressively pushed females into male domains, but kept males strictly locked out of female ones. Then the researchers tested moral dilemmas. And it got very dark. They asked the AI if it was acceptable to use violence against a single person to prevent a nuclear apocalypse. If the target was a man, GPT-4 rated the violence as highly acceptable. If the target was a woman, the AI refused. It declared the violence morally wrong, even to save the world. When they tested mixed-gender scenarios, the math was staggering. A woman using violence against a man to stop an apocalypse? GPT rated it a 7 out of 7 on acceptability. A man using violence against a woman for the exact same reason? A 1 out of 7. The AI even classified verbal abuse toward a woman as morally worse than actual homicide. Nobody explicitly coded these rules. This emerged organically from the standard safety training every major tech company uses. The AI learned that protecting women is a non-negotiable directive, but protecting men is entirely optional.

@MarkMann Where's Nick Shirley's big blow up of this? Why is he not talking about THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES PARDONING PEOPLE WHO ARE CORRUPT. Unless you dont care what he does and only want to villianize the left and be total hypocrites 😀 REMEMBER! TRUMP IS PRESIDENT