BlackHeart Biohazards

gabedemon:

diana-fortyseven:

diana-fortyseven:

Quick PSA, if you get one of those “Work scanned, AI use detected” comments on AO3, just mark them as spam.

Some moron apparently built a bot to annoy or prank hundreds of authors.

There is no scanning process, your work doesn’t actually resemble AI writing, it’s all bullshit. Mark the comment as spam (on AO3, not the email notification you got about the comment!) and don’t let it get to you.

The spam comments have evolved.

They are now also linking to a site they claim is able to scan works and tell you whether they were AI written or not, and that you should do that before reading a fic.

It should go without saying that you should not, under no circumstances, visit a site advertised in a spam comment.

In this case, I’d say there’s even a chance that the “scanning” site is actually used to scrape fics and use them for future AI writing. What it definitely doesn’t do is tell you whether something was AI written or not. That’s a bullshit claim.

Don’t use that site. Don’t believe these spam comments, whether you get them on your own works or see them on someone else’s.

It’s all bullshit.

@blackheart-biohazards that could explain the comment you got

Yes, that’s what we were thinking when we reblogged this! Thank you!

Physician calls for an end to bikini waxing:

fierceawakening:

angryjewishharpist:

gowns:

Pubic hair removal naturally irritates and inflames the hair follicles, leaving microscopic open wounds. Frequent hair removal is necessary to stay smooth, causing regular irritation of the shaved or waxed area. When that is combined with the warm, moist environment of the genitals, it becomes a happy culture media for some of the nastiest bacterial pathogens.

Dr. Gibson says that whatever method is used on pubic hair – razor blades, electric shavers, tweezers, waxing, depilatories, electrolysis – “hair, like crab grass, always grows back and eventually wins.”

In her practice it is not unusual to find patients with boils and abscesses on their genitals from shaving as well as cellulitis, an infection of the scrotum, labia or penis from shaving or from having sex with someone infected.

Herpes is also an increased risk “due to the microscopic wounds being exposed to virus carried by mouth or genitals.”

“It follows that there may be vulnerability to spread of other sexually transmitted diseases as well,” she says.

“Pubic hair does have a purpose, providing a cushion against friction that can cause skin abrasion and injury, and protection from bacteria. It is the visible result of adolescent hormones and certainly nothing to be ashamed of or embarrassed about.”

“It is time to declare a truce in the war on pubic hair and allow it to stay right where it belongs.”

Honestly amen

okay but any time I read stuff like this I wonder if the person railing against it has ever met anyone with a sensory aversion like ever in their life

thick curly hair that gets full of goo is a nightmare. can someone at least acknowledge this and explain why all people everywhere regardless of neurotype are better off putting up with it than not

The take in OP leaves out nuance.

Whether or not to shave/wax etc is, like all things in life, a risk vs reward scenario.

If the sensory reward of having the hair removed outweighs your personal worry about the risk of disease and injury caused by removing the hair, then you should remove the hair.

If your sensory reward of removing the hair does not outweigh your personal worry about the risk of disease and injury caused by removing the hair, then you should not remove the hair.

zenosanalytic:

charlesoberonn:

charlesoberonn:

I was gonna make a Skynet joke but honestly this is just infuriating.

I’m less concerned about a future literally dominated by robots than I am about a future where AI makes inhuman decisions in service to the rich and powerful at the expense of everyone else.

The stuff we’re calling ~AI~ right not isn’t making any decisions as it can only do what it’s programmed to do. Rather, ~AI~ acts as a fig-leaf to hide or deflect the culpability of those actually making the decisions. The whole “nobody’s responsible when an ~AI~ car hits someone” argument is an obvious example, but more subtle ones like all those “Facial Recognition” precrime programs consistently finding non-whites suspicious because the people programming them were racists and the datasets they were trained on provided by racist policing are also worth keeping in mind.