Need to let loose a primal scream without collecting footnotes first? Have a sneer percolating in your system but not enough time/energy to make a whole post about it? Go forth and be mid: Welcome to the Stubsack, your first port of call for learning fresh Awful youā€™ll near-instantly regret.

Any awful.systems sub may be subsneered in this subthread, techtakes or no.

If your sneer seems higher quality than you thought, feel free to cutā€™nā€™paste it into its own post ā€” thereā€™s no quota for posting and the bar really isnā€™t that high.

The post Xitter web has spawned soo many ā€œesotericā€ right wing freaks, but thereā€™s no appropriate sneer-space for them. Iā€™m talking redscare-ish, reality challenged ā€œculture criticsā€ who write about everything but understand nothing. Iā€™m talking about reply-guys who make the same 6 tweets about the same 3 subjects. Theyā€™re inescapable at this point, yet I donā€™t see them mocked (as much as they should be)

Like, there was one dude a while back who insisted that women couldnā€™t be surgeons because they didnā€™t believe in the moon or in stars? I think each and every one of these guys is uniquely fucked up and if I canā€™t escape them, I would love to sneer at them.

(Semi-obligatory thanks to @dgerard for starting this.)

  • Sailor Sega Saturn@awful.systems
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    Ā·
    edit-2
    8 hours ago

    Project Gutenberg has AI generated summaries?? How the mighty have fallen.

    I was researching a bizarre old sci-fi book I once read (donā€™t judge; bad old sci-fi is a trip), and Gutenbergā€™s summary claims it was written in the 21st century. Thereā€™s actually no accurate information about this book online, as far as I can tell the earliest reference is Project Gutenberg typing it up into a text file in 2003.

    Given that itā€™s in the public domain, no one has any idea where it came from, and it has old sci-fi vibes; I strongly suspect it was written in the 20th century*; making that misinformation. Itā€™s also just a bad summary that, while not wrong, doesnā€™t really reflect the (amusingly weird) themes of the book.

    Anyway someone needs to tell them that no information is leagues better than misinformation.

    * maybe the '70s give or take but Iā€™m not a professional date guesser

    • nightsky@awful.systems
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      Ā·
      6 hours ago

      That is indeed troubling, casts a shadow on Project Gutenbergā€™s judgement. Now I wonder how long until Wikipedia falls too :( Gosh, I miss being excited about new tech. Now new tech is just making things worse.

      About that book, so it is more ā€œgood badā€ instead of ā€œbad badā€? Maybe Iā€™ll take a look, some light/weird reading might be better than doomscrolling (and these days thereā€™s so much doom to scroll).

      • Sailor Sega Saturn@awful.systems
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        Ā·
        edit-2
        6 hours ago

        I donā€™t remember (reading it was a bit like a fever dream) but thereā€™s a non-zero chance it has racist vibes in parts you have been warned.

        But oh so quotable:

        We have been treating the trees on a ten mile radius with an anti-flammatory solution for several years as well, and it is quite impossible to set them on fire.

        • nightsky@awful.systems
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          Ā·
          edit-2
          6 hours ago

          Okay thanks for the heads-up, I will give it a try. The ā€œNote to the readerā€ it starts with is already pretty wildā€¦ (unless thatā€™s just part of the fiction. Edit: I assume itā€™s part of the fiction)

          Edit: okayā€¦ a few pages in, I donā€™t think I can do this. The feeling of reading the first chapter reminded me a little of reading the timecube website.