All my friends were doin' it...
Who I Follow


A sort of pro e-reader editorial piece.

(via hmasfatty)

When minor characters who are also ethnic minorities start talking among themselves in their native tongues, they sometimes take advantage of their invisibility to say things. Sometimes they break the Fourth Wall and start ranting about the movie director. Sometimes, they spout random obscenities or natter about their lousy lunch. It’s all in not-English, so whatever they say doesn’t matter! And the actual translations of their lines can be a secret source of hilarity in films where actors are instructed to use a Gratuitous Foreign Language (GFL) in order to make a scene sound more authentic. When some Native Americans cast in Westerns were told to speak their own language to add some authenticity, these actors took the opportunity to crudely editorialize about their director, which allegedly resulted in Native American audiences (in)explicably cracking up laughing during scenes that were meant to be dramatic.



OKCupid social experiments

OKCupid’s researchers respond to the furore over the Facebook social experiments by openly admitting to experimenting with their users without their consent. They say “guess what, everybody: if you use the Internet, you’re the subject of hundreds of experiments at any given time, on every site. That’s how websites work.” - failing to realise the difference between testing systems and testing on humans, bypassing the standard rules of informed consent before tampering with people’s love-life, hopes and sanity. 

The most alarming experiment is when they lied to people about their match with others to see if the algorithm’s recommendation influenced how they felt about the other person, even if they were a bad match. The screenshot above shows that couples that truly scored a 30% match but were told they had a 90% match were far more likely to engage in conversation, with odds of exchanging four messages jumping from 9.7% to 17.4%.  The screenshot below shows them reversing the experiment - people who were actually ideal for each other were told they weren’t, lessening the chances of them engaging which each other (yes, some real people’s chances of finding love were compromised during this experiment). Sociologist Zeynep Tufekci rightly points out that these experiments highlight the stealth power of algorithmic mediation.

The information they published about the day without pictures is actually very interesting. People’s conversations became more meaningful, they inquired more and screened people less. 







easy there henry

whos henry what thef uck?

*faint laughter from Britian*

*history teachers crying*

(via transbear)

Outside the lab, Piff found that the rich donated a smaller percentage of their wealth than poorer people. In 2011, the wealthiest Americans, those with earnings in the top 20%, contributed 1.3% of their income to charity, while those in the bottom 20% donated 3.2% of their income. The trend to meanness was worst in plush suburbs where everyone had a high income, and never laid eyes on a poor person. Insulation from people in need, Piff concluded, dampened charitable impulses. Poorer people were also more likely to give to those charities servicing the genuinely needy. The rich gave to high-status institutions such as already well-endowed art galleries, museums and universities, while Feeding America, which deals with the nation’s poorest, got nothing.

But anybody who’s ever been on the dole knows that bogus applications are already part of the deal. It’s an especially cynical process when you know damn well that there are no jobs to be had in your industry, even for people who really want them. Sending off form letters and a skeleton CV for a bunch of roles for which you’re completely unqualified is par for the course. Right along with cash-in-hand work that even goody-two-shoes can’t claim for fear of being sacked, the interminable call waiting times, the interview queues, the random benefit cut-offs for no reason, and all the lost paperwork. One begins to wonder if “lost paperwork” is an officially sanctioned process designed to weed out the “bludgers”.

“The staff would frequently lose documents that took weeks to complete […] We ended up photocopying everything before submitting. We got to the point where we would get the counter staff to sign our photocopies to prove they were submitted. Some were submitted three times, photocopies of photocopies.”

“I applied for many jobs I was not qualified for because I had to apply for anything to make the quota,” wrote another. “I worked at a few of the places that the job service agencies put me on to for a month or so before they fired me because I couldn’t do the work, but I was never qualified for it in the first place. The job service agencies never taught me how to apply for jobs I could do, or how to find the jobs that I should have been applying for.”

Everyone has their Centrelink stories. […]

But my favourite story was told to me by a friend on disability support. Her payments had been cut off unexpectedly and without justification three times since she registered for them in 2009 — in one case, because the computer system couldn’t cope when she submitted her paperwork a week before the due date.

It’s tradition to make jokes about Centrelink, because if you didn’t laugh, you’d cry. But it doesn’t take much digging to find the serious side. The system is so broken that the only people who could conceivably derive benefit from their benefits are those who are willing to game it. And that’s the horrible, toxic justification behind these changes. They’re not designed to help anyone. Instead, they’re setting people up to fail.


take note gentlemen

(via pickyourheartupoffthefloor)


Wonderful gif from a wonderful movie.


Wonderful gif from a wonderful movie.