However, with his full name being Charles Philip Arthur George, there are a number of other names he could select, if he so wished. […] [S]peculation has grown that he could choose his third middle name, George, to reign as King George VII. Not only would this be him giving his own middle name precedence, it would also serve as a nod to his grandfather, King George VI, who was Queen Elizabeth II’s beloved father.

Of course he could also choose to rule as King Philip I or King Arthur I.

King Arthur I would be an absolutely hilarious choice.

I would absolutely insist on King Arthur II if I went with Arthur.

But yes.



Concept: Consumers joining together into a collective organization to obtain better prices through buying bulk and exert influence on companies and their behavior. Necessity for organization: items must be purchased through this organization in order for its leverage to be effective. Possible origin: large-scale housing cooperatives are large enough and would have a low enough per capita shipping cost through bundling (just have one big truck show up), plus internal political infrastructure, and could take advantage of bulk buying at their ordinary scale before considering more complex demands.


isn’t this basically just Socialist Costco

Yeah, but that’s a positive in terms of feasibility.  Costco already exists as a viable model and has for some time.

Are you not already a member of a cooperative retailer association?

Step up senpai

Here’s one of the lessons you’ll learn:

There actually isn’t that much money to save. Retail is fiercely competitive at the margins, it’s one of the most wonderful examples of capitalism working almost exactly like Econ 101 tells you it will. If you go into a Walmart and purchase a product for a dollar, Walmart makes a cent. Less, if you buy with a credit card.

When I buy a liter of milk, the state makes more in sales taxes than the store makes in profit.

Now part of the reason there isn’t much money to make in retail is of course competition from cooperative retailers, but it’s also just competition from other commercial retailers. On my five minute commute, only counting stores that I pass within a hundred yards of, I see four different places to purchase groceries – two stores owned by the coop, one by a retail corporation, and one mall with lots of small independent grocers. If I expand out to “everybody within a mile of my commute,” I add two more competing retail chains, a large increase in independent grocers and so many extra individual stores that I can’t count them.

There is just

There’s no profit opportunity at all, unless you can leverage a very unique value add or have the ability to operate on massive scale.

An Important Edit

Ok so I have seen more of the chain of reblogs now.

Why isn’t there a coop tech infrastructure?


Well somebody would have to make it, I guess. And there’s so much money in the space for a successful venture, if you have the skills and motivation to pull it off, you’re probably out making fat stacks doing something else.

Also, I guess, network effects – even if you’re just two people living on an island, it makes perfect sense for them to agree that every time they’re on the mainland shopping, they’ll call the other one and hear if they need something, saving a second ferry trip over to the store. You can do a successful coop with a network of two people.

I’m not sure that’s true for a social network, where a large part of the value to the individual user comes from the large user base they can be entertained by (communication being already a solved issue – email exists, if commo was all you wanted)









why the fuck do people keep acting like Tumblr’s porn purge or Sony’s “all games must pass California’s moral judgment” policy are being motivated by Christian conservatism?

all of these people involved are progressives. they want to censor for the same reason you demand censorship, and they hear your demands for censorship. 

the soul-rot is coming from inside the fucking house. 

Actually, all these people are soulless business executives trying to sell content to wide demographics, and sex shaming is bi-partisan. This is also what caused all the “safe for work” 4chan boards to be split off into “4channel”.

Which will probably kill the SFW boards tbh. I still use them, but they feel noticably slower moving (and some of them were slow to begin with.)

wait what, what happened to 4chan

god I’m so out of the loop

All the SFW boards were removed to 4channel.org so now it’s two different sites with a shared history.

But I can get cooking drama everywhere – I could even (shudder) get it on TV. The only draw of /ck/ over other cooking forums or whatever is the fact that it’s on 4chan, and subject to the… “robust” language culture that lives on 4chan.

why did they do that, that’s stupid

was it advertising related, it was advertising related wasn’t it

I mean I would bet you cash fucking money it was advertising related but like

Do they really think I’m going to disable ad block to support their mongolian pottery appreciation board?

Because I don’t think I would disable ad block to support starving children in Africa, much less a korean funk yodeling fan board.

Yeah but a weird percentage of the world just doesn’t have adblock. Even people who know it exists! It’s this crazy parallel internet world where everything is just shouting at you all the time.

I know these people exist.

I know because they talk to me, and what they say is “man that ad with the shouting gibbon and the car is so annoying, I wish I didn’t have to see it

And I just

Listen, colleague of mine: You’re a SOFTWARE DEVELOPER! I refuse to believe you can’t solve this problem for yourself!








Humans are a communal species that have banded together and cared for their sick, disabled, and elderly since before we were ever modern man. Resources were shared even as skills specialized. 

Capitalism isn’t natural. A community should not have members dying of starvation or exposure while there is an abundance of resources. That isn’t how it works. That isn’t how it’s supposed to work.

ok so my roommates are anthropology students and their favorite example for debunking the ‘survival of the fittest’ bs is shanidar 1. (x, x, x)

shanidar 1 is a neanderthal who, at a pretty young age, was hit in the head hard enough to blind him. this also led to that side of his brain shutting down and withering his right arm, and possibly crippling his entire right side. not only that but his skeleton also shows that at some point, he broke a bone in his foot and, in addition to the other factors, resulted in a noticeable limp. there are some sources which say he likely had degenerative diseases. (arthritis was really common in neanderthals) 

going off of widespread ideas of “”primitive”” (no longer the word used in anthropology/academia to describe early-modern humans) societies, shanidar probably died really young, deliberately abandoned or killed. i mean, he was severely crippled, blind, etc., he couldn’t contribute anything, he would have been a “”burden to society””, right? 

except he lived to be between 40 and 50 years old. (about ~80 in human years)

this means that his social group had to have taken care of him for a minimum of two or three decades without his ‘contributing’ anything significant to the group. this discovery (and Shanidar III’s) was huge because it basically proves that early humans had a concept of hospice. early modern humans cared for the sick and the elderly, greatly extending their lifespan, simply because they cared

tl;dr: the concept of someone needing to be ‘’useful’’ or ‘’’productive’’’ in society in order to be valued and cared for is a very modern concept and our quasi-predecessors would be ashamed 

Also, Shanidar I was buried with flowers. They cared about him after he was dead, too.

I want to contribute as a biologist and stress that this doesn’t pose an argument against natural selection. The human success was never exclusively based in our bodies, it is very much, if not most, based in our intelligence and social structure that makes us compassionate and working together. No other animal on earth is able to coordinate groups as large as modern human cities, entire countries even. That’s millions of people and it’s an awesome skill!

What made Shanidar a gift to society despite his disabilities might easily have been his mind, noone says he was useless. Not a single old man and woman was useless to a tribe of Neanderthals, there always was a lot of work they could do and were utterly needed to do and Shanidar? Maybe he learned and became a wise man? Maybe he spent his time preparing food? I bet he did not sit on his ass like we make old people do nowadays, because back then every hand was needed.

Whoops you stepped on my pet peeve. I’m just gonna adapt something I’ve already written on the subject.

No question that people have been caring for each other through sickness and disability since before the dawn of civilization. No doubt plain caring about your family, your clan, the people around you, played heavily into it. Also, tribal peoples are not stupid, and would be able to recognize that many injuries are temporary, and that many disabilities don’t make it impossible for people to contribute altogether–especially since “contribution” can span a variety of activities that go beyond the bare work of survival, including acting as a repository of knowledge and experience. And even to those who will never be able to contribute in these other ways, tribal societies are not necessarily Hobbesian nightmares–there is, as you might imagine, a lot of variation between groups.

But let’s take a look at the data, shall we?

Outright killing the old in tribal societies was/is relatively rare, but still common enough to be shocking to anyone in modern society. Abandonment, neglect and other forms of death-hastening were/are far more common, perhaps the norm rather than the exception:

source, p 63

Ability to care for oneself and contribute and the availability of resources seem to be the most common deciding factors. To wit:

source, p6

Ironically given all the blame imputed on capitalism, property rights are a fairly strong predictor of good treatment of the elderly precisely because they give the elderly control over resources–see the following couple of pages of the above source.

Infanticide in tribal societies has also been extensively recorded.

source (pdf), p 112

And, relevant to this discussion:

same as above, pp108-9

It’s harder to find resources on the anthropology of disability outside infancy and old age. I can only present the general impression that anthropologists are pushing hard this whole perspective about cultural construction of disability and anecdotal evidence about care being provided, which is fine as far as it goes, but which is not far in determining trends in the treament of people with disabilities in tribal societies. What I did not find was an assumption that care was given across the board. In this example, for instance, whether someone is cared for or abandoned is predicated on how impairing a condition is in the context of the group’s way of life:

source, p30

But even in the absence of solid quantitative conclusions, given what we know about the treatment of infants and the elderly, I would be very surprised if average standards of care (in terms of resource and effort allocation, even setting aside technological advancements) for the disabled among tribal societies were better than those of contemporary industrial society. In fact, by today’s standards, we would probably find their callousness shocking.

more anecdotally, i know a doctor who runs an ngo that treats natives deep in the amazon. he told me about how, in one tribe he visited, old people who can no longer fend for themselves are treated basically like dogs, fed at others’ mercy, and not infrequently starve to death.



with this noble savage bullshit.

Also, the number of people who die of starvation in the U.S. or any developed capitalist country is negligible.

The number of people who die because they (or their parents / caregivers) are not able to obtain food is zero, or close enough to zero that it’s impossible to measure. The people who do end up starving are those with eating disorders like anorexia, as well as children and others who can’t take care of themselves who are maliciously abused.

Of course, a larger number of people have bad diets and suffer from nutritional deficiencies (or… surpluses) that contribute to their deaths, but today one can eat far healthier on a poverty budget than in the early 20th century, when Southerners routinely died of pellagra because all they could afford to eat was cornmeal.

Furthermore, the elderly have gone from being the poorest age cohort to the richest, with the average 80-year-old household having twice the wealth of a 50-year-old (and of course many times more than those younger).

Now, of course, you can make the argument that the reason starvation isn’t common in the U.S. is the welfare system, and that the elderly became the richest group because of Social Security, Medicare, and other programs instituted to help them when they were the poorest in society. And that if we had full, consistent capitalism, then death of the old and the disabled would be rampant. I’m not going to get into that.

But insofar as this is a critique of actually existing mostly-capitalist mixed economies (a category that certainly includes the Scandinavian states), it’s misplaced.

I will say, for sure, that it brings me an incredible peace of mind to know that if I lose my job tomorrow and never get a job again, I can go every day of my life from today until my death in ~60 years and never worry about starvation or homelessness. Embarrassment, yes, and loneliness, and sorrow and ruin – all the things that come when you live solidly at a guaranteed level 3 of Marslow’s hierarchy, but not starvation or exposure.

Parents Explain More Often to Boys Than to Girls During Shared Scientific Thinking



Young children’s everyday scientific thinking often occurs in the context of parent-child interactions. In a study of naturally occurring family conversation, parents were three times more likely to explain science to boys than to girls while using interactive science exhibits in a museum. This difference in explanation occurred despite the fact that parents were equally likely to talk to their male and female children about how to use the exhibits and about the evidence generated by the exhibits. The findings suggest that parents engaged in informal science activities with their children may be unintentionally contributing to a gender gap in children’s scientific literacy well before children encounter formal science instruction in grade school.

This is at the core of the STEM Gender Gap.

It is simply a fact that by the time women reach adulthood the majority of them just don’t want to be scientists or mathematicians..  And whatever quotas you put into place it just won’t work because there’s insufficient demand.  

We can talk about “well women are discouraged” or “natural biological inclinations say…” or what have you.

But here’s the deal.  Nothing we say on the subject when looking at fully-grown and realized adults will be entirely accurate if daughters when growing up aren’t taught to the same scientific standards and material as sons are, even informally, even if it’s the mother doing the teaching.

Teach your kids.  Love them.  Help them grow.  Enable them to be fucking amazing.  Let them be spectacular.

My dad always tried to encourage me to “develop tool sense”—to involve me in building things or putting things together or taking them apart. I’m glad he thought girls should learn that! But I usually rejected this because I didn’t know enough about what he was doing to understand *what I was supposed to notice* once he unscrewed some bit of something or showed me some wiring.

I wanted to participate, but I felt stupid, because I didn’t even know what I didn’t know. It wasn’t until I got into Transformers fandom as an adult and essentially bought myself puzzle toys that I started to learn how built/engineered things fit together, and I was terribly insecure about it at first and in some ways I still am. (It’s especially tough for me because since I never learned it, I don’t know things names: “I think this joint thing bends this way and then that way, but I can’t move it! Am I wrong about how it bends or is it sticky?” “Joint thing? Do you mean the double hinge?”)

Not sure where I’m going with this except to say: when people are beginner-beginners, they may not even have the words to explain to you why they didn’t follow something.

Be super patient, at least outwardly, and say stuff like “I can see that you’re confused. That’s okay! I go fast because I already understand. Do you want me to explain again? Did you understand part of what I said?”

Like, if you’re one of the stereotypical good at science bad at social stuff types, imagine that the kid you’re showing things to is you asking about some obscure aspect of manners, and think about that if they seem to take a while to get it.


Also some people are just shit teachers. Not talking about your dad obviously, I’ve never seen him, but some people don’t have the pedagogy God gave a field mouse.

Parents Explain More Often to Boys Than to Girls During Shared Scientific Thinking




You know what’s really telling? How when this change was first announced there were a whole slew of people, usually the same sorta blogs who engage in antishipping discourse, who were Super All For this change! Like, their initial reaction was “hah, fuck those perverts who want to look at nsfw content, my blog is safe”. But then in the hours and days since the announcement was made, they’ve seen the tide of the discussion across the site, and they’ve heard more directly about the harm this does to sex workers, and they’ve very quickly as much as possible outwardly changed their tune.

The point being that a lot of people on this site hold attitudes that are deeply sex-negative and which stigmatize sexuality and its expression, especially amid queer communities. When the news first broke, maybe some of them tacked on some paragraph about sex workers, but then they’d dismiss them in the next breath, and group everyone who might engage with their sexuality on this platform in any other context as being “horny freaks”. (The implication I think rather patronizingly being that sex workers are always “forced” into catering to the other “dirty pervs”). They would pay sex workers lip service but then gloat over the demise of their trade with their next breath.

But when the discourse about this coalesced, and quite rightly focused on the harm this does to communities, to queer communities, and to creative expression, and this became the dominant narrative – when the impact on sex workers became more than a bullet point to throw into the ring as an afterthought – they all instantly twisted their words to fit that narrative. Because there’s a large number of people on here who are fundamentally unwilling to address their internal attitudes and biases when it comes to marginalized expression, and when it comes to “icky” subjects like sexuality. What they do care about is appearing to be “woke”, in a manner that is more of a social-pressure function than something necessarily stemming from an actual desire for social progress. I think this is why so many people on this site will create banner lists on their blog of all the causes they support and are opposed to; why they will vehemently proclaim their support for sex workers and then demonize expressions of sexuality with the very same breath, and why ideas about certain shipping materials or fandom expressions being “problematic” morph into the idea that people who engage in them are sex criminals on par with real world criminal offenders, despite the train of reason simply not being there. It’s because the climate on this site conditions people, especially kids, to approach discourse as per a learned rote of “this is pure and this is evil”, as opposed to actually understanding with and engaging with these issues. And the dichotomy of what is allowed and what is barred stems solely from the prevailing social climate – what other people in their community are saying.

And that sucks, because it results in a sort of black-and-white classification that results in people being sent suicide threats because a bogus callout post claimed that they were an abuser. Because the climate has ramped up so that if people don’t immediately ostracize those identified as targets, they get classified as apologists and potentially attacked themselves. Moreover, and more importantly to this discussion, it means that that ideas never get critically examined, so ingrained biases and bigotry in the end ultimately do win out. Because at the end of the day, you’re going with what feels “pure” or “bad” in your gut, and by what other people are saying is one or the other. Which is why the people so frequently targeted by witchhunt campaigns on this site are, you guessed it, queer women expressing their sexuality.

See, with that sort of prescriptive, knee-jerk morality, there’s way to evaluate new but adjacent ideas. People know the right answer to give if asked about sex positivity, or sexual expression in the context of queerphobia – but give them a real world example and they’ll default to their preconceived disgust. They’ll say a thousand times that they support sex workers, but will still be celebrating when they’re effectively outlawed. It’s a sort of purely memetic conception of moral politics and ideology that just isn’t sustainable, and allows truly toxic ideas to gain traction without check, enforced by equally toxic black and white social pressure. And deep down, for all that it claims to be otherwise, the core ideas are the same ideas about “purity” and “degeneracy” that society instills in us from childhood, and although its not as outrightly stated, it is just as harmful.

Which is what people really mean when they talk about toxic tumblr culture, really. This whole situation is just another example that exposes it.

kinda too bad that this whole site is just gonna die in like a week, because this is among my favorite pieces of analysis I’ve seen on here.

Were there people celebrating? I got a couple of questionable anons but nothing else. I’ve actually been vocally wondering how antis feel now that they’ve won and it’s… likely not what they expected.

I didn’t see anybody directly celebratory, but then I also don’t hatefollow idiots.

Could you tell me where you’re going?






Hi folks-

A lot of people are making posts announcing where they’ll be setting up shop after The End, and it’s already getting hard to keep track of who is going where under what name. So I created a public spreadsheet to try and keep track of this: https://1drv.ms/x/s!AtiG1bZTgp9RxpJ3smyiFe703LcJhA

Would you mind sticking your information in there? I prefilled a couple columns with some of the most common alternate services, but of course you can and should add a column if a service you’re moving to isn’t listed.

Don’t be a jerk and mess with anyone else’s row but yours. I can see the edit history and revert bad changes anyway, so it won’t do you any good.

I normally hate begging for reblogs, but please reblog this.

@metagorgon: “I can’t edit”

When you try to edit a cell, you should see a ribbon across the top saying that “this is in read-only mode”, but also a button to enable editing. Click on that and then you should be fine (if not, something is very wrong, because that is how it has worked for me and several other people so far.

One other thing: if you are signed in to an Outlook/O365 account, I can see your real name when you edit the doc. If that is a problem, open the link from a private browsing window.

@copperbadge did this a lot more carefully than I did, and while I will keep mine up, you should definitely also submit to that one.

Reblagging with a link to the relevant post

A better, more positive Tumblr




Since its founding in 2007, Tumblr has always been a place for wide open, creative self-expression at the heart of community and culture. To borrow from our founder David Karp, we’re proud to have inspired a generation of artists, writers, creators, curators, and crusaders to redefine our culture and to help empower individuality.

Over the past several months, and inspired by our storied past, we’ve given serious thought to who we want to be to our community moving forward and have been hard at work laying the foundation for a better Tumblr. We’ve realized that in order to continue to fulfill our promise and place in culture, especially as it evolves, we must change. Some of that change began with fostering more constructive dialogue among our community members. Today, we’re taking another step by no longer allowing adult content, including explicit sexual content and nudity (with some exceptions).  

Let’s first be unequivocal about something that should not be confused with today’s policy change: posting anything that is harmful to minors, including child pornography, is abhorrent and has no place in our community. We’ve always had and always will have a zero tolerance policy for this type of content. To this end, we continuously invest in the enforcement of this policy, including industry-standard machine monitoring, a growing team of human moderators, and user tools that make it easy to report abuse. We also closely partner with the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children and the Internet Watch Foundation, two invaluable organizations at the forefront of protecting our children from abuse, and through these partnerships we report violations of this policy to law enforcement authorities. We can never prevent all bad actors from attempting to abuse our platform, but we make it our highest priority to keep the community as safe as possible.

So what is changing?

Posts that contain adult content will no longer be allowed on Tumblr, and we’ve updated our Community Guidelines to reflect this policy change. We recognize Tumblr is also a place to speak freely about topics like art, sex positivity, your relationships, your sexuality, and your personal journey. We want to make sure that we continue to foster this type of diversity of expression in the community, so our new policy strives to strike a balance.

Why are we doing this?

It is our continued, humble aspiration that Tumblr be a safe place for creative expression, self-discovery, and a deep sense of community. As Tumblr continues to grow and evolve, and our understanding of our impact on our world becomes clearer, we have a responsibility to consider that impact across different age groups, demographics, cultures, and mindsets. We spent considerable time weighing the pros and cons of expression in the community that includes adult content. In doing so, it became clear that without this content we have the opportunity to create a place where more people feel comfortable expressing themselves.

Bottom line: There are no shortage of sites on the internet that feature adult content. We will leave it to them and focus our efforts on creating the most welcoming environment possible for our community.

So what’s next?

Starting December 17, 2018, we will begin enforcing this new policy. Community members with content that is no longer permitted on Tumblr will get a heads up from us in advance and steps they can take to appeal or preserve their content outside the community if they so choose. All changes won’t happen overnight as something of this complexity takes time.

Another thing, filtering this type of content versus say, a political protest with nudity or the statue of David, is not simple at scale. We’re relying on automated tools to identify adult content and humans to help train and keep our systems in check. We know there will be mistakes, but we’ve done our best to create and enforce a policy that acknowledges the breadth of expression we see in the community.

Most importantly, we’re going to be as transparent as possible with you about the decisions we’re making and resources available to you, including more detailed information, product enhancements, and more content moderators to interface directly with the community and content.

Like you, we love Tumblr and what it’s come to mean for millions of people around the world. Our actions are out of love and hope for our community. We won’t always get this right, especially in the beginning, but we are determined to make your experience a positive one.

Jeff D’Onofrio

I’d just like to say that this is some real bullshit right here.

I have no words for how nonsensical this, frankly unreasonable, decision is. You’re stooping to the levels of hyper-religious purists, condemning sex workers, artists, authors, and many others who simply want to express their sexuality in a safe place you’ve tarnished with your own mistakes. Your inability to regulate the website you created and deal with ACTUAL problems like nazis, paedophiles, and bullying will ruin this website and fuck perfectly respectable people out of a huge portion of their income. You cannot put creative expression into this ridiculous box. Expressing one’s sexuality and the beauty of the human form has been part of artistic expression since the beginning of human civilisation–not to mention people exploring their own sexuality and sexual preferences. 

Claiming your actions are “out of love” mirrors the words of many an abuser. This experience is in no way positive, and I invite you to kindly go fuck yourself.

-mod Aleksandr

Hey fuckwits, have you looked at your own ads?

I came to Tumblr for the porn and I will leave with it. There are some things qued in some of my blogs, but I will leave my blogs up until they are taken down.

It’s been fun. I’ve met some wonderful people and some horrible people. Probably interacted with some Russian spies. I’ve grown a lot and changed a lot on Tumblr.

I’ve logged in to my Dreamwidth account for the first time in almost a decade, so catch me there, feel free to send emails, discord server invites or whatever to me here or at isaacsapphire at gmail.com or isaacsapphire dreamwidth or here until the 17th or so.


Well if anybody cares, when I’ve been talking about “I’m not afraid of the porn disapperaring, I’m afraid it’ll steal my horny-adjacent mutuals from me,” this is the kind of thing I was talking about.

Catch you on Dreamwidth, Isaacsapphire.

Kind of interesting being involved at the very bleeding edge of international finance chicanery.

You learn all kinds of things, like e.g.:

From extreme solvency crisis (Late 2007, you might remember) to proposed legislative solution: 1½ years
(Solvency II Directive 2009)

From proposed solution to law actually passing:
Five years
(“Following an EU Parliament vote on the Omnibus II Directive on 11 March 2014,…”)

From law passing until law actually takes effect:
Two years
(“…Solvency II came into effect on 1 January 2016.”)

From taking effect until our finance customers feel they maybe need our help finding a way to circumvent some of the nonsense in the law:
One year
(No citation here, Don’t want you doxxing me and also there may be an NDA)

From us making a deal with our customers to us actually looking into how to get around some of the nonsense:
Half a year
(No citation, NDA etc./)

From us looking into the problem to the problem actually being solved (in the software):
Another half-year.

(No etc./)

From the problem being solved in the software until realizing relevant data providers can’t actually provide relevant data:
Negative half a year, they were being intransigent from the first fucking day before I even started coding.

Anyway long story short, if your insurance (in Europe) is more expensive than you expected, it’s because your insurance company can’t play quite as fast and loose with how the word “Solvent” is defined as they could two years ago, and also because they have to pay me money to code work-arounds.