@strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz avatar



Free human being of this Earth. Be excellent to each other! All my posts here are CC BY-SA 4.0 (or later).
#Vegan #Permaculture #Transition #PeerProduction #FreeCode #CreativeCommons #SciFi #Comedy #Juggling

Timezone: UTC+12

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.

strypey, to tv
@strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz avatar


I don't know how to feel about the gradual heat death of live television, particularly news and current affairs shows.

A couple of decades ago, I joined a global network of Independent Media Centres, one of whose stated goals was to 'break the corporate media blockade'. Back then, I might have celebrated what's happening to NewsHub and the TVNZ newsroom as a victory.

But even then I would have mourned the loss of Fair Go.

@strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz avatar


However skewed corporate news channels might be towards the status quo, they still employ people like John Campbell. Journalists who I believe genuinely care about truth and public interest, as they understand it.

Most ad revenue now funds DataFarms that are worse than even Fox News as a propaganda tool for the powerful. Because it's hard to hold them accountable when even the people running them don't really know what their algorithms are showing to who, when, or for whose benefit.

strypey, to random
@strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz avatar

Terminalogy (n.): A fatal comparison.

strypey, to random
@strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz avatar

Electuring (v.): Giving a campaign speech.

strypey, to conservative
@strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz avatar

"But what is being lost [at DOC]... is science capacity, it's policy capacity, it's resource management space - that's losing heaps of people - and it's in line with the government's directive that we're going to prioritise short term economic goals over environment and sustainability. But in a time of biodiversity crisis I think this is seriously worrying."

#JoMonks, lecturer in ecology, University of Otago, 2024

#RNZ #MorningReport #DOC #conservation #biodiversity

strypey, to random
@strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz avatar

"I get sick every time I go to the doctor that I still get subsidised and I can't opt out of the system. Now that's wrong. I was trying to take the welfare state off the middle class."

#JennyShipley, 2017


What this atomised mindset misses is that it's not her being subsidised, it's the doctor's surgery. If you want to contribute more according to your means, you do that by raising taxes, in ways that target those on higher incomes.

#neoliberalism #PublicHealth

@strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz avatar

Besides, Applying means testing to universal services vastly increases bureaucracy, and usually ends up costing more in accountancy than it saves. All while starving public services of the funding they need to improve quality of delivery.

@strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz avatar

I've made so my attempts to listen to this interview. I find it painful that Shipley - who is clearly quite intelligent - still can't question her assumptions, despite decades of observing the social consequences of her government's policy.

Listening to her holding forth about taking subsidies from the taxes of average kiwis is mind-boggling. Her government took far more from them by cutting benefits and abolishing universal unionism, creating the casualised, low wage economy we now live in.

@strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz avatar


The thought that universal services subsidise the middle class only becomes possible to think within the neoliberal frame of "user pays".

What used to happen in public health, for example, is that the government looked at what funds were needed to maintain clinics and hospitals, pay doctors, nurses and receptionists fairly, and so on, and put that in the budget. Then they left medical staff to triage people seeking care, according to need.

@strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz avatar


There was never any question of whether the country could afford health care for everyone who needs it. We were and are a wealthy country, of course we can! Especially when there's copious evidence that timely access to health care can avoid much more costly care down the line. Eg recent research showing that removing prescription charges saves more than it costs in hospitalisations for under-treated conditions.

@strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz avatar


The health budget was treated as entirely separate matter from whether the overall budget was in deficit or surplus. If it was going to be in deficit, and the money supply didn't need to expand, you'd raise taxes on higher earners to get a surplus. That way, money that might otherwise be spent on private health insurance - ending up in the pockets of insurance companies - goes into maintaining the public health system for everyone who needs it.

@strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz avatar

"We'll tax you fairly, but you should spend your money as you see fit because you know better than us what to do."

, 2017


Another neoliberal dogma. The implication is that individuals can achieve the same thing with each dollar they spend that each dollar of govt funding can. It's just not true, see health posts above.

Shipley doesn't even believe it. Elsewhere in the interview she talks about leadership and doing the right thing even if it's not popular.

strypey, to til
@strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz avatar

about ;

"A social platform based on ActivityPub - let's make forums and social networks operate like public Internet exchange points!"


I presume @cpmoser is part of the ongoing discussions about federated groups, with other projects like Lemmy, KBin, and Chirp (AP-groups)?

@LemmyDev @ernest @mpuckett

KiwiEV, to random
@KiwiEV@mastodon.nz avatar

During the 𝘙𝘶𝘯𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘩𝘦𝘦𝘱 on the main street of Te Kuiti, a posse broke into the local booze shop. According to one employee, they didn't break anything, but they shat everywhere.
I love living in rural NZ. 😂


@strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz avatar

> During the 𝘙𝘶𝘯𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘩𝘦𝘦𝘱 on the main street of Te Kuiti

I remember protesting an event like this with an animal rights group in Ōtautahi, decades ago. I find it horrific that so many people still think it's ok to take non-humans out of their natural environment and stress them out, purely for our entertainment.

In China I saw birds with their throats constrained with string, so they could be made to catch fish for humans. Also for entertainment.

It's all on a continuum.

strypey, to random
@strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz avatar

Pisse (n.): A gumpy mob.

TheConversationUS, to mentalhealth
@TheConversationUS@newsie.social avatar

Research has shown that flexibility, security and autonomy in the workplace are strong determinants of health.

And new research shows that employees who don’t have control over their work schedule take a serious hit.

Why employers should care, besides just being good employers:
When workers aren’t feeling well mentally, they’re less productive and more likely to miss work. Their creativity, collaboration and ability to meet job demands also suffer.

@strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz avatar

Even hardnose conservatives can surely observe that no amount of guilt-tripping helps people change their behaviour. In fact by undermining their mental health, it makes behavioural change harder.


strypey, to random
@strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz avatar


"That's just not good enough. Because what we're saying is, 'We're going to leave the internet alone and all you parents are going to have to keep watching out for your kids all the time, from every angle, even in the dark when they're in their rooms on their phones.'

I mean, come on guys, you can't leave it all to parents."


People need to understand there is no technical fix that will make the internet safely babysit our kids for us. There just isn't.

@strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz avatar


The net is like a power tool. There's a minimum age, beneath which unsupervised use just isn't safe. To make it safe, you'd have to remove most of the usefulness.

Yes, filters at the level of your home network can mitigate the problem. Parents can share blocklists of websites they don't think kids could see, so they're not playing whack-a-mole with dodgy sites alone.9

@strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz avatar


Most net-filtering technologies work like the most knee-jerk layer of the Great Firewall, by blocking domain names. The same filter that can stop kids watching on PornHub, can be used just as easily to stop them reading about Tiananmen Square (or evolution or climate science). But supervising parents can certainly do that too.

While filters may be more hit-and-miss than supervision, they don't require parents' constant attention and deny kids any online privacy. It's a subtle balance.

strypey, (edited ) to til
@strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz avatar

that 2 kiwi comedians made a documentary series for theSpinOff called Porn Revolution;


@strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz avatar
strypey, to random
@strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz avatar

Deliverung (n.): The step on a ladder where work gets finished.

strypey, to til
@strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz avatar

about ;

"federated decentral classified ad software using activitypub"


The name appears to be German for "flea market". The project has received funding from the German public via the Prototype Fund;


@strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz avatar

Flohmarkt may be of interest to the @bonfire folks.

gabek, to random

Somebody put a number for Owncast’s monthly active users on Wikipedia. There’s literally no way to know that number. I don’t even know how you’d define a user.

@strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz avatar

> Somebody put a number for Owncast’s monthly active users on Wikipedia

This happens a lot on WP pages for fediverse projects, including the fediverse article itself. People seem stuck in thinking of these as an indie version of centralised DataFarms (like Minds, CoHost or Post), rather than what they as a piece of digital infrastructure like WordPress (the software, not the hosted platform).

FractalEcho, to ChatGPT
@FractalEcho@kolektiva.social avatar

The racism in chatGPT we are not talking about....

This year, I learned that students use chatGPT because they believe it helps them sound more respectable. And I learned that it absolutely does not work. A thread.

A few weeks ago, I was working on a paper with one of my RAs. I have permission from them to share this story. They had done the research and the draft. I was to come in and make minor edits, clarify the method, add some background literature, and we were to refine the discussion together.

The draft was incomprehensible. Whole paragraphs were vague, repetitive, and bewildering. It was like listening to a politician. I could not edit it. I had to rewrite nearly every section. We were on a tight deadline, and I was struggling to articulate what was wrong and how the student could fix it, so I sent them on to further sections while I cleaned up ... this.

As I edited, I had to keep my mind from wandering. I had written with this student before, and this was not normal. I usually did some light edits for phrasing, though sometimes with major restructuring.

I was worried about my student. They had been going through some complicated domestic issues. They were disabled. They'd had a prior head injury. They had done excellent on their prelims, which of course I couldn't edit for them. What was going on!?

We were co-writing the day before the deadline. I could tell they were struggling with how much I had to rewrite. I tried to be encouraging and remind them that this was their research project and they had done all of the interviews and analysis. And they were doing great.

In fact, the qualitative write-up they had done the night before was better, and I was back to just adjusting minor grammar and structure. I complimented their new work and noted it was different from the other parts of the draft that I had struggled to edit.

Quietly, they asked, "is it okay to use chatGPT to fix sentences to make you sound more white?"

"... is... is that what you did with the earlier draft?"

They had, a few sentences at a time, completely ruined their own work, and they couldnt tell, because they believed that the chatGPT output had to be better writing. Because it sounded smarter. It sounded fluent. It seemed fluent. But it was nonsense!

I nearly cried with relief. I told them I had been so worried. I was going to check in with them when we were done, because I could not figure out what was wrong. I showed them the clear differences between their raw drafting and their "corrected" draft.

I told them that I believed in them. They do great work. When I asked them why they felt they had to do that, they told me that another faculty member had told the class that they should use it to make their papers better, and that he and his RAs were doing it.

The student also told me that in therapy, their therapist had been misunderstanding them, blaming them, and denying that these misunderstandings were because of a language barrier.

They felt that they were so bad at communicating, because of their language, and their culture, and their head injury, that they would never be a good scholar. They thought they had to use chatGPT to make them sound like an American, or they would never get a job.

They also told me that when they used chatGPT to help them write emails, they got more responses, which helped them with research recruitment.

I've heard this from other students too. That faculty only respond to their emails when they use chatGPT. The great irony of my viral autistic email thread was always that had I actually used AI to write it, I would have sounded decidedly less robotic.

ChatGPT is probably pretty good at spitting out the meaningless pleasantries that people associate with respectability. But it's terrible at making coherent, complex, academic arguments!

Last semester, I gave my graduate students an assignment. They were to read some reports on labor exploitation and environmental impact of chatGPT and other language models. Then they were to write a reflection on why they have used chatGPT in the past, and how they might chose to use it in the future.

I told them I would not be policing their LLM use. But I wanted them to know things about it they were unlikely to know, and I warned them about the ways that using an LLM could cause them to submit inadequate work (incoherent methods and fake references, for example).

In their reflections, many international students reported that they used chatGPT to help them correct grammar, and to make their writing "more polished".

I was sad that so many students seemed to be relying on chatGPT to make them feel more confident in their writing, because I felt that the real problem was faculty attitudes toward multilingual scholars.

I have worked with a number of graduate international students who are told by other faculty that their writing is "bad", or are given bad grades for writing that is reflective of English as a second language, but still clearly demonstrates comprehension of the subject matter.

I believe that written communication is important. However, I also believe in focused feedback. As a professor of design, I am grading people's ability to demonstrate that they understand concepts and can apply them in design research and then communicate that process to me.

I do not require that communication to read like a first language student, when I am perfectly capable of understanding the intent. When I am confused about meaning, I suggest clarifying edits.

I can speak and write in one language with competence. How dare I punish international students for their bravery? Fixation on normative communication chronically suppresses their grades and their confidence. And, most importantly, it doesn't improve their language skills!

If I were teaching rhetoric and comp it might be different. But not THAT different. I'm a scholar of neurodivergent and Mad rhetorics. I can't in good conscious support Divergent rhetorics while supressing transnational rhetoric!

Anyway, if you want your students to stop using chatGPT then stop being racist and ableist when you grade.

#chatGPT #LLM #academic #graduateStudents #internationalStudents #ESL

@strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz avatar

> ChatGPT is probably pretty good at spitting out the meaningless pleasantries that people associate with respectability. But it's terrible at making coherent, complex, academic arguments!

This! Also...

> you want your students to stop using chatGPT then stop being racist and ableist when you grade


  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • bokunoheroacademia
  • thenastyranch
  • magazineikmin
  • khanakhh
  • Youngstown
  • slotface
  • rosin
  • GTA5RPClips
  • tacticalgear
  • ethstaker
  • tester
  • DreamBathrooms
  • kavyap
  • everett
  • HellsKitchen
  • Durango
  • mdbf
  • modclub
  • cubers
  • Leos
  • normalnudes
  • InstantRegret
  • osvaldo12
  • cisconetworking
  • lostlight
  • anitta
  • relationshipadvice
  • sketchdaily
  • All magazines