I don’t feel like commenting on his death, so I’ll let Andre the Giant speak for me.
ANDRE THE GIANT “I’don’t like to speak badly of people. I have grown up thinking and being told that if you cannot say something nice about someone, you should not say anything at all. But I must break that rule in this case because I hate Hulk Hogan very much. He is a big ugly goon and | want to squash his face.”
Enough said.
There is an app called Tea which purports to be a tool to protect women’s safety — it allows women to share info about the men they’ve been dating.
Tea launched back in 2023 but this week skyrocketed to the top of the U.S. Apple App Store, Business Insider reported. The app lets women anonymously post photos of men, along with stories of their alleged experience with them, and ask others for input. It has some similarities to the ‘Are We Dating The Same Guy?’ Facebook groups that 404 Media previously covered.
“Are we dating the same guy? Ask our anonymous community of women to make sure your date is safe, not a catfish, and not in a relationship,” the app’s page on the both the Apple App Store and Google Play Store reads.
When creating an account, users are required to upload a selfie, which Tea says it uses to determine whether the user is a woman or not. In our own tests, after uploading a selfie the app may say a user is put into a waitlist for verification that can last 17 hours, suggesting many people are trying to sign up at the moment.
I’m already dubious — they use a photo of the applicant to determine their sex? That’s sloppy, and I can see many opportunities for false positives and false negatives.
But that’s not the big problem. The Tea database got hacked…by 4chan.
Yes, if you sent Tea App your face and drivers license, they doxxed you publicly! No authentication, no nothing. It’s a public bucket,a post on 4chan providing details of the vulnerability reads.DRIVERS LICENSES AND FACE PICS! GET THE FUCK IN HERE BEFORE THEY SHUT IT DOWN!
Congratulations. Your personal info has just been delivered to the worst collection of slimy sleazebags on the internet.
I’m just shocked that this app went live without the most rigorous evaluation of its security. You’re collecting scans of driver’s licenses with selfie photos, with only the most rudimentary precautions? What else? Social security numbers, bank accounts?
I’m sure we’ve all felt this way before — some smug know-nothing confronts you with a dilemma out of his own imagining, and then expects you to applaud and recognize the brilliance of his insight.
That guy in the red sweater is every creationist on the planet.
It’s amusing to imagine playing along, but even better is when a scientist replies with dumbfounded incredulity. I found an example of that, but I’m not going to address it myself, because it’s on the topic of physics and cosmology, and I have only a superficial knowledge of the subject, so I’d only be able to say “I don’t know” if queried on the details. This video, Roger Penrose confronts creationist critic Stephen Meyer, is wonderfully satisfying.
Stephen Meyer is fond of pontificating on the origins of the universe, and he often claims that physicists like Hawking and Penrose are supporting his ideas about the Big Bang, and singularities, and fine tuning — it’s annoying because he doesn’t actually understand what he’s saying, but loves to quote sciencey-sounding fragments that make you think physics is pro-intelligent design. In that 20 minute video, they show clips of Meyer chattering about physics with Christian apologists like Sean McDowell, intercut with Roger Penrose replying.
He’s usually saying “that makes no sense” or “that’s wrong” before explaining what he actually wrote or discussing the details of his theory. I’m not going to discuss any of the details of Penrose’s CCC theory, because I’m afraid he’ll then turn around and make a video titled “Roger Penrose debunks biologist critic PZ Myers”. It could happen. Watch the whole video and see what you think.
Best outcome: Stephen Meyer shuts the fuck up and stops distorting Penrose’s physics.
P.S. Angela Collier rips into billionaires who think they can use AI to solve deep problems using “vibe physics”. It’s the same problem: poseurs who think they can skip all the hard work and math and go straight to their Nobel prize.
I just got invited to join a site for “influencers”, and I’m so enthused. I never imagined that an OnlyFans-like site would send me a personal invitation to participate.
Hi PZ,
I’m reaching out on behalf of Top4Fans, a subscription-based platform that’s a strong alternative to OnlyFans. Our goal is to help you boost your earnings, save time, and benefit from personalized support tailored to your needs.
We’d love to offer you a custom collaboration, with the possibility of a paid partnership, depending on your profile and level of engagement.
I took a look at some examples from their site.
Should I join? Would you pay to subscribe to pictures of my feet or my tushie? I have some doubts.
I’ve long despised debate — if you’ve been here long you know how opposed I am to debate — and the recent debacles with the Jubilee channel, which invites one person to engage 20 people with an opposing ideology, has demonstrated how terrible this format is. It’s simply an opportunity to give idiots a platform and to promote bad ideas unfettered by constraints. I’m a broken record on this topic, but fortunately, Rebecca Watson can articulate why these people, and this concept, are awful.
One thing that annoyed me is that Rebecca got a copyright strike and had to edit out a segment showing the one apparently honest attempt at communication within the debate. So much for Jubilee just encouraging the free expression of ideas! They’re a machine using controversy to generate clicks.
And Candace Owens is their queen. This is an unbelievable claim from a person who has been spiraling into lunacy for a long time.
In March, conservative commentator Candace Owens revived an absurd conspiracy theory with a YouTube video titled “Is France’s First Lady a Man?” according to the complaint.
Promoted widely on X, Owens said the conspiracy theory was, “likely the biggest scandal in political history.”
Wait, wait. I’m not giving her wacky claim an ounce of credibility — I’ll trust what Brigitte Macron and her husband say over a pronouncement from a notorious Internet wackaloon — but even if it were true, so what. There’s nothing criminal, scandalous, or illegal about a trans woman in politics. It is scandalous that Candace Owens is fine with making random accusations.
Since then, Owens has produced numerous videos about Brigitte Macron for her nearly 4.5 million YouTube subscribers, including a multi-part series called “Becoming Brigitte.”
The lawsuit further claims she has also sold merchandise promoting the claim.
She’s pumping out multiple videos on this topic? That’s a “you” problem, Candace, you’re obsessed.
The Macrons have already provided lots of evidence that Brigitte is a woman. Shouldn’t the fact that she gave birth to three children be enough to satisfy even the wackiest transvestigator? Time for a legal solution.
The Macrons are seeking punitive damages against Owens and her business entities for 22 counts of defamation, false light, and defamation by implication, the statement said.
Clare declined to say the amount of money the Macrons would seek but warned that if Owens continues to double-down on the claim, “it’ll be a substantial award.”
I hope this bankrupts Candace.
When I was a kid, I would park myself in my grandmother’s vegetable garden and snarfle my way down the rows, eating the carrots and peas like some gigantic verminous pest. My wife planted peas in our garden just for me, and the first pods were ready for eating.
Mmmmm. Peas. A glorious vegetable.
Could someone explain to me how Marc Andreesen has so much clout? Everything I’ve ever read by him says he’s a flaming goofball and wanna-be fascist. Here he is expounding on academia.
“The combination of DEI and immigration is politically lethal,” Andreessen wrote. “When these two forms of discrimination combine, as they have for the last 60 years and on hyperdrive for the last decade, they systematically cut most of the children of the Trump voter base out of any realistic prospect of access to higher education and corporate America.”
So he is afraid that the white children of Trump voters, a notoriously ignorant group that hates education (especially secular education), is being displaced from educational opportunities by ambitious immigrants and go-getter minorities. This is a non-issue. We’re supposed to prioritize lazy students (or to be fair, students who have been deprived of a good basic education by America’s fucked-up public education policy) over students who are willing to work hard because their parents voted for Trump? What an insane proposal.
As usual, this the dream of freaked out conservatives who think student radicals are dictating the course of higher education. Somehow these kooks get all kinds of mainstream coverage, despite the fact that their beliefs are entirely counter to facts and reason. As Henry Farrell says
…most mainstream American commentary about free speech in the modern American university labors under a misconception. It regularly suggests that out of control students and crazy professors are running the place. There is an entire intellectual industry of centrist and conservative commentary driving this narrative, including people like Bari Weiss, the proprietor of the Free Press, who made her bones by working with The David Project to attack Columbia professors for purported anti-Semitism. Marc Andreessen claims that “politically radical institutions” are driving a leftward shift by teaching students “how to be America-hating communists.”
Anyone who has day-to-day experience with actual American students knows that these claims are complete horseshit. Some students are left, some moderate, some conservative. Most are more interested in getting jobs than burning flags. America-Hating Communism 101 is not, actually, a required course on most campuses. Econ 101 often is. And those who are protesting what Israel is doing in Gaza? They have something to protest.
I know my students, and they’re diverse and you can’t pigeonhole them into the caricatures Weiss and Andreesen have fabricated. These students are here to learn — or to get certified for a better job — and they definitely do not sign up for a buttload of debt and years of work so they can tear down the establishment. What happens is they get into an environment where they are expected to pay attention to the world, and history, and politics, and they are outraged, honestly and righteously. You can’t change this, unless you think the university should be a propaganda mill that refuses to represent reality. It’s also the case that even if the student body was full of bomb-throwing radicals, it wouldn’t matter, because they don’t control our curriculum, and they don’t even control our big money investments, or the appointments of our faculty and administrators.
Ideally, I consider the students to be the voice of the university’s conscience, which is all too often ignored.
If you think students and a radical faculty are in charge, look at this news from Duke University.
Duke University School of Medicine (SOM) plans to implement new faculty productivity guidelines that would tie tenured professors’ salaries to external research funding, according to documents reviewed by The Chronicle.
Set to go in effect in 2026, the proposed policy would apply to the school’s basic science units, which include departments ranging from biochemistry to neurobiology and various centers and institutes such as the Duke Cancer Institute and the Duke Human Vaccine Institute. These units rely heavily on grants from the National Institutes of Health, which have been increasingly difficult to come by due to slowdowns in grant review processes, an uptick in terminations and a lack of new funding opportunities since President Donald Trump assumed office.
Under the guidelines, each department must establish a minimum expectation for external grant funding. Tenured faculty members who do not meet the threshold — measured as a three-year average — would be given the option to either enter a 12-month “Safe Harbor” period, after which further inability to meet productivity standards will result in salary reductions, or consider career transition alternatives.
I guarantee you that the faculty did not approve massive salary cuts, tied to getting grants at a time when the government is destroying the apparatus of grant disbursement. This was a decision made in contradiction to faculty interests.
Farrell also made this lovely table that compares the perceived hierarchy of power within academia to the actual, little known (to the public, or to asshole pundits like Andreesen and Weiss) hierarchy.
I guess I’m at about level 4 in the distribution of power at the university, and even that’s misleading. If we were to plot the influence quantitatively, we’d have to use a power law distribution. Everything is in the hands of the board of trustees. Even where we faculty have some say in decisions, we can be overruled by the Board. Tenure, for instance, is proposed by faculty, but then has to be approved by the president, who then passes on the nomination to the Board, who can kill the idea without anything like a hearing or a discussion from the affected parties.
And students? Hah. Sorry. If students want to affect the administration of the university, they have to SCREAM and take over buildings and do all the things conservative hate, because they have no other options.
I hate it, but this Epstein story is destroying my confidence in government, which was already in tatters by Trump’s election. Now Mike Johnson has shut down the house of representatives early, sending everyone home for an early vacation, in order to prevent a vote to release the Epstein files? That’s a blatant coverup. The secrets are dribbling out…now we learn that Trump is mentioned many times in the files, but we don’t know the context.
It’s also raising questions we should have considered long ago. How did Epstein transition from high school teacher to billionaire with a private plane and his very own island? Personally, I’d like to know how to do that, but if it involves sex trafficking I’ll pass. Is the market for young girls that lucrative? Who is buying that access?
I’m also wondering if giving someone a billion dollars flips a switch in their brain and turns them into predators on children, or if being a predatory pedophile makes it easier to become a billionaire. Either way, it’s another reason to outlaw billionaires.
Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho) snuck a provision into a bill to fund the EPA that decreed that the Kennedy Center opera house would be renamed for…Melania Trump, a woman with no artistic talent or inclination, but who, presumably, sometimes sleeps with the president.
It’s a cult, I tell you.
Anyway, it’s unlikely that the bill will pass, and even if it did, I imagine the next time a Democrat is elected (if one is allowed to be elected), this is one of those things that would be casually and quickly deleted. I kind of hope Trump’s entire effort to buy his way into an association with the arts would be expunged at the first opportunity, because his idea of art is nothing but tacky kitsch, thinly plated with gold-colored stuff.
