New York Times: Are Shirt Buttons Sexist?

So I do find this sort of thing interesting. I could see companies retaining the difference in button placement for identification purposes -- given that men's and women's shirts are tailored differently, it potentially benefits consumers (and store employees shelving/inventorying the merch, etc) to be able to tell the difference at a glance. Nothing's stopping women from wearing men's shirts and vice versa in any case, especially if we can overcome any stigma/hesitation about being misgendered by our shirts?

(There are, in fact, companies that manufacture women's shirts with the buttons on the right side, and I've been tempted by a lot of the patterns and colors, but somehow I can't bring myself to buy one. But also trying them on hasn't been an option and I do worry about how/whether they'd fit? I do, admittedly, like and have no qualms about wearing tie-neck blouses -- they're loose fitting and more likely to work -- but they generally don't have front buttons.)

Have a couple of reads I found interesting. The anti-AI crowd talks a *lot* about the so-called cognitive decline that results from using GenAI (for particular tasks and in particular ways, not that they much care for nuance) as if it's causing actual brain damage, a point that they'll maintain despite the studies not actually saying *that* and moreover hardly concluding that GenAI should be banned as a result of their dangerous findings. (One might recall the frequent allegations that watching TV "rots" ones brain in a meaningful way and the likely contempt with which we'd view anyone who believed that in a literal sense.) Anyway, these articles touch on the described phenomenon in a more sensible manner.

From singularityhub: Is AI Making Us Dumber? (more...)

A followup to the tie things -- apparently this article was just in the NYT! I've gifted it. You might find it interesting. I was amused by the creative metaphors.

Contrary to the former fashion editor's assertion that there's something deliberate going on with the knot choices, I'd offer that it's more likely that the Windsor is the only knot they know how to tie -- as evidenced by how carelessly they're tying them? Namely that there's no dimple; aside from that it *is* hard to screw up a Windsor knot.

Heck, Trump should probably also be tying a Windsor -- it'd almost certainly look better than what looks like a shitty attempt at a Balthus knot to me. (But admittedly it can be hard to tell: as the article notes, the Duke of Windsor didn't *actually* wear a Windsor knot, but his thicker ties gave the appearance of one.) Trump's ties are also way goddamned too long, and a Balthus knot uses up a lot of fabric -- though it uses less if one's mainly using the thinner end of the tie for the knot as Trump seems to be. I'm confident that with big-and-tall ties and sufficient determination to look like shit -- and that bronzer makeup with negaverse raccoon circles around his eyes do indeed suggest that level of commitment -- one could achieve that length with a Balthus.

Anyway, you might find the article interesting/amusing. Enjoy. 😎

Sabrina may be a terrible friend, but damn does our girl get the swankest threads! More on that in this Popsugar article. It's an amusing read.

Anyway: I've finished watching Chilling Adventures of Sabrina S3. While I found it generally pretty satisfying -- the weirdly anticlimactic finale notwithstanding -- I don't think it's nearly as interesting or baffling as S2. Actually, I'd been meaning to write more about S2, but hadn't for fear of spoilers. Has enough time passed that I can spoil developments in S2? Imma spoil some developments in S2.

So one of the stranger things about the show is that witches in this canon straight-up worship Satan -- we're talking traditional Christian Satan, fallen angel, Prince of Hell, Father of Lies and all kinds of other evil shit. Most of the witchy holiday rites involve some manner of sacrifice and cannibalism; one reason the Spellmans run a mortuary is that closed-casket events for clients make for fine dining opportunities. Angels are agents of God and yet are clearly treated as villains when they appear -- Sabrina herself has killed two. And while initially the emphasis on Satanism felt like a move intended to make the show edgier and potentially offend uptight Christian audiences for no apparent reason beyond bad press, I ultimately got used to it? And then I found it weirdly entertaining. (more...)

I was recently discussing the appeal of wrestling with a friend, so this feels like a particularly apropos find! Admittedly I was generally more interested in the technical aspects of wrestling, but I think this short film does a great job of explaining some of the character and story appeal. (Plus it's briefly got Lola Blanc as the Undertaker, which is how it ended up on my radar.) Worth a watch for fans and non-fans alike.