SL 666

Love this video about the writing process behind this Skrillex/Bieber song.

What happened to autistic people in the past? Before the label?

Great response to the Ashley Madison moralizers.

In case you missed the seven hours of lip synching video.


37 thoughts on “SL 666

  1. Regarding autism, any genealogist can tell you that early modern wills frequently make reference to a child who is obviously not anticipated ever to marry or live independently. Presumably, these were children with some sort of neurological or psychological disorder (but not one that made them dangerous), and they remained on the family farm with an older brother or sister until they died.


  2. Regarding adultery, I don’t think it’s cheap moralizing to tell those lazy bastards to go hit on a woman face-to-face like a normal person.


  3. Digby Schmigby. The correct criticism of Clinton is not his betrayal of his wife – clearly she has made some sort of deal with him where it is okay – but his use of his power to get access to a young woman with far less power, and whose life has now been forever misshaped because of it.


      1. They guaranteed an affair if you paid extra? That’s almost worst than the charging you to delete your records and not doing that.


      2. “You likely joined already for FREE just to see what the site was about, curiosity may have drawn you in, or maybe it was because you were seeking adventure. Regardless of the reason, you are at the point that you are deciding how much money to spend in order to be able to start contacting members and begin your search to have an affair with a married woman or man. We offer three types of packages: Introductory, Elite, and the Affair Guarantee. These all provide you with various numbers of credits to spend on different things inside our website.”

        It’s $249 for their Affair Guarantee.

        Apparently Josh Duggar went for that package.

        But how are you going to make them cough up the money?

        Lousy web design on that page, by the way–I’ve seen car insurance ads that were way more enticing.


      3. That seems kind of clever. It’s not an affair guarantee. It’s “Affair Guarantee” as a proper noun for a package. I don’t know if that would pass legal muster or not, but if people start suing them, the lack of data security is going to bankrupt the company anyway.


  4. If no one is allowed to judge someone else’s marriage, why do we have governmental and societal recognition of marriage? We want others to respect our marriages and we want society to grant and recognize rights attached to it (inheritance, medical decisions, etc.) That, unfortunately, comes with some judgment, but it is invited judgment.


      1. This is a bad analogy. People judge drinking all the time. Just walking home doesn’t get you out of it. If you slur at work, I will judge you. If you get so drunk you piss yourself, I will judge you, even if you walk home. Are you seriously saying if you get drunk and stumble around I’m not ALLOWED to judge you as long as you walk home? That’s not the only way to be a drunken problem.

        A marriage is often a big party where everyone celebrates that two people have committed to one another. We invite friends and family to celebrate that commitment. If one party decides to cheat, or even if the pair decide that’s not how they want it work, people will judge. We now know you weren’t serious about that commitment or that you see it in a very different way from others. That gives us new information about you and affects how we see you. It should.


      2. Maybe, but unless they wrote their own vows omitted the “until death do us part”, you can say the same thing about everybody who is divorced. That’s about 1/3 of everybody over 50.


      3. I admit I laughed at the Duggar guy being on the list. But I refrained from figuring out how to search for the emails of people I know.


  5. I have a strange interest in blind gossip websites. They are low flying websites that give the dirt on Hollywood celebrities. It’s kinda fascinating, because other celebrity outlets like People magazine are controlled by the PR people. Some smaller celebrity webistes are supposedly even paid for by the celebrities themselves. These blind websites get tips from the minions who service the celebrities. I think they protect themselves legally by making the items blind, but everyone guesses who’s who in the comment sections.

    Anyway, it’s funny what these blind websites target as bad behavior. There’s the obvious – cheating on a spouse, casting couch stuff, excessive drug use, rudeness to fans. They also mock gay celebrities who pretend to be straight and their beards, anorexics, Scientologists, and has-been actresses who make money by selling themselves to rich Saudis on yachts in Europe.


  6. I saw the Gizmodo article. It is surreal–is flirting with virtual people infidelity? And how bizarre must it be to work creating fake people. I assume the employees are bound by non-disclosure agreements.

    I’m not impressed by the “mind your own business” like of argument on the larger issue. Test: Pretend you find your spouse’s contact information and credit card in the AM data. Would you say, “no big deal?” Or would you call a divorce lawyer?

    They seem to have been delivering a fake product. 34 million x monthly membership charges = lots of money. I don’t suppose anyone will sue.


    1. Talking about what you would do if you found your own spouse on there isn’t really a rebuttal to “mind your own business.” That is minding your own business. The relevant question would be what if you saw something that would make you suspicious that the spouse of someone you know is cheating. I’d hope you’d at least pause a bit before butting in if the evidence was no stronger than an email address appearing on a web site that didn’t verify those addresses.


      1. The digby article though says we shouldn’t judge. That’s different from butting in. If I found evidence the spouse of someone I know is cheating, I would think less of that person, but I wouldn’t necessarily tell the spouse.


      2. You kind of have to butt in if you are going to judge anybody specifically. The only name you get from the press is just that Duggar guy.


      3. I think you are specifically talking about searching names. I am not. Digby is saying no one can judge someone else’s marriage, especially long term ones. I think that’s crap, that’s my point. Not that we should go digging through the AM data. I have read of a large number of people using their apparent work emails – .gov, .mil and .edu. What a bunch of morons.


      4. If it makes you feel better, I’ll try not to judge you for judging them.

        I do wonder about the the domains for the email addresses and if it could be used to tell what professions are more likely to see somebody enroll. I’d think male dominated professions might be more common as you can’t have a heterosexual affair at work if everybody else is a man. But maybe it’s the mixed-gender workplaces that get more of it because they’re around different women more often and it’s probably really hard to hit on your co-workers if you’re married.


      5. A wild card is that some of the accounts are pranks against innocent parties

        However, you’d really have to hate somebody to actually pay for a prank Ashley Madison account for them. So, if it’s a private person (say, Bob in accounting) and a paid account my guess would be guilty as charged. But if it’s a public person and a free account, I’d give them the benefit of the doubt.


  7. I just won’t look. It’s intriguing that I’m not tempted, because in a lot of cases (house prices, salaries, voting inclinations, where people went to college, where their children went to college, . . .), I’m totally a google snoop. I’m not sure if it’s the subject matter (I don’t really want to know if anyone I know is cheating on their spouse) or if it’s the data break (as opposed to the snooping/hunting down of information that isn’t private, like house prices).


  8. Obviously, this will kill Ashley Madison. For the next one, can I suggest the name eDultery. That’s less creepy because none of my young cousins have that name.


      1. It’s been two weeks since the hack. One week since the Gizmodo story. At $20 an hour, working 24 hours a day (teams of liberal arts majors with non-disclosure agreements), say, creating 4 profiles an hour,

        (88,000/4) => 22,000 man-hours
        22,000/24 => 916 days of work.
        916 /7 => 131 days of work to be completed each day, to fit the schedule of a week. Assume two teams, each working 12 hours a day.
        262 people.

        22,000 x 20 = $440,000 in payment to contracting company that organized the workers.

        It would easily fit within a budget of 34 million people paying monthly membership fees.

        Gizmodo has amended its report. There are more women, (about 5 million), but it’s even weirder than the first analysis.

        Ashley Madison aspired to be a global network of people breaking the bonds of monogamy in the name of YOLO. Instead, it was mostly a collection straight men talking to extremely busy bots who bombarded them with messages asking for money. I found a set of email templates called “mistress” which were sent out to urge men to spend money on Mistress Day, a pre-Valentines holiday on February 13. Ashley Madison CEO Noel Biderman did a huge publicity push for the holiday in 2014, doing interviews about it in the media and blasting out emails urging all members to buy more credits so they can find a mistress in time for the day.

        Gay people seemed to do best with the site, because the site ignored them.

        The spooky thing I can’t help thinking about is, where do they get the source material for the bots’ profiles? Are the photos from unlocked Facebook accounts copied to provide content?


      2. I think 4 profiles per hour is an overestimate of the effort involved. I remember reading the story of the women who writes dinosaur porn* (not going to google a link because I’m at the office). She’s churning out content at a book a week or more. Fake dating profiles would be even easier because there’s no paleontology to master.

        * That is, porn for humans that involves dinosaurs. It’s a thing now.


  9. MH, dunno. It depends on how unique the profiles need to be. I’ve read that there are few unusual college essays.* When millions of people write profiles, how similar are they to each other. Obviously, no one got suspicious prior to the hack that there were so many bots.

    My daughter claims her group of college friends plays Tinder Bingo, which is also a thing. There are patterns in human Tinder profiles, apparently. Pics with dogs, pics with cats, pics at the beach, pics with friends. Writing lol in your profile. etc.

    I find it depressing that the standard for female online interaction is set so low. Could these bots pass a Turing test?

    *So, during the College Application Period, I learned that a former Common Application prompt had unintended consequences. One essay prompt asked where the applicant felt “perfectly content.”. I heard that teenagers are perfectly content in their bedroom, at the beach, on the playing field, and in the bathroom. There may have been one more location, but not many more. Imagine–thousands of essays describing family bathrooms. (That essay has been dropped for this year.)


    1. Obviously, no one got suspicious prior to the hack that there were so many bots.

      I don’t know that we know that nobody got suspicious. That’s why the business plan was so great. If you are suspicious, what you are going to do? Write a letter to the editor about how the people who promised to enable your cheating on your wife were not honest?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s