Shared posts

02 Jun 19:38

mcmodernslopcore

Howdy, howdy, folks.

For many years (ten now, about which, more soon) McMansion Hell has featured many prominent and diverse atrocities from all over these great United States and sometimes beyond them. However, most of these posts have consisted of houses built during the McMansion Era proper – from the 80s up through around the early 2010s.

This is for a number of reasons. First of all: I like these houses because they are insane. Second of all, they are indeed quite different from one another – they represent the owner’s idiosyncratic if poorly rendered desires and fantasies. They are heavily psychologically loaded buildings. One family dreams endlessly of Tuscany, another wants to recreate the mall. All interiorize previously exterior forms of consumption.

These houses were also very expensive to build compared to their contemporary iterations: all real, solid wood cabinetry and trim, wrought iron railings, marble floors, elaborate murals - none of this is cheap. This is not to say that I’m nostalgic for the classical McMansion (though many are) only that it, like, most other facets of architectural and everyday life, have become progressively cheaper and more bland.

The McMansion never truly goes away. It merely changes shape over time. One of the shapes it currently takes is a particularly loathsome imitation of contemporary high architecture (specifically the kind of houses architects love to build for celebrities in California) executed in the most wretchedly parsimonious manner possible. It feels cheap to use the word ‘slop’ but their indiscriminate nature - the way they have no regard for why or how the things they imitate even work - allows it. Of all the building forms that could be generated with AI, this is the most likely. At any rate, behold:

Yes this is a real house. Yes you can buy it for $6 million in, yet again, Barrington, IL. It has 5 bedrooms and 5.5 bathrooms totaling 11,600 square feet. But most importantly, it looks like dogshit, and that’s with ten layers of Photoshop have been used to gussy it up which, by the way, also makes it appear entirely not of this world. Were it not for the photos of the empty interiors, I myself would have trouble trusting my own eyes. Part of the reason it looks so unreal is because the design itself is absurd, as though someone created four equally ugly vessels and threw them up one by one.

In 2017, in a now-deleted essay for Curbed (RIP - they destroyed the archive) I called these types of houses McModerns, simply because they were McMansions dressed up in modernist garb, which they wore no differently than they would Neo-Tudor or Mediterranean (broadly construed.) These houses don’t warrant a new neologism, but they do feel like a degraded or perhaps even gonzo version of even that old concept. Slop works fine too, especially because half of what’s in these images isn’t real.

Much fascinates me about these houses, however one of the most unique elements vis a vis the last 30 years of building is how overtly and almost hostilely masculine they are. Anything that can be construed as feminized - color, softness, ornament - has been ruthlessly purged. They also rip off tech industry minimalism which only ads to their bro-ey nature. While previous iterations of McModernism (think new builds in Colorado with fake wood exteriors) scream dads with IPAs, these houses scream Reddit to me. They are Elon Musk-adjacent in sentiment.

By the way, this is what that room looks like without the fake furniture. It’s basically a sunroom.

Whole Foods would like to call in a robbery.

Because these houses are designed by men, for men, no one involved has learned how a kitchen works. Many are calling this setup the “grindset tiktok video kitchen.” This is the kitchen you see in those day in the life of an AI startup founder videos your algorithm forces you to watch against your will.

Virtual staging is actual literal slop. In fact, one can say that it was an early harbinger of the ontological crisis we now face, one of the first instances where one is forced against one’s will to question reality, what one sees with one’s own eyes. Beyond that, I think virtual staging is literally a form of lying. You can use it to make a space look bigger or smaller than it is. In this – lying to impress – it also has a lot in common with AI. This dining room has nothing to do with the world I’m living in. These chairs are not my problem.

It’s actually AMAZING how much of what’s in this house, beyond the furniture, is fake. Every single material is fake. The stone is aluminum paneling. The plants are plastic. The concrete is printed on some kind of surface (as evidenced through its repetitive pattern), though it’s hard to say from just pictures. I don’t even trust the floors!!

Ok if you haven’t read Kelly Pendergrast’s amazing essay “Merchandizing the Void” about how houses are all like stores now, HERE IS THE LINK. Some ideas never die, they just evolve, king. Like you.

Please, I’m very cold.

Unfortunately there are no pictures of the rear exterior of this house, so this is where we will have to conclude for today. That being said, these houses and their antecedents are developing a design language all their own that will, in time, be as culturally rich to us as the houses of yore. The problem is they are less visually interesting. They are houses made to scroll in and scroll right by. Expect to see more of them here, but only if they have something, anything to say.

If you like this post and want more like it, support McMansion Hell on Patreon for as little as $1/month for access to great bonus content including a discord server, extra posts, and livestreams. (Don’t worry! This doesn’t adjust for inflation! Now’s the perfect time to join!) By the way: new subscribers can buy a year of McMansion Hell for just $12!

Not into recurring payments? Try the tip jar! (I would seriously appreciate any and all tips because I am in the process of moving house!)

19 May 18:26

A key science publishing platform is cracking down on AI slop

by Vitomir Kovanovic, Professor and Associate Director of the Centre for Change and Complexity in Learning (C3L), Education Futures, Adelaide University
Joyce Hankins / Unsplash

The pre-print website arXiv has announced that researchers who put their names to papers which included errors clearly generated by artificial intelligence (AI) will face a year-long ban and ongoing restrictions.

The move is a response to a growing influx of AI-generated papers faced by scholarly journals as well as sites such as arXiv, which serve as unofficial platforms for research publication ahead of peer review.

However, not everyone agrees that arXiv’s response to the problem is appropriate – and the solution to the flood of AI slop research may involve more AI, not less.

The rise of bot-assisted writing

AI-generated text is on the rise everywhere. A study released last week suggests half of new articles published online are now “primarily AI-generated”.

Science is not immune to this trend. Last month, the journal Organization Science published a study of how the rise of AI has affected submissions and peer reviews since the release of ChatGPT in 2022. Reporting a dramatic rise in submitted papers and a drop in quality, the authors conclude that “the current state of AI tools, amplified by existing publish-or-perish incentives, appears to be pushing the system toward an equilibrium of more rather than better research”.

A common problem in AI-generated research writing is hallucinated citations: references to other research that does not exist.

The traditional safeguard against poor quality in scholarly publishing is peer review: another expert in the subject at hand reads the research paper and interrogates the work behind it before it can be published.

However, the peer review system was already struggling before AI. Pressured researchers often have little time or incentive to do the unpaid work of peer review.

And on arXiv, which publishes preprints – articles which have most often not been peer-reviewed – even this system is not available. Last year, flooded with AI-generated submissions, the site stopped accepting certain types of article.

A study published in January (itself a preprint) estimated around 1 in 8 papers in biomedical science now contain AI-generated text.

Most researchers would agree that AI-generated text is not a problem in itself. The problem is the lower-quality work that AI can make easy to produce.

Does the punishment fit the crime?

The ArXiv announcement doesn’t come out against AI use, but rather says

If a submission contains incontrovertible evidence that the authors did not check the results of LLM generation, this means we can’t trust anything in the paper.

This may be true as far as it goes. But the penalty – a year-long ban for all authors listed on a paper – may be out of keeping with current research practices.

In the past, research was often carried out by people working alone or in groups of two or three. In these circumstances, it seems reasonable to expect each author to take responsibility for the whole.

But research is now more collaborative than ever before. Many papers have four or five authors, and in a growing number of extreme cases papers may be credited to groups of hundreds of scientists working together, each working on their own speciality and trusting their colleagues to be doing the same.

In a case where one author of dozens or hundreds included an AI-hallucinated reference in their part of the paper, banning the lot seems harsh.

And there are no equivalent sanctions for publishing other problematic material. There’s no ban for pushing fringe or discredited theories, or using poor quality evidence and illogical arguments, for example.

Can AI help fight slop?

The rise of AI produces problems for publishers and quality assurance. And the idea of some kind of sanctions for reckless use of AI, such as included hallucinated references, is a good one.

But ArXiv’s particular choice seems drastic. If the goal is to improve peer review and quality assurance, AI systems themselves can play a role.

Modern AI systems are quite capable of taking a list of references and checking everything on it is a real paper available on the internet. Any references flagged as suspect can then be checked by a human.

AI can even be useful for carrying out quick sense-checks of things like a paper’s statistical analysis.

Perhaps this is the way forward, rather than harsh sanctions for relatively minor AI-related infractions.

The Conversation

Vitomir Kovanovic does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

18 May 17:27

USF library furniture upgrades delayed to end of May

by Isabella Cruz, CORRESPONDENT

USF students walking through the Tampa Library could see two floors with a furniture facelift by the end of the month. Todd Chavez, the dean of the USF Libraries, said the Tampa Library is refurbishing its third and fourth floors to standardize furniture and improve study spaces for students. Both floors are collaborative study floors […]

The post USF library furniture upgrades delayed to end of May appeared first on The Oracle.

05 May 17:29

USF community says Mosaic waste pile expansion poses environmental threat

by Mariana Deters, CORRESPONDENT

Mosaic, a Tampa-based fertilizer and agricultural company, is seeking federal approval to expand one of its waste piles by 180 acres — raising concerns among Tampa Bay environmental advocates and USF students.  Mosaic’s Riverview East Stack waste pile is a hundreds-feet-tall phosphogypsum stack that contains radioactive waste left over from fertilizer production, according to the […]

The post USF community says Mosaic waste pile expansion poses environmental threat appeared first on The Oracle.

24 Apr 18:14

USF professors, students share how they navigate AI policies in classrooms

by Allyson Diaz-Rubio, STAFF WRITER

USF’s generative artificial intelligence ethical guidance policy covers how programs can be used academically — but it leaves enforcement and implementation to professors. The university’s Guidance for Ethical Generative AI Usage refers to GenAI, such as ChatGPT, Gemini and Claude, which can automatically create content including writing, pictures, videos and code. USF’s syllabus templates allow […]

The post USF professors, students share how they navigate AI policies in classrooms appeared first on The Oracle.

22 Apr 18:59

USF library murals aim to connect campuses through art

by Angelina Kouchnir, CORRESPONDENT

Three new USF-themed murals now greet students who walk through the university’s libraries.  USF Libraries spokesperson Zibby Wilder said new murals were rolled out across all USF campuses in mid-to-late March. Wilder said USF Sarasota-Manatee’s Information Commons received the first mural the week before spring break, followed by the USF Tampa Library over the break […]

The post USF library murals aim to connect campuses through art appeared first on The Oracle.

22 Apr 18:58

USF’s faculty union reaches tentative agreement with university after two years

by Luiza Campos, STAFF WRITER

USF and its chapter of the United Faculty of Florida reached a tentative agreement on April 6 after two years of bargaining negotiations. USF President Moez Limayem shared the news with faculty via email and during a faculty town hall the same day. The university’s UFF chapter negotiates Collective Bargaining Agreements that define the terms […]

The post USF’s faculty union reaches tentative agreement with university after two years appeared first on The Oracle.

13 Apr 13:31

OPINION: Professors and students need to work to make class more engaging

by ATHARIAN KING, CORRESPONDENT

In my first class back from spring break this semester, I noticed something odd. One of my classmates decided that during the lecture was the perfect time to catch up on season three of Jujutsu Kaisen.  That’s when it really hit me that a lot of USF students just aren’t engaged in the classroom. Obviously, […]

The post OPINION: Professors and students need to work to make class more engaging appeared first on The Oracle.

07 Apr 19:48

USF Student Government approves resolution for duck crossing signs

by Isabella Cruz, CORRESPONDENT

USF’s Student Government Senate unanimously approved a resolution in February to install duck crossing signs at the Tampa campus at the intersection of USF Holly Court and USF Myrtle Drive. Kaylee Ortega, a junior biology major, drafted the resolution after working on a similar passion project that collected roadkill data by driving around Temple Terrace […]

The post USF Student Government approves resolution for duck crossing signs appeared first on The Oracle.

07 Apr 19:47

Keel Farms hosts a multi-week Blueberry Festival in Plant City

by Bob Carskadon

One of the region’s tastiest spring traditions is back. Keel Farms is hosting its annual Blueberry Festival for three straight weekends in April, beginning this weekend. The experience is free […]

The post Keel Farms hosts a multi-week Blueberry Festival in Plant City appeared first on That's So Tampa.

07 Apr 19:47

Ybor City is getting a 4,300-seat, theatre-style music venue in Gasworx District

by Bob Carskadon

In the middle of a huge year for concerts in Tampa, news came out today that the city is getting a sparkling new mid-sized venue, albeit in the somewhat distant […]

The post Ybor City is getting a 4,300-seat, theatre-style music venue in Gasworx District appeared first on That's So Tampa.

19 Mar 19:30

Pete Hegseth is working hard to make sure the public hears only good news about Iran war

by Kathy Kiely, Professor and Lee Hills Chair of Free Press Studies, University of Missouri-Columbia
The Trump administration doesn't like the free press's coverage of the Iran war. MirageC/Getty

Martha Gellhorn stowed away on a hospital ship to become the only woman journalist to land on Normandy Beach on D-Day. She carried stretchers before writing her harrowing account of the invasion.

The New Yorker’s famously epicurean writer A.J. Liebling subsisted on military rations and came under fire during World War II to describe what it was like for the soldiers and sailors at war.

Syndicated columnist Ernie Pyle died, in a helmet and Army fatigues, among some of the troops whose names and hometowns he carefully included in his dispatches. “At this spot, the 77th Infantry lost a buddy,” read the makeshift sign posted at the place where a Japanese machine gun bullet felled him.

Those reporters told stories of war in all its gore and its glory, its exhilaration and its ennui. Others have laid bare the anxiety and doubts.

Veteran Vietnam correspondent Neil Sheehan broke the story of the Pentagon Papers, which showed how government officials deceived the public about the Vietnam war. Sheehan won a Pulitzer Prize for his book, “A Bright Shining Lie,” which chronicled the war’s impact on idealists who once believed in it, through the story of his relationship with an inside source.

Well before bombs started dropping on Iran and President Donald Trump began to tease the notion of a ground invasion, his defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, began putting obstacles in the way of the reporters with the most experience covering the nation’s military. While Hegseth’s moves haven’t stopped the reporters from doing their jobs, it has made it harder for them to keep the public informed.

As someone who worked as a Washington correspondent for decades, I worry that these obstacles could limit the number of reporters who have the experience with – and trust of – key sources to do the kind of in-depth, nuanced journalism that a war, with its price in lives and resources, deserves.

A group of men dressed for cold weather standing on a boat.
A group of press correspondents on board a U.S. landing craft en route to amphibious maneuvers off the coast of England on May 8, 1944, including, with his back to the camera on right, A.J. Liebling of The New Yorker magazine. AP photo

Corralling the watchdogs

Generally, war correspondents need the cooperation of the military they are covering to get to the front. For the U.S. press, that requires relationships and credibility at the Pentagon.

Early in 2025, Hegseth ordered major news organizations to give up their desks in the Pentagon press room to MAGA favorites. NPR’s desk went to Breitbart News. Roaming the hallways, where reporters sometimes found sources who would deviate from the company line, became verboten.

Eventually, the area in the Pentagon where reporters were allowed was circumscribed to a single corridor outside the press room – even though the public affairs officers who worked most closely with reporters were in an office on the other side of the 6½-million-square-foot building.

Then Hegseth conditioned the issuance of press credentials on reporters, effectively giving military brass the right to censor or sanitize their reports.

As a result, almost the entire Pentagon press corps, which included outlets ranging from The Associated Press to The New York Times to Fox News and USNI News, which covers the Navy, moved out of the building in October 2025. Some have been invited back for the press briefings Hegseth and Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have begun to give on progress of the battle in Iran.

But after the first of these briefings, the Pentagon abruptly banned photographers from attending, reportedly because Hegseth’s staff found some of their images of him to be unflattering.

Secretary on defense

Gone are the off-camera “background” briefings where Department of Defense brass could give trusted reporters greater context and nuance for battlefield decisions. Gone are the impromptu hallway meetings where reporters have, with luck or persistence, picked up information that deviates from an administration’s agreed-upon script.

Also not in evidence, at least not so far: the deployment of the kind of journalistic embed program that the Pentagon used during the Iraq war to give the American people an up-close look at troops in the conflict zone.

How might that affect what you, the public, gets to know? It was a combination of an anonymous tip and insider access that led the legendary investigative reporter Seymour Hersh to break the devastating story of My Lai, the American soldiers’ massacre of civilians during the Vietnam War.

At the made-for-TV briefings he does hold, Hegseth devotes most of the session to questions from outlets such as the Epoch Times, The Daily Caller and LindellTV – owned by Mike Lindell, the head of the well-known pillow company.

At one recent briefing, one of the favored new cadre tossed Hegseth a shameless softball. Referring to American troops in the Middle East, the questioner asked: “What is your prayer for them?”

Yet as hostilities drag on, even some among Hegseth’s chosen press corps have begun to ask irksome questions about the war. The normally Trump-friendly Daily Caller ran a less-than-flattering piece about the president berating a reporter for asking about troop deployments.

On March 4, 2026, Hegseth accused journalists of focusing on war casualties to make “the president look bad.” On March 13, Hegseth castigated as “more fake news” CNN’s report that the Trump administration had underestimated the impact of the war on shipping traffic in the Strait of Hormuz.

“The sooner David Ellison takes over that network, the better,” Hegseth concluded, adding fuel to the speculation that a Trump supporter who won a bidding war for CNN’s corporate parent is going to turn the network into a more administration-friendly outlet.

Soon after, Federal Communications Commission chairman Brendan Carr threatened network broadcast licenses over coverage critical of the administration’s conduct of the war. Echoing Carr’s threats the next day: the president himself.

‘Be a Marine’

The Trump administration is not alone in its disdain for a free press: Israel has long been notorious for restricting press access from areas where it is conducting military operations.

Leaders of the theocratic Iranian regime are even worse; the country is cited by press freedom advocate Reporters Without Borders as “one of the world’s most repressive countries in terms of press freedom.”

But the United States has historically distinguished itself by making freedom its calling card, even – or perhaps especially – in wartime.

“The news may be good, or bad. We shall tell you the truth,” Voice of America, a U.S. government-launched radio network, promised – in German – in its very first broadcast to Nazi Germany in 1942.

Two men, including one in a military uniform, at lecterns, speaking.
Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, left, and Adm. Charles Bradford Cooper II, commander of U.S. Central Command, during a press conference at U.S. Central Command headquarters in Tampa, Fla., on March 5, 2026. Octavio Jones/AFP via Getty Images

Now, however, the Trump administration, is busy trying to undermine the editorial independence of Voice of America, which broadcasts news to countries that don’t have a free press.

Pentagon reporters are continuing to find ways to get around the propaganda. NPR’s Tom Bowman told me that he takes inspiration from a pep talk he overheard a military source deliver to another reporter crestfallen over the lack of access.

“Quit whining and be a Marine,” the official said. “Go over, under or around the obstacle. Find a way to do it.”

Most reporters and their organizations are doing just that, finding sources outside the administration, like the ones in Congress who told The Hill how much money the war is costing taxpayers per day. And they’re continuing to get information from sources on the inside, like the ones who told The Wall Street Journal that Trump’s military advisers warned him that Iran might block the Gulf of Hormuz, but that he opted for war anyway.

So far, neither Hegseth’s obstacle course nor threats from the White House and the FCC have stopped the press from reporting stories or asking questions that the administration would rather not see or hear.

But restrictions on press freedom have a corrosive effect. We already have seen how Trump, using lawsuits and licensing threats, has used his power to make corporate media owners think twice about pursuing news he doesn’t like.

Seasoned Pentagon reporters will still find ways to get to sources they already have. But Hegseth’s tactic of blocking press access to the military keeps reporters from developing new sources and keeps new reporters from building the relationships they need to become seasoned Pentagon reporters.

Americans have long been able to understand the triumphs and tribulations of American troops at war, and to make intelligent decisions about whether they approve of a war’s cost, because a free press has been able to tell the story – good or bad. That tradition is now at risk.

The Conversation

Kathy Kiely does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

17 Mar 19:45

Sizing Chaos

The inter-generational struggle to find clothes that fit more than a tiny portion of women.
12 Mar 13:08

Historic Tampa Theatre begins $24.5M restoration ahead of its centennial anniversary

by Bob Carskadon

The Tampa Theatre has been one of the city’s most beautiful and iconic buildings for nearly 100 years, and the local gem is only getting better as it hits the […]

The post Historic Tampa Theatre begins $24.5M restoration ahead of its centennial anniversary appeared first on That's So Tampa.

10 Feb 18:29

The truth about energy: why your 40s feel harder than your 20s, but there may be a lift later on

by Michelle Spear, Professor of Anatomy, University of Bristol

Some of us remember having more energy in our 20s. We could work late, sleep badly, have a night out, recover quickly and still feel capable the next day. By our 40s, that ease has often gone. Fatigue feels harder to shake. It’s tempting to assume this is simply the ageing process – a one‑way decline.

The truth is that the 40s are often the most exhausting decade, not because we are old, but because several small biological changes converge at exactly the same time that life’s demands often peak. Crucially, and optimistically, there is no reason to assume that energy must continue to decline in the same way into our 60s.

Energetic 20s

In early adulthood, multiple systems peak together.

Muscle mass is at its highest, even without deliberate training. As a metabolically active tissue, muscle helps regulate blood sugar and reduces the effort required for everyday tasks. Research shows that skeletal muscle is metabolically active even at rest and contributes substantially to basal metabolic rate (the energy your body uses just to keep you alive when you’re at rest). When you have more muscle, everything costs less energy.

At the cellular level, mitochondria – the structures that convert food into usable energy – are more numerous and more efficient. They produce energy with less waste and less inflammatory byproduct.

Sleep, too, is deeper. Even when sleep is shortened, the brain produces more slow‑wave sleep, the phase most strongly linked to physical restoration.

Hormonal rhythms are also more stable. Cortisol, often described as the body’s stress hormone, melatonin, growth hormone and sex hormones follow predictable daily patterns, making energy more reliable across the day.

Put simply, energy in your 20s is abundant and forgiving. You can mistreat it and still get away with it.

Exhausting 40s

By midlife, none of these systems has collapsed, but small shifts start to matter.

Muscle mass begins to decline from the late 30s onwards unless you exercise to maintain it. This in itself is a top tip – do strength training. The loss of muscle is gradual, but its effects are not. Less muscle means everyday movement costs more energy, even if you don’t consciously notice it.

Mitochondria still produce energy, but less efficiently. In your 20s, poor sleep or stress could be buffered. In your 40s, inefficiency is exposed. Recovery becomes more “expensive”.

Sleep also changes. Many people still get enough hours, but sleep fragments. Less deep sleep means less repair. Fatigue feels cumulative rather than episodic.

Hormones don’t disappear in midlife – they fluctuate, particularly in women. Variability, not deficiency, disrupts temperature regulation, sleep timing and energy rhythms. The body copes better with low levels than with unpredictable ones.

Then there is the brain. Midlife is a period of maximum cognitive and emotional load: leadership, responsibility, vigilance and caring roles. The prefrontal cortex – responsible for planning, making decisions and inhibition – works harder for the same output. Mental multitasking drains energy as effectively as physical labour.

This is why the 40s feel so punishing. Biological efficiency is beginning to shift at exactly the moment when demand is highest.

A business woman hard at work at her desk.
Midlife is often a time of maximum cognitive load. Krakenimages/Shutterstock.com

Hopeful 60s

Later life is often imagined as a continuation of midlife decline; however, many people report something different.

Hormonal systems often stabilise after periods of transition. Life roles may simplify. Cognitive load can reduce. Experience replaces constant active decision‑making.

Sleep doesn’t automatically worsen with age. When stress is lower and routines are protected, sleep efficiency can improve – even if total sleep time is shorter.

Crucially, muscle and mitochondria still adapt surprisingly well into later life. Strength training in people in their 60s, 70s and beyond can restore strength, improve metabolic health and increase subjective energy within months.

This doesn’t mean later life brings boundless energy, but it often brings something else: predictability.

Good news?

Across adulthood, energy shifts in character rather than simply declining. The mistake we make is assuming that feeling tired in midlife reflects a personal failing, or that it marks the start of an unavoidable decline. Anatomically, it is neither.

Midlife fatigue is best understood as a mismatch between biology and demand: small shifts in efficiency occurring at precisely the point when cognitive, emotional and practical loads are at their highest.

The hopeful message is not that we can reclaim our 20-year-old selves. Rather, it is that energy in later life remains highly modifiable, and that the exhaustion so characteristic of the 40s is not the endpoint of the story. Fatigue at this stage is not a warning of inevitable decline; it is a signal that the rules have changed.

The Conversation

Michelle Spear does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

10 Feb 17:46

THIS WEDNESDAY: Three Ways to Celebrate the Public Domain

by Chris Freeland

Join us THIS WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 21 for three different ways to celebrate the creative works from 1930 and the sounds recordings from 1925 that have entered the public domain in the US:

10am PT – VIRTUAL party: https://www.eventbrite.com/e/1977502652667

6pm PT – IN PERSON film screening & party at the Internet Archive: https://www.eventbrite.com/e/1977503818153

7pm PT – LIVESTREAM film screening: https://www.eventbrite.com/e/1980757251259

10 Feb 17:46

In Praise of Pre-Hays: “Morocco” and the Public Domain

by Theo Unkrich

Theo Unkrich (he/him) is a member of Internet Archive’s Patron Services team. His love of media preservation persists outside of Internet Archive in his writing and game design projects, which play with queerness, networks of community, and the Old Web.

This year’s cohort of films entering the public domain is one of the last of the pre-Code era: enjoy those depictions of excess liquor and “lustful embraces” while you can! From 1934 until 1968, the rigid guidelines known formally as the Motion Picture Production Code and more commonly as the Hays Code limited not only what could be depicted on screen, but also how, lest depictions of such immorality have the wrong effect on audiences. 

To my delight, Morocco (1930) is one of the many pre-Code films that entered the public domain on January 1st of this year. Directed by Josef von Sternberg, Morocco tells the story of French Foreign Legion soldier Tom Brown (Gary Cooper) and performer Amy Jolly (Marlene Dietrich), who meet, flirt, and eventually fall in love (despite the best efforts of wealthy suitor La Bessière, a jilted lover, and the ongoing war).

Watch Morocco:

The film is also famously queer, thanks largely to Dietrich’s performance as Amy Jolly in a scene in which she dons a top hat and full men’s evening wear to serenade the cabaret’s attendees. Most famous of all is the shot where Amy, with all the confidence and swagger in the world, bends to kiss a female audience member on the lips in one of the earliest same-gender kisses on screen. Marlene Dietrich herself was about as openly bisexual as one could be in the 20th century, and her work in this film carries the confidence of someone comfortable both with flouting and playing up gendered expectations of desirability.

Morocco does its best to ensure that neither Dietrich’s drag performance nor her kiss are mocked. The catcalls at the beginning of her performance are explicitly not a reaction to her gender presentation – per La Bessière, “If I remember correctly, this audience shows its usual discriminating kindness by receiving its newcomers rather unpleasantly” – and the audience’s boos quiet immediately once she begins to sing. Dietrich’s kiss is genuine and passionate, and the female audience member’s embarrassment reads as flustered, not outraged.

I would be remiss if I didn’t also talk about Private Tom Brown’s role in this performance. While the majority of his time on screen, Tom is the model of 1930s masculinity (not much of a reach for Gary Cooper), in this scene, he takes on a much softer role. He appears enamored with her performance not in spite of her masculine presentation, but because of it: Tom is the only member of the audience to leap to his feet in applause after her kiss, and he receives the flower she tosses to him with a near-religious reverence.

I find the sequence incredibly moving: two people, who, for the majority of this film, are confined to the expectations of femininity and masculinity, are allowed to enjoy a world much vaster and more accommodating than the one the Hays Code prescribes. They become so real to me. I see myself in the woman’s bashful response to her first queer kiss, in Tom Brown’s standing ovation for butch performance, in Amy Jolly’s swaggering ease with which she dons her coat and tails.

Why should we care about access to pre-Code cinema? After all, it’s 2026; we’re far past that bygone era of media regulation when we were encouraged to self-censor depictions of justified revenge, villainous ministers of religious institutions, and “sex perversion.”

…Aren’t we?  

Even with physical preservation efforts, without the public domain, there’s no guarantee that films like Morocco will always be accessible to audiences. Historically, when progress has been made towards marginalized representation in media, the hammer of the censor is swift and heavy: the late 1920s and early 1930s saw increasing depictions of queerness in film, only for Hays to call for a ban of gay characters from the screen in response. 

When something belongs to everyone, it’s hard to make it vanish without someone noticing. The public domain takes stories like Morocco out of the control of copyright holders and places them in the hands of the people. It grants me the ability to watch, relate to, and share this scene with others who, like me, get to see their lives and the people they loved reflected in art almost 100 years old. 

To celebrate the public domain this year, go watch Morocco and many more incredible works of art on the Internet Archive, and think about what else we can preserve for the future.

16 Jan 20:53

USF Tampa Library upgrades near final steps

by CLARA ROKITA GARCIA, EDITOR IN CHIEF

Todd Chavez, the dean of the USF Libraries, said he had been trying to secure funding for Tampa Library security renovations for about 10 years. But it was only when USF President Rhea Law visited the Library in mid-2024 that the project finally received a green light. Seeing the heavy traffic through the Library’s doors, […]

The post USF Tampa Library upgrades near final steps appeared first on The Oracle.

17 Dec 16:17

OPINION: Here’s what you missed in USF news this semester

by Iman Cheferou, Correspondent

From game day wins to changes at the university, USF has had a very interesting semester.  The best part is that the USF’s The Oracle has been there to cover it all.  As the semester wraps up and finals week takes priority in students’ minds, it is time to take a look at the heavy-hitting […]

The post OPINION: Here’s what you missed in USF news this semester appeared first on The Oracle.

17 Dec 16:16

Board of Governors approves USF’s ninth president

by Noah Vinsky, Managing Editor

The Florida Board of Governors unanimously confirmed Moez Limayem as USF’s ninth president on Friday.   Limayem, who serves as president at the University of North Florida, is set to start at USF in early 2026, according to a press release. He will take over for Rhea Law after she announced her resignation in February.  The […]

The post Board of Governors approves USF’s ninth president appeared first on The Oracle.

11 Dec 20:23

From The Shop to The Drop: How Tampa Came Together to Reopen a Lifeline for the Unhoused

by Staff

When the doors to The Shop closed this summer, hundreds of Tampa residents who relied on the day center for showers, laundry, mail, and a place to rest were suddenly left without a lifeline. But on Tuesday morning, those same doors opened once again — this time under a new name and new leadership. The Drop, located at 6220 N. Nebraska Ave., welcomed guests back inside for coffee, connection, and care.

The reopening wasn’t just a fresh coat of paint. It was the result of months of community determination led by WellBuilt Cities, a Tampa-based nonprofit founded by social entrepreneur Jon Dengler. When the center lost federal funding and faced permanent closure, Dengler and his network of partners refused to let it disappear.

“This reopening represents what’s possible when a community comes together,” Dengler said. “No single organization could have done this alone. Churches, volunteers, local businesses, and neighbors all stepped in because they knew this place matters—to the people it serves and to the city as a whole.”

Within just a few months, that collective effort raised more than $130,000, enough to take over the lease, refresh the space, and prepare for the reopening. Volunteers scrubbed walls, painted, replaced fixtures, and brought life back to a place that had long been a safe haven for people without homes.

For many, the return of the center — now called The Drop — marks more than a change in name. It’s a symbol of resilience, both for those who rely on it and for the city that rallied behind it.

“We chose the name The Drop because it captures both what we do and why we do it,” Dengler explained. “It’s short for drop-in center, but it also reminds us that small acts of love—the drop of coffee that starts your day, the drop of water that refreshes, or any ‘drop’ of hospitality—ripples outward into lasting change.”

That ripple effect is already underway. The Drop currently operates two days a week, offering essential services like showers, laundry, internet access, and a place to rest. Plans are already forming to expand to five or six days a week as funding allows.

Beyond daily services, Dengler and his team are working toward a larger vision: turning The Drop into a Community Resilience Hub. The space will not only meet everyday needs (“blue sky” days) but also serve as a coordination site for disaster response (“grey sky” days), providing shelter, supplies, and volunteer coordination through the Respond Together network of local churches.

The center’s new name also nods to activist Dorothy Day, whose philosophy of small, consistent acts of compassion continues to inspire Dengler’s work. Day once wrote, “People say, what is the sense of our small effort? They cannot see that we must lay one brick at a time, take one step at a time. A pebble cast into a pond causes ripples that spread in all directions.”

Keeping The Drop open and thriving will take continued effort. The team estimates it will need about $240,000 annually to operate sustainably. Donations can be made at WellBuilt.City/TheDrop, and every contribution, Dengler said, helps fuel that ripple effect.

“Every drop matters,” he said. “Each contribution helps ensure our neighbors continue to have a place of welcome—a space that refreshes, restores, and reminds us what community can be.”

For now, as laughter and conversation once again fill the bright, welcoming space on Nebraska Avenue, it’s clear that The Drop has already begun to make waves — one small act of love at a time.

The post From The Shop to The Drop: How Tampa Came Together to Reopen a Lifeline for the Unhoused appeared first on ModernGlobe.

07 Nov 20:57

“That’s Why We Become Witches”: Sylvia Townsend Warner’s Lolly Willowes (1926)

A novel about a woman who throws off the yoke of patriarchy to become a witch.

20 Oct 18:35

No One Should Be Forced to Conform to the Views of the State

by Lisa Femia

Should you have to think twice before posting a protest flyer to your Instagram story? Or feel pressure to delete that bald JD Vance meme that you shared? Now imagine that you could get kicked out of the country—potentially losing your job or education—based on the Trump administration’s dislike of your views on social media. 

That threat to free expression and dissent is happening now, but we won’t let it stand. 

"...they're not just targeting individuals—they're targeting the very idea of freedom itself."

The Electronic Frontier Foundation and co-counsel are representing the United Automobile Workers (UAW), Communications Workers of America (CWA), and American Federation of Teachers (AFT) in a lawsuit against the U.S. State Department and Department of Homeland Security for their viewpoint-based surveillance and suppression of noncitizens’ First Amendment-protected speech online.  The lawsuit asks a federal court to stop the government’s unconstitutional surveillance program, which has silenced citizens and noncitizens alike. It has even hindered unions’ ability to associate with their members. 

"When they spy on, silence, and fire union members for speaking out, they're not just targeting individuals—they're targeting the very idea of freedom itself,” said UAW President Shawn Fain. 

The Trump administration has built this mass surveillance program to monitor the constitutionally protected online speech of noncitizens who are lawfully present in the U.S. The program uses AI and automated technologies to scour social media and other online platforms to identify and punish individuals who express viewpoints the government considers "hostile" to "our culture" and "our civilization".  But make no mistake: no one should be forced to conform to the views of the state. 

The Foundation of Democracy 

Your free expression and privacy are fundamental human rights, and democracy crumbles without them. We have an opportunity to fight back, but we need you.  EFF’s team of lawyers, activists, researchers, and technologists have been on a mission to protect your freedom online since 1990, and we’re just getting started.

Donate and become a member of EFF today. Your support helps protect crucial rights, online and off, for everyone.

Give Today

15 Oct 16:44

What the First Amendment doesn’t protect when it comes to professors speaking out on politics

by Neal H. Hutchens, University Research Professor of Education, University of Kentucky
Employees at public and private colleges do not have the same First Amendment rights. dane_mark/Royalty-free

American colleges and universities are increasingly firing or punishing professors and other employees for what they say, whether it’s on social media or in the classroom.

After the Sept. 10, 2025, killing of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, several universities, including Iowa State University, Clemson University, Ball State University and others, fired or suspended employees for making negative online comments about Kirk.

Some of these dismissed professors compared Kirk to a Nazi, described his views as hateful, or said there was no reason to be sorry about his death.

Some professors are now suing their employers for taking disciplinary action against them, claiming they are violating their First Amendment rights.

In one case, the University of South Dakota fired Phillip Michael Cook, a tenured art professor, after he posted on Facebook in September that Kirk was a “hate spreading Nazi.” Cook, who took down his post within a few hours and apologized for it, then sued the school, saying it was violating his First Amendment rights.

A federal judge stated in a Sept. 23 preliminary order that the First Amendment likely protected what Cook posted. The judge ordered the University of South Dakota to reinstate Cook, and the university announced on Oct. 4 that it would reverse Cook’s firing.

Cook’s lawsuit, as well as other lawsuits filed by dismissed professors, is testing how much legal authority colleges have over their employees’ speech – both when they are on the job and when they are not.

For decades, American colleges and universities have traditionally encouraged free speech and open debate as a core part of their academic mission.

As scholars who study college free speech and academic freedom, we recognize that these events raise an important question: When, if ever, can a college legally discipline an employee for what they say?

A university campus with various buildings and trees is seen from above.
An aerial view of University of South Dakota’s Vermillion campus, one of the places where a professor was recently fired for posting comments about Charlie Kirk, a decision that was later reversed. anup khanal - CC BY-SA 4.0

Limits of public employees’ speech rights

The First Amendment limits the government’s power to censor people’s free speech. People in the United States can, for instance, join protests, criticize the government and say things that others find offensive.

But the First Amendment only applies to the government – which includes public colleges and universities – and not private institutions or companies, including private colleges and universities.

This means private colleges typically have wide authority to discipline employees for their speech.

In contrast, public colleges are considered part of the government. The First Amendment limits the legal authority they have over their employees’ speech. This is especially true when an employee is speaking as a private citizen – such as participating in a political rally outside of work hours, for example.

The Supreme Court ruled in a landmark 1968 case that public employees’ speech rights as private citizens can extend to criticizing their employer, like if they write a letter critical of their employer to a newspaper.

The Supreme Court also ruled in 2006 that the First Amendment does not protect public employees from being disciplined by their employers when they say or write something as part of their official job duties.

Even when a public college employee is speaking outside of their job duties as a private citizen, they might not be guaranteed First Amendment protection. To reach this legal threshold, what they say must be about something of importance to the public, or what courts call a “matter of public concern.”

Talking or writing about news, politics or social matters – Kirk’s murder – often meets the legal test for when speech is about a matter of public concern.

In contrast, courts have ruled that personal workplace complaints or gossip typically does not guarantee freedom of speech protection.

And in some cases, even when a public employee speaks as a private citizen on a topic that a court considers a matter of public concern, their speech may still be unprotected.

A public employer can still convince a court that its reasons for prohibiting an employee’s speech – like preventing conflict among co-workers – are important enough to deny this employee First Amendment protection.

Lawsuits brought by the employees of public colleges and universities who have been fired for their comments about Kirk may likely be decided based on whether what they said or wrote amounts to a matter of public concern. Another important factor is whether a court is convinced that an employee’s speech about Kirk was serious enough to disrupt a college’s operations, thus justifying the employee’s firing.

Academic freedom and professors’ speech

There are also questions over whether professors at public universities, in particular, can cite other legal rights to protect their speech.

Academic freedom refers to a faculty member’s rights connected to their teaching and research expertise.

At both private and public colleges, professors’ work contracts – like the ones typically signed after receiving tenure – potentially provide legal protections for faculty speech connected to academic freedom, such as in the classroom.

However, the First Amendment does not apply to how a private college regulates its professors’ speech or academic freedom.

Professors at public colleges have at least the same First Amendment free speech rights as their fellow employees, like when speaking in a private citizen capacity.

Additionally, the First Amendment might protect a public college professor’s work-related speech when academic freedom concerns arise, like in their teaching and research.

In 2006, the Supreme Court left open the question of whether the First Amendment covers academic freedom, in a case where it found the First Amendment did not cover what public employees say when carrying out their official work.

Since then, the Supreme Court has not dealt with this complicated issue. And lower federal courts have reached conflicting decisions about First Amendment protection for public college professors’ speech in their teaching and research.

A large gray stone plaque shows the First Amendment in front of a green grassy field and buildings in the distance.
The First Amendment is on display in front of Independence Hall in Philadelphia. StephanieCraig/iStock via Getty Images Plus

Future of free speech for university employees

Some colleges, especially public ones, are testing the legal limits of their authority over their employees’ speech.

These incidents demonstrate a culture of extreme political polarization in higher education.

Beyond legal questions, colleges are also grappling with how to define their commitments to free speech and academic freedom.

In particular, we believe campus leaders should consider the purpose of higher education. Even if legally permitted, restricting employees’ speech could run counter to colleges’ traditional role as places for the open exchange of ideas.

The Conversation

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

15 Oct 16:39

The troubling relevance of Woody Guthrie’s new album, released 58 years after his death

by Daniele Curci, PhD Candidate in International and American History, Università di Siena

A new album by Woody Guthrie (1912–1967), perhaps the most influential US folk artist, was released late last summer. Woody at Home, Vol. 1 & 2 contains songs – some already known, others previously unreleased – the artist recorded from 1951 to 1952 on a tape recorder he received from his publisher. A version of the famous “This Land Is Your Land” (1940), with new verses, is among the tracks.

The release reflects the continuing vitality of Woody Guthrie in the United States. There is an ongoing process of updating and redefining his figure and artistic legacy – one that does not always take into account the singer’s radicalism but sometimes accentuates his patriotism.

The story of “This Land Is Your Land” is a case in point. There are versions of the song containing verses critical of private property, and others without them. The first version of “This Land” became almost an unofficial anthem of the US and, over the years, has been used in various political contexts, sometimes resulting in appropriations and reinterpretations. In 1960, it was played at the Republican national convention that nominated Richard Nixon for president, and in 1988, Republican candidate George H. W. Bush used it in his presidential campaign.

However, Guthrie made his contribution by supporting both the Communist Party and, at different times, president Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal. He borrowed the idea that music could be an important tool of activism from the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) union. In the party, Guthrie saw the ideological cement; in the union, the instrument of mass organization. It was only through union – a term with a double meaning that Guthrie often played upon: union as both labour union and union of the oppressed – that a socialized and unionized world could be achieved.

‘Deportee’

The release of Woody at Home, Vol. 1 & 2 was preceded by the single “Deportee (Plane Wreck at Los Gatos),” a song that had long been known, but whose original recording by Guthrie had never been released. The artist wrote it in reference to an event that occurred on January 28, 1948, when a plane carrying Mexican seasonal workers crashed in Los Gatos Canyon, California, killing everyone on board.

This choice was not accidental, as explained by Nora Guthrie – one of the folksinger’s daughters and long-time curator of her father’s political and artistic legacy – in an interview with The Guardian, where she emphasized how his message remains current, given the deportations carried out by the President Donald Trump’s administration.

Woody Guthrie read the account of the tragic plane crash in a newspaper, and was horrified to find that the workers were not referred to by name, but by the pejorative term “deportees”. In their story, he saw parallels with the experiences of the 1930s “Okies” from the state of Oklahoma, impoverished by dust storms and years of socioeconomic crisis, who moved to California in search of a better future. It was a “Goin’ Down The Road,” according to the title of another Guthrie song, in which the word “down” also conveyed the sadness of having to hit the road, with all the uncertainties and hardships that lay ahead, because there was no alternative – indeed, the full title ended with “Feeling Bad”.

The Okies and the Mexican migrant workers faced racism and poverty amid the abundance of the fruit fields. Mexicans found themselves picking fruit that was rotting on the trees – “the crops are all in and the peaches are rotting” – for wages that barely allowed them to survive – “to pay all their money to wade back again”. In “Deportee,” in which these two lyrics appear, Guthrie provocatively asked:

Is this the best way we can grow our big orchards?
Is this the best way we can grow our good fruit?
To fall like dry leaves to rot on my topsoil
And be called by no name except “deportees”?

Visions of America and radicalism

“We come with the dust and we go with the wind,” sang Guthrie in “Pastures of Plenty” (1941, and also included in Woody at Home), the anthem he wrote for the migrants of the US southwest, denouncing the indifference and invisibility that enabled the exploitation of workers. In this way, Guthrie measured the gap separating the US’s reality from the fulfillment of its promises and aspirations. For him, tragedies were also a collective issue that allowed him to denounce the way in which a minority (the wealthy capitalists) deprived the majority (the workers) of their rights and well-being.

This famous photograph taken by photographer Dorothea Lange in California in 1936, titled Migrant Mother, shows Florence Thompson, aged 32, then mother of seven children, who was originally from Oklahoma and had come to the Golden State in search of work. Dorothea Lange/Library of Congress

The artist’s political vision owed much to the fact that he grew up in Oklahoma in the 1920s and 1930s, where the influence of Jeffersonian agrarian populism – the vision of an agrarian republic inspired by president Thomas Jefferson, based on the equitable distribution of land among citizens – remained deeply rooted. It is within this framework that Guthrie’s radicalism, which took shape in the 1930s and 1940s, must be situated. These periods were marked by intense debate over the health of US democracy, when Roosevelt’s New Deal sought to address years of economic crisis and profound social change.

Against racial discrimination

Guthrie’s activism sought to overcome racial discrimination. This was no small feat for the son of a man said to have been a member of the Ku Klux Klan and a fervent anti-communist, who may have taken part in a lynching in 1911.

Moreover, Woody himself, upon arriving in California in the latter half of the 1930s, carried with him a racist legacy reflected in certain songs – such as his performance of the racist version of “Run, Nigger, Run”, a popular song in the South, which he sang on his own radio show in 1937. Afterward, the artist received a letter from a Black listener expressing her deep resentment over the singer’s use of the word “nigger”. Guthrie was so moved that he read the letter on the air and apologized.

He then began a process of questioning himself and what he believed the United States to be, going so far as to denounce segregation and the distortions of the judicial system that protected white people while readily imprisoning Black people. These themes appear in “Buoy Bells from Trenton”, also included in Woody at Home. The song refers to the case of the Trenton Six: in 1948, six Black men from Trenton, New Jersey were convicted of murdering a white man by an all-white jury, despite the testimony of several witnesses who had seen other individuals at the scene of the crime.

“Buoy Bells from Trenton” was probably included on the album because of the interpretation it invites concerning abuses of power and the “New Jim Crow”, an expression that echoes the Jim Crow laws (late 19th century to 1965) that imposed racial segregation in the Southern states. These laws were legitimized by the Supreme Court ruling Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), which established the principle of “separate but equal”, before being abolished by Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the Civil Rights Act (1964) and the Voting Rights Act (1965). Popularized by Michelle Alexander in her book, The New Jim Crow (2010), the contemporary term refers to the system of racial control through penal policies and mass incarceration: in 2022, African Americans made up 32% of convicted state and federal prisoners, even though they represent only 12% of the US population, a figure highlighted by several recent studies.

Guthrie’s song can thus be reread as a critique of persistent racism, both in its institutional forms and in its more diffuse manifestations. Once again, this is an example of the enduring vitality of Woody Guthrie and of how art does not end at the moment of its publication, but becomes a long-term historical phenomenon.


A weekly e-mail in English featuring expertise from scholars and researchers. It provides an introduction to the diversity of research coming out of the continent and considers some of the key issues facing European countries. Get the newsletter!


The Conversation

Daniele Curci ne travaille pas, ne conseille pas, ne possède pas de parts, ne reçoit pas de fonds d'une organisation qui pourrait tirer profit de cet article, et n'a déclaré aucune autre affiliation que son organisme de recherche.

15 Oct 16:32

AI systems and humans ‘see’ the world differently – and that’s why AI images look so garish

by T.J. Thomson, Senior Lecturer in Visual Communication & Digital Media, RMIT University
Andres Aleman/Unsplash

How do computers see the world? It’s not quite the same way humans do.

Recent advances in generative artificial intelligence (AI) make it possible to do more things with computer image processing. You might ask an AI tool to describe an image, for example, or to create an image from a description you provide.

As generative AI tools and services become more embedded in day-to-day life, knowing more about how computer vision compares to human vision is becoming essential.

My latest research, published in Visual Communication, uses AI-generated descriptions and images to get a sense of how AI models “see” – and discovered a bright, sensational world of generic images quite different from the human visual realm.

This image features a pixelated selfie featuring an individual with long brown hair and a fringe. The person has their tongue out and is smiling too. Most of the parts of the image are pixelated with red and yellow squares focusing on certain parts of the
Algorithms see in a very different way to humans. Elise Racine / Better Images of AI / Emotion: Joy, CC BY

Comparing human and computer vision

Humans see when light waves enter our eyes through the iris, cornea and lens. Light is converted into electrical signals by a light-sensitive surface called the retina inside the eyeball, and then our brains interpret these signals into images we see.

Our vision focuses on key aspects such as colour, shape, movement and depth. Our eyes let us detect changes in the environment and identify potential threats and hazards.

Computers work very differently. They process images by standardising them, inferring the context of an image through metadata (such as time and location information in an image file), and comparing images to other images they have previously learned about. Computers focus on things such as edges, corners or textures present in the image. They also look for patterns and try to classify objects.

A screenshot of a CAPTCHA test asking a user to select all images with a bus.
Solving CAPTCHAs helps prove you’re human and also helps computers learn how to ‘see’. CAPTCHA

You’ve likely helped computers learn how to “see” by completing online CAPTCHA tests.

These are typically used to help computers differentiate between humans and bots. But they’re also used to train and improve machine learning algorithms.

So, when you’re asked to “select all the images with a bus”, you’re helping software learn the difference between different types of vehicles as well as proving you’re human.

Exploring how computers ‘see’ differently

In my new research, I asked a large language model to describe two visually distinct sets of human-created images.

One set contained hand-drawn illustrations while the other was made up of camera-produced photographs.

I fed the descriptions back into an AI tool and asked it to visualise what it had described. I then compared the original human-made images to the computer-generated ones.

The resulting descriptions noted the hand-drawn images were illustrations but didn’t mention the other images as being photographs or having a high level of realism. This suggests AI tools see photorealism as the default visual style, unless specifically prompted otherwise.

Cultural context was largely devoid from the descriptions. The AI tool either couldn’t or wouldn’t infer cultural context by the presence of, for example, Arabic or Hebrew writing in the images. This underscores the dominance of some languages, like English, in AI tools’ training data.

While colour is vital to human vision, it too was largely ignored in the AI tools’ image descriptions. Visual depth and perspective were also largely ignored.

The AI images were more boxy than the hand-drawn illustrations, which used more organic shapes.

Two similar but different black and white illustrations of a bookshelf on wheels.
The AI-generated images were much more boxy than the hand-drawn illustrations, which used more organic shapes and had a different relationship between positive and negative space. Left: Medar de la Cruz; right: ChatGPT

The AI images were also much more saturated than the source images: they contained brighter, more vivid colours. This reveals the prevalence of stock photos, which tend to be more “contrasty”, in AI tools’ training data.

The AI images were also more sensationalist. A single car in the original image became one of a long column of cars in the AI version. AI seems to exaggerate details not just in text but also in visual form.

A photo of people with guns driving through a desert and a generated photorealistic image of several cars containing peopl with guns driving through a desert.
The AI-generated images were more sensationalist and contrasty than the human-created photographs. Left: Ahmed Zakot; right: ChatGPT

The generic nature of the AI images means they can be used in many contexts and across countries. But the lack of specificity also means audiences might perceive them as less authentic and engaging.

Deciding when to use human or computer vision

This research supports the notion that humans and computers “see” differently. Knowing when to rely on computer or human vision to describe or create images can be a competitive advantage.

While AI-generated images can be eye-catching, they can also come across as hollow upon closer inspection. This can limit their value.

Images are adept at sparking an emotional reaction and audiences might find human-created images that authentically reflect specific conditions as more engaging than computer-generated attempts.

However, the capabilities of AI can make it an attractive option for quickly labelling large data sets and helping humans categorise them.

Ultimately, there’s a role for both human and AI vision. Knowing more about the opportunities and limits of each can help keep you safer, more productive, and better equipped to communicate in the digital age.

The Conversation

T.J. Thomson receives funding from the Australian Research Council. He is an affiliate with the ARC Centre of Excellence for Automated Decision Making & Society.

15 Oct 16:29

Flamingos are making a home in Florida again after 100 years – an ecologist explains why they may be returning for good

by Jerome Lorenz, Biology Researcher, Florida International University
Peaches, who was blown into Florida by Hurricane Idalia in 2023, was sighted in Mexico in June 2025. Kara Durda/Audubon Florida

Hurricane Idalia blew a flamboyance, or flock, of 300-400 flamingos that was likely migrating between the Yucatan Peninsula and Cuba off course in August 2023 and unceremoniously deposited the birds across a wide swath of the eastern United States, from Florida’s Gulf Coast all the way up to Wisconsin and east to Pennsylvania.

After Hurricane Idalia, more than 300 credible sightings of flamingos across the eastern U.S. were reported. Audubon Florida

I’m an estuarine scientist. That means I study ecosystems where fresh water flows into the ocean. I’ve spent 35 years with Audubon Florida studying the ecology of American flamingos and other wading birds in Florida Bay, Everglades National Park. So naturally, I was thrilled and intrigued by the sudden arrival of these flamingos.

One of the birds was rescued in the Tampa area after nearly drowning in the Gulf of Mexico. His rescuers named him Peaches.

A colleague and I were able to place a GPS tracking device and a bright blue band around his spindly leg, with the code “US02” engraved in white letters.

A woman holds a flamingo while two men are trying to put a band on its leg.
Melissa Edwards, Avian Hospital Director at Seaside Seabird Sanctuary, holds Peaches still while Dr. Frank Ridgley of Zoo Miami and the author, Dr. Jerome Lorenz, place a band and GPS tracker on his leg. Dr. Lorenz has banded or supervised the banding of nearly 3,000 roseate spoonbills, but Peaches was his first and only flamingo to date. Linda Lorenz

We were hoping to track his movements and see whether he ended up settling in Florida. Unfortunately, a few days after Peaches was released back into the wilds of Tampa Bay, the tracking device failed. His last reported sighting was on a beach near Marco Island on Oct. 5, 2023.

Then, in June 2025, I received an email from colleagues at the Rio Lagartos Biosphere Reserve in Yucatan, Mexico, who had photographed Peaches, blue band still in place, nesting in the reserve.

Peaches’ story is the latest piece in the historical puzzle of flamingos in Florida. Though the native population disappeared more than 100 years ago, recent events lead me to believe that flamingos may be coming back to the Sunshine State, and that their return has been facilitated by the concerted effort to restore the Everglades and coastal ecosystems.

Decimation of a population

In 1956, ornithologist and founder of the National Audubon’s Everglades Science Center Robert Porter Allen wrote “The Flamingos: Their Life History and Survival,” which is still considered a seminal document on the history of flamingos in Florida.

In his book, Allen cites several historical and scientific manuscripts from the 1800s that indicate flamboyances of hundreds to thousands were seen in the Everglades, Florida Bay and the Florida Keys.

Allen documents the demise of flamingos in the late 1800s, in Florida and throughout their Caribbean and Bahamian range. Like all wading birds in Florida, they fell victim to the women’s fashion trend of adorning hats with bird feathers. Wading bird feathers were literally worth their weight in gold.

Led by the National Association of Audubon Societies’ vocal opposition, the grassroots environmental movement that followed brought about laws prohibiting the hunting and sale of bird feathers. But enforcement of those laws in sparsely populated Florida was difficult, and on two occasions deputized Audubon wardens were murdered protecting wading bird nesting colonies.

Fortunately, within a few years, societal pressure turned the tide against the practice of wearing feathers. The passage of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act in 1918 officially ended the feather trade.

Given legal protection, most species managed to reestablish huge nesting populations in the Everglades by the 1930s-1940s, presumably migrating from remote populations in Central America and the Caribbean.

Flamingos, however, did not.

A long road to recovery

In 1956, 40 years after hunting had ended, Allen estimated flamingo populations were only about 25% of what they had been in the previous century, with numbers plummeting from 168,000 to 43,000 breeding adults. They nested in significant numbers at only four locations, compared to 29 historically.

Flamingos’ unique breeding behaviors and their longevity – they can live up to 50 years in the wild – may account for their struggle to bounce back. Other Florida wading birds can nest multiple times a year at different locations, laying three to five eggs at a time.

Flamingos, on the other hand, nest only once a year, generally returning to the same location year after year, and lay only one egg. Furthermore, they prefer forming huge nesting colonies, with thousands of nests, in part due to their elaborate group courtship rituals.

Reason to hope

As a result of their rarity from the 1950s to 1980s, scientists – including myself – believed that any flamingos sighted intermittently around Florida were not wild birds but rather escapees from captive populations.

The largest flock observed in the state between 1930 and 1976 was 14 birds spotted in Biscayne Bay in 1934, on the day after Hialeah Race Track in Miami imported a group of about 30 flamingos. The track’s owners had failed to pinion the birds, and they simply flew away upon release.

But my opinion began to change in 2002, when a flamingo that was banded as a chick at Rio Lagartos was photographed in Florida Bay. In 2012, a second bird from Rio Lagartos was photographed.

By that time, I had observed flamingos in Florida Bay on several occasions, including larger flamboyances of 24 and 64 individuals. Although I still thought the majority of these flocks were escapees, the banded birds provided some evidence that at least a few wild flamingos were starting to spend time in Florida.

Then in 2015, my colleagues put a tracking device on a flamingo they had captured at the Key West Naval Air Station. Conchy, as we called him, was given the blue band US01 and released in Florida Bay in December 2015.

He lived in Florida Bay for two years, and the fact that he stayed for that long was proof to me that it was possible for flamingos to make a more permanent home in Florida.

Conchy was banded and given a GPS tracker by Dr. Frank Ridgley of Zoo Miami before being re-released into Florida Bay in 2015.

In 2018, several colleagues and I published a paper laying out both evidence from historical accounts and also previously overlooked evidence from museums that flamingos were native to Florida. We also presented new data from researchers and citizen science portals that strongly indicated that wild flamingo numbers were increasing in Florida. This suggested that the population might be finally recovering.

Call it a comeback

Fast-forward to today, and it appears that this slow comeback may finally have legs. Six months after Hurricane Idalia, my colleagues at Audubon Florida and I conducted a weeklong online survey of flamingo sightings in Florida.

We received more than 50 reputable observations. After sorting through these observations to remove duplicates, we concluded that at least 100 flamingos were left in the state.

Then in July 2025, a flock of 125 individuals was photographed in Florida Bay. Based on our observations, my colleagues and I believe that the flamingos that arrived with Idalia may be reestablishing a home in Florida.

Progress toward restoration

The question is, why now? The 24 flamingos I saw in 1992 and the 64 I saw in 2004 didn’t take up permanent residence in the state. So what’s changed?

To me, the answer is clear: Efforts to restore the Everglades and Florida’s coastal ecosystems are beginning to show progress.

When I arrived in the Keys in 1989, Florida Bay was undergoing an ecological collapse. A 1993 interagency report by the federal government found that a hundred years of draining, diking and rerouting the flows of the Everglades to create urban and agricultural lands had raised the salt content of the water, making it uninhabitable for many estuarine animals.

The report noted that the bay’s famous seagrass beds were undergoing a massive die-off, accompanied by algal blooms that depleted oxygen levels, thereby killing fish in large numbers. Mangrove trees were dying on its myriad islands, and birds that for decades had nested in them had disappeared.

These events kick-started Everglades restoration efforts, and in 2000 the U.S. Congress passed the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan with nearly unanimous bipartisan support. With a cost in the tens of billions of dollars, it was to be the largest and most expensive ecological restoration project the world has ever seen.

Today, the bay’s health is vastly improved from the condition I observe in the 1980s. Water flow has gotten better, and the salinity is back to appropriate levels to support wildlife.

In 2018 and 2021, more than 100,000 pairs of wading birds such as white ibis, wood storks and roseate spoonbills nested in the Everglades. These numbers hadn’t been seen since the 1940s. In the 1980s and 1990s, 20,000 nesting pairs was thought to be a banner year.

While the Everglades and Florida Bay are still a long way from full restoration, I believe that the return of flamingos such as Conchy and Peaches is evidence that these efforts are on the right track.

The Conversation

Jerome Lorenz has received funding from The Lynn and Louis Wolfson II Family Foundation, the Batchelor Foundation and the Ron Magill Conservation Endowment. He is retired from the National Audubon Society but still does some volunteer work for the Everglades Science Center.

15 Oct 16:26

5 reasons we shouldn’t ‘compliment’ people who lose weight

by Evangeline Gardiner, PhD Candidate in Public Health, The University of Queensland
Allgo/Unsplash

“You look so great! Have you lost weight?”

“Wow, you’re looking so healthy now! Good for you.”

As fat people, we’ve heard comments like this for most of our lives. At the times when our bodies were smaller, these comments made us feel proud and accepted. We felt like we were finally “good enough”.

But when we regained the weight, as happens for most people, we felt like our bodies were no longer “good enough” and that these well-intentioned comments were in fact harmful.

Through our work as size- and weight-inclusive researchers, we’ve come to understand it wasn’t just us – the extent of harm from comments such as these is far-reaching.

Both positive and negative comments about weight can lead to negative outcomes. Whether they lose weight or not, larger-bodied people are judged and criticised.

Women’s weight in particular is policed and considered fair game for comment. Consider the commentary about the recent weight loss of celebrities such as Lizzo and Serena Williams.

The effects can be even worse for those with multiple marginalised identities across race or ethnicity, gender, class and ability.

It’s time we stop “complimenting” weight loss, even when well-intentioned. Here’s why – and what to do instead.

5 reasons why ‘complimenting’ weight loss can harm

1. It reinforces weight stigma

Complimenting weight loss sends the message that smaller bodies are better, and contributes to negative attitudes, beliefs and stereotypes about larger-bodied people.

This leads to unfair treatment of larger-bodied people in places such as school, work and social settings. For example, larger-bodied people, especially women, are often seen as less suitable for jobs.

These negative views can also be internalised, causing larger-bodied people to believe they are less deserving of respect or fair treatment because of their body size.

2. It links worth with appearance

Praising someone for losing weight reinforces the belief that the most important aspect of a person is the appearance of a smaller body, rather than valuing other qualities or achievements.

This also impacts children. Family-based weight stigma and parental comments about weight and dieting are associated with higher psychological distress in pre-adolescents and adolescents.

3. It overlooks natural diversity of body size

It holds onto the idea that there is only one “right” way for a body to look, and assumes everyone is aiming to be smaller, rather than recognising that bodies naturally come in all shapes and sizes.

4. It assumes intent

It ignores the fact that sometimes weight loss is unintentional and caused by health issues, stress, abuse, neglect or financial challenges. It’s better not to comment on someone’s body as you might inadvertently be praising illness or distress.

5. It can trigger disordered eating

It can send people who have struggled with their relationship with food back into ways of thinking that they may have worked hard to overcome. This can make old patterns of eating resurface or create new ones, particularly in adolescence, with the harm extending through to adulthood.


Read more: How we think about 'obesity' and body weight is changing. Here’s why


What to do instead

We’re not suggesting you stop complimenting people all together, as it can be beneficial to both the people receiving and giving the compliments. As Roman philosopher Lucius Annaeus Seneca once said, “Whenever there is a human being, there is an opportunity for a kindness.”

But we need to ensure our compliments truly are kind and not inadvertently harmful.

Instead of complimenting others on weight loss, share compliments on more important attributes, such as “You have such an infectious laugh” or “I always feel happier after seeing you”. You could also compliment someone on an achievement, such as “I really admire the way you created such a fantastic event.”

Likewise, irrespective of any change in your body weight, focus your self-compliments on improvements in your wellbeing. You could tell yourself “I’m proud of myself for getting stronger” or “It feels great to be more flexible now I’m moving more.”

It’s OK not to respond when someone “compliments” you on weight loss, or even to choose not take on the labour of explaining why it’s harmful. On the days it feels challenging to speak up, be kind to yourself. Try saying something like, “Yeah, I’d rather not talk about my body” or “I promise my weight is the least interesting thing about me.”

If you’re tempted to comment on your own or other people’s weight, learn more about the harms of weight-related comments from larger-bodied people and those who have experienced weight stigma. Organisations such as Size Inclusive Health Australia, the Butterfly Foundation, the Embrace Collective and the National Eating Disorders Collaboration are also good sources of information.

Comments on weight loss stay with you. They can have long-term impacts on your self worth, health and wellbeing, as well as your relationships with your family members, friends and others. So let’s not send the message that a peron’s worth is measured in kilos.

The Conversation

Evangeline Gardiner is a PhD candidate at the University of Queensland, exploring weight-inclusive approaches to public health. Her PhD is supported by an Australian Government Research Training Scholarship (RTP). She is a member of Size Inclusive Health Australia (SIHA) and works at the National Eating Disorders Collaboration (NEDC). Evangeline identifies as a larger-bodied person, drawing on her lived and professional experience to advocate for a health system that supports the health and wellbeing of individuals of all sizes.

Lily O'Hara has received funding from Queensland Health. She is affiliated with Size Inclusive Health Australia. She identifies as a larger-bodied person and has been involved in research and practice in size-inclusive health promotion for decades. Lily was the host of the 11th Annual International Weight Stigma Conference in 2025.

15 Oct 15:11

Winning with misinformation: New research identifies link between endorsing easily disproven claims and prioritizing symbolic strength

by Randy Stein, Associate Professor of Marketing, California State Polytechnic University, Pomona
For some symbolic thinkers, an independent mind is paramount. Axel Bueckert/iStock via Getty Images Plus

Why do some people endorse claims that can easily be disproved? It’s one thing to believe false information, but another to actively stick with something that’s obviously wrong.

Our new research, published in the Journal of Social Psychology, suggests that some people consider it a “win” to lean in to known falsehoods.

We are social psychologists who study political psychology and how people reason about reality. During the pandemic, we surveyed 5,535 people across eight countries to investigate why people believed COVID-19 misinformation, like false claims that 5G networks cause the virus.

The strongest predictor of whether someone believed in COVID-19-related misinformation and risks related to the vaccine was whether they viewed COVID-19 prevention efforts in terms of symbolic strength and weakness. In other words, this group focused on whether an action would make them appear to fend off or “give in” to untoward influence.

This factor outweighed how people felt about COVID-19 in general, their thinking style and even their political beliefs.

Our survey measured it on a scale of how much people agreed with sentences including “Following coronavirus prevention guidelines means you have backed down” and “Continuous coronavirus coverage in the media is a sign we are losing.” Our interpretation is that people who responded positively to these statements would feel they “win” by endorsing misinformation – doing so can show “the enemy” that it will not gain any ground over people’s views.

When meaning is symbolic, not factual

Rather than consider issues in light of actual facts, we suggest people with this mindset prioritize being independent from outside influence. It means you can justify espousing pretty much anything – the easier a statement is to disprove, the more of a power move it is to say it, as it symbolizes how far you’re willing to go.

When people think symbolically this way, the literal issue – here, fighting COVID-19 – is secondary to a psychological war over people’s minds. In the minds of those who think they’re engaged in them, psychological wars are waged over opinions and attitudes, and are won via control of belief and messaging. The U.S. government at various times has used the concept of psychological war to try to limit the influence of foreign powers, pushing people to think that literal battles are less important than psychological independence.

By that same token, vaccination, masking or other COVID-19 prevention efforts could be seen as a symbolic risk that could “weaken” one psychologically even if they provide literal physical benefits. If this seems like an extreme stance, it is – the majority of participants in our studies did not hold this mindset. But those who did were especially likely to also believe in misinformation.

In an additional study we ran that focused on attitudes around cryptocurrency, we measured whether people saw crypto investment in terms of signaling independence from traditional finance. These participants, who, like those in our COVID-19 study, prioritized a symbolic show of strength, were more likely to believe in other kinds of misinformation and conspiracies, too, such as that the government is concealing evidence of alien contact.

In all of our studies, this mindset was also strongly associated with authoritarian attitudes, including beliefs that some groups should dominate others and support for autocratic government. These links help explain why strongman leaders often use misinformation symbolically to impress and control a population.

President Trump speaks into a microphone with various uniformed people behind him
Attempts to debunk misinformation look weak to someone who values a symbolic show of strength, while standing by a disprovable statement seems powerful. Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

Why people endorse misinformation

Our findings highlight the limits of countering misinformation directly, because for some people, literal truth is not the point.

For example, President Donald Trump incorrectly claimed in August 2025 that crime in Washington D.C. was at an all-time high, generating countless fact-checks of his premise and think pieces about his dissociation from reality.

But we believe that to someone with a symbolic mindset, debunkers merely demonstrate that they’re the ones reacting, and are therefore weak. The correct information is easily available, but is irrelevant to someone who prioritizes a symbolic show of strength. What matters is signaling one isn’t listening and won’t be swayed.

In fact, for symbolic thinkers, nearly any statement should be justifiable. The more outlandish or easily disproved something is, the more powerful one might seem when standing by it. Being an edgelord – a contrarian online provocateur – or outright lying can, in their own odd way, appear “authentic.”

Some people may also view their favorite dissembler’s claims as provocative trolling, but, given the link between this mindset and authoritarianism, they want those far-fetched claims acted on anyway. The deployment of National Guard troops to Washington, for example, can be the desired end goal, even if the offered justification is a transparent farce.

Is this really 5-D chess?

It is possible that symbolic, but not exactly true, beliefs have some downstream benefit, such as serving as negotiation tactics, loyalty tests, or a fake-it-till-you-make-it long game that somehow, eventually, becomes a reality. Political theorist Murray Edelman, known for his work on political symbolism, noted that politicians often prefer scoring symbolic points over delivering results – it’s easier. Leaders can offer symbolism when they have little tangible to provide.

The Conversation

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

15 Oct 15:03

ZooTampa hosts a big e-waste recycling event this weekend

by Andrew Harlan

ZooTampa at Lowry Park is inviting the community to take part in an e-waste recycling drive during its World Okapi Day celebration on Saturday, October 18. The event encourages guests […]

The post ZooTampa hosts a big e-waste recycling event this weekend appeared first on That's So Tampa.