P. H. Low

@ph-low.com

THESE DEATHLESS SHORES • poetry ed @Anathema • short fic/poetry/essays in Strange Horizons, Reactor, Fantasy, &c. • Ignyte, Rhysling, & Locus noms • 🇲🇾🇺🇸🏳️‍🌈 (they/them) • linktr.ee/lowph

@vajra.meReposted by @ph-low.com

Yeah. And if you don't care what Pangram says—it's just another AI company, and I don't care how good they are at hyping themselves—I also don't see what's so "AI" about this story at all. I don't think "trust me, it's bad" is meaningful (and that is quite literally what the article says.)

@vajra.meReposted by @ph-low.com

I've been inverting that question because I think it's perhaps even more illuminating: what is fantasy? What distinction, what departure, are we describing by this word?

@p-h-lee.bsky.socialReposted by @ph-low.com

apropos of previous thread by John Wiswell: writers have a lot of solidarity when it comes to contracts. if you are a new writer and you think something might be hinky about your contract, it is completely fine to ask other professional writers even (especially) if you don't know us.

@jaredmcclain.bsky.socialReposted by @ph-low.com

Things got more insane just about as soon as I posted this last night. DHS is now arguing that we cannot even put the names of ICE officers in our lawsuit against those officers. Their position is that, if a defendant works for DHS, they cannot be named in a lawsuit. Never seen anything like it.

All this time, while Defendants have refused to identify Does 4 and 5 or respond to Leo’s discovery requests, the six-month statute of limitations on his FTCA claims has nearly expired. So, on October 6, Leo sought Defendants’ consent to file an amended complaint that (1) adds his FTCA claims against the United States and (2) adds the names of Does 1, 2, and 3. These minimal changes are shown in a redline attached to this filing. Defendants, however, refused to consent to Leo’s amendments because there is not a protective order in place. One of Defendants’ positions with respect to the protective order is that the “full legal names” of all government employees “should be confidential.” (ECF 109, at 2). That position, apparently, means that Defendants even oppose Leo identifying specific officers in his lawsuit against those very officers based on their misconduct in carrying out their public duties. Because Defendants will not consent to Leo’s amendments, Leo has filed this motion for leave.Justice also requires granting Leo leave to name the Doe officers as defendants. Despite DHS’s remarkable position that all government employees’ names are confidential, parties routinely sue government employees by name. In fact, Rule 10(a) “requires a complaint to ‘include the names of all the parties.’” Doe v. Frank, 951 F.2d 320, 322 (11th Cir. 1992) (per curiam) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a)). “Lawsuits are public events.” Id. Rule 10(a) “protects the public’s legitimate interest in knowing all of the facts involved, including the identity of the parties.” Id. Only in an “exceptional case” can a party’s name be withheld from the public. Id. And that bar is even higher for public employees since their employment “diminishes their privacy interests” given “the corresponding public interest in knowing how public employees are performing their jobs.” Stern v. FBI, 737 F.2d 84, 92 (D.C. Cir. 1984);
@maxgladstone.bsky.socialReposted by @ph-low.com

I've heard folks from outside the US, esp. non-anglophones, say we're "weird about AI" (as in, *markedly* more anti-AI). If true, I think it boils down to this: a sense that the power structures in our society are not aligned to bring any good to normal folks. It's a big club and you're not in it.

@pennyvixen.bsky.socialReposted by @ph-low.com

Thank you to @kithrup.bsky.social for reminding me that the ebook of The Goblin Emperor is on sale today, across all retailers, for $2.99.

I *did* know about this sale, but I had not yet even processed that today is Tuesday. So I appreciate being reminded!

@sailorrooscout.bsky.socialReposted by @ph-low.com

WELL NOW, would you look at that? A massive, 4-YEAR-LONG study of NEARLY 30 MILLION people in France found that individuals who received a COVID-19 mRNA vaccine had a 74% LOWER risk of death from severe COVID-19 compared to unvaccinated individuals and ZERO increased risk of all-cause mortality.

Older posts