Caroline Seydel
@carolineseydel.bsky.social
Independent science writer covering genetic technology. Always hopeful yet discontent.
Because they think they have a chance, I assume
November 21, 2025 at 6:22 PM
Because they think they have a chance, I assume
“those who collaborate with fascists” 🤣🤣
November 21, 2025 at 7:30 AM
“those who collaborate with fascists” 🤣🤣
Yeah. I was agreeing with that. I guess my faux pas was losing focus that “the real bad guy“ here is the woman in Nigeria trying to make a living, not the exploitative industry that rewarded her unethical behavior
November 20, 2025 at 5:01 PM
Yeah. I was agreeing with that. I guess my faux pas was losing focus that “the real bad guy“ here is the woman in Nigeria trying to make a living, not the exploitative industry that rewarded her unethical behavior
Wow. Yes, I’m struggling to even understand the concept of AAN because in my experience, if your BMI is on the higher side, doctors *advise* you to do all those things. Not binge/purge of course but, like, dramatically restrict your diet and be terrified of gaining any more weight
November 20, 2025 at 4:55 PM
Wow. Yes, I’m struggling to even understand the concept of AAN because in my experience, if your BMI is on the higher side, doctors *advise* you to do all those things. Not binge/purge of course but, like, dramatically restrict your diet and be terrified of gaining any more weight
Maybe I misunderstood what you meant by “a quarter a word will do this”
November 20, 2025 at 4:49 PM
Maybe I misunderstood what you meant by “a quarter a word will do this”
Oh, I agree. And I have no doubt that it will change people‘s shopping and spending habits, same as online retail did. I’m just getting old, and not looking forward to another shift.
November 20, 2025 at 4:48 PM
Oh, I agree. And I have no doubt that it will change people‘s shopping and spending habits, same as online retail did. I’m just getting old, and not looking forward to another shift.
Perhaps! I haven’t worked with those specific publications. And yet they all found the robot writer to be the best candidate in their inbox, hired it, and happily published its completely fabricated article.
November 20, 2025 at 4:44 PM
Perhaps! I haven’t worked with those specific publications. And yet they all found the robot writer to be the best candidate in their inbox, hired it, and happily published its completely fabricated article.
I was thinking this too. And in the article he says “But AI doesn’t care about [promotions, deals, and discounts] — if you ask for a car to the airport, an AI might just open Uber and Lyft and always pick the cheapest ride.” Would human users ever want that?
November 20, 2025 at 4:41 PM
I was thinking this too. And in the article he says “But AI doesn’t care about [promotions, deals, and discounts] — if you ask for a car to the airport, an AI might just open Uber and Lyft and always pick the cheapest ride.” Would human users ever want that?
Not really? Editors want to commission pieces from writers who already have a long list of clips in prestigious publications and who can turn around reported stories in a few days for pennies a word. And now they’re shocked that, oops, their ideal candidates are actually robots.
November 20, 2025 at 5:00 AM
Not really? Editors want to commission pieces from writers who already have a long list of clips in prestigious publications and who can turn around reported stories in a few days for pennies a word. And now they’re shocked that, oops, their ideal candidates are actually robots.
Yes. Dan Crenshaw was a Navy SEAL. Joni Ernst I think was National Guard? Rick Scott was Navy. I’m sure there are many others.
November 19, 2025 at 8:46 PM
Yes. Dan Crenshaw was a Navy SEAL. Joni Ernst I think was National Guard? Rick Scott was Navy. I’m sure there are many others.
Reposted by Caroline Seydel
60 attorneys describe a year of chaos and suspicion inside Trump's Justice Department.
“If we’re indicting people because the president hates them, that’s counter to the whole point of doing my job.”
- Mike Romano, former prosecutor in the Public Integrity Section
www.nytimes.com/interactive/...
“If we’re indicting people because the president hates them, that’s counter to the whole point of doing my job.”
- Mike Romano, former prosecutor in the Public Integrity Section
www.nytimes.com/interactive/...
60 Attorneys on the Year of Chaos Inside Trump’s Justice Department (Gift Article)
Sixty former staffers describe an environment of suspicion and intimidation within the nation’s most powerful law enforcement agency.
www.nytimes.com
November 17, 2025 at 5:22 PM
60 attorneys describe a year of chaos and suspicion inside Trump's Justice Department.
“If we’re indicting people because the president hates them, that’s counter to the whole point of doing my job.”
- Mike Romano, former prosecutor in the Public Integrity Section
www.nytimes.com/interactive/...
“If we’re indicting people because the president hates them, that’s counter to the whole point of doing my job.”
- Mike Romano, former prosecutor in the Public Integrity Section
www.nytimes.com/interactive/...
Right? I mean, good that they finally investigated, although better to have done it before assigning the story. They’re telling on themselves here: the only way to get a pitch accepted is to have fake credentials and a fake resume. Real people just aren’t good enough anymore
November 19, 2025 at 5:25 PM
Right? I mean, good that they finally investigated, although better to have done it before assigning the story. They’re telling on themselves here: the only way to get a pitch accepted is to have fake credentials and a fake resume. Real people just aren’t good enough anymore
Oh I saw that movie
November 19, 2025 at 1:58 AM
Oh I saw that movie
Wouldn’t surprise me if he’s lying
November 18, 2025 at 5:25 AM
Wouldn’t surprise me if he’s lying
That’s not what “slut-shaming“ means
November 18, 2025 at 5:17 AM
That’s not what “slut-shaming“ means
I think he’s taking about the Patton Oswalt post calling for Megyn Kelly to be fed into a wood chipper
November 14, 2025 at 8:45 PM
I think he’s taking about the Patton Oswalt post calling for Megyn Kelly to be fed into a wood chipper
I still get paid with paper checks
November 14, 2025 at 8:37 PM
I still get paid with paper checks
Reposted by Caroline Seydel
It's gotta be frustrating for journalists scraping by and doing great work to go to NY Times dot com and read a puff piece written by a nepo baby that whitewashes a journalist who had sex with a source and has now parlayed that into a new book and a job at Vanity Fair
November 14, 2025 at 6:07 PM
It's gotta be frustrating for journalists scraping by and doing great work to go to NY Times dot com and read a puff piece written by a nepo baby that whitewashes a journalist who had sex with a source and has now parlayed that into a new book and a job at Vanity Fair
It absolutely was, depending on the circumstances. Halloween costumes, etc - in my experience, most people did not consider that offensive in the 70s, 80s, 90s even. I don’t know exactly when it became taboo in any context, but pretty recently
November 13, 2025 at 8:52 PM
It absolutely was, depending on the circumstances. Halloween costumes, etc - in my experience, most people did not consider that offensive in the 70s, 80s, 90s even. I don’t know exactly when it became taboo in any context, but pretty recently
Yeah but donors
November 13, 2025 at 6:33 PM
Yeah but donors
Wait something doesn’t make sense … why is the 5:03 PM message higher in the thread than the 5:50 PM message
November 12, 2025 at 9:18 PM
Wait something doesn’t make sense … why is the 5:03 PM message higher in the thread than the 5:50 PM message