"Why does autism seem more common in males?
Being female does appear to protect the brain from many developmental disabilities, not just autism. There is emerging evidence that girls with autism need more extreme genetic mutations than boys to develop autism.
However, there is a growing body of work that indicates that autism just presents differently in girls and therefore often goes unrecognised, especially in verbally fluent girls with normal intelligence. Girls with autism also appear to be better at ‘camouflaging’ their symptoms in order to fit in.
With the diagnostic criteria for ASD based largely in how autism presents in males, girls can often ‘slip under the radar’ or get misdiagnosed. Girls with ASD seem to have less restricted and repetitive behaviours than boys, but it’s also possible that some of these behaviours go unrecognised — for example, an obsessive interest in collecting dolls may be misinterpreted as pretend play.
What does autism look like in girls?
Although every child with autism is different, here are some common characteristics in girls with autism:
A special interest in animals, music, art, and literature
A strong imagination (might escape into the worlds of nature or fiction)
A desire to arrange and organise objects
Not wanting to play cooperatively with female peers (for example, wanting to dictate the rules of play or preferring to play alone to maintain control)
A tendency to ‘mimic’ others in social situations in order to blend in
An ability to hold their emotions in check at school, but be prone to meltdowns or explosive behaviour at home
Strong sensory sensitivities, especially to sounds and touch (for example; clothing tags, socks or even deodorant).
For autistic girls to thrive, it’s important they have access to a timely and accurate diagnosis, and the informed supports that come with it. A delayed or missed diagnosis can impede their education and development, as well as their social and community participation.
While boys with autism are more likely to have outwardly challenging behaviours, (indicating underlying issues, such as anxiety) girls with autism are more vulnerable to internalising problems.
As our understanding of how autism affects females is still emerging, it is important parents and professionals alike stay updated on the best ways to specifically support girls and women on the spectrum."
97 notes
·
View notes
wait are you saying ring of power is trash because of the diverse cast or bc its Amazon? bc apparently a lot of critics are being racist af about the casting than anything else
Because it's Amazon (especially given that earlier Amazon was using their ownership of IMDb to scrub any negative reviews regardless of validity or content), the creators have made pretty abundantly clear their disregard for the source material ("Can we come up with the novel Tolkien never wrote," "But that was then, this is now and we’re telling the story now"), poor treatment of stunt specialists, really bad props and costuming (the elves especially), throwing out established characterization and timelines, dwarven women not having beards (yeah yeah it's a bit of a silly thing to gripe about, but we Tolkien fans are nothing if not devoted to detail), just the general vibe of trying to turn this into the next Game of Thrones instead of letting it be its own thing, etc., etc., the list goes on.
I'm not 100% happy with the casting, but that's probably the most minor and ultimately inconsequential of my criticisms, more rooted in a love of source material accuracy than anything else. If we were talking about a fantasy story in a setting rooted in African mythology, I think it'd make sense to want Black actors to portray it. If we were looking at something like The Stormlight Archive being adapted, I'd probably want most of the major actors to be Polynesian and/or Arabic, since that's how the Alethi are described as looking. This is a setting inspired by European mythology, so for accuracy's sake it makes sense to me to cast actors of European descent. If I thought the show was actually making an earnest effort as an adaptation in other regards, it's a divergence I'd happily roll with, but taken with everything else it just comes off as one more instance of not caring about the source material except as a vehicle to promote what should have been a wholly original story to begin with.
31 notes
·
View notes
...that your audience won't hate.
This is a method I started using when NFTs were on the rise - thieves would have to put actual work into getting rid of the mark - and one that I am now grateful for with the arrival of AI. Why? Because anyone who tries to train an AI on my work will end up with random, disruptive color blobs.
I can't say for sure it'll stop theft entirely, but it WILL make your images annoying for databases to incorporate, and add an extra layer of inconvenience for thieves. So as far as I'm concerned, that's a win/win.
I'll be showing the steps in CSP, but it should all be pretty easy to replicate in Photoshop.
Now: let's use the above image as our new signature file. I set mine to be 2500 x 1000 pixels when I'm just starting out.
Note that your text should not have a lot of anti-aliasing, so using a paint brush to start isn't going to work well with this method. Just use the standard G-Pen if you're doing this by hand, or, just use the text tool and whichever font you prefer.
Once that's done, take your magic wand tool, and select all the black. Here are the magic wand settings I'm using to make the selections:
All selected?
Good.
Now, find a brush with a scattering/tone scraping effect. I use one like this.
You can theoretically use any colors you want for this next part, but I'd recommend pastels as they tend to blend better.
Either way, let's add some color to the text.
Once that's finished,
You're going to want to go to Layer Property, and Border Effect
You'll be given an option of choosing color and thickness. Choose black, and go for at least a 5 in thickness. Adjust per your own preferences.
Now create a layer beneath your sig layer, and merge the sig down onto the blank layer.
This effectively 'locks in' the border effect, which is exactly what we want.
Hooray, you've finished your watermark!
Now let's place that bad boy into your finished piece.
You'll get the best mileage out of a mark if you can place it over a spot that isn't black of white, since you'll get better blending options that way. My preference is for Overlay.
From here, I'll adjust the opacity to around 20-25, depending on the image.
If you don't have a spot to use overlay, however, there's a couple other options. For white, there's Linear Burn, which imho doesn't look as good, but it still works in a pinch.
And for lots of black, you have Linear Light
Either way, you're in business!
EDIT since this has escaped my usual circles, and folks aren't as familiar with my personal usage:
An example of one of my own finished pieces, with watermark, so you can see what I mean about 'relatively unobtrusive'-- I try to at least use them as framing devices, or let them work with the image somehow (or, at the very least, not actively against it).
I know it's a bummer for some people to "ruin" their work with watermarks, which is part of the reason I developed this mark in particular. Its disruption is about as minimal as I can make it while still letting it serve its intended purpose.
There's other methods, too, of course! But this is the one I use, and the one I can speak on. Hope it helps some of you!
52K notes
·
View notes
the thing about art is that it was always supposed to be about us, about the human-ness of us, the impossible and beautiful reality that we (for centuries) have stood still, transfixed by music. that we can close our eyes and cry about the same book passage; the events of which aren't real and never happened. theatre in shakespeare's time was as real as it is now; we all laugh at the same cue (pursued by bear), separated hundreds of years apart.
three years ago my housemates were jamming outdoors, just messing around with their instruments, mostly just making noise. our neighbors - shy, cautious, a little sheepish - sat down and started playing. i don't really know how it happened; i was somehow in charge of dancing, barefoot and laughing - but i looked up, and our yard was full of people. kids stacked on the shoulders of parents. old couples holding hands. someone had brought sidewalk chalk; our front walk became a riot of color. someone ran in with a flute and played the most astounding solo i've ever heard in my life, upright and wiggling, skipping as she did so. she only paused because the violin player was kicking his heels up and she was laughing too hard to continue.
two weeks ago my friend and i met in the basement of her apartment complex so she could work out a piece of choreography. we have a language barrier - i'm not as good at ASL as i'd like to be (i'm still learning!) so we communicate mostly through the notes app and this strange secret language of dancers - we have the same movement vocabulary. the two of us cracking jokes at each other, giggling. there were kids in the basement too, who had been playing soccer until we took up the far corner of the room. one by one they made their slow way over like feral cats - they laid down, belly-flat against the floor, just watching. my friend and i were not in tutus - we were in slouchy shirts and leggings and socks. nothing fancy. but when i asked the kids would you like to dance too? they were immediately on their feet and spinning. i love when people dance with abandon, the wild and leggy fervor of childhood. i think it is gorgeous.
their adults showed up eventually, and a few of them said hey, let's not bother the nice ladies. but they weren't bothering us, they were just having fun - so. a few of the adults started dancing awkwardly along, and then most of the adults. someone brought down a better sound system. someone opened a watermelon and started handing out slices. it was 8 PM on a tuesday and nothing about that day was particularly special; we might as well party.
one time i hosted a free "paint along party" and about 20 adults worked quietly while i taught them how to paint nessie. one time i taught community dance classes and so many people showed up we had to move the whole thing outside. we used chairs and coatracks to balance. one time i showed up to a random band playing in a random location, and the whole thing got packed so quickly we had to open every door and window in the place.
i don't think i can tell you how much people want to be making art and engaging with art. they want to, desperately. so many people would be stunning artists, but they are lied to and told from a very young age that art only matters if it is planned, purposeful, beautiful. that if you have an idea, you need to be able to express it perfectly. this is not true. you don't get only 1 chance to communicate. you can spend a lifetime trying to display exactly 1 thing you can never quite language. you can just express the "!!??!!!"-ing-ness of being alive; that is something none of us really have a full grasp on creating. and even when we can't make what we want - god, it feels fucking good to try. and even just enjoying other artists - art inherently rewards the act of participating.
i wasn't raised wealthy. whenever i make a post about art, someone inevitably says something along the lines of well some of us aren't that lucky. i am not lucky; i am dedicated. i have a chronic condition, my hands are constantly in pain. i am not neurotypical, nor was i raised safe. i worked 5-7 jobs while some of these memories happened. i chose art because it mattered to me more than anything on this fucking planet - i would work 80 hours a week just so i could afford to write in 3 of them.
and i am still telling you - if you are called to make art, you are called to the part of you that is human. you do not have to be good at it. you do not have to have enormous amounts of privilege. you can just... give yourself permission. you can just say i'm going to make something now and then - go out and make it. raquel it won't be good though that is okay, i don't make good things every time either. besides. who decides what good even is?
you weren't called to make something because you wanted it to be good, you were called to make something because it is a basic instinct. you were taught to judge its worth and over-value perfection. you are doing something impossible. a god's ability: from nothing springs creation.
a few months ago i found a piece of sidewalk chalk and started drawing. within an hour i had somehow collected a small classroom of young children. their adults often brought their own chalk. i looked up and about fifteen families had joined me from around the block. we drew scrangly unicorns and messed up flowers and one girl asked me to draw charizard. i am not good at drawing. i basically drew an orb with wings. you would have thought i drew her the mona lisa. she dragged her mother over and pointed and said look! look what she drew for me and, in the moment, i admit i flinched (sorry, i don't -). but the mother just grinned at me. he's beautiful. and then she sat down and started drawing.
someone took a picture of it. it was in the local newspaper. the summary underneath said joyful and spontaneous artwork from local artists springs up in public gallery. in the picture, a little girl covered in chalk dust has her head thrown back, delighted. laughing.
10K notes
·
View notes
https://www.tumblr.com/bigmammallama5/732632789726478336?source=share do you have any tips on how to detect ai and deepfakes?
Good question and I'm gonna be honest, it's not always easy and it will only get harder and harder.
I'm just an artist who has spent their personal time to dive into this topic and study images. I'm still learning and there is a lot I don't know. But let me show what I know.
This will be long, but I will make a summary at the end!
So far, even with ai having become better and better there are still almost always some things wrong with an image, and they all have a very specific look to them.
So let me try to show you some and point out some of them.
As we all know, a biggest struggle ai had were hands. And even though here and there we still see messed up hands, I say "had", because the hands is actual a good example on how ai is improving and will only get better.
Still, looking at pictures that show more hands is always worth it, because somewhere in the back there will be most likely at least one messed up hand.
Another issue a lot of ai still has is hair though!
It's very obvious still in many ai "drawings" and in those otherwise well rendered portraits. Hair starts to blend with the ears a lot, or with the clothes.
There is also often this very odd look between something too sharp and way too blurry
There is often a very specific texture to the hair. I actually do not know the artistic or specific name for it. I can only describe it as this weird sharp feeling that makes it look oddly pixely, and then you have areas where it's very blurry.
And the kind of loops and almost flame like looking hair we see in the last pic out of the three here is also something very common with ai.
As an artist I know we make mistakes too! The way I draw hair is flawed too! But it's not only that it's flawed here, but it's following always the same pattern and falls into the same issues over and over again, no matter who is "creating" the image. Those flame like loops are a common one, next to the odd blends and weird sharp and blurry textures.
But ai is getting better, and we not only have "art" and something that tries to be a drawing/painting, but photos too.
A lot of those "photos" have a very specific texture and look to them! Again, it's not always the mistakes, but the very specific optic too.
A lot of the images are oddly smooth, too rendered, with always blurry backgrounds.
And when you look closer at the background you will see the mistakes! The crowd behind Jesus is a hot mess once you look closer. Bob Marley's hair has the same issue than I described before. Lincoln is surrounded by people with messed up hands and don't even get me started on the faces behind Caesar.
So a lot of ai images look alright on a first and quick glance, but as more time you spend with them, as more mistakes you will notice. The wehre is Waldo of ai horror.
And those "photos" shared here are still very obvious. Not just the mistakes and messed up details but the very specific aesthetic too.
Those images get better and better and as less details you have, as less mistakes you have!
With photos like this it becomes harder and harder. There are not many details and no hands. Not many mistakes can be made. Also the very obvious plastic looking smoothness isn't so much here anymore. It kinda still is...but differently. And always the blurry background!!
Sometimes the hair is still a giveaway.
Collars and clothe straps are also often still a giveaway upon close look. As is jewelry. Earrings will be different and necklaces often don't go all the way around, just end, or blend with the hair or clothes.
Often details on jewelry is also blurry and not shown properly.
This is a trick with many details. With jewelry, batches, hair, ears, text. So it's often blurred out and not shown properly because ai doesn't know what to really show here.
It's often really just the small details and when we scroll down quickly we will miss them. Like the wedding ring on the middle finger, the pens on top of a closed pocket, the batches that are always blurry, messed up faces that blend with a blurry background.
And sometimes it's so subtle that I could only really tell that right is the ai image in comparison to the real photo on the left.
The real photo shows hands clearly and even when things are blurred out it doesn't feel that it's done to hide things. The ai image on the right hides the hands. There is also a very dead look in the eyes :D
And here I could only tell because the text in the back doesn't make sense. Even blurred out we should be able to make out something here
And after seeing a lot of ai images I recognize the kind of blurred out bg in combination with a very smooth and well rendered foreground/characters.
And here the only giveaway is a closer look at the backgrounds as well
To summarize it:
Ai and fake news rely on a fast living world. We are being bombarded with tons of information and messages daily and we scroll past quickly.
But the best tool, for now, in detecting ai is taking our time! Those images get better and better but so far there are still always some things off!! Especially in the background!
Hair. Often weirdly smoothed out and oddly sharp at the same time
Hair often blends with the ears or the clothes
Details are blurred out.
Jewelry doesn't match (example earrings). Details on metal often blurred out and never shown. Necklaces blend with hair or the clothes, and don't go around the neck.
Background is always blurred out.
In this blurred mess there are often hidden very messed up faces and/or hands.
A very specific smooth and yet too sharp/too rendered aesthetic combines with an always blurry bg.
Text, especialyl in the background, is not legible and doesn't make sense.
Backgrounds are often (so far) the dead giveaway. Somewhere in the back things become muddled and messed up.
This shows also very well in ai decor/architecture.
There will be odd lines that don't align or align too well. Curtain poles that end in the furniture, a plant that is behind a lamp suddenly having leaves in front of the lamp.
As longer you look as more you will notice.
Conclusion:
Take your time with images! Sit with them! Especially when it's framed as important and political news. Is it ai and propaganda, or did it really happen?
Don't fall for the quick buzz and outrage! Some things are obvious right away but with others you have to take your time. And it's time you have!
If you are still unsure if a pic is real or not, do some research on top. Image reverse search. Can you find it anywhere else? Are other news outlets sharing it? Does the image/message make sense? For example there is now a deepfake of Bella Hadid voicing support for Israel. Ask yourself, does this make sense? If it feels out of line compared to previous behavior, do some research!
Media literacy is not just as being able to recognize a fake or real right away, but being able to do research. To question things! Don't just take every post online for face value. Even when shared by a mutual you trust. They might have been tricked!
There are so many information online and it's great to have access to so information, but it's also difficult to wade through all of it. Media and truth are a weapon and it's being twisted and bend used to manipulate. Always has! But ai and so many people being able to post and share things, it becomes bigger and bigger and more dangerous.
So don't just take everything that is handed to you and share it further no questions asked.
Media literacy and being able to think for ourselves and do the research is important!! And as research becomes harder and harder, as sources are being messed up with ai and other fake news, it's even more important to sit with the images and study them. See the flaws, the mistakes. Compare it to other news and images.
This got long, and I started to ramble at the end.
Sorry
But I hope this helped
6K notes
·
View notes