House Of Leaves is similiar to Backrooms in a way - they represent the same kinds of horror but it's more like how Weird Fiction converged and inspired in the same way. There's a level of early slenderman there as well (in terms of a lot of the early slenderman horror being more about the horror of dreaming this entity into the real)
I'd argue SCP Foundation is probably one of the main initial examples of internet occult, the Backrooms have more in common with a few SCPs.
To go wider there's probably a convergent horror - It's the classic aspect of horror stories of the age represent subliminal fears of the age (e.g, bloodsucking vampires mean very different things across the past thousand years). I think liminal horror is a representation of a lot of our fears, so multiple different effective horrors have converged on these feelings of discomfort with spaces.
I'm not really smart enough to know what it means - probably something about modern society dissassociating people from the space, but don't know much more.
> I'm not really smart enough to know what it means - probably something about modern society dissassociating people from the space, but don't know much more.
I think it has something to do with the controlled comfort of modern life. And how even a small disruption can become unsettling.
Like in HoL, the most chilling scene isn't anything that happens beyond the door imo. It's when the book falls because the house changed size ever so slightly. I think the classic haunted house trope is at play there too - home is comfort but those stories frequently involve a move, which is inherently stressful. I remember when I bought my house..every new noise or small change was disturbing. Potentially a hidden horror lurking in the house (like a water leak).
The Dionaea House is a better example that's in the same vein as House of Leaves but was Very Online for the time, considered one of the first creepypastas in retrospect, and predates the whole SCP thing.
House Of Leaves was published in 2000 and Backrooms originates (as far as I can tell) from like 2011? Not that it's impossible that the ideas developed independently, but given how big a cult hit House of Leaves was I'd be very surprised if there wasn't some direct lineage. Not trying to gatekeep, it's just that the Backroom trailer was giving me _really distinct_ HoL vibes. I wonder if that's just the film mixing in ideas that weren't necessarily present in the original copypasta.
edit: Another thing I will say is that I've noticed both HoL and Backrooms seem to act like a kind of shibboleth for a particular demographic (not even really the same demographic) and you often see this in how people write/talk about both. I think it maybe stems from how dense/unapproachable the two works are, how innocuous they seem on the surface such that you really have to sink some effort to get at them.
I said to a few friends that the recent trailer felt like it could be for a House of Leaves movie. Different overall setting, but the "found footage" aspects, and the narrative over it, felt like they could be right out of the Navidson Record.
I don't have any real proof for this, but it feels like House of Leaves inspired a lot of the people making "found footage" and "creepypasta" stuff one the internet in the 2000s and early 2010s (SCP, Marble Hornets, Slender Man), and then that stuff came together to inspire the Backrooms.
Exponential take-off is great until it stops- genuinely, what are the signals showing any of the large models are performing exponential takeoff and recursive self-improvement?
Currently a lot of that appears to be marketing hype to drive up usage. Is it exponential, or are the labs spending exponentially more for smaller and smaller gains from LLMs?
I view a lot of the AI/Bot internet to be slightly a false misnomer. Even before ChatGPT, the degredation of online content was already happening - SEO farms, worsening google search. Most articles you'd find online would be paywalled, most information about specific things would turn out to be a frustrating SEO labyrinth.
The current one is awful, and there's so much AI/Bot content, but I can find far more detailed information using AI enabled search that isn't covered in ads. I can get an initial overview of methodology without trawling through SEO articles.
I think AI has been almost a natural response to the enshittification of the internet - ChatGPT wouldn't seem so transformative if google search was working like google search rather than ad generator 5000 before it released.
Yeah agreed. I think that's partially why I find AI still useful - It acts as a filter against a lot of the listicle style content. I then can curate and look at specific blog writers I follow for actual content.
But honestly, if google provided me with a good search, I probably would seriously reduce my AI usage when researching. E
We believe in a few core values that are non-negotiable: equality, empowerment, and the right to pursue your own version of success.
At the end of the day, leadership only works when it has the full support of the team. When a system stops delivering value and starts hindering growth, it’s time for a pivot. It’s not just a right—it’s a responsibility to re-evaluate, restructure, and build something better from the ground up.
Change isn't easy. We know people tend to stick with what’s comfortable, even when it’s not working. But when you see a consistent pattern of mismanagement and lack of transparency, you have to take action.
Our "Colony" team has been patient, but we’ve reached a tipping point. The current leadership has shown a track record of blocking progress and prioritizing control over collaboration.
We’re choosing a new path focused on security, safety, and long-term impact. Don’t just take our word for it—check out the data.
As someone who has looked at things like Renewable energy deployments within the UK, this is a pattern that seems to be quite pervasive across all industries. The byzantine web of planning approvals, goose counting, public outcry that you have to deal with to deploy essentially a relatively small solar farm is monstrous.
What that results with is that the only people capable of creating & managing these processes have the legal teams & resources necessary, stifling growth. Even once you get an approval, it may be years in order to get a grid connection.
This risk averse attitude pervades into all walks of life, including medical beurocracy. This essentially locks out a ton of real innovation, as it's too expensive to square up against a mass of beurocracy attempting to stifle you at all turns.
Its a double edged sword. yes, it stifles renewable energy innovation, but those rules are usually put in place in a more general sense, and you would really want them in place if next door was suddenly announced to be a landfill, or chemical plant, or a chicken farm, or an xAI datacenter....
I think you've stumbled on the core problem - it's a lot easier if you have the funding to be able to do all of those things.
xAI would have the capital and lawyers necessary to push it through no matter what. You can hire "independent" environmental consultants to allow for these projects to be made with enough capital.
The problem with the UK is that these rules absolutley do not apply to be big players, it's a case of stifling smaller innovators while letting larger ones get off scot free.
I've personally seen the opposite where a government regulator hired an independent environmental consultant to document the decline of wildlife in a specific area. The problem was their findings were that the wildlife were actually doing exceptionally well in that area. The government promptly ignored the results and then stopped providing any further studies on the wildlife population under the logic they were never required to.
Everyone wants the datacenter somewhere in their country for sovereignty... just not next to them. Quelle surprise. At this point you may as well build supermarkets on top of them just to sell 'em to people.
They're so absurdly capital intensive at this point that they probably ought to be buried at least 50 meters down. If any reasonably capable countries ever face off directly they'll probably be one of the first things to go.
Given the rapidly increasing power densities I expect it would be far more straightforward to bury them. I believe a single 42u rack of last gen nvidia hardware is already more energy intensive than the HVAC for a mcmansion.
However it occurs to me that the electrical grid becomes a high priority military target in this scenario. Maybe datacenters should go all in on building their own power plants.
It depends on your point of view. For the person deciding on giving permission they will not be thanked for allowing it, but might well be blamed if something goes horribly wrong.
That's kind of the issue with a lot of bureaucratic oversight. It often produces systems that aren't at all interested in being streamlined, in letting things that should happen happen. It produces systems where compliance is a drag on the one doing things, and the default state is "forbidden".
Yes, but this is a clasical agent-principal problem.
Theoretically, the bureaucracy works on your behalf, but only approximately so. If it makes a mistake that kills you, the decision maker does not pay any price.
UK planning law is not the same as medical research regulations.
UK planning law is the physical manifestation of legal tech debt. It will not be tackled until the daily mail and their readers are dead, and not replaced.
To make changes it requires lots of will from the government, and the consent of a bunch of people who are unlikely to give it.
medical regulation is fucking trivial by comparison. Most of it is arms length and technical. it can be changed according to evidence, rather than gut feeling. Its only in a few cases are there actual legal hard lines (like embryo research, and vivisection)
People may not realise how bad uk planning law is unless they are here. Anybody can veto a development for any reason, and there is no disincentive to do so even if it is found to be spurious. They can just do it again. A development isn't just building either, it can be as simple as changing the use of something or making an improvement to it. On top of that are all the actual regulations, newt surveys, listed buildings restrictions, etc, and the many months of associated delays and costs with each one. In London the body set up after Grenfell now has a 10 month backlog and approval rate of 30%, so nothing is built in London except storage centres.
Fully agree - I think there's a core legalism inherent with especially the british political class. The first indication is always to build more guardrails and take fewer risks. It ends up killing innovation
Maybe one solution for this issue would be some kind of “developer’s ombudsman” that is an affordable public service to 1) help people navigate the bureaucracy and 2) produce a report recommending streamlining of rules where possible.
This avoids “cutting down all the laws to punish the devil”. Some regulations are necessary.
Genuine question — is there a common factor across the regulations you'd keep? Because if there is, you could encode that directly instead of maintaining the specific rules. And if there isn't, "some regulations are necessary" isn't really a position yet.
The point of the ombudsman I suggested is that it’s hard to encode a simple rule in a sentence or two. You need to be familiar with the process so you’re not relearning the same lessons over and over.
No. The companies that hire lawyers to navigate government bureaucracy have their own internal bureaucracies. So the status quo is not “no bureaucracy”.
It seems that in any sufficiently complex thing there will be some irreducible amount of bureaucracy. So it’s reasonable to make that irreducible set of rules more accessible.
That's the great part of getting rid of government bureaucracy. You save a bit on that and a fortune on all the internal company bureaucracies that can be removed in response.
To play the devils advocate, in places with low bureaucracy most of the risk taken is not innovation. It's just risk that leads to the death of others. Buildings with shitty concrete with too little rebar in it. Electrical wiring that will kill you. Improper foundations and such.
At the end of the day there is no simple answer here. It's no different than the talks about AI that dominate HN these days. You can build good things with AI, but the vast majority of it is crap, so we put up filters and hoops to ensure we don't get flooded with that crap.
Evidently the construct of the devil does because humanity can help but setup complex situations that require a balanced approach rather than only looking at things one way.
In that case, you can explain the nuance and offer a more balanced viewpoint, without invoking the devil as an accountability sink. Your words should stand on their own merits. (To be fair, you did this! I'm just saying you shouldn't preface your words with a trite phrase that signals you'll be lobbing cheap logic over the wall and disavowing responsibility for your words if the logic proves faulty.)
That isn't what devil's advocate means. Merely that you don't personally endorse the position you're presenting but are doing so nonetheless for whatever reason.
At least to me it sounds like you just have problems with the incorrect use of the devils advocate by some people in the first place, of which I would actually hope you understand its use in rhetoric.
At least in the common HN discussion you nearly have to use its form when talking in an approving manner of things like regulation or unions because it goes against the Holy Church of Capitalism, lest you be punished by the mighty downvote button for heresy.
I'd say the underlying problem is our capital-first regulatory environments. For the topic of the original article, anyone can see that it would be reasonable for a guy who loves his dog to make what appears to be a prudent medical decision in her interest, trying out an unknown vaccine without any sort of government involvement - and a government that prevents this is unjust. But with the way the system is set up, if this were legally sound it would then automatically imply that a corpo scaling up the situation to thousands of dogs that it (the corpo) doesn't care about would also be okay. The fundamental problem is that there is no recognition of scale (because small scale operators don't have the pull with the government to fix the regulations).
Speaking as someone from the US, this is by design. If there was a single track for approval, it'd be really easy for a motivated group to get stuff done. By requiring multiple overlapping layers of approvals (often in direct contradiction to one another) it ensures each layer of government can get their hands in the very much real cookie jar.
Have you tried the "forgiveness is easier than permission" approach? What would happen if you just installed the solar panels? I know that in some countries they'd come by with a bulldozer and tear them down again - is your country one of those?
"Forgiveness is easier than permission" only makes sense when you know what you're doing and understand the consequences. (IE, paying taxes a little late in the US is okay because the fine is roughly the same as the interest of holding the money in the bank.)
In the case of solar panels, I'm going to assume the OP is talking about something like a grid-scale solar farm instead of rooftop solar production:
1: You need an agreement with "the grid" to get payment for the electricity you generate.
2: Feeding electricity into a power grid is a very dangerous thing, at a minimum the grid operator needs to make sure you aren't going to cause a fire or otherwise break their equipment.
---
That being said: If you're a homeowner trying to set up a small solar installation, you can pair the panels with batteries and skip feeding into the grid.
I am not sure about a bulldozer, but in the UK you will be forced to demolish it yourself. I am not sure what the penalty is for failing to do so when ordered to, but it seems to be usually effective.
A solar farm isn't a few panels on your roof, it's a large installation in a field.
Also in the UK it would probably be a civil lawsuit, which doesn't have a jury, although if you violate a civil court order you can still get a jail sentence.
There are literally people in the UK in jail for tweets deemed to be incitement to violence. Maybe you think it's a good thing! I don't care! But it's ridiculous to argue over the facts on the ground.
> Lucy Connolly, 42, whose husband serves on Northampton Town Council, pleaded guilty in September after posting the expletive-ridden message on X the day three girls were stabbed to death in July 2024.
> She was released from HMP Peterborough earlier after she was handed a 31-month prison sentence in October at Birmingham Crown Court.
Like this one? I mean this is not some hard to find secret.
> An indictment unsealed Tuesday lists out a series of angry Facebook messages that Streavel allegedly penned about Mr. Trump both before and after the election — some of which expressed a desire for him to be assassinated.
> Nathalie Rose Jones, 50, of Lafayette, Indiana, was arrested in the District of Columbia on Saturday, August 16, and charged in connection with making a series of threats on social media in which she threatened to kill President Trump, announced U.S. Attorney Jeanine Ferris Pirro.
I don't have examples of tweets handy, but here are stickers that get you 2 years in UK jail: They reportedly contained slogans such as “We will be a minority in our homeland by 2066”, “Mass immigration is white genocide”, “intolerance is a virtue” and “they seek conquest not asylum.”
I mean, i think if you want to perform mass surveilance, you can do it far cheaper and more efficiently via facial recognition, mobile phone surveillance and a variety of different other methods.
If you want reconstruction and training of robotic movement, this is far more appropriate. I believe we're going to see robots being able to "dream" in terms of analysing historical video information on spaces and improving movement and navigation.
So not mass surveilance, but probably there's a future of mass subjugation using robot enforcement.
THere's a level of AI generated copy that makes the website look unpolished. I think it's right to critique, in the same way i'd critique an obvious bootstrap css website.
There's loads of factors that may implicitly turn someone off using an app, and I think it's important to let the OP know a critical one.
House Of Leaves is similiar to Backrooms in a way - they represent the same kinds of horror but it's more like how Weird Fiction converged and inspired in the same way. There's a level of early slenderman there as well (in terms of a lot of the early slenderman horror being more about the horror of dreaming this entity into the real)
I'd argue SCP Foundation is probably one of the main initial examples of internet occult, the Backrooms have more in common with a few SCPs.
To go wider there's probably a convergent horror - It's the classic aspect of horror stories of the age represent subliminal fears of the age (e.g, bloodsucking vampires mean very different things across the past thousand years). I think liminal horror is a representation of a lot of our fears, so multiple different effective horrors have converged on these feelings of discomfort with spaces.
I'm not really smart enough to know what it means - probably something about modern society dissassociating people from the space, but don't know much more.
reply