I'm interested in reading more non-fiction! Read anything good lately? I'm mostly interested in books that are aimed at a non-academic audience but are info-dense, complex and 'crunchy' (i.e. not books that repeat the same 3 ideas for like 200 pages). Probably less interested in self-help/self-development style books?

Potential topics of interest (but I'm open to other topics)

-emotions, neuroscience, hormones, brain chemicals, 'processing'. Stuff about the connection between our physical bodies and our qualia, but probably from a more practical than a philosophical perspective. Good examples of the genre that I've read: The Body Keeps the Score, How Emotions Are Made, Unlocking the Emotional Brain

-stuff that gives me a better sense "how the world works" politically, economically, socially. Books that explain in a simple way some complex global system that lots of people don't understand. I'm most sympathetic to lefty perspectives, but also open to centrist/liberal or wacky/heterodox perspectives.
Example of the genre: Hickel's The Divide?

-history books focussing on: anarchism; sexuality; relationships; progressive social movements; people being queer/non-monogamous "before it was cool"
Good example of the genre: the podcast Cool People Who Did Cool Stuff

-work (history and sociology of); capitalism (critics and (semi-critical) defenders/explainers)
Good example of the genre: Bullshit Jobs

-social skills, charisma, interpersonal interaction. I'd tolerate more self-help-iness here, as probably most books about these things are self-help books.
Ok example of the genre: Non-violent Communication. This wasn't very info-dense, but I like that it shows you a way to approach social interaction in a structured, systematic way.

I might add more topics as comments when I think of them.

Thank you in advance!

I'm starting to think I might be much more valuable as an event photographer than a portrait photographer. Even if my goal is "get good portraits of people."

I just had a portrait session with someone today. I had trouble getting them to "act natural," and various poses made them say "this pose makes me feel/look like I'm just posing for a photographer." They preferred photos that looked plausibly candid.

For the average person -- especially the average guy -- I get it.

At events, I can get candids of so many different people. It's time-efficient. And people are dressed nice by default. And sometimes the environment is especially nice. Usually the lighting isn't ideal, but sometimes it's interesting. (e.g. Colorful dance lighting.)

I've been feeling kind of awkward in my portrait sessions. It's kind of hard to make a bunch of good decisions about posing/staging on the spot -- it all depends on the person, their outfit, whether they're masculine/feminine, the cloud cover, etc. Lots of thinking on the spot. And generally I'm not working with someone who has any interest in modeling, so... they feel a bit awkward and nervous themselves, which isn't good for photos.

Any entity in the world can be seen as an agent. In fact, there are infinitely many ways to describe a given entity as an agent.

The agentic frame, similar to the “intentional stance”, involves conceptualizing an entity as having (a) a set of goals or values, (b) a set of available actions, and (c) a decision procedure for choosing actions, such that it is in some sense “trying” to achieve its goals or maximize its values, by choosing among its actions. Sometimes we also refer to the decision procedure as involving (d) methods of “sensing” the world, which might be used to update (e) a set of “beliefs” about the world.

Any entity can be seen as an agent: Tell me how some entity behaves, and I can always conceptualize that behavior as perfectly enacting the entity’s goals. But there are other ways of seeing entities: A common alternative is to see an entity reductively, as a composition of simpler causally-connected pieces. And another is to see an entity as a simple stimulus/response interface (a “policy”): “If X happens, the entity will do Y”. For example, you could see a dog as an agent with goals and actions, or as a collection of organs, cells, molecules, or atoms, or as a thing that will yelp if you accidentally step on its paw.

The main reason we often factor entities as agents is that many important entities in the world are much easier to understand and predict by reference to a set of goals and actions, than by thinking about (say) the behavior of their components. Under most ordinary circumstances, if you want to predict the behavior of a dog reasonably well, you’ll have a much easier time understanding it as an agent than as a collection of organs. On the other hand, in exceptional circumstances, like if your dog is sick and you want to treat it, the reductive understanding becomes much more effective, and you might turn to someone who specializes in understanding and interacting with dogs reductively (i.e. a veterinarian).

People and dogs are fairly extreme cases, though: They are especially amenable to being predicted from agentic descriptions, compared to trying to predict them from their components. The behavior of a banana in the grocery store, by contrast, is usually easier to understand as a relatively inert composition of parts (its peel and its flesh). To think about the banana as having goals and actions (or, more often, as being a part of a system with goals and actions) is useful in some cases, but if you’re trying to predict the banana’s near-term behavior, and considering how to interact with the banana, the purely-reductive frame is just as good, and simpler.

There’s a spectrum between humans and fundamental particles, here. In order of (roughly) decreasing “agency”, i.e. relative usefulness of applying the agentic frame, we might list adult humans, dogs, fish, beetles, jellyfish, trees, amoebae, viruses, rocks, water molecules, and electrons. There are lots of things that are confusing to try to place in this list, though: Where does the McDonald's corporation rank? The United States? What about AlphaGo? Google Chrome? Your thermostat? A laptop? A dreamed version of a friend? A character in a novel?

It depends on what kinds of predictions you want to make, and what kind of knowledge about the entity you start with. As one learns more about an entity using alternative frames, the agentic frame may become relatively less useful. If you perfectly understand how all the parts of a tree work, and can easily think about how they act, there’s no need to factor the tree into goals and actions. Like in the case of the banana, the tree’s goals and actions become superfluous as descriptions.

It’s interesting that the most fundamental things in the universe, the stuff of quantum field theory, at least do not appear to be especially well-described via the agentic frame. So, why does the agentic frame crop up so much?

I think the basic reason is selection pressure. There are some properties of systems that result in those systems being comparatively more common than others. A relatively inert example is the solar system: You might ask why everything in the solar system is in a relatively stable and periodic orbit. One reason is essentially that everything unstable tends to decay basically by definition, either into a stable orbit or off to infinity. Stable things are self-perpetuating; in some sense stable is just another word for self-perpetuating. Life is a more interesting example: Earth is teeming with systems that have various proliferative properties, self-perpetuating properties, world-modeling properties, and so on. It's commonly accepted that these exist, in the way they do, because they were selected for.

There are lots of agentic systems on Earth, and I think this is because agentic systems, i.e. those that are easier to describe and predict as goals + actions + trying, are selected for in the sense that they (at least in some cases that are common 'round these parts) proliferate more than similar but less-agentic systems.

One of my current beefs with Facebook is that they have gated their API access behind requiring a "verified business account", which IMO doesn't really have the hobbyist developer in mind. (This decision arguably makes sense for them, but it's inconvenient for me.) Specifically, I want to implement Facebook login for my reciprocity clone, so people can see (and be visible to) and tick only their friends, but currently I can't.

It looks like friendica is likely to be more pliant. You can fetch your list of followers with HTTP basic authentication:

CREDS="username:password"
ID=$(curl --silent -u "$CREDS" https://superstimul.us/api/account/verify_credentials | jq .id)
curl -u "$CREDS" https://superstimul.us/api/v1/accounts/"$ID"/following

You can also see the following list of other users (presumably subject to their privacy controls) by replacing your ID with theirs. (This requires authentication.)

OK, so getting who follows who is easy enough. reciprocity also needs to know which user you are (in a way that can't be impersonated but doesn't involve handing over your login credentials). From the docs, it sounds like it supports OAuth 1 in addition to HTTP basic auth, which I hope would be able to do that. (Seems like it doesn't support OAuth 2 or OIDC.)