• 0 Posts
  • 42 Comments
Joined 7 days ago
cake
Cake day: October 29th, 2024

help-circle

  • drake@lemmy.sdf.orgtoScience Memes@mander.xyzShe-Ra Lives!
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    14 hours ago

    Actually, the history of why women divisions arose in sports is far more nuanced than you seem to believe. The main reasons for doing so were primarily rooted in sexism. Historical records show that women were able to compete with, and win against, men in sporting events during the early middle ages.

    Anyways, I see there’s no reasoning with you, so I hope you have a pleasant evening








  • drake@lemmy.sdf.orgtoScience Memes@mander.xyzShe-Ra Lives!
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    pretty much every study of these sort of things show that there is very little difference in performance between women and men - maybe on the scale of 5%. There is more difference between members of the group than there is between the genders. so it didn’t really make much difference when it came to deciding who should do what.

    ultimately, it doesn’t matter, the difference is so slight that it was basically not noticeable, if it even did exist.

    all modern anthropological research demonstrates that women and men pretty much did an equal share of all tasks, including hunting and raising children. if your masculinity can’t handle that fact then I’d recommend therapy.



  • drake@lemmy.sdf.orgtoScience Memes@mander.xyzShe-Ra Lives!
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 days ago

    Anthropology tends to support the fact that women and men pretty much all had equal share of pretty much every task in the palaeolithic and neolithic eras.

    You shouldn’t just reject scientific advances because it goes against what you learned at school. What you learned was wrong. Science adapts based on new evidence. You can too.





  • It kind of depends on your perspective, I wouldn’t say they profit from it monetarily - they definitely make a significant loss in raw $ from free users, but there is some amount of beneficial optics for the company, if people use it for fun/harmless activity.

    I think we both want the same thing. I don’t want to tone police you or any of that shit, and I believe you’re totally justified in how you feel about AI, but I really do hope you have a read of my comments from the perspective of someone who agrees with you rather than someone who is trying to pick a fight with you.






  • Can you seriously not imagine how a corporation could benefit from generative AI, or are you just being obstinate and saying it’s useless because you think it’s unethical and you hope that by saying it’s useless that you can effectively manifest that?

    Because there are plenty of use-cases for generative AI. None of them have to be good, or even products. Your phone machine example is a good one - it’s not a product, really, it’s taking the role of a human to fulfil some obligation, or to intentionally make it harder for people to add to the company’s support burden.

    I think there are some useful applications for generative AI, but I do agree that the incarnations we have are unethical. And again, I really don’t think that simply telling people that they’re bad people for using it is going to win them over to your side.