But what does that mean, what's the point of it? Both my daughters are above average height, probably about the height of the average man. Does that tell us anything useful?
It tells us that your daughters will be better suited to get things off of the top shelf than others will be. But more likely to be uncomfortable when flying.
You could just as easily say, a woman, on average, has boobies and a man, on average, has a ding dong. It would sound exactly as intelligent.
Here’s a fun fact, taking only biological men at birth in to account, the average penis per capita is less than 1. Same for women, and ovum would be less than 2 per person by quite a bit more.
So on average a man has between 0 and 1 penises. And a woman in average between 0 and 2 ovum.
And even THAT would be more useful of a definition than the one Jim fucking Pillin just signed. But it didn’t exclude anyone he doesn’t like, and there’s no legal reason to have that definition anyway. It’s just brownie points for his idiotic constituency
I agree with what you say and that any and all definitions are somewhat incomplete …but still.
Even though, for example, you could find any degrees between a chair and a table ; you could create something quite exactly in between a chair and a table, well, despite this, it is still useful to define what’s a chair and what’s a table.
Now, about “Jim fucking Pillin” well, I cant say anything ; I’m disconnected of the topic.
P.S. :
based on my previous comment :To : @Wogi average : here it means the average man versus the average woman. I know everyone here gets offended and rightfully so. But I find it so stupid because they are not offended for the right reason. (to @HeartyBeast as well) By the way ; if you had to define woman and man, what would you say ?
Sure and if you wanted to have a strictly philosophical debate on the nature of definition, I’m here for that.
That’s not what this is. This is the governor of my home state firing off on a group of people he doesn’t like, and nothing more. Any debate about exactly how he defined it is pointless outside of that context.
There’s no legal reason to define the genders, no ongoing court drama in Nebraska that hinges on this definition, nothing legally will ever be decided because of it. It’s just one idiot shouting out to a bunch of other idiots that he doesn’t like it when people who were born with one set of genitals want to have a different set of genitals.
What this will accomplish is added brain drain, an issue Nebraska sorely needs a remedy to, it will cost millions in court cases that will now be filed against the state and the governor, and it will cost women’s centers in Nebraska Federal money. All while doing absolutely nothing worthwhile for the state of Nebraska.
It’s Jim Pillen saying he wants a fight with a minority group. And it’s an idiotic call to arms at that.
Now this is the point and this is what should have been the top comment(s). When I wrote my (obviously stupid) first comment, the other top comments were (then) not about that at all. Was (instead) just about avoiding the word of the post. Sorry for all this.
P.S. : That stupid comment of mine was :
spoilerGet offended all you want but read this :
>…“on average”…
( that citation is from the post )
Thanks 😊 These are the best world I think I ever got on the Internet. I try to be better (and make others so) which means sometimes exposing my ignorance (or that of others).
P.S. : in response to this kind comment of yours :
It takes a smart person to change their mind, and a strong person to admit it publicly. You’re a good egg.
I'm offended because it is so daft. If I had to define a man and a woman, I would say that it is currently difficult as there are two definitions, one being based on biological sex (which is itself a surprisingly ticklish concept) and the other based around gender and self identification. Personally, I'm happy with the latter. The former is useful in medical contexts.
@HeartyBeast I like what you say : both definitions are interesting. Please notice the one based on self-identification is quite in fashion since 5 or 10 years but like all fashions it should subside a bit in the coming years, I mean at least in the western world (i think). When (if) this happens, the definition based on phenotypes will be seen as more important …it’s not just important for medical application : this is an oversimplification (of course).
P.S. : in response to your comment :
spoilerI’m offended because it is so daft. If I had to define a man and a woman, I would say that it is currently difficult as there are two definitions, one being based on biological sex (which is itself a surprisingly ticklish concept) and the other based around gender and self identification. Personally, I’m happy with the latter. The former is useful in medical contexts.
"Man" and "woman" are archetypes. Not descrptions of objects, like "table" or "chair" -- instead, like "hero" or "villain" or "aristocrat" or "scoundrel."
All of us have an archetype we identify with; some of us have a physical appearance or characteristics that don't match the archetype we identify with. Some of us feel that it would benefit our mental health to have our physical appearance match more closely with the archetype. Among other things, it makes it so that other people are more likely to see us as us, rather than seeing a person who isn't us.
Not being seen is deeply traumatic. If one's physical characteristics cause them trauma, those characteristics should be considered disabilities, and we should welcome resolutions to them from medical science.
Some of us identify very strongly with one of "man" or "woman," others more weakly. Some of us are in between somewhere, or switch back and forth depending on the day. Or don't identify on that gender spectrum at all, or in some other dimension not represented by those two points.
That's why we call people what they want to be called. I'm not going to pretend that it's easy to get your lizard brain to really see some of us as "men" or "women" when the physical appearance doesn't match our expectations. But just using the correct language goes a long way towards communicating that you want to see them, and by extension, reduce their trauma.
Now that you know this (and of course, if you agree), you must grapple with the fact that misgendering people is traumatic (which is to me a reminder to try harder every time), and that misgendering people on purpose is simply cruel.
Side note, I made a point through this comment to refer to us instead of the more arm's length "some people, other people, these people, those people." We are some people, we are other people, these people, those people.
@Nougat believe there is now a bug, at least on my side : the post does not show correctly and I can’t see my comments anymore. Or maybe my comments were removed (?) I don’t know.
Because of this I will make a copy of your comment here :
your commentFrom : @Nougat
>Ah, I just thought of something. >“Man” and “woman” are archetypes. Not descrptions of objects, like “table” or “chair” – instead, like “hero” or “villain” or “aristocrat” or “scoundrel.” >All of us have an archetype we identify with; some of us have a physical appearance or characteristics that don’t match the archetype we identify with. Some of us feel that it would benefit our mental health to have our physical appearance match more closely with the archetype. Among other things, it makes it so that other people are more likely to see us as us, rather than seeing a person who isn’t us. >Not being seen is deeply traumatic. If one’s physical characteristics cause them trauma, those characteristics should be considered disabilities, and we should welcome resolutions to them from medical science. >Some of us identify very strongly with one of “man” or “woman,” others more weakly. Some of us are in between somewhere, or switch back and forth depending on the day. Or don’t identify on that gender spectrum at all, or in some other dimension not represented by those two points. >That’s why we call people what they want to be called. I’m not going to pretend that it’s easy to get your lizard brain to really see some of us as “men” or “women” when the physical appearance doesn’t match our expectations. But just using the correct language goes a long way towards communicating that you want to see them, and by extension, reduce their trauma. >Now that you know this (and of course, if you agree), you must grapple with the fact that misgendering people is traumatic (which is to me a reminder to try harder every time), and that misgendering people on purpose is simply cruel. >Side note, I made a point through this comment to refer to us instead of the more arm’s length “some people, other people, these people, those people.” We are some people, we are other people, these people, those people
I have an old mind and I live in an old world where woman and man are quite very much as defined as table and chair. Not perfectly defined, with many exceptions, but still.
XY gonadal dysgenesis : They are many case of XY chromosome embryos that becomes real woman : biologically and genitally. I believe (?) there are also cases of XX becoming (real) men (I am not sure).
Scarlett Johansson is famed for many roles, among them her disquieting performance in Her, a movie about the relationship between a man and an AI chatbot.
When OpenAI boss Sam Altman contacted Johansson to ask to use her voice for his company’s forthcoming real-life AI chatbot, you can well imagine why1 she said no.
Johansson, clearly livid, ultimately issued a public statement and a legal letter before the clone was removed.
“I was shocked, angered and in disbelief that Mr. Altman would pursue a voice that sounded so eerily similar to mine that my closest friends and news outlets could not tell the difference,” she said, … “In a time when we are all grappling with deepfakes and the protection of our own likeness, our own work, our own identities, I believe these are questions that deserve absolute clarity,” Johansson said in a statement to NPR.
But Murati’s audacious claim never to have heard the voice of the AI chatbot in her boss’s favorite movie is key to understanding something else: they don’t just think they’re the smartest people in the world, they think that everyone else is stupid.
As a final fun thing today, check out how Google News’s AI junk has hallucinated a factually incorrect headline that’s the exact opposite of the truth here:
The original article contains 427 words, the summary contains 216 words. Saved 49%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
As a final fun thing today, check out how Google News’s AI junk has hallucinated a factually incorrect headline that’s the exact opposite of the truth here
Ugh, It’s a little judgy and I actually like AI in some day-to-day search scenarios but instantly disappointed in the blue cheese company when this banner appeared across the top of their homepage. " Find out how AI is shaping the future of Food and how you can support the movement! " With links to join a mailing list.
Also, just an FYI, they aren’t selling the cheese to consumers yet, it’s only available in a handful of restaurants.
That is a specific day to day scenario that makes sense to me for AI - finding new combinations of flavors by following some machine learning recommendation, especially if the intended application is to use AI to discover better vegan cheeses
I don’t think you really even need AI (in the sense of LLMs, as that’s usually what’s referred to with AI) for a flavor pairing software whatchamacallit. I forget what the concept is called but I learned about it through the flavor matrix. Where you essentially compare the different aromatic and flavor compounds in a given food/ingredient and base recommendations off of other foods with compatible compounds in them. A large enough database and a good UI would be a gamechanger for cooking
Yeah, machine learning is going to be great for the protein revolution. For Qorn they had to run thousands of experiments to find something that tasted good. Imagine if you can model millions of experiments and already weed out 98% of proteins…
I'm not sure I get the mailing list part, but this is the type of task modern Machine Learning is actually great at (much better than they are at text or art generation). You have some huge open possibility space the humans can't possibly explore all of, and where false negatives aren't costly. You can use the model to narrow down the possibility space to something manageable for a human to review manually. Very similar to how its used in astrophysics, for example.
Don’t worry, people will completely ignore the retraction and continue to blame their fellow poor people (just not themselves) for the outrageous behavior of our corporations.
Wish I had time yesterday to do a comparison myself, using better clips from Her and the newest OpenAI demo clips. Plus would get the ChatGPT app to speak some lines from Her.
Tried some vegan "feta" type cheese for my salad, based on cocos oil, and it was pretty bad. It had a terrible stink and taste like overripe cheese, which is kinda the opposite of what you'd expect from this type. It also became incredibly smeary immediately when I tried to crumble it, so it only mimics the original consistency when it is untouched.
The only vegan products that I've tried and liked so far were oat milk, which is pretty much tasting like regular milk at this point (at least my brand), some vegan Schnitzel which tastes not quite but close enough like those premade regular ones you'd get at a grocery store, and some "cut chicken" type stuff which honestly was pretty great in taste and consistency and definitely something I get again if I want to throw some mixed veggie bag into the pan. Everything else I've tried ranged from "meh" to "eugh". But I'm sure it's just a matter of more R&D.
I love using ground beef substitutes in meatloaf and shepards pie. Using ground flaxseed as a binding agent and coursely ground oats as breadcrumbs has made for some excellent dinner dates!
Tried a vegan ground meat from my local Lidl and it was easily one of the worst things. Terrible taste and smell, nothing like meat at all and my kitchen stank for weeks. Really put me off of a lot of those meat substitutes, especially since it was so highly praised.
Lentils make for a great meat replacement in a Shepard's Pie. You adjust seasonings a bit, but at this point I might actually prefer it to regular ol' Shepard's Pie.
I’m not convinced of that. At the end of the day, it’s a collection of mostly proteins arranged in certain ways plus water and salt. I don’t think it’s out of the realm of possibility that something like that can be replicated.
There is cartilage, fats, cell structure, and a ton of other things that make up the majority of meat that are extremely difficult to replicate for texture both when it is first cooked/heated/whatever and how it holds up as leftovers. Like different cuts of meat are basically the same parts but wildly different in taste and texture just like plants are basically the same except for all their differences.
Honestly I don’t get why so many people want a fake version of meat made out of plants when plants are pretty awesome on their own. grilled vegetables are fantastic! There are a ton of cultures with meals that are vegetarian or vegan and very complex in both flavor and texture because they played to the strengths of their available foods. Why bother with trying to make mediocre fake sausage when spring rolls exist?
If it convinces people who feel that it is necessary to have something that is a basic replacement for the meat that they eat to switch, which I believe it does sometimes, I think it makes sense.
Even convincing people to eat less meat and have a veggie burger once a week instead of a beef burger would be a good thing. It’s easier to convince them to do that than to have Nepali food.
I wouldn’t go that far, but it does have a flavor that the fungus adds that other cheeses don’t. However, to win this award, it would have to be pretty indistinguishable from not just blue cheese, but top-of-the-line blue cheese, which is damn impressive for something without any dairy in it.
I’m curious what they can achieve with cheddar based on that.
I’ve definitely had some good hot dogs and brats. I don’t remember which stadium style hot dogs I’ve tried, but I usually go for some flavor of Field Roast.
boingboing.net
Top