Yes but not because of pheromones, humans can’t do that it’s incel pseudoscience. It’s because when you spend a lot of time with someone your biospheres intermingle which causes you both to release similar smells as the same bacteria colonies eat and shit all over your bodies.
I’m single but I notice everyone has a specific smell. Try smelling some of your loved ones’ clothes and you get what I mean. I figure that this would be especially apparently for the visually impaired.
If you’re asking in the context of individuals who are already a couple trying to pinpoint one another by olfactory memory, it’s technically not impossible, but you’d qualify for hyperosmia if it was, since it’s not exactly like DNA, for a lack of a better way to explain it. You would probably smell things about them, as dogs do, but to the knowledge of current science which in its current olfactory capacity hasn’t found a level where it became apparent, nobody has an “odorprint” in the same way we have fingerprints.
If you’re asking in the context of you looking for who will be your future significant other, this just doesn’t happen. I know there’s a large section of romantic science centered around smells, but this is predominantly in the context of you being able to maintain genetic diversity (flashbacks of the TV show Brink intensify, gawd I miss that show) and completely outside the realm of matchmaking, since it wouldn’t even make sense on a compatibility level.
Wrong. And using big words when they are not necessary does not make you right or sound smart btw. “to the knowledge of current science which in its current olfactory capacity” could be summed up as “currently, science”. Brevity and quality of content can show more intelligence than big words like “olfactory capacity”. Now onto my long winded explanation of why you are wrong:
Everyone has a micro biome on their skin. Each type of bacteria will give off a specific smell. While the populations of bacteria will change over time, the major populations will stay fairly constant, leading to a recognizable smell that each person has. In addition, an amazing amount of chemicals are secreted in sweat. These chemicals not only have their own scent and are determined by genetics, but which chemicals and at what concentrations will encourage/discourage certain populations of bacteria to flourish or not. All of this does produce a fairly static “odor print”. ”Fairly” being key as you are right in that it is not as static or unique as fingerprints (interesting research has suggested that fingerprints aren’t as unique as we once thought but that’s for another Ted talk).
As for the research, most of the modern research has suggested that it’s actually mostly immune-related genetics that compliment your own (would make a stronger immune system if combine with with yours in an offspring) that your nose is looking for, not just DNA that is dissimilar to yours, which is what it would be if aiming for purely expanding genetic diversity. If this research continues to hold up, you are absolutely wrong in saying it doesn’t play a role in choosing a significant other, and the fact that research is suggesting this at this time makes you completely out of line to just say “this just doesn’t happen.” It does make sense on a genetic compatibility level, as it does in that finding your partner’s smell appealing will factor into your attraction to them. Sorry you don’t find it believable or whatever, but your beliefs do not dictate science.
Then it’s a good thing I don’t try to sound “right” or “smart” then just because this hypergraphic individual tends to phrase things according to a different selection of words than the brute before me. None of what you describe is the same as there being a stable “odor signature”, or if it were possible, you would think dogs or perhaps forensic scientists could pull it off without any form of mistaken identity, unless there’s a number of citations pointing in the opposite viewpoint that this so-called “wannabe science” lacks.
Oooooh hypergraphic! Your pedantic semantics are enrapturing! No, someone who specifically came back to tell me I’m wrong with overconvoluted vocabulary and chauvinism wouldn’t be trying to prove either of those things.
Time magazine: the best source for up to date and accurate scientific information.
Except for the fact you’re far from the only questioner of this who has attempted to slam down on me for what you seem not to realize is an actual disorderly term even in response to citations, which the other side doesn’t give, though I fail to see how I imply chauvinism here.
I think it depends on how good your sense of smell is. Mine is really bad, so if I had my eyes covered and was wearing noise cancelling headphones, I wouldn’t be able to tell if there are people in my area unless they haven’t showered in a while… Being able to distinguish between people? I can’t even differentiate between the smells of popcorn and peanut butter.
On the other hand, I know someone who was able to smell a “coppery” smell on someone which no one else notice. Eventually she convinced him to see a doctor and they found a rare condition that I can’t remember which.
Yes. It is well established by both subjective experience and science that humans can identify other humans by scent.
It’s also established by science that even the subliminally-detected presence of non-unique chemicals will alter people’s behavior. People say that’s not a “pheromone” but I disagree.
Looks like you read the title and not the included text. You could find your SO in a crowd by smell alone? I don’t think so. Being able to identify your partner by smell if they’re standing in front of you, sure, I can buy that.
There are certain people I know who have a very distinctive smell that I would recognise… But realistically I’d have to get very close to reliably smell it.
Probably not. The studies on human pheromones is inconclusive at best, the space is full of snake oil and hucksters (further discrediting it), and you may be having a psychosomatic effect.
There isn’t. However, Lemmy or other Fediverse applications are no different from any other website in that respect. The main difference is that the bit
One of the most significant dangers of watering hole attacks is that they are executed via legitimate websites that are unable to be easily blacklisted
is not really true in the Fediverse. You could easily block a single infected instance once it is detected that your employees are attacked via malware on that instance.
I am not talking about defederation, just straight blocking of that website in a corporate or similar network if it is used to target your employees which is what watering hole attacks are all about.
Yeah, but the average internet users doesn’t understand these concepts. And with the use of “random-lemmy.random” it seems like it might be an easy attack to fall for
I think the chances are high since the domains are supposed to be novel, compared to Facebook which is a worldwide known domain and chances of impersonating it are slim or would require a client side hack
That’s a different conversation. I’m talking about an adversary who just creates a Lemmy instance and has malicious code embedded in the images, videos and text
What does that have to do with any corporation? Facebook specifically is already in a lawsuit this last month about installing malicious Root Certificates and performing man in the middle attacks against Amazon and Google, so I’m not sure what you’re asking
Is the aim of CC “…” text at the botton to prevent ai from using your comments or something? (I’m trying to understand.)
In theory, yes. I realize it probably won’t work, but it’s a momentary copy and paste, so it’s a low hanging fruit to give it a try, just in case it does work.
The terms of that license seem like a non-commercial AI would be just fine to use it, is that not intended?
IANAL, but I think its the citation stuff that would have to obeyed, which is far as I know bots today never give citation of where they’re modeling from when they post comments, so I’m hoping since they’re not citing they’d stop using.
I saw somebody else doing it, I figured it couldn’t hurt, one copy and paste and I’m done.
Typically the citation is included with the software, possibly linked from a site / service and/or included in their dataset repo (e.g. on huggingface.co)
True, but they still have to cite my name, and I’m not sure they’re going to name every person that they use every one of their comments to train their models from.
Granted it relies on them honoring the license, but still easy thing to try.
I get the sentiment but wouldn’t you WANT an AI to be trained on your own words? That would make the AI more favorable to your points of view. By self-censoring you effectively let everyone else in the world decide the direction AI goes.
en.wikipedia.org
Oldest