GenericPoster

>The goal is to make sure that women don't underperform on anything. I'm really trying to be charitable on your intent but comments like these really make it difficult. If you look at the past couple of centuries, women have been treated as second class citizens. Their only duties relegated to being wives, mothers and homemakers. Not allowed to pursue intellectual pursuits despite being more than capable of doing so. The entire system was biased against them from the very beginning. Even when the laws gave them power to go after these new opportunities, culture continued to hold them back. The goal is and always has been to level the playing field, to reverse centuries of blatant sexism but if that sounds like 'setting up boys to fail'. Then I really don't know what to tell you.

So for that second example, what questions were being asked, that men could consistently outperform women on? And doesn't removing those questions even the playing field?

For example, men watch a lot more sports than women (I don't know if this is true but for the sake of conversation let's just assume it to be the case). If that exam had questions that had a sports 'setting' then those who are most familiar with the sport would have an edge over those who don't. This isn't limited to just gender either. People from different cultures would also struggle if the 'common sense' in the question isn't something that they are familiar with.

I'd like to see which questions were removed and hear their justifications for it. This sounds like something that happened but the details got distorted into a simple take to push some form of agenda. "test makers are dumbing down questions so that women look better."

Do you happen to have historicals of the test you were looking at? The SAT results look pretty even from 2017-2022 https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d22/tables/dt22_226.10.a...

ACT point difference is even closer (~1 point difference each year) their site sucks but that data is from 1995-2010 https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d10/tables/dt10_155.asp

These are the two most popular college entrance exams and have longevity on their side.

I won't even begin to tackle the first point since there is just way too much that is unknown or anecdotal. I honestly do think you're either exaggerating and/or misinformed but if you can provide some sort of evidence to prove your point then I'm all ears. And I'm not saying this to discount your lived experience. You may truly have felt that the school system or various teachers really did want you to fail. If that's the case then you were done a disservice but the aggregate data just doesn't agree with you.

>When an artificial womb is invented that can allow a baby to grow to term the dynamic will be forever changed. Can you elaborate on this and what impact this artificial womb will have?

Unfortunately, I think they and the people agreeing with him are actually being serious. I wonder if this is something they picked up through their lived experience or if they're just stuck in some sort of bubble.

>"our entire school system is setup to offer success to women, and failure to boys." And these comments just strike me as strange especially in STEM. It's only recently that girls are being pushed towards this path, after decades of being actively pushed out and consistently told they are worse than their male peers.

Assuming that humans actually need something to fight against. Then it's a good thing that we're making up reasons to do so. It's better than terrorizing innocent people halfway across the globe or even those that are closest to us. If these hyper aggressive people are given a relatively safe outlet to express their emotions then the world is better for it.

I'm curious why you think it's nonsense though. Those activities can be fun, safe and encourage discipline.

Why? Are they being forced to marry the polygamists?

What? No one is being forced into gay marriage. And as long as they're consenting adults they can have whatever non traditional arrangements they want.

I'm having trouble understanding where this slippery slope is coming from. It's one thing if you were talking about assisted suicide, I can see the argument there, but eugenics is something that is forced upon the population. And no, having to watch two people of the same gender kiss on TV is not forced.

The topics are definitely fringe but I'm sure you could find some forum or site that discusses it but I think you have things backwards. It's not that most people wouldn't dare to talk about these ideas in polite company. It's that the people who hold these beliefs aren't polite. Their personalities so abhorrent, vitriolic and unsympathetic. They hold such archaic views, reminiscing about a past that would benefit them at the expense of others.

To use eugenics as an example. Those who speak about it always, without exception end up isolating a single group that they believe is inferior. These people often hold adjacent beliefs that make the lives of other humans significantly harder, to say the least.

I completely agree. For simple or short conversations, the models are similar enough, even for the low parameter models. But as the conversation gets more complicated, the difference between the models becomes more obvious. The benchmarks used today only give a basic understanding of the language model's abilities and you have to use it yourself to see how capable it really is.

How much information is actually picked up by listening to this compared to normal? I can listen to lofi without paying attention but Sagan isn't something that you can learn by osmosis. Or is the purpose of this to be an actively listener?

I'm not going to add more 'noise' with my story but I would like to share some insights that I've come across intentionally and unintentionally. A lot of this isn't good advice. But if you're feeling incredibly overwhelmed and under a lot of pressure then the advice is good enough. The goal is to immediately remove yourself from any stressful or negative situations and to prevent you from saying or doing something harmful.

1. If you're okay with burning bridges with your coworkers. It's fine to just ghost them for a few weeks to a month. This immediately removes you from the source of stress and can give you the time to decompress. You'll either be fired or you'll have to quit (don't give a notice) after you feel a bit better. In either case reach out to your manager on your personal email or text. Apologize and give a short message that you are dealing with personal issues.

2. It's okay to withdraw from personal responsibilities. Obviously you can't ignore your friends and family like you can your coworkers but cancelling events or withdrawing from things you used to do is a perfectly valid strategy.

3. Engaging in escapism is a perfectly valid way to handle these negative emotions. Anything is fine as long as it takes your mind of off this issue.

4. Avoid mentally strenuous activities. You want to do things that are passive and low effort. If it's easy and it can give you a self esteem boost then it's worth it.

5. Find an easy job with laid back coworkers and a good work life balance. There's nothing wrong with being a big fish in a small pond. Find fulfillment outside of work.

6. Try your best to avoid coping with drugs or alcohol but if it helps in the short term then go ahead. Indulge yourself. Just make sure that you avoid getting addicted. Set rules for yourself no matter how arbitrary and stick with them.

Obviously try asking for help, therapy, medication, medical leave, meditating, getting new hobbies and other perfectly reasonable things first. It's harder to do but it also gives the most benefits. However, if like me, you felt truly trapped. If the thought of talking to someone (therapist, manager, family, friends, acquaintances) is incredibly daunting and makes you sick to your stomach. If the thought of leaving it all behind sounds appealing, try the advice posted above. Then, once you're ready, you can take the actually good advice and build yourself up.

> stor[ies] where MC has inside knowledge just get’s really repetitive after reading a few.

Agreed. The series may start off fun or interesting but the novelty eventually wears off and you're left with a mediocre plot and generic characters. It's as if the creators have never once thought about how their series should end, their primary goal is to keep it going as long as possible.

To be honest it's rare for me to actually complete a series. I'm usually hooked after the first 3 chapters, then 10-30 chapters later and it looks like a literal carbon copy of another series. It's gotten to the point where I stock up chapters for months then I read from where I left off. If I can't remember the vast majority of the plot, then I drop it. No point wasting my time on a forgettable story

Agreed. Especially after reading the below snippet. My sympathy went out of the window.

> My life has been spent working long days, nights, and weekends, putting in whatever effort was required to get the job done. My wife resided in Northern California while I was based in Los Angeles; with no children at home and very little social life, I often spent seven days a week onsite at SpaceX, putting in 10-12 hours almost daily. I knew no one there who worked more hours than I did. Later, during Covid, I was still working onsite and traveling for business while many other engineers worked remotely. I was quite hardcore.

I'm not denying that there is age discrimination happening but I wonder how much of this story is distorted by his perception of it. If he wants to pursue legal action that's his right but I think Spacex did him a favor.

Interesting. I took a stab at your prompt and SD really struggles. It just completely ignores part of the prompt. Even craiyon puts in an effort to at least complete the entire prompt.

The bison is very realistic at least. So maybe the future is different models that have different specialties.

Edit: managed to get this one after a few more tries https://imgur.com/a/3061n5d

What are the results when you describe "a person without bones receiving a massage"?

> People on hacker news are extremely naive at career management. This is all the worst advice I have ever seen in my life.

Agreed. It's obvious that the boss doesn't want to work and is just dragging OP along. The OP already said they One of the ways of minimizing harm in this scenario is by keeping your mouth shut and doing your job well enough so you don't get fired. Don't be emotionally invested in you work. Just put in your hours and get out. If you want to learn something, learn it in your free time. Going above your boss for an issue like this is very risky. Basically a 'he said she said' and if your boss has more social capital than you then your workplace becomes even worse. Does anybody actually think that what the boss is doing is a fireable offense? Because it's not. HR will most likely give them training or do nothing.

>I have learned that peers are mostly competition.

Don't agree on this. Everything else is pretty solid though. If you are trying to climb the social/corporate ladder then I can understand how you might view them as such but as an individual contributor its really a non issue.

See, your comment makes sense and is a valid point. I do agree that the world was a more violent place and I don't think monogamy is the reason that women had it bad (most likely has to do with a patriarchal culture and an uneducated population).

Theirs is a borderline flame bait comment that added nothing to the discussion.

What is the point of this comment? The topic that was being discussed was >I’m betting on monogamy since that has worked for thousands of years.

The reply asked worked for who? Then out of nowhere you're talking about men being killed in droves. Are you saying that monogamy didn't work for either gender (one that lost their freedom and and the other that lost their lives)?