Historical odds of experiencing violence in the past has no relevance to discrete odds of danger now, correct.

Glad you finally figured it out.

Having experienced food poisoning 5 years ago has zero relevance to the question of “is this current dish I am about to eat safe?”

The latter is the discussion you are insisting on butting in on and trying to steer the convo towards the former.

No one gives a shit about your food poisoning from 5 years ago Karen, we are discussing if this dish right now is poisoned or not.

Don’t go on Twitter… that actively funds musk.

Go everywhere but Twitter.

Do keep calling it Twitter though.

You interjected in the discussion with non-relevant stats, and are now getting mad when called out on it.

Your stats you are presenting aren’t relevant to the post I made. Deal with it and go throw a tantrum somewhere else. I posted first, you are trying to talk over me

Go find an echo chamber to complain to instead of cluttering up discussions with irrelevance and throwing tantrums while people are trying to talk about the actual facts that are relevant.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

What is incoherent is someone being like “here’s factual data showing 60% of women have been sexually assaulted” and your response is “okay but 60% of women are not ACTIVELY being sexually assaulted”

What part about this do you not understand. It’s not complicated.

There’s a huge difference in “how many people have had their home burn down” vs “how many homes are at risk of burning down right now” and the latter was what was being originally discussed

They are entirely different conversations.

When the current actuall convo is about “what’s the risk of your house burning down right now” and the answer is “quite low”, but then you butt in and go “nuh uh, like 60% of people have had a house burn down in the past” you sound ridiculous.

You in that moment demonstrate either:

1. You don’t understand how stats work and why your number is irrelevant to the convo. Or
2. You do know how they work, and thus are being actively disingenuous.

Either way, go figure yourself out. Your numbers aren’t relevant here, go either find the numbers that are relevant, or at least stop muddling the waters with bad math.

completely incoherent Just because you dont understand the difference between discrete statistics vs historical doesnt mean its incoherent.

Understanding the difference between “whats the chance I get poisoned if I eat one M&M from the bowl” vs “whats the chance I get poisoned if I eat an entire handful” is something you should’ve learned in high school.

Representing one of those odds as the other is disingenuous, and will not win people over to your side, because people can usually intuitively tell the difference usually and go “that doesnt seem right…”

Which, in turn, is why shit like trump getting elected happens. The pattern of vastly over-inflating numbers to make shitty clickbait when the original meaningful numbers were already a big enough deal anyways has heavily polarized the landscape.

As long as people keep doing stupid shit like that, it’s going to do the exact opposite of what you want. Instead of drawing people to any good causes it pushes them away, because they then just assume its all bullshit.

If you don’t understand the vast difference between a discussion on discrete statistical odds vs cumulative odds, you probably shouldn’t be trying to weigh in because all you are doing is just muddying the waters with bad numbers that aren’t actually relevant to the core of the discussion, which just pisses people off and makes them turtle up more.

I get where you are coming from, but you just need to wrap your head around the fact the numbers you brought up have no bearing on anything I was talking about, they arent necessarily wrong, but they’re just not relevant to what I was discussing, so it just came across as rude or uninformed at best, disingenuous at worst.

Ah I see, right so the key in your date is it’s historical.

It’s not a 60% victimization rate in discrete circumstances. It’s a victimization rate hysterically.

Which is critical because there’s an enormous difference between “60% of women are being victimized actively” vs “60% 9f women are reporting having been victimized at some point historically”

The difference is such:

Let’s do the usual poisoned m&ms in a bowl analogy.

If 1% of m&ms are poisoned, but you grab 100 m&ms and eat them, your odds of getting poisoned are waaay higher than 1%, it’s now 63%!

So on a discrete measure of “what percent of women are actively living in a victimizing situation right now” it will be fairly low, I don’t know if we have that data.

But a woman moves through numerous situations in her life. She likely lives with many people, goes to many jobs, interacts with many strangers.

So while one discrete dice roll can have extremely low odds of a bad outcome, naturally living life inherently means you will roll that dice hundreds of times.

Inversely, when talking about “are women currently safe in their homes?” That’s a discrete statistic, not historical.

It’s like comparing eating a handful of the m&ms vs eating only 1 m&m, the numbers are wildly different and if you try and present one as the other, you will come across as disingenuous.

When discussing mortality rates, that’s a discrete event, moat people typically only die once.

You either are, or are not, dead.

So when discussing whats most likely to kill you, you look at the discrete numbers and it’s objectively fact that the discrete odds of being murdered are incredibly low compared to dying pretty much any other way.

While bring harassed historically is high, the odds a woman’s current living situation right now is one of violence is much lower than 60%

Because if it was 60%, then the odds of being historically a victim of any type of violence would be pretty much 100%.

But the fact that number is 60% means the discrete number is, eyeballing it with rough numbers, going to be in the single digits.

There are communities of women where the victimization rate is over 60%.

I’m going to need to see some sources on that, that sounds incredibly high.

No one said that doesnt happen.

But the article is trying to frame homicide at home as the leading danger to women. It’s pretty demonstratebly not, it’s a small minority of causes for injury and death amongst women.

Accidents are substantially more common as a source of danger for women, by an enormous margin, both in lethal and non lethal cases.

Literally anyone who has ever worked in an ER can attest to the fact that the vast vast majority of injuries are accident related.

Women should be a fuck tonne more concerned about the shitty products ordered from China that can genuinely kill them (lithium batteries, tools, healthy and beauty products, electronics, etc), as well as practicing proper safety precautions when doing tasks (PPE, having a spotter, avoiding lifting too much weight, etc).

That shit is enormously more dangerous than domestic violence, in terms of pure statistics, by an enormous margin.

Ah, fuck, yeah that’d be it wouldn’t it.

The leasing non-disease causes for death in women are:

1. Falling (primarily elderly women)
2. Unintentional poisoning (primarily middle aged women)
3. Car accidents (primarily younger women)
4. Suicide
5. Homicide at 5th place

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5683079/

And thats ignoring, of course, all the actual leading causes of death which are various diseases, primarily heart diseases of course, and COVID.

Mind you that still does indicate that home is where most people die, but it’s not homicide you should be worried about.

It’s your stairs and… garden, I guess? I have no idea why unintentional poisoning is so high, does food poisoning count? It must. (Edit: drug overdoses, whoops)

So I guess what ladies should really be wary of is their stairs, ladders, and those leftovers that you’re not sure about from the weekend.

Just as an example, for every 1 homicide victims in women aged 20-39, there were (in the same group):

• 4.5 unintentional poisoning deaths (drug overdoses)
• 2.7 traffic accident deaths
• 2.1 suicides

And among women aged 70+ years, there were no homicides in the data, but over 60% of injury related deaths were caused by falling. Just… Falling. Not homicide, just “mum had a fall yesterday and had to see the doctor”

I suppose that really drives home how important building codes are and stuff like life alert, for old folks…

If you account for the actual leading causes of death though, where you really outta be wary of are fast food chains, public transit, and low ventilation workspaces with sneezy coworkers. That’s what’ll actually be most likely to kill you…

I guess with skip the dishes being a thing though, that’s still home being the most “dangerous” place anyways, /shrug

Weird take.

People can care about and discuss more than one thing at a time.

Maybe, but the intersection of this group and certain plane trips to a certain island is suspicious.

Well yeah, I’d hope so, that’s the entire point.

Catcha’s data collection always was with the intent for training ai on these skills. That’s “the point” of them.

It’s reasonable to expect that the older version of captchas can now be beaten by modern ai, because they’re often literally trained on that exact data to beat it.

Captcha effectively is free to use on websites as a tool because the data collection is the “payment”, they then license that data out to people like OpenAI to train with for stuff like image recognition.

It’s why ai is progressing so fast, captchas are one of humanity’s long term collected data silos that are very full now.

We are going to have to keep progressing the complexity of catches as it will be the only way to catch modern AIs, and in turn it will collect more data to improve it.

Not quite.

It’s mostly wisdom of the crowd, as it always has been.

As long as you mostly click the same squares most other people click, you pass.

You often at random get 2-3 images because 2 of them are actual checks, but the third is a new image that you auto pass and they’re using it to gather data on what the average clicks are on it.

Because having people download static map data for the entire planet just to play a game is untenable.

You shouldn’t have to download the entire planet though.

The game 100% should support installing local specific areas you wanna fly around, that anyone could then keep a copy of.

If a user wanted to cache an entire 8 TB of the entire world on a drive, they should be able to just do that (and thus have forever support without worrying about internet services staying online)

At least, as a snapshot of what the world looked like in 2024.

I don’t see why users shouldn’t have the option to locally HD save the data if they want to, to avoid maxing out their internet bandwidth in one sitting.

“Move Fast and Break Things” is Zuckerberg/Facebook motto, not Musk, just to note.

Yeah this is just noticeable because most products weren’t even resealable, they just expected you to seal em yourself with a clip, twist em, put em in a container, etc.

Now they are adding cheap resealable zips to the bag, which is nice in theory but the bag material has to be strong enough to support it.

Actual ziplock baggies themselves are made of thick plastic that can take a bit of abuse.

But cheap paper plastic hybrid materials a chip bag us made of can’t handle that sort of load, so it becomes the fail point.

IMO the only valid move for Biden right now asap, is to use his new immunity powers to invalidate his immunity powers, as a display of self checkmate.

Declare the full supreme court under threat of death has to go back and redo the decision, and all of them must vote to reverse it and remove the presidential immunity, or be hung.

This of course means “if you dont remove my ability to kill you, you will die”.

Its the ultimate display of being handed ultimate power, and rejecting it through the power itself.

I cant think of any other move that makes sense really. It would be a headache in court but thats what the supreme justices get for making such a stupid ass decision.

I mean, that’s just how it has always worked, this isn’t actually special to AI.

Tom Hanks does the voice for Woody in Toy Story movies, but, his brother Jim Hanks has a very similar voice, but since he isnt Tom Hanks he commands a lower salary.

So many video games and whatnot use Jim’s voice for Woody instead to save a bunch of money, and/or because Tom is typically busy filming movies.

This isn’t an abnormal situation, voice actors constantly have “sound alikes” that impersonate them and get paid literally because they sound similar.

OpenAI clearly did this.

It’s hilarious because normally fans are foaming at the mouth if a studio hires a new actor and they sound even a little bit different than the prior actor, and no one bats an eye at studios efforts to try really hard to find a new actor that sounds as close as possible.

Scarlett declined the offer and now she’s malding that OpenAI went and found some other woman who sounds similar.

Thems the breaks, that’s an incredibly common thing that happens in voice acting across the board in video games, tv shows, movies, you name it.

OpenAI almost certainly would have won the court case if they were able to produce who they actually hired and said person could demo that their voice sounds the same as Gippity’s.

If they did that, Scarlett wouldn’t have a leg to stand on in court, she cant sue someone for having a similar voice to her, lol.

There’s basically no reason to keep using windows.

Debian or Linux Mint are both easy to install, work out of the box, and the only thing that might take a smidge of effort is the 3 commands you gotta run to install gpu drivers.

Steam proton works incredibly well. I ran my entire steam library (most of which were “windows only” games) and even single one worked with proton as is without issues.

I’ve been using steam link from my debian box for months now and it’s smooth as butter.