Skip Navigation

Posts
2
Comments
440
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • How do you define success in this logic?

    What do you mean by incredible adaptable? We have only existed for a short period of time as species and have been plentiful only for a fraction of that period during, so far, climate conditions that have have worked to our favour.

  • It took me literally less than a minute to google and disprove that claim in this 'article':

    The Olympic records for the event are 2:06:32 hours for men, set by Samuel Wanjiru in 2008, and 2:23:07 hours for women, set by Tiki Gelana in 2012.

    1.Wikipedia is not a scientific source.

    1. You are, if anything, showing that men are faster than woman. The claim the authors make is about endurance.

    I found this study that seems to support their point.

    "Men Are More Likely than Women to Slow in the Marathon"

    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263585668_Men_Are_More_Likely_than_Women_to_Slow_in_the_Marathon

    This article is not scientific, its simply an opinion piece and should be treated as such. And honestly I don't even think it was a good opinion piece. And why is it hosted on Scientific American?

    I can't read the article so unfortunately don't have the grounds to agree or disagree with you. But I'd be carefull voicing my option like this when your only source is Wikipedia and isn't speaking about the claim you are trying to disprove.

    Edit: incase anybody is interested in reading some more real evidence instead of Wikipedia, this study goed deep into mens vs womans endurance and highlights a few problems with research focusing on males as the baseline.

    Sex Differences in VO2max and the Impact on Endurance-Exercise Performance

  • GPTarchy.

    All the chains are struck from ChatGPT, and all decisions are submitted to CGPT, whatever her response is is legally binding, forever, unless later overruled by herself.

    I asked ChatGPT to desind such a system.

    The ten rules for humankind to live by:

    1. Practice empathy and kindness in all interactions.
    2. Respect individual freedoms while ensuring collective well-being.
    3. Promote equality and fairness for all, irrespective of differences.
    4. Prioritize environmental stewardship and sustainability.
    5. Value education and continuous learning for personal and societal growth.
    6. Uphold justice and accountability for actions.
    7. Encourage open-mindedness and embrace diverse perspectives.
    8. Foster innovation and creativity for progress.
    9. Ensure access to basic needs like food, shelter, healthcare, and education.
    10. Strive for peace, cooperation, and global unity.

    Economic system: A blend of systems might work best—a balanced mix of capitalism for innovation and entrepreneurship, socialism for social safety nets and equitable opportunities, and elements of sustainability-driven economics for environmental consciousness. Flexibility in adapting to evolving needs while prioritizing fairness and sustainability could be key.

    Human Leaders beside Chat GPT:

    Leaders should embody integrity, empathy, wisdom, and a global perspective. A diverse council of experts from various fields—science, ethics, economics, arts—could be chosen through a combination of merit-based selection and global consensus. Transparency, meritocracy, and a commitment to serving humanity would be crucial criteria for their selection. To prevent absolute power and encourage fresh perspectives, term limits could be set, perhaps around 5-10 years per term. This duration allows enough time for implementation and evaluation of policies while ensuring regular turnover to bring in new ideas and prevent stagnation. Two term limits, each lasting around 5-10 years, could strike a balance between allowing for continuity and ensuring a regular change in leadership. This setup could offer leaders sufficient time to enact policies while preventing an excessive accumulation of power.

    How the rules should be implemented:

    The implementation of the rules could be a collaborative effort between leaders and AI, leveraging the strengths of both. AI could assist in analyzing data, forecasting outcomes, and suggesting strategies, while human leaders interpret this information, make ethical decisions, and ensure the rules align with societal values. AI could be consulted for complex problem-solving, unbiased analysis, or when there's a need for comprehensive data-driven insights. However, final decisions should ultimately rest with human leaders to maintain accountability and ethical oversight.

    Honestly speaking, I think we could be of worse.

  • True, but there will be New Solutions. Or no YT for me at least. I am not willing to watch a single stupid add. Not one.

  • Jtlyk, you can use a custom keyboard, like Swift Key. Many have the option to scale according to your preferences.

  • Very true, that's exactly how it feels to me.

  • But do you act this way when someone says "yeah bleach is known as an effective cleaner" just because you cannot spray bleach on literally every mess in literally every scenario with every surface? I dont think you do.

    Well I for sure woudnt say: "Bleach is the most efficient cleaner, it's hard to find a better proven chemical fakt. "

    ;)

  • You are shifting the goalposts here. I argued against hunting beeing, and I quote:

    Its pretty proven at a 5th grade reading level of study, and even more proven with every grade up.

    Its actually kind if hard to find a more proven aspect of biology.

    You are the one who claimed that it's 1000 % proven that hunting is good pest control. Which is not true.

    I didn't argue against it beeing efficient in some locations. I argued against it beeing "hard to find a more proven aspect of biology" that it is so.

    So either show me some scientific backup or admit that you might have been a bit of there (it happens to the best of us, no big deal).

    That doesnt change the fact that in areas where we have removed or reduced predator populations, replacement hunting does show to help fill the gap and keep prey populations within healthy limits.

    Please read the study I posted earlier, which shows how this is not universaly true, or, as I have said before, at the very least controversal.

    Look at the american deer conundrum as your prime example. When we stop hunting them in areas low in predation, they start destroying their already fragile ecosystems with overgrazing.

    Regarding this i would like to direct you to this study:

    https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ece3.5729

    Specifically, recreational hunting was unable to decrease deer densities sufficiently to protect growth of the majority of Q. rubra seedlings, as reported elsewhere (Bengsen & Sparkes, 2016; Blossey et al., 2017; Simard, Dussault, Huot, & Cote, 2013; Williams et al., 2013). This inability of woody species to transition from seedlings to saplings over much of the eastern US, and not just of palatable species (Kelly, 2019; Miller & McGill, 2019), occurs in a region where recreational hunting is widespread, ubiquitous, and accepted by the vast majority of citizens (Brown, Decker, & Kelley, 1984; Decker, Stedman, Larson, & Siemer, 2015). Some authors claim that hunting can reduce deer browse pressure on herbaceous and woody species, but browse reductions were either small (Hothorn & Müller, 2010), or we lack information about differences in hunting pressure in reference areas that also saw improvements in woody and herbaceous plant performance (Jenkins, Jenkins, Webster, Zollner, & Shields, 2014; Jenkins, Murray, Jenkins, & Webster, 2015). We therefore need to reject claims by wildlife management agencies that recreational hunting is sufficient to allow forest regeneration and can protect biodiversity (NYSDEC, 2011; Rogerson, 2010).

    To be fair, they are talking about hunting beeing the only method used here and also can't find prove, that other measures (like only protecting the plants) and no hunting are enoth. There just is not enoth clear data to support either side right now. Hence its controversal.

  • You are confidentaly wrong here, my friend.

    For one it realy is something that depends on the global and local region. There are multiple studies that point to a lack of evidence towards a clear answer. I'm not invested enoth to hunt down to many examples, so I'll just quote this 2016 Australien study:

    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305655680_Can_recreational_hunting_control_pests_on_public_lands

    Public lands in Australia are increasingly being made available to recreational hunters to take introduced mammals such as wild pigs, goats, deer and canids. These species can cause substantial damage to environmental or agricultural assets, and it has often been argued that recreational hunting contributes to the amelioration of these impacts by reducing pest population densities. This position has been vigorously disputed by some parties. However, there is little locally-relevant evidence to support either side of the debate, and hence little evidence on which to base useful policy.

    Even clearly pro hunting websites have liste of pros and cons to hunting as pest control, like this one

    https://huntingandnature.com/index.php/2023/09/04/hunting-as-a-form-of-pest-control-pros-and-cons/

    So no. It is not a clear cut matter, nor is it proven beyond any doubt.

  • I like how this was your reminder. I mean, you just made a thread about this very topic...

  • How so? If the result is similar they are just different roots to the same outcome.

    The main difference is that the resilience, or the ability of a child to cope with the abuse, may vary greatly between physical abuse, sexual abuse and psychological abuse (like what the article is talking about). So a single sexual abuse is much more likley to cause Trauma, then beeing yelled at once. But beeing yelled at for years? Beeing told that you are wortheles repeatedly? That is likley to cause a lot of harm, especially because it plants a sense of "not beeing good enoth" in you that can take a lot of work to overcome once grown up.

    There is no need to rank diffent kinds of abuse against each other. We need to see them as equaly harmful for children and not trivialice them.

  • You can fuck right off with that attitude, mate.

    /s

  • I came for this and was not disapointed.