Most of her friends are probably women. Try making an account with an obvious female name and you will see a marked difference on most social platforms I am saying this as a guy we really don't understand the world women live in online or offline.
funny story: I got the wife of a friend to install tinder, a couple of years back when I was dating. I was having a hard time getting matches, so I figured I'd see how the other side lives. She created an empty profile, with a blurry hippopotamus as a profile picture, and a single letter as name. Just "H". For hippopotamus. No bio. Within five minutes she was matching with every other guy she swiped right on. Which wasn't all of them, mind you. Within another five minutes, half of the guys she had matched with had messaged her. Regular looking guys. A lot of them had same opening line. "Did you know hippos are the most dangerous animal in the world?"
After that, I got why I wasn't getting any replies >.<
You can try creating a profile as a woman. I did, five years ago, on a site that advertised itself as being dedicated to "affairs" between married people.
All I said was I was 20, was red haired, and open minded. Nothing more, and no photo.
Indeed, within a couple of minutes there were guys asking me if I liked to be whipped while handcuffed to a radiator, and offered to send me dick picks if I sent naked photos first. One of them added later "maybe I'm too direct for you, is that why you're silent?"
I didn't respond to any message, but the offers kept coming. It's insane.
Still a very valid experiment. I know the source of both sex' strife though: competition. I don't think we'll ever solve that, not while we're still monkeys.
Vincent stated that, after the experiment, she gained more sympathy for the male condition: "Men are suffering. They have different problems than women have, but they don't have it better. They need our sympathy, they need our love, and they need each other more than anything else. They need to be together."
I respect that, compared to the arguments that sex A is having a better time than B, or that one needs more support and focus than the other. We’re all in the same, but different, shit.
I agree with that, although a giant amount of support and attention is one way, the sexes are going through different stuff into terms of the meta-problem of "how our problems are viewed".
She died by assisted suicide, for private reasons. No need to exaggerate to make a point. There’s Twitter if you want to engage in that type of culture war.
It means that if you zoom out, things look more similar. Similar patterns, similar problems and solutions, but different components.
All the various shades of red are all red. All news is engagement bate (if it bleeds, it leads), but every piece of news is different. You are in a forest in region X and I am in a desert in region Y, both could be dealing with the same problem of keeping warm at night. It's all different, and yet still the same.
You may be the victim right now, and I may be the perpetrator, but over time you'll sometimes be the perpetrator (what, do you think you're perfect?) and I'll sometimes be the victim (you don't think I suffer?), and over time it all averages out.
But just because you're the victim this time, you're getting all the sympathy. Is that fair?
> They have different problems than women have, but they don't have it better.
How can I agree with this? Material conditions matter: whatever problem you have, being poorer will make it worse. Women have been earning less than men for decades, and most highly paid execs are men, not women.
https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2023/03/01/the-end...
It's really telling how most replies to your message are about "sexual market" or online dating. That's all some men can think of when talking about women online.
I understand their struggles because I lived through them. However, after I got better at OLD, I understand how it gets tiring hearing about it after a while, specially from people who are clearly on a bad path. For example, treating like a market (which I don't consider a good approach) but not accepting their current value is not enough for creating any demand. And nowadays, with the gym culture being mainstream, it's getting even harder if you don't even try to be more "valuable".
If I summarized men online as watching pornography and following hot women on social media, people would (correctly) point out that it does not encapsulate what men do online as a whole. A lot of people do these things, but that is only part of their online experience. However, these replies are talking about OLD apps and sexual market as if women only do that online, which relates to the point of the original comment.
Over the whole population, I bet the difference between sexes is very small when it comes to what % posts online comment. You're saying "most social platforms" - what's the biggest one in the world? Probably still Facebook. Yet I'm fairly sure it has a higher female than male DAU, at least in the West.
r/kpop has 3 million subscribers. Take a look at the most followed accounts on Instagram. How many of them have female-dominated comment sections?
> I am saying this as a guy we really don't understand the world women live in online or offline.
You're saying this as a guy who doesn't understand the world the general population lives in, outside your highly-educated male-dominated tech bubble. You're considering only the spaces you have been visiting for most of your life.
Parent was saying that most men don't understand the amount of casual sexual harassment women are subjected to in unmoderated online spaces -- much more so than men receive.
Which makes me sad.
Apparently Y chromosome + enculturation = prerogative to send unsolicited photos of ones genitalia to random internet strangers.
I know. Parent, along with the reply, also said that women as a result are much less active online, but that's a belief caused by a lack of grass touching.
> "I know nobody that comments on online forums. Nobody would ever comment to strangers on the internet. It's too dangerous."
> Most of her friends are probably women
-> "Women don't comment on the internet (especially compared to men) because it's a hostile place".
No, rather both are on opposite sides of an equation, and being buried in competition from folks trying to solve their part of it in isolation.
Women == get too much attention, often of the wrong type. How to get the right kind of attention?
Men == not getting any attention, of any type. How to get some attention?
So women either get ‘the wrong kind’ of attention, but plenty of it - or somehow figure out the magic of getting the right kind of attention? Not easy.
And men work hard to get any attention, often overdoing it on the only way they can figure out - which usually has poor (but not zero!) results. Folks good at playing the game get excellent results, however.
Meanwhile, everyone is getting played by the folks in the middle.
Notably, there are plenty of women taking advantage of the attention they get on Tinder. They just have no problem solving for what it works for, which is getting laid with near zero effort.
The way this previously got figured out was a ‘managed market’ - arranged marriages. Religious/social rules, etc.
Sexual harassment (having been a target of it), is pretty much the definition of ‘unwanted attention’. Targets typically just want to be left alone.
It’s also a crime in some places, not (!!!) in others, or called different things in other places depending on the details.
For example, is sending an unsolicited dick pic on a dating app sexual harassment? Is getting felt up at work, with the implication ‘or else’? Is being stalked by members of the opposite gender? Or having career advancements blocked by a lack of ‘playing the game’?
I can give you concrete examples from a number of cultures that each culture will write off as ‘he/she/they were asking for it’, or ‘she/they/he deserved it’, or ‘it’s just boys/girls being girls/boys.’.
I’ve seen it up close and personal, and have lived it.
The underlying ‘attention economy’ dynamic is still the same.
Edit: meant to add - plenty of 80/20 also applies here of course (though more extreme). Top 1-2% men (esp. from earning or traditional looks perspective) deal with the same issues that top 50%-80% of women deal with, bottom 20% of women (from traditional looks perspective) deal with issues that 80-90% of men deal with, etc.
Sure, there are misogynistic cultures out there, but that doesn't justify it from a categorical imperative perspective.
If it's okay, then it's okay for all sexes. And I'm hard-pressed to name a world culture that's equally accepting and promoting of men-sexually-harassing-women and women-sexually-harassing-men.
Can you?
It feels like you're trying to make this an argument about statistics, when it's an argument about ethics and morality.
I never said it’s okay at all. Where are you getting that from?
Reality doesn’t particularly care about one persons idea of right or wrong. And if you look at the planet, good luck coming up with a consistent definition either.
I’m also 100% sure some random persons idea on the internet or what is moral or right has zero to do with the dynamics of dating or social interactions either.
What sort of discussion do you want this to be about?
That old trope is pretty tired ("you can't possibly understand or talk about anything that you have not personally exactly experienced for yourself").
Of course men don't know exactly what it's like to be a woman, just like one person does not know exactly what it is like to be any other person. You can still have an understanding and talk meaningfully about things, in many cases.
The internet is not "dangerous for a woman", like you might say it is for a child. It can be much less dangerous because there is a very low risk of unwanted physical contact. I have never in my life "made an account" with identifiable names that are public on the internet. I don't post my sex, address, age, photos, bank account details, or mother's maiden name on internet forums either. So I have had exactly the same experience as a woman who had done the same thing in anonymous forums. I might even be a woman.
An identifiable woman will obviously attract unsolicited disgusting and horrible comments and content of course, not just sexual but threats of violence too probably more than men do. This is not some high mystery or something so complicated that we're befuddled trying to understand it. Offline is a completely different story, but online? I can see messages people I know get.
Online is about the safest a woman (or man) can be, and still talk and interact and collaborate and share with people. And I have been "stalked" (in an online anonymous account way), sent horrible graphic sexual and violent threatening things, for having differences of opinion. It's not nice, but it's not "dangerous" for me. I got ambushed and beat up walking in public one day -- offline -- that was dangerous.
They didn't suggest men couldn't understand, they actually offered a way to help foster understanding by creating the false profile. The ones who won't understand are those who make no effort to understand, and that's quite reasonable to say.
A woman's online safety relative to other spaces also misses the point about their online spaces being less safe than those of men; the suggestion wasn't that online spaces are the absolute most dangerous spaces for them.
That said I would raise the point of how easy it is to dehumanise people online and how easy it is to quickly gather various data like work addresses etc.
No you're wrong, poster I replied to explicitly asserted that "men really don't understand" it. And I that doesn't miss the point, you claim it does but you aren't actually addressing any of what I wrote.
Most men don't understand what women have to go through in everyday interactions and most women don't understand the same for men. And I think your analytical reaction to an emotional problem proves my point I feel.
You're missing the point, and that's because you changed the goalposts from "men really don't understand" to "can't possibly understand"; a difference that in this context is significant.
The OP was saying that men generally don't have the awareness of how women have it in the online world. The lack of understanding is because of not knowing about it, not because of a lack of capacity or empathy.
In fact the post suggest that doing an experiment to get such awareness would help in getting the understanding.
No no, read the full conversation. The context was about women being safe posting on internet forums, and the post I replied to did say exactly this, "we really don't understand the world women live in online".
How much will those robots cost? How many will we be able to make within the next 30 years?
How will they be autonomous considering bipedal operation in random environments is MUCH, MUCH harder that full self driving for cars on public roads? And that's just moving around, we're talking about actual judgement to do a human job that requires reasoning and practical skills.
Jetson type robots are a pipe dream at this point. I don't expect to have a robot maid within my lifetime.
Let's be realistic and not plan society today around scifi fantasies, please.
We're probably lacking 80% of the basic science needed for autonomous robot maids.
Right. My comment wasn't about maids from the Jetsons. General purpose robots are not soon. But for more specific tasks we've come very far in the last decade.
Warehouse automation is a reality today. Package delivery is also, just not broadly across the US. But it is very much happening right now.
Specifically my comment was about package delivery, which appears to be around the corner for most major cities, and already in place in several major cities around the world.
For indoor delivery, you don't really need Atlas. A 4 wheeled "full self drive" can fairly easily navigate cubicles and press elevator buttons. It's really not that crazy, and doesn't require any reasoning whatsoever. Basic preprogrammed pathfinding borrowed from any modern video game works fine for this. I don't think you need any advanced AI, let alone AGI.
I think the first EA fifa 97 was on sega mega drive 2 that I recall playing. It's amazing to see how far they came over the years but after 2014 I stopped caring about the all the new options as I was to old to learn all the new controls.
There will be diminishing returns though as the future models won't be thah much better we will reach a point where the open source model will be good enough for most things. And the need for being on the latest model no longer so important.
For me the bigger concern which I have mentioned on other AI related topics is that AI is eating all the production of computer hardware so we should be worrying about hardware prices getting out of hand and making it harder for general public to run open source models. Hence I am rooting for China to reach parity on node size and crash the PC hardware prices.
I had a similar opinion, that we were somewhere near the top of the sigmoid curve of model improvement that we could achieve in the near term. But given continued advancements, I’m less sure that prediction holds.
My model is a bit simpler: model quality is something like the logarithm of effort you put into making the model. (Assuming you know what you are doing with your effort.)
So I don't think we are on any sigmoid curve or so. Though if you plot the performance of the best model available at any point in time against time on the x-axis, you might see a sigmoid curve, but that's a combination of the logarithm and the amount of effort people are willing to spend on making new models.
(I'm not sure about it specifically being the logarithm. Just any curve that has rapidly diminishing marginal returns that nevertheless never go to zero, ie the curve never saturates.)
Yeah I have a similar opinion and you can go back almost a year when claude 3.5 launched and I said on hackernews, that its good enough
And now I am saying the same for gemini 3 flash.
I still feel the same way tho, sure there is an increase but I somewhat believe that gemini 3 is good enough and the returns on training from now on might not be worth thaat much imo but I am not sure too and i can be wrong, I usually am.
Google biggest advantage over time will be costs. They have their own hardware which they can and will optimise for their LLMS. And Google has experience of getting market share over time by giving better results, performance or space. ie gmail vs hotmail/yahoo. Chrome vs IE/Firefox. So don't discount them if the quality is better they will get ahead over time.
It already is costs. Their Pro plan has much more generous limits compared to both OpenAI and especially Anthropic. You get 20 Deep Research queries with Pro per day, for example.
This has less to do with anti china hawks and more to do with anti Israel content on TikTok. And information control in the US. They are openly buying out all US mainstream media and from the looks of it will probably take Warner brothers from Netflix as well.
"Most of it is a lie that they tell their own citizens, though, as America and the West only want democracy and promote it for their own ends. They destroy any democracy that might not align with their worldview or serve their interests.
The current administration is overtly doing what was previously done covertly. Dictators are acceptable as long as it is politically convenient. One of the most recent cases is Pakistan, where the army has taken over, and EU and Commonwealth election monitors did not issue even election monitor report even after two years. Instead, they have facilitated the murder and killing of Pakistani civilians. But maybe Pakistanis are brown-skinned, so for them, democracy is not allowed.
Pakistan should be under sanctions, but it is not, as it is providing ammunition for Ukraine. That is the biggest problem of the West: their hypocrisy. They are calling for democracy in Hong Kong, as that serves their own agendas, but will say nothing about an apartheid state like Israel."
"Imran Khan, the former prime minister, has been jailed without trial for the last two-plus years and has been kept in solitary confinement for months out of those. How many newspapers mention it in the West or make it a news topic? But this Hong Kong (HK) Jimmy Lai conviction will be the headlines in most of the Western media a clear example of propaganda to rile up the population against China and socialism.
This is why I laugh when people here on Hacker News mention China's control of media and its propaganda, when the Western media is no better than them. At least many Chinese citizens know they are being propagandized against and can filter it out."
better is a continuum across many dimensions. Therefore when you say "no better than" you're saying "worse than".
I'm not saying Western media is good, but it's really hard to argue that it's worse than the Chinese media, given the headline story above and our freedom to discuss it here and elsewhere.
Both can be bad, but one is more bad than the other.
Sure but this was prompted by the absurdly self-congratulatory "city on a hill" comment which shows how out of touch the West is with critical thought from the global south.
As originally used, the city on a hill comment was about aspirations, not achievements. IOW, the US was aspiring to be the city on the hill, not that it was.
And then JumpCrissCross's comment says that the US has stopped even aspiring to be the city on the hill.
It's a comment saying the US has fallen. How is that absurdly self-congratulatory?
The human condition is hypocrisy. The weak want fairness. The powerful want their power unbridled. Only anomalous humans can be powerful without abusing that power.
This feels very dismissive. The comment you responded is about the very real killing of a lot of people and your response is "at least we can talk about it?"
Being free to talk about the horrible things happening doesn't appear to stop them from happening so what exactly is your point here?
$100+ meh for natural gas. Solar and battery is so cheap that arab countries are now building large solar and battery systems to save money instead of burning oil and gas. Where as in the US the other big oil and gas producer wholesale electricity prices for Natural Gas is around $100-150 mwh which is cheaper than coal and the major reason coal got pushed out. Then we have China and India where coal is around $40-50 mwh.
So solar and batteries are now cheaper than all other forms of energy/electricity the only problem is finance for poor countries as you need to spend for all the 15-20 years of electricity in one go where as for coal and gas you will spend the same amount over 10-15 years. For rich countries the problem is mostly protectionism as cheap energy would destroy a lot of wealth of people in power.
reply