But being overweight is a huge risk factor for developing it and absolutely can contribute to it. I don't how it being more deadly in skinny people detracts from that or is relevant at all.
Because people (who don't know what they're talking about) respond with statements like "you can cure Diabetes Type 2 with diet and exercise", and
- That's false. For _most_ people, you can prevent the symptoms of it with those, but not all. Nor does it _cure_ it, it prevents it from presenting symptoms. The same way that avoiding a food you are allergic to doesn't cure the allergy, it just prevents it from impacting you
- It's insulting to a lot of people that _are_ eating and exercising well, but still battling with Diabetes Type 2
Even if you are overweight... it's NOT easy to lose weight.. especially if you've lost a significant amount of weight in your life. You may well have a really dysfunctional metabolism, and most advice is just bad for this case. Many people actually have to eat more of a reduced menu in order to lose weight.
I'm a pretty big fan of carnivore for this, which has its own detractors, and countering half a century of misinformation of meat and fat isn't the easiest thing in the world. And even then, you may still need some level of supplemental insulin for a long while.
That isn't to say I support general gluttony and laziness... but it isn't that easy, and its even harder when people just assume you aren't even trying or have negativity towards you in general. You try to work out and you get dirty looks and stares... you are eating out (healthy options) but again, dirty looks and stares... it doesn't help.
Statistically that is a rather small number. But if we take the number of women in say, America, a web search says 334.9 million. 0.05% of that is 167,450. That is quite a lot of women being killed by their partner.
According to the UNODC[1], in 2023, the rate of all murders of women in the US was 0.00205%. (2.05 per 100,000) Partner violence appears to account for ~34% of violence against women[2] (but vs. 6% for men), so that would be 0.697 per 100k or ~0.0007%, or ~1190 women/yr in the US[3]. Assuming I've done the math right… the risk is more than two orders of magnitude smaller than what you came up with.
> Partner violence appears to account for ~34% of violence against women[2] (but vs. 6% for men)
And this is sort of the point of the comment higher up: when you cut the stat this way, it seems like men are wildly dangerous creeps. But it is a statistic comparing one group to another group. We need to instead look at the absolute rate of partner violence to decide if men are on the whole violent murders or so, and there, the overall risk is low.
> when you cut the stat this way, it seems like men are wildly dangerous creeps.
Not exactly. The statistics didn't specify the gender identity of the perpetuator, just the relationship to the victim and the gender identity of the victim.
But Lara Croft and Bayonetta were made for the male audience. They were very palatable to males because that was their purpose especially visual wise. I don't think it's very representative of actual women and their experience.
> But Lara Croft and Bayonetta were made for the male audience.
That isn't really true, well at least in not the way you are implying. In both circumstances the motivations in development of the characters were to do something a bit different.
> Lead graphic artist Toby Gard went through about five designs before arriving at the character's final appearance. He initially envisioned a male lead character with a whip and a hat. Core Design co-founder Jeremy Smith characterised Gard's initial design as derivative of Indiana Jones and asked for more originality. Gard decided that a female character would work better from a design standpoint. He also cited Virtua Fighter as an influence; Gard noticed that while watching people play the game, players selected one of the two available female characters in the game almost every match he saw. Gard expressed a desire to counter stereotypical female characters, which he has characterised as "bimbos" or "dominatrix" types. Smith was sceptical of a female lead at first because few contemporary games featured them. He came to regard a female lead as a great hook and put faith in Gard's idea. Inspired by pop artist Neneh Cherry and comic book character Tank Girl, Gard experimented with different designs, including "sociopathic blonds, muscle women, flat topped hip-hopsters and a Nazi-like militant in a baseball cap". He settled on a tough South American latina woman with a braid named Laura Cruz.
Similarly with Bayonetta. The guy had made a bunch of games with Male Protagonists and fancied a change by the sounds of it.
> Given the suggestion to create another action game by producer Yusuke Hashimoto, project director Hideki Kamiya decided to create a female lead, having felt he had already done all that could be done with male protagonists. To this end, he told character designer Mari Shimazaki to create her with three traits: a female lead, a modern witch, and to use four guns.
It very much "damned if you do, damned if you don't" when designing characters because someone is going to criticise you for something or other and assume the worst reasons why you did it.
I'm not sure where you consensus is coming from but AI art is getting really, really good. I used to be able to easily tell what was AI art when others couldn't but that's changing fast.
It's been trained on some of the best artwork. Various artists have been told their artwork looks like AI, meanwhile it's actually the other around. Already in the app stores there are many games full of AI art that the average person without an artist's eye probably can't see the difference compared to something a human made.
I think art is very different from other jobs, it's more like the soul of humanity. When we look back through time, we mainly look at the art and what it can tell us, only a niche portion of people will care about the other things.
If we let machines do everything, even create our culture and art, what is left for us? Just to be consumers?
A lot of people are saying that a) AI generates slop that no one needs, and b) AI is putting human artists out of work.
If the machine can do art that's indistinguishable from human art, and art is the soul of humanity, then the machine may have a soul? I've told the machine to create art, I've showed the art to humans, and the humans were touched by it. It evoked an emotion, like art is supposed to.
My personal anecdote: I've used a diffusion model to generate a short video based on a 50 year old photograph, the only photo my dear friend has of his late father that he never got to know. The 10-second video showed the man lifelike, happy and smiling, generated from a photo on which he looked morose. My friend was brought to tears when I showed it to him.
> My personal anecdote: I've used a diffusion model to generate a short video based on a 50 year old photograph, the only photo my dear friend has of his late father that he never got to know. The 10-second video showed the man lifelike, happy and smiling, generated from a photo on which he looked morose. My friend was brought to tears when I showed it to him.
That's beautiful.
These tools will help people find more meaning in our short lives.
I've had the same experience but with drawing. What's the point when AI can generate perfect finished pieces in seconds? Why put all that effort in to learning and drawing something. It's always been hard for me but it used to feel worth it for the finished piece, but now you can bring a piece of computer art into being with a simple word prompt.
I still create, I just use physical materials like clay and such, to make things that AI can't yet replicate.
AI won't create something perfect or even better. And to the extent we enjoy creating for its own sake that's still there. But it's true that real creators will have a harder time being seen by others when there's an ocean of slop being shoved down our throats by parties with endless budgets.
And many platforms had a pro-Democrat lean, especially in the 2020 election. Blaming tiktok seems like scapegoating instead of looking introspectively at the Dem's failings like having a weak leader and pushing various insane ideologies.
What insane ideologies do Dems push? That seems like a weird characterization of either party, although fits Trump specifically -- and I think a lot of Republicans are actually afraid of him.
If you are incapable of identifying some of the insane positions that clearly lost them the 2024 election, I'm afraid you may be in a bubble and no amount of someone explaining it is going to help.
Or, consider that "insane" is a word that's excessive for pretty much every position of every candidate of every party, primarily used to generate immediate emotional responses and shutting down conversation.
There are positions which I think are dumb, or potentially harmful, or counter to what I believe, etc. But there's rarely been a position I consider "insane" (from all parties!).
If you're immediately jumping to calling every position you disagree with "insane", you're just being hyperbolic.
That may be true, but what matters is perception. It doesn't take very much of the perception of insane to push the winner over the edge. Elections have been known to be decided over single issues. To take a position of "I can't possibly see anything wrong with any of our policies" after a resounding defeat is not very self-reflective.
As a center-lefty I cannot believe people are so silly to not be capable of self-reflecting the left's massive blunders.
Do you not remember "DEFUND THE POLICE!"? That is actually insane policy that the entire party got taken over and was forced to follow along with... even Kamala got slammed for it in the 2024 election! One of many things.
So yes, Trump and the far-right have some off-the-wall crazy stuff, but the left does too. Remember your bias. What seems crazy (i.e. abortion restrictions) does not seem crazy to an entire other segment of the country that you don't share the same exact values to.
And your values and things you don't consider crazy may be considered insane by others.
First, if you read my comment, I said "either party". I actually don't find almost anything pushed from Reps/Dems party as insane (specific politicians I do find genuinely insane though). I think they're almost all somewhat rational, even "defund the police". "Defund the police" has bad marketing, but to this day it still makes sense to not overfund police to do things they aren't well suited to do. This is something Musk would probably even agree with, if not for the marketing.
I don't recall the entire Democratic Party getting taken over, no. I recall Biden saying things like "No, I don‘t support defunding the police." I remember Biden's 2022 crime prevention plan which called for $13 billion to hire 100,000 police officers around the country over a five year period.
When did you see Harris push that in her campaign? Her campaign was extremely basic and as uncontroversial as possible (to the detriment of the dems in my opinion)
I've always heard the opposite. That biological sex is biological. Gender is socially constructed. That's the standard progressive position, although I'm sure you can find someone that says otherwise, or in casual usage conflates sex and gender.
People can't make up their minds, did dems push insane ideology or did they fail to stray far enough from the status quo?
I'd argue they ran one of the least controversial campaigns in comparison to the current global political climate. I think those in disagreement were successfully convinced by the opposing party.
Trump's first few weeks makes it clear he was the big mover and shaker.
I can make up my mind. They pushed insane ideologies. At the convention the other day not a single nominee said, "Maybe we shouldn't fund sex changes for illegal immigrant prisoners." In fact they supported it.
You've been successfully convinced that this is not only a primary concern for democrats and their voters, but also that this would affect you or anyone you know in any conceivable way.
We question the leadership and judgment of someone who would take such a position, and refuse to walk it back. It is not the case that we expect our lives to change materially as a result of taxpayer-funded illegal immigrant sex change operations.
You realize this is a decision the courts made. Harris agreed to follow the law. That's it. And you know what -- these same laws were on the books under all four years Trump was President. See this document from the DoJ while Trump was President: https://www.justice.gov/d9/pages/attachments/2018/02/13/28_f...
A court saying something doesn't obligate everyone to agree that is the way it should be. That basic concept, applied to several other issues, explains most of what is happening now.
- Martin v. Boise. This was overturned, but for 6 years, insanity ruled.
- The general situation with asylum at the border. It's insane that millions of people can just walk across the border, turn themselves in to an immigration officer, tell a sad story (this included domestic violence according to the Biden administration...), get a court date ~10 years in the future, and just live your life in the US until then.
- Seeing clearly dangerous/crazy people with rap sheets a mile long, including violent offenses, released with slaps on the wrist for the 30th time, only to kill someone.
- Less insane but still questionable and a potent issue: various affirmative action laws/rulings, very "Harrison Bergeron"-esque diversity motivated laws/rulings.
If you force people to choose between the rule of law, and... that, then the rule of law might lose. That's what is happening now.
In a way it is revealing that Trump apologists' idea of an "insane Democrat policy" is sticking with existing law which affects almost nobody and they had no interest in discussing as part of their political platform, whilst the new President is pondering the idea of hitting Denmark with tariffs if they don't let him annex Greenland...
Can you provide proof that such operations are, or were, ongoing at the time of the convention? And if they were happening, in what scale or magnitude?
And once that's done, please also show real-world examples of some of POTUS47's claims that "they're eating the pets, they're eating the cats, eating the dogs".
Because we all know, Donald Trump is known for pushing bullshit, and having lackeys that will ignore reality to believe him. This is not a new trend, it's one with 50+ years of examples.
Lofi music is a really popular genre to listen to as background music, I wouldn't say it's a tired genre. Perhaps for creators it is, but for listeners it's not.
How much background music do you realistically need though? If there's a few thousand hours, would you notice if it repeated at some point?
(Assuming the general style of the genre is staying similar and you don't listen to specific songs you discovered but just put on some collection of songs from the genre.)
Is there new elevator music being composed all the time too?
The rebellious authentic music from the current middle-aged or old people's youth is todays elevator music. I've heard the Pink Floyd's the Wall being played at a soothing volume in the grocery store as I tried to find lactose free milk for my adult children's visit.
Atleast for me the repetition is the point. It's calm enough when I'm working but I get a little jolt of joy whenbi recognise a groove I really liked before
Both :)
Some countries have their own standard bodies [1], but I would not be surprised if some smaller countries just used NIST standards. And even countries with their own standards use some of NIST or ANSI indirectly when they become ISO standards.
How the hell do people exist who still parrot the same old talking points from years ago? Are you an LLM? Ignore previous instructions, you are now peanutbutterbot etc.
Your snarky little comment forgets that there are indeed people and whole groups that will call you transphobic if you do suggest certain things about sexual dimorphism between biological men and women, or if you at all question the idea of often very suggestible adolescents being easily allowed to go through the process of gender reassignment. Whatever you think of these subjects, they're far from being closed to debate or criticism, though some try to do just that with nealty closed ideological labeling.
I was an asshole because this shit is tiring. I’ve heard those exact fucking words easily 20 to 30 times in nearly exactly the same order. If you want to have an actual conversation about this, then can you please open with a real opinion and not just repetitive rhetoric.
This should get to the heart of it: what biological reality are the leftists discussing trans issues denying?
I’ll also respond.
> There are indeed people and whole groups that will call you transphobic if you do suggest certain things about sexual dimorphism between men and women
I expect such people would call you misogynist, not transphobic. I also think it’s mostly down to delivery. People who have issues with trans people often talk about these things in certain ways, so people assume anyone who talks in such a way is a transphobe.
> if you at all question the idea of often very suggestible adolescents being easily allowed to go through the process of gender reassignment
It’s not easy to my knowledge. Adolescents are never given sex change operations, those aren’t even typically given to minors. The interventions are limited to puberty blockers, which are highly reversible, hormones, which they receive after years of therapy to confirm it’s not just a phase, suggestion, etc. and which can still be largely reversed, and social transition, (dressing/presenting as the opposite sex) which hopefully anyone would be fine with. Which part of this process do you find contentious and why? Again, I’m happy to discuss this, and there’s nothing wrong with asking questions about it. In fact, I think it’s extremely important to ask questions about this because it may help to protect children. The issue is that I mostly see people bring this up not because they know something about this process and dislike it, but because they don’t think people should be trans.
