4·
9 hours agoit works for me. did you forget to pay your git bill?
Arthur Besse
cultural reviewer and dabbler in stylistic premonitions
- 550 Posts
- 1.14K Comments
Joined 4 years ago
Cake day: January 17th, 2022
You are not logged in. If you use a Fediverse account that is able to follow users, you can follow this user.
2·14 hours agoI haven’t heard of academics and/or media from China advocating for applications of phrenology/physiognomy or other related racist pseudosciences. Have you?
15·2 days agoApparently the word was used (also derisively) two years prior to the novel I assume you’re referring to.
(I looked briefly and failed to find a non-paywalled copy of the May 1956 Socialist Commentary for more context than the quote on that page.)
Yeah, no, i am sorry to report that this is an actual thing on yale dot edu in 2025:
one can also get the full paper directly from yale here without needing to solve a google captcha:
I don’t have the time nor the expertise to read everything to understand how they take into account the bias that good looking white men with educated parents are way more likely to succeed at life.
i admittedly did not read the entire 61 pages but i read enough to answer this:
spoiler
they don’t
Plastic surgery would become more popular.
One of the paper’s authors had the same thought:
“Suppose this type of technology gets used in labor market screening, or maybe dating markets,” Shue muses. “Going forward, you could imagine a reaction in which people then start modifying their pictures to look a certain way. Or they could modify their actual faces through cosmetic procedures.”
She also bizarrely says that:
“we are very much not advocating that this technology be used by firms as part of their hiring process.”
and yet, for some reason:
The next step for Shue and her colleagues is to explore whether certain personality types are drawn to specific industries or whether those personality types are more likely to succeed within given industries.
321·3 days ago
that's six by my count
0 ✊
1 👍
2 ☝️
3 👆
4 🖕
3·6 days agoi haven’t used it myself but https://jmp.chat/ looks good if you’re OK with a US or Canadian number.
there is a lemmy community about it here: !sopranica@lemmy.ml.
The bears definitely took notice of the drone. The animals’ heart rate skyrocketed when the UAV flew overhead, and their stress response was stronger when the quadcopter flew in windy conditions that masked the sound of its approach — apparently bears do not like being surprised. One bear started moving faster after the quadcopter flew by. And the bear that had experienced the greatest increase in heart rate — from 41 beats per minute to 162 — moved nearly 7 kilometers in the next 28 hours, encroaching into a neighboring female’s territory.
All in all, though, the bears weren’t stressed all that much, the researchers concluded.
🤌
At least there is this:
Ditmer’s team says that their results reinforce the NPS ban on drones in parks.
you don't say
let them eat xbox
it’s a cue that the post is intended to be read in william shatner’s voice
71·7 days agofive consecutive posts in a single community is a bit much for what is essentially the same story. why not put them all in the body of a single post where they could be discussed together?
you made five posts about this just in !usa@lemmy.ml
2·8 days agoWhen Miamoto died,
Myamoto isn’t dead
2·10 days agoin 2019 when they locked everybody in Southern California using a certain major service out of making edits
I assume that block is not still in effect?
I was trying to edit an article on carbon because they had an isotope incorrectly labeled
Out of curiosity, was this error eventually corrected, or is it still wrong today?
Encyclopedia Britannica still rules and is worth the money
I just looked for the first time in years and it appears you can read it for free… What do you get by paying for it besides disabling the ads (which my ad blocker already does)?
I see they have a list of changes to articles now, but they don’t show the old versions or diffs between them.
Also I see there are “Quick summary” and “Ask the chatbot a question” buttons on every page 🤡
What? No. Do you really think their “sharing” with “partners” who are “providing sponsored suggestions” doesn’t involve money being exchanged? 🤔
Here is an abridged version of that FAQ entry consisting only of substrings of it:
All of the other words in there implying that they had to stop promising not to sell user data because of some (implied to be unreasonable) “LEGAL definition” of “sale” is imo insulting to the reader.