swansont

You’ve covered the fact that you have no definition, and I’m not claiming there is one. Without a definition, any assertion about “real” men or women is a bad-faith argument Because the thread is about gender (specifically, transgender), so sex is moot, and yet you keep referring to it. Which is a slippery-slope argument. It’s not like cheating and/or subterfuge is a new thing. No matter what set of rules are adopted, there will be people who try to cheat, so potential cheating isn’t a legitimate reason for not adopting a rule. Any attempt to divide sex or gender into two categories will fail, because there will always be exceptions. It is, as I already stayed, a false dichotomy. The evidence for this has been presented in the thread more than once. Beyond that, my position is that your claims are largely unsupported. If someone other than you has asserted this, feel free to point out where. I think one of the differences here are things that some people want to be true, but can’t actually support with science or evidence, and the people asking for that evidence.

Prior to AI, assassinations and other heinous crimes happened, not carried out by geniuses. Do you have evidence that AI has facilitated any such events? From what I’ve seen, AI would make critical factual errors in creating a plausible-sounding set of instructions, because that’s what AI is currently doing.

Almost two-thirds of US adults are overweight or obese, and that triggers a lot of chronic issues. https://www.aha.org/system/files/content/00-10/071204_H4L_FocusonWellness.pdf There’s also the overall aging, as the baby boom generation are all senior citizens now. I wonder if the CDC meant to say adults, vs all. There’s also this https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2023-04-05/americas-decline-in-life-expectancy-speaks-volumes-about-our-problems

What does this have to do with what I said? This isn’t what “woke” means to a lot of people - to those who coined it, it means alert to prejudice and discrimination. Perhaps you could use another word, rather than appropriating it. Personally I think eliminating prejudice and discrimination is a positive in society. Real equality and inclusion should include sex and gender. Given that trans people are shunned, beaten and killed, I’d say they are not folks who have “nothing else to worry about” Sports is just one area of inclusion that’s become a focus, and used by some as the scapegoat du jour; other minority groups used in the past have gained acceptance, so it’s not as effective in stirring up the emotions of the masses. But you could look at this from the other perspective - why are we paying attention to the folks who have nothing better to do than stirring up trouble for people who haven’t done them any harm?

You’ve yet to comprehensively define what a real man or woman is (and good luck with that - talk about a false dichotomy!). This is a straw man argument - nobody has asserted this - there is no such insistence on “real” men and women supported by science. To cast the argument this way misses the whole point, starting with the confusing of sex and gender.

AI, which is not actually intelligence, is not in a position to provide new information. If you want to do these things, the information that AI would use is already out there.

I’m fairly certain Fred isn’t in a position to spend anything. Or was in a position to consent to the use of his likeness, or to decide to endorse the product.

In the last few years, the concept of “sex assigned at birth” has appeared with increasing frequency in U.S. case law on discrimination against transgender people.1 The phrase had been used, at least since the 1960s, to describe an obstetrician’s “casual pronouncement of the newborn as a male or female,” “based upon inspection of the external gen­italia.”2 https://columbialawreview.org/content/sex-assigned-at-birth/

Not really new, from an ethics standpoint. Tech allowed Fred Astaire to dance with a vacuum cleaner, in 1995. (he died in ‘87)

One of the references I perused noted that the Russians typically used plain old wood coffins. Others note that the whole section of the cemetery was buried in concrete

“They are buried in zinc-lined, lead coffins set in deep graves near Moscow.” People, too. But those bites turns you into a zombie.

They could have become contaminated, though. Breathing in radioactive particulates that stay in the lungs, for example, or breathing/ingesting anything that the body takes up (or just transits through the body) The reporting about the lead coffins is not just from the TV show. https://programs.fas.org/ssp/nukes/fuelcycle/chernobyllessons.html

Can you define what you mean by “woke”?

Pretty sure we knew that getting bitten by a radioactive spider wouldn’t give you superpowers 60 years ago, and that the spider would die if it was inside a reactor. What is a “radioactive spider” anyway? Merely irradiated? What about it is radioactive, and how, specifically, did that happen? The comic says it “absorbed a fantastic amount of radioactivity” which is good copy but is nonsensical, technically speaking

It’s not been determined what the source of this difference is, AFAICT. This 2% “advantage” is how much faster she is against contemporary competition, while “the difference testosterone makes between males and females in all events is estimated to be up to 12% (all other items being equal)” But that 12% might be some other value, depending on the event, and is an average. The sports medicine article argues that there is no testosterone advantage, because such intersex individuals’ cells don’t respond to testosterone

But the strike is not about the ones who can pick and choose what roles they will take.

Here are a couple of articles on the topic “Testing quantum gravity has long been thought to be out of reach of experiments, based on estimates that show it would take a collider the size of the Milky Way to accelerate protons enough to produce a measurable amount of gravitons (the quanta of the gravitational field), or that we would need a detector the size of planet Jupiter to measure a graviton produced elsewhere. Not impossible, but clearly not something that will happen in my lifetime.” https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/04/13/how-well-finally-wind-up-testing-quantum-gravity/?sh=6fff3015529e “The key place to look for gravitons — or a signature of the “particle” part of the nature of these gravitational waves that we’ve demonstrated exist — would be where quantum gravitational effects are anticipated to be strongest and most pronounced: at the shortest distance scales and where gravitational fields are strongest. There’s no better place in the Universe to probe this regime than where two black holes merge, as close to their singularities as you can conceivably get.” https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2020/11/20/ask-ethan-can-we-find-out-if-gravitons-exist/?sh=5bfb19ab1c85

But you devise experiments based on what you expect from theory. You might see an unexpected signal, but if the mechanism isn’t right you just see nothing. How many there are correlates to the chance you will detect one. If you detect one in a billion and your flux is one per second, it could be years before you detect it. And you need to detect more than one, because you need statistics. Detecting one won’t be distinguishable from the noise. That’s not how you framed the thread

Which we would have regardless of the show. It was set in the future, so naturally they extrapolated from existing technology. What’s interesting is what they got right and what they didn’t. They use data tapes - smaller than the contemporary technology, just like the communicators - but still bound by it. No digital media. No hand-carried high-res displays (no surprise, since that would have been hard to simulate). Almost like the writers just took miniaturization, that was ongoing with transistor technology, to the next step.

None. Geostationary orbits are equatorial

That’s true but isn’t what I asked. Stronger gravitation should mean more gravitons, and the gravity signal from distant collapse of black holes is very, very weak. Put another way, how many gravitons would be in the PTA signal? How will you detect a quantized signal from that?

Marconi didn’t have to limit his transmission power owing to government regulation (and he wasn’t sending a voice signal). But all you have to do is look at the trajectory - the first US patent for a mobile phone was 1908. The first car phone was used in 1946. Cell phone development was probably ongoing when ST first aired.

Avoid the issue if you want, but consider yourself on notice that continuing to dodge the rules (2.8 and 2.12, in particular) you will find yourself on the outside, looking in.

But that’s just an extrapolation of the technology. It’s not like the idea required ST to move it forward.

Why would you try to detect them in the background, instead of a stronger signal?