iNow

Is reading comprehension a problem for you, or are you instead implicitly accepting my underlying premise that you, despite your repeated protests, are NOT in fact neutral?

Though it could AND would have if only he had a (demonstrably) valid point and weren’t so self-evidently FOS

Excuse you? I’ll go one farther and thank you! Hell, I’ll even fist bump you for the neg reps you tossed my way 🤙🏼 Horeshit. We often find that 3rd party observers might comment on situations without themselves being directly impacted stakeholders, but “neutral” objective automatons without bias or predispositions they/we are not. In situations involving systemic racism especially, even passivity itself becomes an active choice. Either stand with or stand aside, just please stop standing in the way all while whining and martyring yourself as if you’re the goddess Justitia incarnate.

Or… if they see and acknowledge the rot, but just happen to like it that way so instead argue in bad faith.

In my experience, those who assert forcefully that they’re neutral tend to be anything but. We all have biases. Pretending otherwise makes you a liar or a fool.

Lol. They barely even try anymore

Duwut, now?

And neither India nor China would be down with that given how winds blow.

Russian took down a damn in Ukraine yesterday. It will result in flooding and make it harder to cool the upstream nuclear plants that use that water for temperature control of the rods.

Absolutely true, yet here the injustice can be found even with easy looking, a mere passing glance confirms it’s there, strain and effort not required. The injustice under discussion here persists even when our eyes are closed, and is across generations.

What might we do with this? What might be some risks?

You’re being lied to, brother… unless it is you intentionally lying to others. You should stop doing that. Meaningless question since the German army aren’t throwing unwilling troops and prisoners into killing neighboring citizens like worthless cannon fodder.

Fair and safe are subjective. In something like 17 other threads, one proposal was to eliminate gender criteria altogether and have merit based qualification thresholds for competitive divisions and call it done. Plus, let us recall that this has nothing to do with racist whiteboards (tho the fear and panic about it does seem similar). Yes, this. I guess we’re up to 18 threads now.

I’m tired of all this extremism trying to make things better and not be snarky while doing it. When will this madness end!?!

It's unlikely to eliminate that job, just change it. Someone must prompt the model with topics and general framing of the subject first. Lots of blacksmith jobs were lost with the invention of the automobile, but far more new jobs were created... The AI is a bit like eye-glasses for the human mind. It's going to focus things, but not necessarily destroy. Time will tell.

How does Ketanji Brown Jackson fit within this narrative?

Gotta keep owning the libs /derp

I wonder who taught them how. Also, do avoid the stuff made from inputs any bulls provided.

Objectively? No Subjectively? Maybe

Or more practiced at forgiveness

It already happened over 70 years ago, but you can continue believing any ridiculous silly thing you want for as long as you want. The science remains valid and true whether you accept / believe in it or not. So dumb

It’s call acceptance, with a dab of self confidence and kindness toward others as a standard operating procedure.

I appreciate where you're coming from Studiot in terms of "data is data, that's all." I am sympathetic to this purist view, but also have some concerns with the rigid, dogmatic, de-contextualizing nature of it. Specifically, we are WELL aware of multiple issues with poor data collection methods, biased filters for what to include/exclude, and how past experience isn't necessarily a fit for current circumstances. In math, we work with the data we have. End program. The math is right if it aligns with the data. Done. Dusted. Time to move along... In the natural sciences, however, we must acknowledge up front where there are faults and strengths in that data, where it may be helpful/applicable and where it is not, and where we must be extremely cautious to avoid making hasty generalizations based on it. I also share your concern with silly comments like "8% and 10%" which are basically meaningless without qualifiers. We share the understanding that qualifiers are needed to correctly use any data set. Basically, I imagine we mostly align and agree on nearly all of this, even though the text exchanges above suggest otherwise. #olivebranch

I’m not in the habit of making broad sweeping generalizations. Details matter.