Lenguador

NGC 1277 is unusual among galaxies because it has had little interaction with other surrounding galaxies.

I wonder if interactions between galaxies somehow converts regular matter to dark matter.

Oh certainly, that series took quite a risk on writing style and it’s quite divisive.
If you enjoy fantasy, you could try her other series as an alternative. The Inheritance Trilogy is a more standard writing style.

I almost put The Fifth Season down after the first chapter, I remember thinking: “This author has a chip on their shoulder”. I’m glad I persevered though, and I definitely recommend the series to people as it is quite different. I’d suggest giving it another shot.

I might try jumping in again on season 2, thanks.

Claude 2 would have a much better chance at this because of the longer context window.
Though there are plenty of alternate/theorised/critiqued endings for Game of Thrones online, so current chatbots should have a better shot at doing a good job vs other writers who haven’t finished their series in over a decade.

As a counterpoint to other comments here, I didn’t like Babylon 5. I gave up in the first season on the episode about religions, where each alien race shows a single religion but then humanity shows an enormous number of them.

Showing planets in sci fi as homogenous is a common trope, but such a simplistic take. This resonated poorly with me as I felt the aliens all behaved exactly like humans as well, to the point where you have stand-ins for Jehovah’s witnesses. That episode cemented for me the feeling I had when watching. Babylon 5 is racist against aliens.

Taking 89.3% men from your source at face value, and selecting 12 people at random, that gives a 12.2% chance (1 in 8) that the company of that size would be all male.
Add in network effects, risk tolerance for startups, and the hiring practices of larger companies, and that number likely gets even larger.

What’s the p-value for a news story? Unless this is some trend from other companies run by Musk, there doesn’t seem to be anything newsworthy here.

Haha, thanks for the correction. If you have to use your degree in ethics, perhaps you could add your perspective to the thread?

According to consequentialism:

1. Imagining sexual fantasies in one’s own mind is fine.
2. Any action which affects no-one but the actor, such as manifesting those fantasies, is also fine.
3. Distributing non-consensual pornography publicly is not fine.
4. Distributing tools for the purpose of non-consensual pornography is a grey area (enables (2), which is permissible, and (3), which is not).

From this perspective, the only issue one could have with deep fakes is the distribution of pornography which should only be used privately. The author dismisses this take as “few people see his failure to close the tab as the main problem”. I guess I am one of the few.

Another perspective is to consider the pornography itself to be impermissible. Which, as the author notes, implies that (1) is also impermissible. Most would agree (1) is morally fine (some may consider it disgusting, but that doesn’t make it immoral).

In the author’s example of Ross teasing Rachel, the author concludes that the imagining is the moral quandry, as opposed to the teasing itself. Drinking water isn’t amoral. Sending a video of drinking water isn’t amoral. But sending that video to someone dying of thirst is.

The author’s conclusion is also odd:

Today, it is clear that deepfakes, unlike sexual fantasies, are part of a systemic technological degrading of women that is highly gendered (almost all pornographic deepfakes involve women) […] Fantasies, on the other hand, are not gendered […]

1. Could you not also equally claim that women are being worshipped instead of degraded? Only by knowing the mind of both the consumer and the model can you determine which is happening. And of course each could have different perspectives.
2. If there were equal amounts of deep fakes of men as women, the conclusion implies that deep fakes would be fine (as that is the only distinction drawn), which is probably not the author’s intention.
3. I take issue with the use of systemic. The purpose of deep fakes is for sexual gratification of the user, not degradation. Only if you consider being the object of focus for sexual gratification to be degradation could the claim that there is anything systemic. If it was about degradation, wouldn’t consumers be trying to notify targeted people of their deep fake videos and make them as public as possible?
4. Singling out “women” as a group is somewhat disingenuous. Women are over-represented in all pornography because the majority of consumers are men and the majority of men are only attracted to women. This is quite clear as ugly women aren’t likely to be targeted. It’s not about “being a woman”, it’s about “being attractive to pornography consumers”. I think to claim “degradation of women” with the caveat that “half of women won’t be affected, and also a bunch of attractive males will be” makes the claim vacuous.

The approach requires multiple base stations, each in the path of a ray which is detected at both the station and receiver, and the receiver’s position can only be known if there is communication with the stations.