Our results show that women's contributions tend to be accepted more often than men's [when their gender is hidden]. However, when a woman's gender is identifiable, they are rejected more often. Our results suggest that although women on GitHub may be more competent overall, bias against them exists nonetheless.
President Volodymyr Zelensky believes that Ukraine's partners "are afraid of Russia losing the war" and would like Kyiv "to win in such a way that Russia does not lose," Zelensky said in a meeting with journalists attended by the Kyiv Independent....
I wonder whether it's possible to fight wars without – ideally – having casaulties at all.
For example, sedating instead of killing. Afterwards prison camps or something like that. Admittedly, given the scale, it is financially and logistically a tremendous effort. But how much must a human life "be worth" in order to be spared?
There are other obvious issues like civil unrest, if the other party keeps killing soldiers of one's own military.
Still, it's better than to end lifes from my perspective. One side must be the bigger one.
We spend so much effort and resources into specialising how to kill each other. But we don't use that resources for finding alternative ways.
If there are people who really want to kill each other, throw them together and leave the rest alone.
Netflix has managed to annoy a good number of its users with an announcement about an upcoming update to its Windows 11 (and Windows 10) app: support for adverts and live events will be added, but the ability to download content is being taken away....
Start a company, get rich, buy Netflix, problem solved.
Stop watching stuff, do something else. Problem solved.
Found a secret society, infiltrate politics worldwide, stir chaos and destruction, let the world burn and built a new Netflix from the world's ashes where you still can download stuff. Problem solved.
There is just that teeny tiny ethical problem of not paying the creators and distributors for something we enjoy. This becomes a practical problem as well. If they make less money, it's likely that even more movies or series get killed or never even started.
But I think it's tied to how we do business and less a problem which is very specific to the movie industry. Or in other words: it's our fucked up capitalism in action again.
The workhorses of such shows get almost neglected while the shiny poster people and producers get most of the share.
And that's basically everywhere the case. CEOs, managers, superiors are making insanely more money than those who are contributing a lot of work. It's an unfair system which is holding the movie industry tightly in its grip as well.
Compared to other religions, I understand that take, if we neglect stuff like not living up to their own doctrine of, e.g., equal rights between women and men, or the Khalistan movement, which has caused death and abused human rights on several occasions, also by killing civilians.
Still, as most organized religions, it became emergent as a tool of mass control and subjugation. Moral behaviour is not formed by critical thought and self-reflection, but by devotion to some mysterious higher power. Which is and always has been a core issue of problematic behaviour we can so often observe today with religious people. A side-effect is that it has the danger of hindering progress and societal evolution by having a creationism as one of it's core teachings, as far as I know.
A further form of subjugation, hindering freedom of individual human (and harmless) expression, can be found among the Kakkars. For example the "dress-code" with having uncut hair, cotton undergarments etc..
I could go on. So to make it short, no, religions are usually detrimental for the long term constructive development of humanity and Sikhism is no exception.
Climate activists from Last Generation disrupted Munich airport by gluing themselves to a runway, leading to flight cancellations and delays over a busy weekend....
a. self-mangling is a good way to discourage sympathy or participation
b. disrupting a bunch of random travelers, and actually endangering them [...] not helpful in getting sympathy for the cause... just press coverage... which will be mostly negative.
[...]
it's so fucking stupid and counter productive
The jury is still out on that. I've found research and surveys pointing in both directions. The positive and negative effects of such forms of protest are not sufficiently studied yet. Also historically, there are good examples for both.
Therefore, I wouldn't judge yet.
actually endangering them because planes are in the air and need to land
From what I know about that activist group, they always ensure safety. On street blockages, they make room for ambulances, they also inform emergency services.
I haven't looked it up for this case, but I can imagine, that they considered this.
I think, planes usually have enough fuel to land at another airport for such cases. There are emergency protocols for stuff like that anyway. So no one is really endagered here. Just inconvenienced.
c. there are a lot more direct ways to cause disruption, and a lot more sympathetic, less self-harming tactics to get press coverage
What do you have in mind?
e. did i mention it even fucks up the activists physically!!!
Not really though.
Despite that, every member knows the risk. They know what they are doing. They are not stupid and think about such protest actions thoroughly.
i don’t need to present an alternative to glueing yourself to things….
I've had this kind of talk a lot of times. And when it actually comes to "those alternatives", which critics say activists should pursue instead, one common reaction is silence, as they are lacking ideas about those.
I'll leave you with that.
the jury is not out on that…
As far as I know, it is. If there are new studies, which I don't know of and which come to a clear conclusion, I'd be thankful if you could link them here.
and i don’t really care about your opinions pretending like you’ve read research about how effective gluing yourself to things it….
Well, that's your decision. If you don't believe in facts, then don't. But then it's not surprising if people call you out on that, if you don't provide proof for your position.
If you're interested – which you don't seem to be – I'll happily share the studies, historical examples, reports and surveys I've collected on that topic.
it’s honestly pretty fucking evil of you to promote it.
I didn't promote it. Maybe you can explain what gave you the impression?
nobody should hurt themselves to spread your political message.
I agree that nobody should hurt themselves. Although I can understand if people see themselves driven to such measures out of desperation and/or in order to prevent worse.
Regarding that activist group "Letzte Generation", I couldn't find any reports about injuries due to glueing.
Also I wonder where you get the "your political message" from as I didn't make any statement about my political stance on that.
We seem to have reached a point where our conversation is no longer productive. As I value respectful and constructive dialogue, continuing appears no longer beneficial. Thank you for sharing your perspective. I hope we can engage more positively in the future, so let me know if you feel interested at some point in the future. Take care.
There's a loneliness epidemic and low alcohol consumption rates are a contributor to that
Are they? Sincere question, haven't read a report or something like that on that topic.
Regarding the remaining part, I understand how you see that. Seems logical. However, I would claim that this is more of a problem in societies mindset itself and less one tied to alcohol consumption. If people are raised in a way that they learn how alcohol is necessary, and don't learn other ways, if it's even incorporated in the particular culture of a society, then it's not surprising that those people have a hard time finding new friends.
There are plenty of counter examples, e.g., look at other cultures where alcohol is even forbidden or at least its consumption clearly discouraged. Even in western cultures there are plenty of people who found and prefer other ways. But sure, may of course not be the majority yet.
Regarding a loneliless epidemic, I guess there is also a lot more to it than alcohol consumption alone. For example I have picked up on smartphone usage / social media consumption as related on that. (Which is a very superficial statement now, I haven't read up on that.)
It would be like if were constantly maiming and injuring people and saying the problem was not enough people going to physical therapy.
In that I kind of agree with you. Many problems can be traced back to societal issues. Hell is other people. That's why we need to do better.
Sending those, damaged by society, to therapy is necessary, but we wouldn't be there if several root causes wouldn't exist.
Like if we just took blackrock's real estate and put homeless people in it the mental health crisis would just be like 80% solved. I'm not even kidding.
Oversimplification, imo. But this is surely a contributing factor.
(EDIT: misread and therefore misinterpreted the parent comment. Thought, it was a generalisation on all women. Striked out relevant sections here.)
but why are some women so against men being happy?
"They" aren't.
Like they want do to everything in their power to take away "guy stuff"
"They" don't.
But the fact they don't like it means that no one else should and men are wrong because they do something women don't.
That's a bizarre perception you have there.
I strongly believe that men's mental health is positively impacted by male groups.
Having a supportive peer group, regardless of gender, can be helpful, yes.
No, not allowed they should be ashamed of themselves.
Where tf do you get that from?
I think it's a really issue in society and you never ever hear women criticise women's role in negatively impacting men. But somehow I bet this is all the patriarchy's fault
Are you mixing two different things now? Feminism and men's mental health?
Regarding the latter, patriarchy is not necessarily a cause for this. It's rather male role models and toxic masculinity. Countless of men worldwide are raised in a way which is unhealthy for their mental state. "Don't cry! That's what girls do! Don't be such a baby!" Those men don't learn how to deal with their issues and emotions. They develop several kinds of problems as a result of that. Either a drug addiction problem like drinking, and/or spiraling down depression until they kill themselves, get anger issues or whatever. The suicide rate in men is higher as in women due to stuff like that. They have never learned that it's okay to ask for help. They are rather being shamed for feeling low.
That's what this post makes a pun about: a lot of such men rather find some coping mechanisms instead of dealing with their issues. They seek distractions. That's not necessarily a bad thing per se, but, in the larger scale of seeing how many men avoid dealing with their shit, it can certainly become one.
It's certainly not about women wanting to take "guy stuff" away, wtf. Oo
Where I come from men’s clubs are illegal. So yes, like it or not it’s already been proven to have happened.
Could you provide more context please? Where is it you come from where men's clubs are illegal? And what are the reasons for them being illegal?
I like how you think know what all women have ever done though.
First of all, I'm sorry. It seems I've misread your comment. I thought you were generalising, which I find usually wrong to do. Especially in such rather sensitive contexts like these. That's why I've put "they" in quotation marks in my previous comment in order to counter that generalisation. But after re-reading, I've noticed that you've written "some women" not women in general. So I'm going to revise that part. (After I've sent this comment I will also strike the coresponding sections in my previous comment.)
Regarding your experience with your housemate, needless to say that this was shitty of her and certainly not a meaningful approach to improve mental health of men.
I'm not sure whether it's relevant now anymore to reply to the remaining parts of your response, but I'll do so anyway in case this is still relevant to you:
Here’s a genuine question. Why do you, my housemates, other women think they know absolutely what is best for mental mental health when it goes against what men even say? [...]
I don't claim to know what is best. But I claim that there are detrimental mindsets deeply rooted into our society which is severly problematic for the mental health of men. That's what's usually also refered to as "toxic masculinity".
For different reasons I therefore think that a shift in how we are raising men and dealing with men's mental health is necessary. Those reasons include, but are not limited to, the following:
I'm a man myself. Having experienced that pressure from my parents, some teachers, peers and basically society in general, has left me to this day with the feeling of shame when I'm feeling low. Gladly, I took the step to seek therapy due to a lot of shit that has happened in my life. But it clearly cristalises that - currently - I can't accept for myself that it's okay to have negative emotions and seek help or talk to others about that. It's much better than in the past, but it's so deeply burnt into my mind that it is still an obstacle a lot of times.
I have no issues in accepting that in other men or people in general. To the contrary, I encourage everyone not to feel ashamed about how they feel, that it's okay, etc.. Because I know from first hand experience how bad this can be, especially if you've got a lot of other issues anyway.
Sometimes I volunteer in supporting people who seek help with their issues in life or mental health. Sometimes it's stuff like "suicide watch". I've also got cases among my friends where I see that pattern repeating: If people don't deal with their shit, it usually has bad consequences in the long run. And among men is a high prevalence of cases which simply don't seek help and can't really deal with their issues in a longterm beneficial way. Men are usually experiencing high difficulties with even talking about such matters. This has also been observed in several studies and is - as far as I know - a well-known phenomenon among psychologists.
I am in therapy and my therapists basically confirmed that.
To avoid a misunderstanding, let me make one thing very clear:
I am not against men having their "guy stuff", meeting in their interest groups and doing the stuff they like together. To the contrary, this is really good stuff! It's much better than sitting alone in the dark like a lot of depressed people do, myself included. It is usually very beneficial and helpful. (Depending of course also on stuff like the "social battery" of individuals.)
Psychological therapy for depression is in some parts also about finding what someone brings joy and developing some base stabilisation which helps them to go for that. In other words, men, who go to therapy, are also asked what they would like to do, what makes them feel good and so on. And therapists can help to enforce such mentally beneficial behaviours. Having a functioning social life is certainly one of the big factors. Distraction is also not always bad, it is also sometimes even encouraged. Now comes the,
But:
If men, despite enjoying such things, have concurrent issues, and such distractions and activies rather become a manifestation of "running away" or avoidance in general, those issues usually won't go away. Those issues will still linger and for each passing day may get worse and worse until those people - and this is regardless of gender - develop further dysfunctionalities which become increasingly difficult to deal with. And with men, as I said, it is usually difficult to get them to "deal with their stuff" due such reasons as toxic masculinity. Heck, it took over a decade until I got myself to seek therapy and I am angry with myself that I didn't do it much earlier.
Going on:
I’ve got a lot more support from men than I have from women. And I’ve seen guys get a lot more hurtful abuse from women than I have from men. But that goes against the narrative that all issues in the world are caused by the patriarchy and that women can do no wrong.
Good for you, that you got supportive men around you! Women are also people and people can be assholes. I'm sorry for you and the other guys who have seen abuse.
That certainly depends on the people though. Be among toxic men, get rekt. Be among toxic women, get rekt. Be among nice and empathetic men/women, and it's the other way around. However, toxic masculinity is a thing and there is plenty of evidence that men have usually more issues with dealing with their issues than women. As I've noted in my other comment before, that doesn't necessarily has a causal relation relationship. You can have patriarchy, which systematically treats women as "less" in various aspects, and you can have toxic masculinity, where men and sometimes also women make life hard for other men. The one does not necessarily cause the other as they can, but must not, co-exist independently.
I think the one take-away for everyone is: don't be an asshole.
If the suicide rate is so high for men maybe we should start by asking men what they need? How would having women telling them everything that they have done wrong a good thing?
The problem is, that a lot of men don't talk much about what they need, though. It's difficult to even get them there. But if they do, then sure, as long as we can make sure that such behaviour is not that kind of avoidance I mentioned earlier. Women are raised differently and are therefore usually (not generally) better in dealing with such issues and providing empathetic support. However, I don't think we should listen to one gender only, as gender alone does not necessitate virtue. Regarding mental health, I think we should listen to two parties: 1. the affected person and 2. the experts, which are mostly psychologists.
What women cannot understand is men are different to women. We act in a different way to you and that’s perfectly okay. What is not okay is women telling men how they need to act.
I'm sure that there are a plethora of women out there who don't have issues in understanding that men and women are different. That's an uncautious generalisation of you there.
Also, I'm a man, my dude. ;)
"One telling the other how to act" must not be a bad thing if it comes from a good place. If we regularly see how men are systematically struggling worse than women with mental health issues, then it's surely in their best interest to start pushing for beneficial changes. What those changes are, should be left to the experts though, and not to gender differences among people. Despite that, I think that it wouldn't hurt if a lot of men (those, struggling with opening up and dealing with their issues) would take some inspiration from women or people in general who have it easier with that.
Also if you want to do a bit of reading go find all the questions on the internet to the effect of “why don’t you open up to your girlfriend” and you can hear all the horrific ways women use men’s vulnerability against them. You can see the general consensus being that more often than not opening up to women makes things worse because of how women react to a vulnerable man and that if you need to talk about problems do it with men.
Well, that's surely shitty. But not the general consensus I noticed, nor the one observed in studies. Mind that looking for such questions is already a bias in the data itself. We can already estimate intuitively that those, who talk about difficulties in talking to their girlfriend/spouse are more likely to be in a toxic relationship itself or in one where miscommunication on both sides may be a problem. Look for the same question the other way around and you'll probably get a similar picture. This also doesn't equate to all the cases where such interactions with women don't have negative outcomes. Mainly, because people usually don't go on the internet and tell them how well their relationship is or how much they enjoyed talking to their women-friends. So, to get the full picture, representative surveys must be conducted. This also fully neglects the plethora of men who don't even talk at all to anyone, which is, as far as I know, the much higher number of cases.
ChatGPT is, in it's core, a sequence predictor/generator. Give it some context and it will produce most probable results.
Having the context of man, boat and river is very likely to match this "how does the man get the goat on the other side of the river" riddle, which is probably very predominantly present in the data set ChatGPT was trained on.
That's why ChatGPT can be helpful for lots of different purposes, but shouldn't be taken literally. Errors are very likely to happen. It can give important hints, but always check the results thouroughly.
Because it's original work they contributed for free. Lending others that kind of expertise and time, just that it get's used by a machine learning algorithm, which aims to reproduce this, without giving it back to them or the community in a similar free manner, feels violating.
Apart from that, creators feel ownership over their content and it feels wrong not to be asked what happens to it. (Although those probably wouldn't – or shouldn't – use SO anyway, as their content gets commercialised anyway by giving it SO for free.)
Stack Overflow, technically a neutral term. Idk though whether the name in such a context would violate any trademark laws even if it's a non-profit platform.
I usually don't tip, as I live in a country where people don't depend on the tip. And if they got a problem with that, they can take it up with management. I am not their employer. Also, I don't get extra money for simply doing my job as well.
But there are rare occasions, when I do. And that's if I see that someone has gone unexpected "extra" lenghts, which can not usually be expected from doing the job.
For example, in an italian restaurant my partner and I ordered some noodle dishes. We were there often, so we didn't expect anything unusual. However, that day, the waiter just brought us some Parmesan cheese with the advice it tastes better with it and we shouldn't be shy to ask for it. That was very forthcoming and justified a tip.
On another occasion, when my partner had a hospital stay, we ordered some pizza. We did it once or twice, as the treatment took several weeks. Usually I went down to the building entrance and received the order. One day, there was an awesome delivery guy who took it up on himself to bring it to us to the patient room. We were very impressed. I remember that my partner said we should shower him in money, haha. We certainly gave him a nice tip.
I wouldn't dare defile Douglas Adam's memory by not mentioning that you should keep a towel with you at all times, but my second contender is a surprisingly short three-parter:...
Edit: A few people have interpreted the title as serious, so I wanna clarify that it was meant as a sarcastic joke about how little sense the neurotypical world makes to me, but it is still legitimately me asking for help understanding said neurotypical world....
As far as I know, I am neurotypical, so mind that when reading my comment.
Regarding the title of your question:
Because neurotypicals are the majority of people. As usual, majorities set norms and actively or passively decide upon common concepts like ethical or societal rules.
Regarding the issue you described:
Even though it might seem exhausting, I think it's important to see people – regardless whether neurotypical or not – not as a homogeneous mass but as a highly variable mixture.
Sure, even then there are common rules like don't punch people. But those are the broad and general ground rules.
Then, there are the nuances, which can be highly individual.
In your example, regarding the punctuation, use of grammar as well as verbosity of replies, I would react completely different than your friend. I wouldn't mind any of those things, which seemed rude to her. Okay, maybe I would feel like I weren't given the attention I hoped for if, after pouring my heart out, I just get a simple "K." as response. That would make me sad, because I was hoping for compassion and a dialouge dealing with the issue.
But apart from such things, that would probably be totally fine for me.
One behaviour and two very different reactions due to two different people.
As such nuances are often individual, it's probably best to explore what kind of behaviour the other person would feel comfortable with and with which behaviour they don't. Repeat that process with everyone in your life, who you would also like to keep relations to.
That's also related to a thing known as role-behaviour in psychology, which also applies to neurotypicals. When I talk to my superior at work, I behave differently than when I am at home with my wife. Then, I also behave differently with my friends. And among the friends, I learned enough about some, to know what and how I can say something to them and from which topics or phrasings it's probably best to steer away.
Gender bias in open source: Pull request acceptance of women versus men ( www.researchgate.net )
Our results show that women's contributions tend to be accepted more often than men's [when their gender is hidden]. However, when a woman's gender is identifiable, they are rejected more often. Our results suggest that although women on GitHub may be more competent overall, bias against them exists nonetheless.
Zelensky: 'Our partners fear that Russia will lose this war' ( kyivindependent.com )
President Volodymyr Zelensky believes that Ukraine's partners "are afraid of Russia losing the war" and would like Kyiv "to win in such a way that Russia does not lose," Zelensky said in a meeting with journalists attended by the Kyiv Independent....
Netflix Windows app is set to remove its downloads feature, while introducing ads ( www.techradar.com )
Netflix has managed to annoy a good number of its users with an announcement about an upcoming update to its Windows 11 (and Windows 10) app: support for adverts and live events will be added, but the ability to download content is being taken away....
Louisiana becomes 1st state to require the Ten Commandments be posted in classrooms ( www.nola.com )
Chicken vs Egg ( mander.xyz )
Climate activists glue themselves to Munich airport runway ( www.euronews.com )
Climate activists from Last Generation disrupted Munich airport by gluing themselves to a runway, leading to flight cancellations and delays over a busy weekend....
Lots of times the restaurants won't even have milk ( lemmy.world )
Economic damage from climate change six times worse than thought | A 1C increase in global temperature leads to a 12% decline in world gross domestic product, researchers have found ( www.theguardian.com )
Therapy ( lemmy.world )
Solve a puzzle for me ( sopuli.xyz )
Source
It's not fair. ( lemmy.world )
Wholesome co-worker ( lemmy.world )
Nearly all Nintendo 64 games can now be recompiled into native PC ports to add proper ray tracing, ultrawide, high FPS, and more ( www.tomshardware.com )
Destroying friendship ( file.coffee )
Stack Overflow Users Are Revolting Against an OpenAI Deal | WIRED ( www.wired.com )
Members of the software developer community have reported deleting or altering their posts to prevent them from being used by OpenAI.
California says restaurants must bake all of their add-on fees into menu prices ( www.wshu.org )
Need this nationwide. I hate having fees added on to the price of what I'm ordering.
If you had to give one piece of advice that is pretty much universally applicable, what would it be?
I wouldn't dare defile Douglas Adam's memory by not mentioning that you should keep a towel with you at all times, but my second contender is a surprisingly short three-parter:...
Why are neurotypicals in charge of making up the social rules? They're not even very good at it.
Edit: A few people have interpreted the title as serious, so I wanna clarify that it was meant as a sarcastic joke about how little sense the neurotypical world makes to me, but it is still legitimately me asking for help understanding said neurotypical world....
Vampire remix ( lemmy.world )