• 0 Posts
  • 38 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 21st, 2023

help-circle





  • there’s much more purpose to nature documentaries.

    no one would care about any of these animals or there plights without them. zoos and nature documentaries are the biggest drivers or interest and donations in the protecting the natural world.

    not interfering with what is happening is more than just a nature documentary thing, it’s a journalism thing in general. the only reason journalists get access to the places and things they do is because they don’t interfere. interfering with the natural world is a hard thing to do right. usually the obvious answer is the wrong one when it comes to preservation and restoration. and i mean sure, there’s times when it’s obvious that your interference wouldn’t be a bad thing, but part of the point of following a code of ethics is to remove the human element. follow the code strictly and you will never cause harm.

    imagine if a bbc earth filmmaker accidentally got an endangered animal in a remote area sick because he decided to remove a fish hook. that remote area would never allow anyone to film there again.

    but generally, the goal of journalists is to show things as they are. to educate the world on the problem. to do that you must show the problem playing out without intervention. and if there is no problem, if it’s just an animal being hunted then you’d likely be causing harm to something else by preventing it.

    a journalist believes they can do more good by showing one child dying to the entire world than by using their talents with words and cameras to somehow save a single starving child. they went there in person to do what they think will be effective in the long term. you could also go there in person to get hands on and save the animals if you want. they are no more guilty of not saving these things than you are.


  • haha, i suppose so. funny to think that people generally have not respect for what bit has to say because he’s a fake AI written by a human. now the we have real AIs writing things like that people don’t like it and want to discredit them.

    what we have now just creates derivatives of existing works, but a true ai in the future would probably be built off of the foundation set by these LLMs. will that be derided in the same way? maybe some entirely new social or political issue will come into play. I doubt many people could have predicted three major political opposition to ai being artists worried about copyright and environmentalists worried about power consumption. who knows what the future will hold…





  • God damnit. if you understand anything about our global weather observation network you know that if America privatizes the entire world will have way way less accurate weather no matter what anyone pays.

    the only reason things work so well now is because the whole world openly and freely shares all of this data. this is important because all of the world’s weather patterns effect each other. there’s only so much data that can be collected without being in the territory as well. so much of the world’d infrastructure relies on this information being available and accurate. privatizing it would surely be massively profitable and horribly detrimental to everyone and everything. it’s one of the very few actually decent cooporative things humanity has ever done. of course rich bullies want to come and stomp it out.


  • yeah, when you look close enough it’s amazing how often that that answer is the only one, and how blatantly they do it.

    they say democracy dies in the dark, but if like 10% more people actually watched cspan when major votes take place i don’t think we’d keep many Republican politicians. it’s an amazingly one sided effort to obstruct every single Democratic policy no matter what it is. they threw the toy over the fence, sat down, and started screaming and shitting like 10 years ago and nothing positive has gotten done since. they are literally the party of intentionally breaking the government.

    there’s no way that many Americans actually want that…





  • there may not be a correlation between race and length, but there is a correlation between race and percentage of spongey tissue.

    this is basically what creates the difference between what people call a “grower” vs. a “shower”. black people are slightly statistically more likely to be “showers” having a larger flaccid size. I bet this is where the idea stems from. the extreme examples is this will, however, achieve a less hard erection. so it’s not all bad for the growers. that said, porn stars have tricks to achieve longer harder erections. Viagra is the absolute norm on professional porn sets. meth and other stimulants also run rampant. it’s generally not actually pleasant work.

    the racial statistical correlation is weak, and not really worth much. it’s about as significant as some peoples being taller on average. in fact, much less so, because “black” isn’t a distinct population. i have no idea if there have been better more detailed and representative studies done on this. the only one I’ve seen just went off of general demographic data sets like “non Hispanic white” or “black”. maybe you could argue it’s not worth studying, but damnit, everyone kinda wants to know. it’s all talked about often enough. we should really get to the deepest bottom of it just to end the argument. even though proving things with data never ends arguments.



  • oh it’s very true! generally when a bullet enters the body the damage it does spreads out like a cone from entrance to exit as more displaced material is accelerated and the shockwave travels outward. that’s why the exit wound is generally many times larger than the entrance wound. a large enough round at a high enough velocity will start taking chunks out of people. that’s why many were concerned the m16 wouldn’t have enough stopping power when it was first being brought to the battlefield, it used a smaller round than the ak-47. it’s not about the size of the bullet, it’s about the amount of energy it can impart into the target. a heavier, wider round will create a much larger wound channel. the difference in damage done is much greater than the difference in the size of the bullet.

    there are also a variety of specific types of bullets that can affect the wound created and the damage done internally. for example, in smaller, slower rounds that might struggle to create this expanding wound channel effect, they might use hollow point bullets. bullets that are made to expand and/or break apart after impact. creating a larger wound and transferring the energy of the round into the target’s organs better.

    generally, you can expect that anyone using guns designed to kill humans to be able to damage an area at least 4 times the size of the bullet with every shot. often more, sometimes less. so when you think about getting shot and whether it will hit your internal organs imagine the bullets are more like softballs. because that’s the size of the exit wound they’ll create. that is why i say it’s generally unlikely that you won’t fall when shot with intent to kill. i do specifically man using a weapon of war, not a .22 backpack rifle. honestly, people get shot with small caliber handguns often enough. they probably usually don’t need to fall over. might feel like it though. i know i tend to sit down when I’m hurt badly enough.

    uhh… I’m not a gun nut btw. i generally support sensible gun control and would even like to see something like Australia’s method thought about for here (America). I’m just autistic and blame mythbusters for sending me down that rabbit hole when i was younger.


  • hmmm, like they don’t do a Hollywood fall, but they do often just drop. sack of potatoes style. there’s a lot of stuff in you that could make you stop standing if it got shot. it’s not guaranteed, but depending on caliber, it can be quite likely that they will fall. just straight down or in the direction of their existing momentum usually.