5 ms·
They should ban it just because it's a poor image. The colors are unnatural, it is low resolution (blurry) and has a bunch of weird line noise, it's just not re
by kalleboo 3y ago
They should ban it just because it's a poor image. The colors are unnatural, it is low resolution (blurry) and has a bunch of weird line noise, it's just not representative. The obsession with sticking to it has always seemed odd to me.
- sitkack 3y agoethically sourced https://mortenhannemose.github.io/lena/ https://mortenhannemose.github.io/lena/ from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35010229 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35010229
- roenxi 3y agoYou're probably jesting; but it'd be more representative of the computing industry if we used a picture of a male. It is an interesting philosophical question of whether that would be an improvement.
- bitwize 3y agoI think the most appropriate response to this kerfuffle was when an all-female team of researchers published an image processing paper... using Fabio as a test image.
- sitkack 3y agoThat was a great paper Stable image reconstruction using total variation minimization https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Stable-Image-Reconstruction-Using-Total-Variation-Needell-Ward/99a2a73c43962cf3c69a57db3b1f95e72a48e33e https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Stable-Image-Reconstru...
- Shawnj2 3y agoThe issue with Lena is objectification, the equivalent male photo would be like a picture of the chest of a bodybuilder.
- roenxi 3y agoWell ... it wouldn't. It'd be a bodybuilder shot cropped to the head. The shot, as used, isn't objectification. The original would have been, but it isn't used - because, I would suggest, of the objectification issue.
- numpad0 3y ago[flagged]
- CapstanRoller 3y ago>One side is going to say the entire existence of an attractive women is amoral No one said that, is saying it, or will say it. You made it up in your head and keep "quoting" this claim so you can get mad about it and "argue" against it. Grow up.
- matsemann 3y agoYeah, this whole thread is weird and filled with angry rants against something no one has said. It's quite ironic that removing a picture for the sake of inclusitivity raises this kind of responses. I wonder how many here are also making their woman coworkers uncomfortable every day, given their apparent lack of empathy and dismissal of their feelings.
- foverzar 3y ago[flagged]
- numpad0 3y agoTo be blunt, male don't feel threatened by a poster of a manly topless macho. It won't incite inferiority complex, at least not by much. Else The Terminator would offend and upset a shit ton of men, and it would been a very unpopular movie. So why should it be suddenly problematic the subject of a poster had assumed certain gender that isn't men? If it's biological, why can't it be said? Is arachnophobia and ophidiophobia shameful to admit too?
- matsemann 3y agoBecause "feeling threatened" is not what this is about, so your point is meaningless. It's dishonest to make up stuff.
- roughly 3y ago> To be blunt, male don't feel threatened by a poster of a manly topless macho. It won't incite inferiority complex, at least not by much. Oh man, if only this were true.
- ooterness 3y agoThank you! I couldn't stop laughing for a good minute.
- sitkack 3y agoI thought the thread could use a little levity. I 100% respect Lenna's wishes to stop using the image. I have a small tinge of regret based on some of the comments in the subthread, but it is for the better. I even own a copy of the Playboy this was taken from, but funny thing is, I have never opened it. It is on my shelf next to the Utah Teapot. I guess in a way, I could justify it as one less use of the images.
- foverzar 3y ago[flagged]
- low_tech_love 3y ago[flagged]
- Dalewyn 3y ago[flagged]
- matsemann 3y agoWhat are you on a about? You're arguing against a straw man I've seen no one mention in this debate.
- Dalewyn 3y agoLet me put it bluntly then: The only people discriminating are those supposedly complaining about discrimination. The more someone says <X> needs more or less <Y> representation, the more they are ironically being discriminatory.
- defrost 3y agoSaying the Antebellum South had too many slaves is discriminatory? Poor Rhett Butler.
- Dalewyn 3y ago[flagged]
- matsemann 3y agoNo, you're not putting it bluntly, you're just doing more straw men. Who are discriminating in this context? No one. You've just made that up.
- Dalewyn 3y agoWho, you ask? IEEE and the ones complaining that images of "attractive women" should not be used. That is, quite ironically, discriminatory to women (you're literally arguing to involve less women) and a particularly-vague subset of women at that. It is also indirectly discriminatory to men, because images of "attractive men" usually don't get as much complaints. The women complaining using images of "attractive women" makes them uncomfortable also implies something very dark in their line of thought: That men in general are supposedly evil, sexual monsters for daring to like pictures of attractive women. Or the women feel an inferiority complex regarding their physical appearance and want to take it out on others. It's all just ridiculous and a worthless waste of everyone's time. The model in the image doesn't want it used anymore, that's all the (and arguably only) reason we should use something else.
- blt 3y agoagree. even at its low resolution the lack of high frequency detail is noticeable, and the color is awful