punchfunk4lyte

4 ms·

1.
by punchfunk4lyte 11mo ago
If that's not your position, clarify what it is. You're complaining about efforts to encourage women to seek an education. What is the theory of harm, if not that women shouldn't be educated? Perhaps what I said was too snark
2.
by punchfunk4lyte 11mo ago
I actually don't care what the makeup of college students is. It's useful to encourage women to pursue education in order to promote equity. But there isn't some magic proportion of men to women graduates that I think we shou
3.
by punchfunk4lyte 11mo ago
It was legal and common to discriminate on the basis of sex in banking services until 1974. I actually don't see anything in your link that disputes that. It discusses some earlier milestones about women being able to own certain types
4.
by punchfunk4lyte 11mo ago
Accounting is not a branch of mathematics.
5.
by punchfunk4lyte 11mo ago
Women were marginalized for millenia. Your mother/grandmother wasn't allowed to open her own bank account until 1974. It will take a long time to correct for that. It's a ratchet from the perspective of our very brief lives.
6.
by punchfunk4lyte 11mo ago
You've never heard of programs to encourage men to be nurses or teachers? I certainly have. Here's what I found after a quick search. If you're interested I'm sure you could research and find more information. https:&#x
7.
by punchfunk4lyte 11mo ago
> If you include biological and medical sciences in STEM Biological sciences are STEM of course. But if we're going to extend the definition, why not include all fields that involve technical skills? How about accountants and lawyer
8.
by punchfunk4lyte 11mo ago
I'm not sure what to tell you. People don't necessarily want to decipher these riddles. If you want to communicate that way it's your right. But I don't anticipate it being well received by this community.
9.
by punchfunk4lyte 11mo ago
I wasn't there but another reading might be that in both cases people resisted these efforts to obfuscate because they valued a frictionless clarity and the obfuscation interfered with their participation? I can't speak for this I
10.
by punchfunk4lyte 11mo ago
That's fine but doesn't give you license to put words in other people's mouths. Maybe they want AI labeled for transparency. Maybe it's a matter of personal preference. Or maybe they're following the precautionary p
11.
by punchfunk4lyte 11mo ago
I don't think it's a realistic expectation that other people will help you gatekeep these links. I get that you wanted to stop your personal site from being spidered and I think deobfuscating that wasn't cool. But a link to s
12.
by punchfunk4lyte 11mo ago
You have more respect for grifters on social media as humans expressing themselves than for authors of books...? That's very strange. Doubly so because no one suggested "silencing them," they pointed out that people do presum
13.
by punchfunk4lyte 11mo ago
Saying "I think X should have a warning, like cigarettes do" is not the making the claim "X is harmful in a way that is comparable to cigarettes." The similarity is that cigarettes have warning labels and not that AI is
14.
by punchfunk4lyte 11mo ago
That's extremely tangential. Bringing hot-button political topics into unrelated threads flattens everything into political arguments and starves all other topics of oxygen.
15.
by punchfunk4lyte 1y ago
For sure but I don't think you do your cause any favors by commenting that books about taking turns in conversation and understanding how to respond when a family member dies is imperialist and heteronormative without providing any con