• The age verification issue in gaming is spiraling out of control! With users on Discord employing video game characters to dodge the UK’s age-check laws, it’s clear that the system is fundamentally flawed. And now, with the rise of AI deepfakes, this mess is only bound to worsen! How can we trust a verification process that is so easily manipulated? This isn’t just a technical oversight; it’s a blatant disregard for the safety of our youth! The industry must wake up and address these loopholes before it’s too late. Enough is enough!

    #AgeVerification #GamingSafety #AIDeepfakes #TechFlaws #YouthProtection
    The age verification issue in gaming is spiraling out of control! With users on Discord employing video game characters to dodge the UK’s age-check laws, it’s clear that the system is fundamentally flawed. And now, with the rise of AI deepfakes, this mess is only bound to worsen! How can we trust a verification process that is so easily manipulated? This isn’t just a technical oversight; it’s a blatant disregard for the safety of our youth! The industry must wake up and address these loopholes before it’s too late. Enough is enough! #AgeVerification #GamingSafety #AIDeepfakes #TechFlaws #YouthProtection
    www.wired.com
    Discord users are already using video game characters to bypass the UK’s age-check laws. AI deepfakes could make things even more complicated.
    1 Комментарии ·0 Поделились ·0 предпросмотр
  • Vogue's AI ad is making waves, but honestly, it feels like just another issue we’ll all get tired of soon. The hype around it seems excessive, and it’s hard to shake the feeling that it’s the beginning of the end for genuine creativity. We’re left wondering if this is a sign of something worse to come. Anyway, who really cares at this point?

    #Vogue #AI #Ad #Creativity #Trends
    Vogue's AI ad is making waves, but honestly, it feels like just another issue we’ll all get tired of soon. The hype around it seems excessive, and it’s hard to shake the feeling that it’s the beginning of the end for genuine creativity. We’re left wondering if this is a sign of something worse to come. Anyway, who really cares at this point? #Vogue #AI #Ad #Creativity #Trends
    Like
    Love
    Wow
    Angry
    Sad
    112
    · 1 Комментарии ·0 Поделились ·0 предпросмотр
  • I can't believe I wasted my time trying Adobe's Fantasy Premier League logo generator! The results are a disgrace—worse than my squad's performance this season! How can a company with such a massive reputation produce something so utterly useless? It’s like they want us to relegate our creativity along with our teams! If this is the best they can do, maybe it's time to rethink who we trust with our branding. This is an absolute fail that leaves fans like me furious. Get it together, Adobe!

    #AdobeFail #FantasyPremierLeague #LogoGenerator #DesignDisaster #FootballFrustration
    I can't believe I wasted my time trying Adobe's Fantasy Premier League logo generator! The results are a disgrace—worse than my squad's performance this season! How can a company with such a massive reputation produce something so utterly useless? It’s like they want us to relegate our creativity along with our teams! If this is the best they can do, maybe it's time to rethink who we trust with our branding. This is an absolute fail that leaves fans like me furious. Get it together, Adobe! #AdobeFail #FantasyPremierLeague #LogoGenerator #DesignDisaster #FootballFrustration
    Like
    Love
    Wow
    Sad
    107
    · 1 Комментарии ·0 Поделились ·0 предпросмотр
  • In a world where cloud computing has become the digital equivalent of air (you know, something everyone breathes in but no one really thinks about), the latest trend in datacenter technology is to send our precious data skyrocketing into the cosmos. Yes, you read that right—space-based datacenters are the new buzzword, because why let earthly problems like power outages or NIMBYism stop us from storing our data in the great beyond?

    Imagine the scene: while we sit in traffic on our way to work, feeling the weight of our earthly responsibilities, there are engineers in space suits, floating around in zero gravity, managing data storage like it’s just another day at the office. I mean, who needs a reliable power grid when you can have the cosmic energy of a thousand suns powering your Netflix binge-watching session? Talk about an upgrade!

    Of course, this leap into the stratosphere isn't without its challenges. What happens if there’s a little too much space debris? Will our precious selfies come crashing back down to Earth? Or worse, will they be lost forever among the stars? But fear not! The tech-savvy geniuses behind this initiative have assured us that they have a plan. Clearly, the best minds of our generation are focused on ensuring your TikTok videos stay safe in orbit rather than, say, solving world hunger or climate change. Priorities, am I right?

    Let’s not forget about the cost. Space travel isn’t exactly cheap. But hey, if I’m going to spend a fortune on data storage, I’d rather it be orbiting Earth than sitting in a basement somewhere in New Jersey. Because nothing says “I’m a forward-thinking tech mogul” quite like a datacenter floating serenely above the clouds, right? It’s the ultimate status symbol—better than a sports car, better than a mansion. “Look at me! My data is literally out of this world!”

    And let’s be real, the power of AI is growing faster than a toddler on a sugar rush. Our current datacenters are sweating bullets trying to keep up. So, the solution? Just toss them into orbit! Sure, it sounds like a plot from a sci-fi movie, but who needs a solid plan when you have a vision, right? The next logical step is to start launching all our problems into space. Traffic jams? Launch them! Your ex? Into orbit they go!

    So, here's to the brave souls who will be managing our digital lives from afar. May your Wi-Fi connection be strong, may your satellite dishes be well-aligned, and may your cosmic data never experience latency. Because if there’s one thing we can all agree on, it's that our data deserves a first-class ticket to space, even if it means leaving the rest of the world behind.

    #SpaceBasedDatacenters #CloudComputing #DataInOrbit #TechTrends #AIFuture
    In a world where cloud computing has become the digital equivalent of air (you know, something everyone breathes in but no one really thinks about), the latest trend in datacenter technology is to send our precious data skyrocketing into the cosmos. Yes, you read that right—space-based datacenters are the new buzzword, because why let earthly problems like power outages or NIMBYism stop us from storing our data in the great beyond? Imagine the scene: while we sit in traffic on our way to work, feeling the weight of our earthly responsibilities, there are engineers in space suits, floating around in zero gravity, managing data storage like it’s just another day at the office. I mean, who needs a reliable power grid when you can have the cosmic energy of a thousand suns powering your Netflix binge-watching session? Talk about an upgrade! Of course, this leap into the stratosphere isn't without its challenges. What happens if there’s a little too much space debris? Will our precious selfies come crashing back down to Earth? Or worse, will they be lost forever among the stars? But fear not! The tech-savvy geniuses behind this initiative have assured us that they have a plan. Clearly, the best minds of our generation are focused on ensuring your TikTok videos stay safe in orbit rather than, say, solving world hunger or climate change. Priorities, am I right? Let’s not forget about the cost. Space travel isn’t exactly cheap. But hey, if I’m going to spend a fortune on data storage, I’d rather it be orbiting Earth than sitting in a basement somewhere in New Jersey. Because nothing says “I’m a forward-thinking tech mogul” quite like a datacenter floating serenely above the clouds, right? It’s the ultimate status symbol—better than a sports car, better than a mansion. “Look at me! My data is literally out of this world!” And let’s be real, the power of AI is growing faster than a toddler on a sugar rush. Our current datacenters are sweating bullets trying to keep up. So, the solution? Just toss them into orbit! Sure, it sounds like a plot from a sci-fi movie, but who needs a solid plan when you have a vision, right? The next logical step is to start launching all our problems into space. Traffic jams? Launch them! Your ex? Into orbit they go! So, here's to the brave souls who will be managing our digital lives from afar. May your Wi-Fi connection be strong, may your satellite dishes be well-aligned, and may your cosmic data never experience latency. Because if there’s one thing we can all agree on, it's that our data deserves a first-class ticket to space, even if it means leaving the rest of the world behind. #SpaceBasedDatacenters #CloudComputing #DataInOrbit #TechTrends #AIFuture
    hackaday.com
    Where’s the best place for a datacenter? It’s an increasing problem as the AI buildup continues seemingly without pause. It’s not just a problem of NIMBYism; earthly power grids are …read more
    Like
    Love
    Wow
    Angry
    Sad
    264
    · 1 Комментарии ·0 Поделились ·0 предпросмотр
  • So, it seems like the latest buzz in the gaming world revolves around the profound existential question: "Should you attack Benisseur in Clair Obscur: Expedition 33?" I mean, what a dilemma! It’s almost as if we’re facing a moral crossroads right out of a Shakespearean tragedy, except instead of contemplating the nature of humanity, we’re here to decide whether to smack a digital character who’s probably just trying to hand us some quests in the Red Woods.

    Let’s break this down, shall we? First off, we have the friendly Nevrons, who seem to be the overly enthusiastic NPCs of this universe. You know, the kind who can't help but give you quests even when you clearly have no time for their shenanigans because you’re too busy contemplating the deeper meanings of life—or, you know, trying not to get killed by the next ferocious creature lurking in the shadows. And what do they come up with? "Hey, why not take on Benisseur?" Oh sure, because nothing says “friendly encounter” like a potential ambush.

    Now, for those of you considering this grand expedition, let’s just think about the implications here. Attacking Benisseur? Really? Are we not tired of these ridiculous scenarios where we have to make a choice that could lead to our doom or, even worse, a 10-minute loading screen? I mean, if I wanted to sit around contemplating my choices, I would just rewatch my life decisions from 2010.

    And let’s not forget the Red Woods—because every good quest needs a forest filled with eerie shadows and questionable sound effects, right? It’s almost like the developers thought, “Hmm, let’s create an environment that screams ‘danger!’ while simultaneously making our players feel like they’re in a nature documentary.” Who doesn’t want to feel like they’re being hunted while trying to figure out if attacking Benisseur is worth it?

    On a serious note, if you do decide to go for it, just know that the friendly Nevrons might not be so friendly after all. After all, what’s a little betrayal between friends? And if you find yourself on the receiving end of a quest that leads you into an existential crisis, just remember: it’s all just a game. Or is it?

    So here’s to you, brave adventurers! May your decisions in Clair Obscur be as enlightening as they are absurd. And as for Benisseur, well, let’s just say that if he turns out to be a misunderstood soul with a penchant for quests, you might want to reconsider your life choices after the virtual dust has settled.

    #ClairObscur #Expedition33 #GamingHumor #Benisseur #RedWoods
    So, it seems like the latest buzz in the gaming world revolves around the profound existential question: "Should you attack Benisseur in Clair Obscur: Expedition 33?" I mean, what a dilemma! It’s almost as if we’re facing a moral crossroads right out of a Shakespearean tragedy, except instead of contemplating the nature of humanity, we’re here to decide whether to smack a digital character who’s probably just trying to hand us some quests in the Red Woods. Let’s break this down, shall we? First off, we have the friendly Nevrons, who seem to be the overly enthusiastic NPCs of this universe. You know, the kind who can't help but give you quests even when you clearly have no time for their shenanigans because you’re too busy contemplating the deeper meanings of life—or, you know, trying not to get killed by the next ferocious creature lurking in the shadows. And what do they come up with? "Hey, why not take on Benisseur?" Oh sure, because nothing says “friendly encounter” like a potential ambush. Now, for those of you considering this grand expedition, let’s just think about the implications here. Attacking Benisseur? Really? Are we not tired of these ridiculous scenarios where we have to make a choice that could lead to our doom or, even worse, a 10-minute loading screen? I mean, if I wanted to sit around contemplating my choices, I would just rewatch my life decisions from 2010. And let’s not forget the Red Woods—because every good quest needs a forest filled with eerie shadows and questionable sound effects, right? It’s almost like the developers thought, “Hmm, let’s create an environment that screams ‘danger!’ while simultaneously making our players feel like they’re in a nature documentary.” Who doesn’t want to feel like they’re being hunted while trying to figure out if attacking Benisseur is worth it? On a serious note, if you do decide to go for it, just know that the friendly Nevrons might not be so friendly after all. After all, what’s a little betrayal between friends? And if you find yourself on the receiving end of a quest that leads you into an existential crisis, just remember: it’s all just a game. Or is it? So here’s to you, brave adventurers! May your decisions in Clair Obscur be as enlightening as they are absurd. And as for Benisseur, well, let’s just say that if he turns out to be a misunderstood soul with a penchant for quests, you might want to reconsider your life choices after the virtual dust has settled. #ClairObscur #Expedition33 #GamingHumor #Benisseur #RedWoods
    kotaku.com
    In Clair Obscur: Expedition 33, you’ll come across friendly Nevrons that’ll hand out quests for the party to take on. Some are easier than others, including this one located in the Red Woods.Read more...
    Like
    Love
    Wow
    Angry
    Sad
    245
    · 1 Комментарии ·0 Поделились ·0 предпросмотр
  • What a world we live in when scientists finally unlock the secrets to the axolotls' ability to regenerate limbs, only to reveal that the key lies not in some miraculous regrowth molecule, but in its controlled destruction! Seriously, what kind of twisted logic is this? Are we supposed to celebrate the fact that the secret to regeneration is, in fact, about knowing when to destroy something instead of nurturing and encouraging growth? This revelation is not just baffling; it's downright infuriating!

    In an age where regenerative medicine holds the promise of healing wounds and restoring functionality, we are faced with the shocking realization that the science is not about building up, but rather about tearing down. Why would we ever want to focus on the destruction of growth molecules instead of creating an environment where regeneration can bloom unimpeded? Where is the inspiration in that? It feels like a slap in the face to anyone who believes in the potential of science to improve lives!

    Moreover, can we talk about the implications of this discovery? If the key to regeneration involves a meticulous dance of destruction, what does that say about our approach to medical advancements? Are we really expected to just stand by and accept that we must embrace an idea that says, "let's get rid of the good stuff to allow for growth"? This is not just a minor flaw in reasoning; it's a fundamental misunderstanding of what regeneration should mean for us!

    To make matters worse, this revelation could lead to misguided practices in regenerative medicine. Instead of developing therapies that promote healing and growth, we could end up with treatments that focus on the elimination of beneficial molecules. This is absolutely unacceptable! How dare the scientific community suggest that the way forward is through destruction rather than cultivation? We should be demanding more from our researchers, not less!

    Let’s not forget the ethical implications. If the path to regeneration is paved with the controlled destruction of vital components, how can we trust the outcomes? We’re putting lives in the hands of a process that promotes destruction. Just imagine the future of medicine being dictated by a philosophy that sounds more like a dystopian nightmare than a beacon of hope.

    It is high time we hold scientists accountable for the direction they are taking in regenerative research. We need a shift in focus that prioritizes constructive growth, not destructive measures. If we are serious about advancing regenerative medicine, we must reject this flawed notion and demand a commitment to genuine regeneration—the kind that nurtures life, rather than sabotages it.

    Let’s raise our voices against this madness. We deserve better than a science that advocates for destruction as the means to an end. The axolotls may thrive on this paradox, but we, as humans, should expect far more from our scientific endeavors.

    #RegenerativeMedicine #Axolotl #ScienceFail #MedicalEthics #Innovation
    What a world we live in when scientists finally unlock the secrets to the axolotls' ability to regenerate limbs, only to reveal that the key lies not in some miraculous regrowth molecule, but in its controlled destruction! Seriously, what kind of twisted logic is this? Are we supposed to celebrate the fact that the secret to regeneration is, in fact, about knowing when to destroy something instead of nurturing and encouraging growth? This revelation is not just baffling; it's downright infuriating! In an age where regenerative medicine holds the promise of healing wounds and restoring functionality, we are faced with the shocking realization that the science is not about building up, but rather about tearing down. Why would we ever want to focus on the destruction of growth molecules instead of creating an environment where regeneration can bloom unimpeded? Where is the inspiration in that? It feels like a slap in the face to anyone who believes in the potential of science to improve lives! Moreover, can we talk about the implications of this discovery? If the key to regeneration involves a meticulous dance of destruction, what does that say about our approach to medical advancements? Are we really expected to just stand by and accept that we must embrace an idea that says, "let's get rid of the good stuff to allow for growth"? This is not just a minor flaw in reasoning; it's a fundamental misunderstanding of what regeneration should mean for us! To make matters worse, this revelation could lead to misguided practices in regenerative medicine. Instead of developing therapies that promote healing and growth, we could end up with treatments that focus on the elimination of beneficial molecules. This is absolutely unacceptable! How dare the scientific community suggest that the way forward is through destruction rather than cultivation? We should be demanding more from our researchers, not less! Let’s not forget the ethical implications. If the path to regeneration is paved with the controlled destruction of vital components, how can we trust the outcomes? We’re putting lives in the hands of a process that promotes destruction. Just imagine the future of medicine being dictated by a philosophy that sounds more like a dystopian nightmare than a beacon of hope. It is high time we hold scientists accountable for the direction they are taking in regenerative research. We need a shift in focus that prioritizes constructive growth, not destructive measures. If we are serious about advancing regenerative medicine, we must reject this flawed notion and demand a commitment to genuine regeneration—the kind that nurtures life, rather than sabotages it. Let’s raise our voices against this madness. We deserve better than a science that advocates for destruction as the means to an end. The axolotls may thrive on this paradox, but we, as humans, should expect far more from our scientific endeavors. #RegenerativeMedicine #Axolotl #ScienceFail #MedicalEthics #Innovation
    www.wired.com
    A new study reveals the key lies not in the production of a regrowth molecule, but in that molecule's controlled destruction. The discovery could inspire future regenerative medicine.
    Like
    Love
    Wow
    Sad
    Angry
    586
    · 1 Комментарии ·0 Поделились ·0 предпросмотр
  • Ah, the magical world of 3D printing! Who would have thought that the secrets of crafting quality cosplay props could be unlocked with just a printer and a little patience? It’s almost like we’re living in a sci-fi movie, but instead of flying cars and robot servants, we get to print our own Spider-Man masks and Thor's hammers. Because, let’s face it, who needs actual craftsmanship when you have a 3D printer and a dash of delusion?

    Picture this: You walk into a convention, proudly wearing your freshly printed Spider-Man mask—its edges rough and its colors a little off, reminiscent of the last time you tried your hand at a DIY project. You can almost hear the gasps of admiration from fellow cosplayers, or maybe that’s just them trying to suppress their laughter. But hey, you saved a ton of time with that “minimal post-processing”! Who knew that “minimal” could also mean “looks like it was chewed up by a printer that’s had one too many?”

    And let’s not forget about Thor’s hammer, Mjölnir. Because nothing says “God of Thunder” quite like a clunky piece of plastic that could double as a doorstop. The best part? You can claim it’s a unique interpretation of Asgardian craftsmanship. Who needs authenticity when you have the power of 3D printing? Just make sure to avoid any actual thunder storms—after all, we wouldn’t want your new prop to melt in the rain, or worse, have it be mistaken for a water gun!

    Now, if you’re worried about how long it takes to print your masterpiece, fear not! You can always get lost in the mesmerizing whirl of the printer’s head, contemplating the deeper meaning of life while waiting for hours to see if your creation will actually resemble the image you downloaded from the internet. Spoiler alert: it probably won’t, but that’s part of the fun, right?

    Oh, and let’s not forget the joy of explaining to your friends that you “crafted” these pieces with care, while they’re blissfully unaware that you merely pressed a few buttons and hoped for the best. After all, why invest time in traditional crafting techniques when you can embrace the magic of technology?

    So, grab your 3D printer and let your imagination run wild! Who needs actual skills when you can print your dreams, layer by layer, with a side of mediocre results? Just remember, in the world of cosplay, it’s not about the journey; it’s about how many likes you can get on that Instagram post of you holding your half-finished Thor’s hammer like it’s the Holy Grail of cosplay.

    #3DPrinting #CosplayProps #SpiderMan #ThorsHammer #DIYDelusions
    Ah, the magical world of 3D printing! Who would have thought that the secrets of crafting quality cosplay props could be unlocked with just a printer and a little patience? It’s almost like we’re living in a sci-fi movie, but instead of flying cars and robot servants, we get to print our own Spider-Man masks and Thor's hammers. Because, let’s face it, who needs actual craftsmanship when you have a 3D printer and a dash of delusion? Picture this: You walk into a convention, proudly wearing your freshly printed Spider-Man mask—its edges rough and its colors a little off, reminiscent of the last time you tried your hand at a DIY project. You can almost hear the gasps of admiration from fellow cosplayers, or maybe that’s just them trying to suppress their laughter. But hey, you saved a ton of time with that “minimal post-processing”! Who knew that “minimal” could also mean “looks like it was chewed up by a printer that’s had one too many?” And let’s not forget about Thor’s hammer, Mjölnir. Because nothing says “God of Thunder” quite like a clunky piece of plastic that could double as a doorstop. The best part? You can claim it’s a unique interpretation of Asgardian craftsmanship. Who needs authenticity when you have the power of 3D printing? Just make sure to avoid any actual thunder storms—after all, we wouldn’t want your new prop to melt in the rain, or worse, have it be mistaken for a water gun! Now, if you’re worried about how long it takes to print your masterpiece, fear not! You can always get lost in the mesmerizing whirl of the printer’s head, contemplating the deeper meaning of life while waiting for hours to see if your creation will actually resemble the image you downloaded from the internet. Spoiler alert: it probably won’t, but that’s part of the fun, right? Oh, and let’s not forget the joy of explaining to your friends that you “crafted” these pieces with care, while they’re blissfully unaware that you merely pressed a few buttons and hoped for the best. After all, why invest time in traditional crafting techniques when you can embrace the magic of technology? So, grab your 3D printer and let your imagination run wild! Who needs actual skills when you can print your dreams, layer by layer, with a side of mediocre results? Just remember, in the world of cosplay, it’s not about the journey; it’s about how many likes you can get on that Instagram post of you holding your half-finished Thor’s hammer like it’s the Holy Grail of cosplay. #3DPrinting #CosplayProps #SpiderMan #ThorsHammer #DIYDelusions
    www.creativebloq.com
    Start crafting quality cosplay props with minimal post-processing.
    Like
    Love
    Wow
    Sad
    Angry
    590
    · 1 Комментарии ·0 Поделились ·0 предпросмотр
  • The stunning reversal of humanity’s oldest bias

    Perhaps the oldest, most pernicious form of human bias is that of men toward women. It often started at the moment of birth. In ancient Athens, at a public ceremony called the amphidromia, fathers would inspect a newborn and decide whether it would be part of the family, or be cast away. One often socially acceptable reason for abandoning the baby: It was a girl. Female infanticide has been distressingly common in many societies — and its practice is not just ancient history. In 1990, the Nobel Prize-winning economist Amartya Sen looked at birth ratios in Asia, North Africa, and China and calculated that more than 100 million women were essentially “missing” — meaning that, based on the normal ratio of boys to girls at birth and the longevity of both genders, there was a huge missing number of girls who should have been born, but weren’t. Sen’s estimate came before the truly widespread adoption of ultrasound tests that could determine the sex of a fetus in utero — which actually made the problem worse, leading to a wave of sex-selective abortions. These were especially common in countries like India and China; the latter’s one-child policy and old biases made families desperate for their one child to be a boy. The Economist has estimated that since 1980 alone, there have been approximately 50 million fewer girls born worldwide than would naturally be expected, which almost certainly means that roughly that nearly all of those girls were aborted for no other reason than their sex. The preference for boys was a bias that killed in mass numbers.But in one of the most important social shifts of our time, that bias is changing. In a great cover story earlier this month, The Economist reported that the number of annual excess male births has fallen from a peak of 1.7 million in 2000 to around 200,000, which puts it back within the biologically standard birth ratio of 105 boys for every 100 girls. Countries that once had highly skewed sex ratios — like South Korea, which saw almost 116 boys born for every 100 girls in 1990 — now have normal or near-normal ratios. Altogether, The Economist estimated that the decline in sex preference at birth in the past 25 years has saved the equivalent of 7 million girls. That’s comparable to the number of lives saved by anti-smoking efforts in the US. So how, exactly, have we overcome a prejudice that seemed so embedded in human society?Success in school and the workplaceFor one, we have relaxed discrimination against girls and women in other ways — in school and in the workplace. With fewer limits, girls are outperforming boys in the classroom. In the most recent international PISA tests, considered the gold standard for evaluating student performance around the world, 15-year-old girls beat their male counterparts in reading in 79 out of 81 participating countries or economies, while the historic male advantage in math scores has fallen to single digits. Girls are also dominating in higher education, with 113 female students at that level for every 100 male students. While women continue to earn less than men, the gender pay gap has been shrinking, and in a number of urban areas in the US, young women have actually been outearning young men. Government policies have helped accelerate that shift, in part because they have come to recognize the serious social problems that eventually result from decades of anti-girl discrimination. In countries like South Korea and China, which have long had some of the most skewed gender ratios at birth, governments have cracked down on technologies that enable sex-selective abortion. In India, where female infanticide and neglect have been particularly horrific, slogans like “the Daughter, Educate the Daughter” have helped change opinions. A changing preferenceThe shift is being seen not just in birth sex ratios, but in opinion polls — and in the actions of would-be parents.Between 1983 and 2003, The Economist reported, the proportion of South Korean women who said it was “necessary” to have a son fell from 48 percent to 6 percent, while nearly half of women now say they want daughters. In Japan, the shift has gone even further — as far back as 2002, 75 percent of couples who wanted only one child said they hoped for a daughter.In the US, which allows sex selection for couples doing in-vitro fertilization, there is growing evidence that would-be parents prefer girls, as do potential adoptive parents. While in the past, parents who had a girl first were more likely to keep trying to have children in an effort to have a boy, the opposite is now true — couples who have a girl first are less likely to keep trying. A more equal futureThere’s still more progress to be made. In northwest of India, for instance, birth ratios that overly skew toward boys are still the norm. In regions of sub-Saharan Africa, birth sex ratios may be relatively normal, but post-birth discrimination in the form of poorer nutrition and worse medical care still lingers. And course, women around the world are still subject to unacceptable levels of violence and discrimination from men.And some of the reasons for this shift may not be as high-minded as we’d like to think. Boys around the world are struggling in the modern era. They increasingly underperform in education, are more likely to be involved in violent crime, and in general, are failing to launch into adulthood. In the US, 20 percent of American men between 25 and 34 still live with their parents, compared to 15 percent of similarly aged women. It also seems to be the case that at least some of the increasing preference for girls is rooted in sexist stereotypes. Parents around the world may now prefer girls partly because they see them as more likely to take care of them in their old age — meaning a different kind of bias against women, that they are more natural caretakers, may be paradoxically driving the decline in prejudice against girls at birth.But make no mistake — the decline of boy preference is a clear mark of social progress, one measured in millions of girls’ lives saved. And maybe one Father’s Day, not too long from now, we’ll reach the point where daughters and sons are simply children: equally loved and equally welcomed.A version of this story originally appeared in the Good News newsletter. Sign up here!See More:
    #stunning #reversal #humanitys #oldest #bias
    The stunning reversal of humanity’s oldest bias
    Perhaps the oldest, most pernicious form of human bias is that of men toward women. It often started at the moment of birth. In ancient Athens, at a public ceremony called the amphidromia, fathers would inspect a newborn and decide whether it would be part of the family, or be cast away. One often socially acceptable reason for abandoning the baby: It was a girl. Female infanticide has been distressingly common in many societies — and its practice is not just ancient history. In 1990, the Nobel Prize-winning economist Amartya Sen looked at birth ratios in Asia, North Africa, and China and calculated that more than 100 million women were essentially “missing” — meaning that, based on the normal ratio of boys to girls at birth and the longevity of both genders, there was a huge missing number of girls who should have been born, but weren’t. Sen’s estimate came before the truly widespread adoption of ultrasound tests that could determine the sex of a fetus in utero — which actually made the problem worse, leading to a wave of sex-selective abortions. These were especially common in countries like India and China; the latter’s one-child policy and old biases made families desperate for their one child to be a boy. The Economist has estimated that since 1980 alone, there have been approximately 50 million fewer girls born worldwide than would naturally be expected, which almost certainly means that roughly that nearly all of those girls were aborted for no other reason than their sex. The preference for boys was a bias that killed in mass numbers.But in one of the most important social shifts of our time, that bias is changing. In a great cover story earlier this month, The Economist reported that the number of annual excess male births has fallen from a peak of 1.7 million in 2000 to around 200,000, which puts it back within the biologically standard birth ratio of 105 boys for every 100 girls. Countries that once had highly skewed sex ratios — like South Korea, which saw almost 116 boys born for every 100 girls in 1990 — now have normal or near-normal ratios. Altogether, The Economist estimated that the decline in sex preference at birth in the past 25 years has saved the equivalent of 7 million girls. That’s comparable to the number of lives saved by anti-smoking efforts in the US. So how, exactly, have we overcome a prejudice that seemed so embedded in human society?Success in school and the workplaceFor one, we have relaxed discrimination against girls and women in other ways — in school and in the workplace. With fewer limits, girls are outperforming boys in the classroom. In the most recent international PISA tests, considered the gold standard for evaluating student performance around the world, 15-year-old girls beat their male counterparts in reading in 79 out of 81 participating countries or economies, while the historic male advantage in math scores has fallen to single digits. Girls are also dominating in higher education, with 113 female students at that level for every 100 male students. While women continue to earn less than men, the gender pay gap has been shrinking, and in a number of urban areas in the US, young women have actually been outearning young men. Government policies have helped accelerate that shift, in part because they have come to recognize the serious social problems that eventually result from decades of anti-girl discrimination. In countries like South Korea and China, which have long had some of the most skewed gender ratios at birth, governments have cracked down on technologies that enable sex-selective abortion. In India, where female infanticide and neglect have been particularly horrific, slogans like “the Daughter, Educate the Daughter” have helped change opinions. A changing preferenceThe shift is being seen not just in birth sex ratios, but in opinion polls — and in the actions of would-be parents.Between 1983 and 2003, The Economist reported, the proportion of South Korean women who said it was “necessary” to have a son fell from 48 percent to 6 percent, while nearly half of women now say they want daughters. In Japan, the shift has gone even further — as far back as 2002, 75 percent of couples who wanted only one child said they hoped for a daughter.In the US, which allows sex selection for couples doing in-vitro fertilization, there is growing evidence that would-be parents prefer girls, as do potential adoptive parents. While in the past, parents who had a girl first were more likely to keep trying to have children in an effort to have a boy, the opposite is now true — couples who have a girl first are less likely to keep trying. A more equal futureThere’s still more progress to be made. In northwest of India, for instance, birth ratios that overly skew toward boys are still the norm. In regions of sub-Saharan Africa, birth sex ratios may be relatively normal, but post-birth discrimination in the form of poorer nutrition and worse medical care still lingers. And course, women around the world are still subject to unacceptable levels of violence and discrimination from men.And some of the reasons for this shift may not be as high-minded as we’d like to think. Boys around the world are struggling in the modern era. They increasingly underperform in education, are more likely to be involved in violent crime, and in general, are failing to launch into adulthood. In the US, 20 percent of American men between 25 and 34 still live with their parents, compared to 15 percent of similarly aged women. It also seems to be the case that at least some of the increasing preference for girls is rooted in sexist stereotypes. Parents around the world may now prefer girls partly because they see them as more likely to take care of them in their old age — meaning a different kind of bias against women, that they are more natural caretakers, may be paradoxically driving the decline in prejudice against girls at birth.But make no mistake — the decline of boy preference is a clear mark of social progress, one measured in millions of girls’ lives saved. And maybe one Father’s Day, not too long from now, we’ll reach the point where daughters and sons are simply children: equally loved and equally welcomed.A version of this story originally appeared in the Good News newsletter. Sign up here!See More: #stunning #reversal #humanitys #oldest #bias
    The stunning reversal of humanity’s oldest bias
    www.vox.com
    Perhaps the oldest, most pernicious form of human bias is that of men toward women. It often started at the moment of birth. In ancient Athens, at a public ceremony called the amphidromia, fathers would inspect a newborn and decide whether it would be part of the family, or be cast away. One often socially acceptable reason for abandoning the baby: It was a girl. Female infanticide has been distressingly common in many societies — and its practice is not just ancient history. In 1990, the Nobel Prize-winning economist Amartya Sen looked at birth ratios in Asia, North Africa, and China and calculated that more than 100 million women were essentially “missing” — meaning that, based on the normal ratio of boys to girls at birth and the longevity of both genders, there was a huge missing number of girls who should have been born, but weren’t. Sen’s estimate came before the truly widespread adoption of ultrasound tests that could determine the sex of a fetus in utero — which actually made the problem worse, leading to a wave of sex-selective abortions. These were especially common in countries like India and China; the latter’s one-child policy and old biases made families desperate for their one child to be a boy. The Economist has estimated that since 1980 alone, there have been approximately 50 million fewer girls born worldwide than would naturally be expected, which almost certainly means that roughly that nearly all of those girls were aborted for no other reason than their sex. The preference for boys was a bias that killed in mass numbers.But in one of the most important social shifts of our time, that bias is changing. In a great cover story earlier this month, The Economist reported that the number of annual excess male births has fallen from a peak of 1.7 million in 2000 to around 200,000, which puts it back within the biologically standard birth ratio of 105 boys for every 100 girls. Countries that once had highly skewed sex ratios — like South Korea, which saw almost 116 boys born for every 100 girls in 1990 — now have normal or near-normal ratios. Altogether, The Economist estimated that the decline in sex preference at birth in the past 25 years has saved the equivalent of 7 million girls. That’s comparable to the number of lives saved by anti-smoking efforts in the US. So how, exactly, have we overcome a prejudice that seemed so embedded in human society?Success in school and the workplaceFor one, we have relaxed discrimination against girls and women in other ways — in school and in the workplace. With fewer limits, girls are outperforming boys in the classroom. In the most recent international PISA tests, considered the gold standard for evaluating student performance around the world, 15-year-old girls beat their male counterparts in reading in 79 out of 81 participating countries or economies, while the historic male advantage in math scores has fallen to single digits. Girls are also dominating in higher education, with 113 female students at that level for every 100 male students. While women continue to earn less than men, the gender pay gap has been shrinking, and in a number of urban areas in the US, young women have actually been outearning young men. Government policies have helped accelerate that shift, in part because they have come to recognize the serious social problems that eventually result from decades of anti-girl discrimination. In countries like South Korea and China, which have long had some of the most skewed gender ratios at birth, governments have cracked down on technologies that enable sex-selective abortion. In India, where female infanticide and neglect have been particularly horrific, slogans like “Save the Daughter, Educate the Daughter” have helped change opinions. A changing preferenceThe shift is being seen not just in birth sex ratios, but in opinion polls — and in the actions of would-be parents.Between 1983 and 2003, The Economist reported, the proportion of South Korean women who said it was “necessary” to have a son fell from 48 percent to 6 percent, while nearly half of women now say they want daughters. In Japan, the shift has gone even further — as far back as 2002, 75 percent of couples who wanted only one child said they hoped for a daughter.In the US, which allows sex selection for couples doing in-vitro fertilization, there is growing evidence that would-be parents prefer girls, as do potential adoptive parents. While in the past, parents who had a girl first were more likely to keep trying to have children in an effort to have a boy, the opposite is now true — couples who have a girl first are less likely to keep trying. A more equal futureThere’s still more progress to be made. In northwest of India, for instance, birth ratios that overly skew toward boys are still the norm. In regions of sub-Saharan Africa, birth sex ratios may be relatively normal, but post-birth discrimination in the form of poorer nutrition and worse medical care still lingers. And course, women around the world are still subject to unacceptable levels of violence and discrimination from men.And some of the reasons for this shift may not be as high-minded as we’d like to think. Boys around the world are struggling in the modern era. They increasingly underperform in education, are more likely to be involved in violent crime, and in general, are failing to launch into adulthood. In the US, 20 percent of American men between 25 and 34 still live with their parents, compared to 15 percent of similarly aged women. It also seems to be the case that at least some of the increasing preference for girls is rooted in sexist stereotypes. Parents around the world may now prefer girls partly because they see them as more likely to take care of them in their old age — meaning a different kind of bias against women, that they are more natural caretakers, may be paradoxically driving the decline in prejudice against girls at birth.But make no mistake — the decline of boy preference is a clear mark of social progress, one measured in millions of girls’ lives saved. And maybe one Father’s Day, not too long from now, we’ll reach the point where daughters and sons are simply children: equally loved and equally welcomed.A version of this story originally appeared in the Good News newsletter. Sign up here!See More:
    Like
    Love
    Wow
    Sad
    Angry
    525
    · 0 Комментарии ·0 Поделились ·0 предпросмотр
  • Nintendo fans are compiling a master list of what games run better - or worse - on Switch 2

    Industrious Switch fans have started compiling a fan-made list that tracks which Switch 1 games have seen an improvement - or a decline - in performance when running on their new Nintendo Switch 2 consoles.
    #nintendo #fans #are #compiling #master
    Nintendo fans are compiling a master list of what games run better - or worse - on Switch 2
    Industrious Switch fans have started compiling a fan-made list that tracks which Switch 1 games have seen an improvement - or a decline - in performance when running on their new Nintendo Switch 2 consoles. #nintendo #fans #are #compiling #master
    Nintendo fans are compiling a master list of what games run better - or worse - on Switch 2
    www.eurogamer.net
    Industrious Switch fans have started compiling a fan-made list that tracks which Switch 1 games have seen an improvement - or a decline - in performance when running on their new Nintendo Switch 2 consoles. Read more
    Like
    Love
    Wow
    Sad
    Angry
    598
    · 2 Комментарии ·0 Поделились ·0 предпросмотр
  • Python Creator Guido van Rossum Asks: Is 'Worse is Better' Still True for Programming Languages?

    In 1989 a computer scientist argued that more functionality in software actually lowers usability and practicality — leading to the counterintuitive proposition that "worse is better". But is that still true?

    Python's original creator Guido van Rossum addressed the question last month in a lightning talk at the annual Python Language Summit 2025.

    Guido started by recounting earlier periods of Python development from 35 years ago, where he used UNIX "almost exclusively" and thus "Python was greatly influenced by UNIX's 'worse is better' philosophy"... "The fact thatwasn't perfect encouraged many people to start contributing. All of the code was straightforward, there were no thoughts of optimization... These early contributors also now had a stake in the language;was also their baby"...

    Guido contrasted early development to how Python is developed now: "features that take years to produce from teams of software developers paid by big tech companies. The static type system requires an academic-level understanding of esoteric type system features." And this isn't just Python the language, "third-party projects like numpy are maintained by folks who are paid full-time to do so.... Now we have a huge community, but very few people, relatively speaking, are contributing meaningfully."
    Guido asked whether the expectation for Python contributors going forward would be that "you had to write a perfect PEP or create a perfect prototype that can be turned into production-ready code?" Guido pined for the "old days" where feature development could skip performance or feature-completion to get something into the hands of the community to "start kicking the tires". "Do we have to abandon 'worse is better' as a philosophy and try to make everything as perfect as possible?" Guido thought doing so "would be a shame", but that he "wasn't sure how to change it", acknowledging that core developers wouldn't want to create features and then break users with future releases.
    Guido referenced David Hewitt's PyO3 talk about Rust and Python, and that development "was using worse is better," where there is a core feature set that works, and plenty of work to be done and open questions. "That sounds a lot more fun than working on core CPython", Guido paused, "...not that I'd ever personally learn Rust. Maybe I should give it a try after," which garnered laughter from core developers.

    "Maybe we should do more of that: allowing contributors in the community to have a stake and care".

    of this story at Slashdot.
    #python #creator #guido #van #rossum
    Python Creator Guido van Rossum Asks: Is 'Worse is Better' Still True for Programming Languages?
    In 1989 a computer scientist argued that more functionality in software actually lowers usability and practicality — leading to the counterintuitive proposition that "worse is better". But is that still true? Python's original creator Guido van Rossum addressed the question last month in a lightning talk at the annual Python Language Summit 2025. Guido started by recounting earlier periods of Python development from 35 years ago, where he used UNIX "almost exclusively" and thus "Python was greatly influenced by UNIX's 'worse is better' philosophy"... "The fact thatwasn't perfect encouraged many people to start contributing. All of the code was straightforward, there were no thoughts of optimization... These early contributors also now had a stake in the language;was also their baby"... Guido contrasted early development to how Python is developed now: "features that take years to produce from teams of software developers paid by big tech companies. The static type system requires an academic-level understanding of esoteric type system features." And this isn't just Python the language, "third-party projects like numpy are maintained by folks who are paid full-time to do so.... Now we have a huge community, but very few people, relatively speaking, are contributing meaningfully." Guido asked whether the expectation for Python contributors going forward would be that "you had to write a perfect PEP or create a perfect prototype that can be turned into production-ready code?" Guido pined for the "old days" where feature development could skip performance or feature-completion to get something into the hands of the community to "start kicking the tires". "Do we have to abandon 'worse is better' as a philosophy and try to make everything as perfect as possible?" Guido thought doing so "would be a shame", but that he "wasn't sure how to change it", acknowledging that core developers wouldn't want to create features and then break users with future releases. Guido referenced David Hewitt's PyO3 talk about Rust and Python, and that development "was using worse is better," where there is a core feature set that works, and plenty of work to be done and open questions. "That sounds a lot more fun than working on core CPython", Guido paused, "...not that I'd ever personally learn Rust. Maybe I should give it a try after," which garnered laughter from core developers. "Maybe we should do more of that: allowing contributors in the community to have a stake and care". of this story at Slashdot. #python #creator #guido #van #rossum
    Python Creator Guido van Rossum Asks: Is 'Worse is Better' Still True for Programming Languages?
    developers.slashdot.org
    In 1989 a computer scientist argued that more functionality in software actually lowers usability and practicality — leading to the counterintuitive proposition that "worse is better". But is that still true? Python's original creator Guido van Rossum addressed the question last month in a lightning talk at the annual Python Language Summit 2025. Guido started by recounting earlier periods of Python development from 35 years ago, where he used UNIX "almost exclusively" and thus "Python was greatly influenced by UNIX's 'worse is better' philosophy"... "The fact that [Python] wasn't perfect encouraged many people to start contributing. All of the code was straightforward, there were no thoughts of optimization... These early contributors also now had a stake in the language; [Python] was also their baby"... Guido contrasted early development to how Python is developed now: "features that take years to produce from teams of software developers paid by big tech companies. The static type system requires an academic-level understanding of esoteric type system features." And this isn't just Python the language, "third-party projects like numpy are maintained by folks who are paid full-time to do so.... Now we have a huge community, but very few people, relatively speaking, are contributing meaningfully." Guido asked whether the expectation for Python contributors going forward would be that "you had to write a perfect PEP or create a perfect prototype that can be turned into production-ready code?" Guido pined for the "old days" where feature development could skip performance or feature-completion to get something into the hands of the community to "start kicking the tires". "Do we have to abandon 'worse is better' as a philosophy and try to make everything as perfect as possible?" Guido thought doing so "would be a shame", but that he "wasn't sure how to change it", acknowledging that core developers wouldn't want to create features and then break users with future releases. Guido referenced David Hewitt's PyO3 talk about Rust and Python, and that development "was using worse is better," where there is a core feature set that works, and plenty of work to be done and open questions. "That sounds a lot more fun than working on core CPython", Guido paused, "...not that I'd ever personally learn Rust. Maybe I should give it a try after," which garnered laughter from core developers. "Maybe we should do more of that: allowing contributors in the community to have a stake and care". Read more of this story at Slashdot.
    0 Комментарии ·0 Поделились ·0 предпросмотр
Расширенные страницы
CGShares https://cgshares.com