twig

joined 1 year ago
[–] twig@lemmy.dbzer0.com 17 points 1 year ago (5 children)

So that's actually not true, but for reasons that I think are weirder and more interesting than anything implied by either side of this "debate."

There are actually about 50% more women who have Y chromosomes than originally expected, and also: microchimerism seems to be extremely common in people who give birth, seemingly regardless of whether or not they give birth to children with XY chromosomes. But the genetic remnants of fetuses that have XY chromosomes stay in the body for many years (possibly a lifetime), and this has a fairly significant effect on genetic composition.

I get what you're saying and I don't totally disagree, but I think the main thing that I keep learning is that "biological sex" is just not actually a particularly meaningful concept.

[–] twig@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Yeah, the simplicity and also effectiveness of advertising algorithms are sometimes overstated.

There is a huge amount of data that is stored about users, and that does definitely make its way into the ads that we see. Grouping all the user information into ad categories is not a simple task, so there's a lot of mismatch that happens. But a lot of the time it's also location-based, time-based (when who views what) or even just what the biggest spenders want us to see based on our demographics. Tits and ass are fairly demographic agnostic, so they appear in a lot of feeds regardless of preference or orientation.

Right-wingers are fairly desperate to push their viewpoints and pay a lot to so, so we end up with a lot of vague associations or fully non existent ones resulting in that kind of content appearing in feeds. I'm a left leaning, queer and trans woman living outside the US and I see these bullshit ads from time to time (which for obvious reasons is pretty infuriating). I honestly think that having a small online footprint and using adblockers, privacy-friendly browsers and operating systems, etc. is going to become more and more common just as a mode of self-care.

[–] twig@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Y'all need a general strike. This is horrifyingly regressive.

[–] twig@lemmy.dbzer0.com 25 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I think it's primarily targeting the handheld gaming market

[–] twig@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 year ago

I was thinking he looked like Ricky from trailer park boys.

[–] twig@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

All I'm trying to point out is that distinct cultures are worthy of respect and shouldn't be glossed over.

But be real with me: can you think of a single effort for "planetary unification" that wasn't a total nightmare? I sure can't.

[–] twig@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 year ago

Fire pistons are so damn cool. Yeah, that makes sense then.

[–] twig@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 year ago

I'm really not "arguing against agriculture," I'm pointing out that there are other modes of subsistence that humans still practice, and that that's perfectly valid. There are legitimate reasons why a culture would collectively reject agriculture.

But in point of fact, agriculture is not actually more efficient or reliable. Agriculture does allow for centralized city states in a way that foraging/hunting/fishing usually doesn't, with a notable exception of many indigenous groups on the western coast of turtle island.

A study positing that in fact, agriculturalists are not more productive and in fact are more prone to famine: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3917328/

But the main point I was trying to make is that different expressions of human culture still exist, and not all cultures have followed along the trajectory of the dominant culture. People tend to view colonialism, expansion and everything that means as inevitable, and I think that's a pretty big problem.

[–] twig@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

This is called "enumerating badness" and the findings here are both probably not that meaningful and based on a lot of assumptions.

I am curious to see what data is being transmitted, but not a lot is actually revealed by this

[–] twig@lemmy.dbzer0.com 53 points 1 year ago (11 children)

I get what you're saying, kind of...

But also, most modern earbuds usually sound quite good. Quality in general has become such a bizarre moving target, but here's my take: We've become so used to constant improvement at the expense of satisfaction. I can barely notice the difference between 1080p and 4k. In my mind they're both "good quality" and therefore I'm satisfied. Same goes for audio quality. I've used a few pairs of earbuds and they have sounded "good."

As a culture, we need to stop with throwing away of perfectly good devices, because it's extremely harmful to the planet's occupants.

view more: ‹ prev next ›