notjoemama

> I see female sexrobots as a symptom, a manifestation of the male gaze.

Men's insecurity, of course it is. That old chestnut. I'm exhausted by having to capitulate to female centric sensibilities around physical intimacy. This has been going on for decades. Your comment is endemic of the dismissive and othering nature around men's needs and experiences. Men and women are different. Unrealistic expectations from and for both is the foundational problem here.

The only good way forward is understanding, forgiveness, gratitude, and some romanticism and adoration, from and for both sexes. A nice big sun spot that wipes out social media would help too.

I’ve been around since the 70’s and it’s improved dramatically. Big difference. That isn’t recognized nor celebrated like it probably should be. But like the CGP Grey video showed, hate seems to spread farther faster on the internet. I think it was called “You won’t like this video”.

Why is this posted on hacker news? Seems ill fitting...

That aside, it sounds like the FBI set him up maybe? If that's the case, can we NOT play political sports-ball and do this to every other politician regardless of party?

I mean, I receive fake emails and texts testing whether I give up privileged information from the company I work for as ongoing security awareness training. Soooo...maybe we need to do something similar with government employees?

I haven't read the book but it sounds really interesting. Regarding tone though,

> monogamy is to blame for a lot of our western views today

Does the author use the word "blame" to mean "the reason for" or do they present it as a critique of monogamy? Not a big deal, just made me curious when I saw that.

I liked this YouTube comment: "Never before have I seen a CEO get away with straight up lying to investors so often." So...like, you're kinda young then, right? Basically you're unaware of private equity, the 2008 housing crisis and occupy Wall Street. I agree what he's doing is wrong, really wrong. I'm just sick of the obvious partisan schadenfreude hyperbole. Was an article about Chorus on hacker news? I'll search, maybe I missed it by one day. Such is social media.

That's a bingo! Christoph Waltz is just a great actor.

I'm building an app in my stack with fairly common requirements. There are a few code examples that cover requirements but none that cover our specific scenario. After searching the web myself, I asked 3 different AI models. All they did was regurgitate the closest public GitHub example, lacking the use case I was trying to do. Solving this problem can only be done by understanding the abstraction of the alteration in design.

These things can't actually think. And now they're allowed to be agentic.

In some ways they're just glorified search engines but there's a geopolitical sprint to see who can get them to mock "thinking" enough to fool everybody.

Out of ego and greed, everything will be turned over to this machine, and that will be the end of humanity; not humans...humanity.

> live coding does not select for generalists

I have a rage memory now of a "live coding" event that makes me want to leave this profession and never come back.

Here's my suggestion for the technical interview:

1. Applicant signs NDA and agrees to not use AI 2. A small bug or feature request is chosen from the backlog 3. The staff engineer pair programs with the applicant until it is fixed/implemented

This does a few things:

a) The interview is suddenly "productive" for the employer rather than a cost sink b) No one will apply that doesn't actually know the stack/framework/language c) The interviewer gets a real world example of what its like to work with the applicant d) Leet coding and puzzle solving is eliminated in favor of real world coding e) A secondary skill set that doesn't actually contribute to the work is eliminated (go pound sand autists)

I'm saying you're wrong because you cannot substantiate your point. Quantify it and I will admit I'm wrong.

Incorrect. Politicians defer to experts and that fails when it is shown the governing bodies (as I did above) are not performing the necessary functions to ensure safety and efficacy. Politics follows society, not preempts it.

Conversationally it's probably more about morality. However, for those like myself that have looked into the matter, it becomes a much needed discussion about standards of care. The AMA holds regular meetings to determine standards of care. Fortunately for us, they post these to YouTube. I looked and found the most recent meeting where they adopted standards of care for youth and gender dysphoria. It was a brief section about 1/3 to 1/2 way through the meeting. I'll recant and summarize what I observed from the dozen+ people in this meeting:

Lead speaker: Ok, next is medical transition for youth and adults. I'll admit I just don't know much on this topic so I'm reaching out for someone else to take the lead and discuss it.

pause...

Second speaker: Well, I also don't know that much as it's not my field, but I've looked over the proposal and what I can't find are long term studies on the effects. I think because of that we simply don't know...

Third speaker: Hi this is <?> and while this is also not my field I'm an ally and I can tell you what's been presented to us (the AMA governing body) from the APA is what they ave determined as effaceable procedure.

pause...

Lead speaker: So...I suppose we can take a vote to accept the guidelines sent to us from the APA.

pause...

Then they voted to accept it with no more discussion. I'm shortended the exchange, but it is not much more than what I am presenting to you.

Stop and think about that. We use the terms "standards of care" and understand that to mean there is some authoritative, intelligent, well founded judgement from what you and I assume are experts over these topics. That's not what happened by this review board in the AMA. There was no medical discussion, no weighing of prescriptive protocols, no measure of caution, or even of any medical literature regarding the topic. The American Medical Association simply accepted whatever the American Psychological Association told them was the correct medical protocols. What an abject failure.

I also recently watched a clip, a complaint about how women should not be a special case in medicine. This had to do with menopause and the complaint was that women are (to use a colloquial term) gate-kept from hormonal treatments (in this video, testosterone specifically) where as men not only have an established diagnosis of hypogonadism but that through only a 6 month trial, testosterone was approved by the FDA for treatment, but only for men. The complaint was somewhat of a feminist one, an argument for equity. If men could so easily get testosterone for treatment then why can't women, in terms of ""equity". What surprised me was the approval was only based on a 6 month trial. What of the long term exposure? What are the risks? Why approve something with so little data and medical basis? While I empathize with the video's speaker, I saw what I think is a much more problematic issue. When it comes to medicine, there appears to be less scientific truth underlying these decisions.

So, back to your point:

> what other people do with their genitals

While you may perceive some personal or moral assertion, and I acknowledge that is often true, I submit it is also true that others genitals deserve a lot more medical scrutiny than "we don't know, but someone else said this was better". Because, other people's genitals could potentially be my children's genitals and as a parent, or a grandparent, or other family member, who cares more deeply, I expect there is a factual and provably medically necessary response. If that cannot be proven, then there is no rational basis to move forward with medical treatment. The only treatment that makes sense is psychological, given the other supporting data on this topic.