Which was also rumored to be the work of Christians

I figure it was the same as the reason Elon bought Twitter, kinda. They got it as part of a larger purchase so that's different, but the goal seems to be the same - destroy what's good about it so that the people who were accomplishing things with it stopped. We used to have discussions here that moved conversations forwards... Occasionally anyway.

Tolerance of abuse is enablement, but enablement of abuse is all you want because you want to be enabled to abuse, so that checks out. You have that in common with all rapeublicans. That's why you all voted for the child rapist, you admire his rapes.

Not to mention that Trump is also a white supremacist, and there's lots and lots of evidence of that available.

Those are all good reasons why you would do the updates, and very bad reasons not to, so those are puzzling statements to make in this context even though they are accurate.

The example of minstrel shows was given upthread.

They perpetuated harmful racist stereotypes, which contributed to harm.

You want to bring those back or what?

I think Slashdot has pretty successfully picked apart this study, though I see no need to depend on anything to discredit this study but the weird avatar choices. They make the entire study invalid because of the confounding factors of the avatars' appearances.

Yeah, that question is not just bad, it's going to cause you legal problems if any applicant who was turned down finds out. Interview questions and processes are supposed to be designed to eliminate bias, but that question is literally designed to allow bias to influence the hiring decision, and will be a major exhibit in a discrimination case. Your employer's HR department is run by a spectacular fuckup.

Yeah, there's a reason for that.

No they fucking are not.

Yes, they approve of people who protect child rapists. See? Not irrelevant.

I'm not complaining about the company doing advertising, I'm complaining about Slashdot presenting it without irony.

The study said half did Joanna and half did Micheal, and were asked to rate and pay the bot. Since all participants did not do both, one question is how did you ensure they graded the results equally. In other words, if presented the same results from a gender neutral or unidentified bot, would everyone give the same payout or would it vary by participant. I looking at the results, the men paid teh robot and chatbot more and than he women, which to me indicates a difference in how value is perceived that may carry over into the gender role test; where oddly women paid both bots more than men, flipping the results. Interesting study, but I thnk there is more at play than just gender bias creeps into AI bots as well.

And then what, she withholds hex?

Firefox doesn't preview webp images in the file dialog on Linux either. So fucking annoying. What year is it?

I prefer the majority of canned or virtual male voices I hear on the phone to the majority of female ones today. I think this is because they care about what women think about them these days and don't care what men think, because we are less likely to complain to them about the voices. They used to choose soft female voices, now they are choosing harder ones. I am not looking for confrontation from phone operators, so this doesn't seem positive to me. I'm seeking service, not an argument.

It's complicated. Where does society end and the workplace begin?