That makes it even worse

Can confirm :'(

Yeah, that was weird to watch. Not sure if the speaker realizes how bad this new tech still looks.

And in the end he said that it is very important to use these AI models “with the full permission of the talent” and that they “had full access and the rights to the training data”. He obviously just considers Harrison Ford in this moment, but does he realize what that would mean regarding the AI models and their training data they use? And was the presented short film also created with full permission of all artists contributing to the training data? Was this just a blatant lie to make it sound like they work responsibly with AI?

Was curious, so I looked it up: https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/o7-slang

Yup!!

I think baby-like facial features are just a part of the domestication syndrome. There has been this long-going domestication experiment with silver foxes that could show that when only selected for tameness the foxes still expressed most of the traits found in other domesticated animals, too.

Belyaev was correct that selection on tameness alone leads to the emergence of traits in the domestication syndrome. In less than a decade, some of the domesticated foxes had floppy ears and curly tails (Fig. 2).

Over the course of the experiment, researchers also found the domesticated foxes displayed mottled “mutt-like” fur patterns, and they had more juvenilized facial features (shorter, rounder, more dog-like snouts) and body shapes (chunkier, rather than gracile limbs) (Fig. 3).

Aw sorry, didn’t get the irony in your original statement…

The older, nicer version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYbWjJsLymE

The newer, more extreme version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COOxP3_HFcM

It’s shows a wasp and not a bee…

Well, if you look at any animal species, assume variations to occur. There are so many different sexes, genders and sexualities out in the animal kingdom, but our society’s cisheterosexual bias has conditioned us to believe that all animals are straight and cis…

As a reading suggestion you may look into Evolution’s Rainbow by Joan Roughgarden

Sorry, what? I don’t understand what you mean :/

Oh nice, I’ve thought about contributing to osm for a long time but this makes it so much easier to do that!!

I’ve looked into what I can do in my close vicinity and there are many roads that still miss their width. However, the app suggests to install an app (streetmeasure) to measure the width. This app is however based on Google AR services (that don’t work on my degoogled phone. How do you guys deal with that? Do you just ignore those tasks or do you guesstimate the road width by eye?

Oh, and another thing: If you like something to do on your walks, may I suggest also looking into iNaturalist (and the companion app Seek), too. While you are walking around you can find so much stuff out there that you’ve previously overlooked. When I go through any street now I spot bugs and plants everywhere!

I unfortunately don’t know where to search :'( Do you have a hint for me?

Cycads have palm-like leaves though, so veeery different! I’d say baobabs are not too different in their growth habit from other Bombacoideae (Malvaceae). Compare with e.g. Ceiba, Pseudobombax, Cavanillesia. And the leaves look just like most Malvaceae plants as well ;)

Fun fact: Pseudobombax trees can actually do photosynthesis with their trunk, which is green (or at least has green streaks).

1000%!! Over the years I’ve lent it to various people and they all loved it very much. It has been the most influential book for me regarding how I view society, capitalism and anarchism.

Yeah, the right is how science unfortunately works. My professor told me that science progresses one death at a time. We argued in various papers that the terminology in our field was really messy and didn’t hold up to actual findings, but the old generation of scientists didn’t want to allow any changes. In most research fields there are a few scientists that hold a position of power and that don’t like sharing that power.

Reading Ursula Le Guin’s The Dispossessed and her idea of an anarchist world caught me off guard when she starts exploring exactly this problem in science…

Wikipedia says the following:

The use of the common names frog and toad has no taxonomic justification. From a classification perspective, all members of the order Anura are frogs, but only members of the family Bufonidae are considered “true toads”. The use of the term frog in common names usually refers to species that are aquatic or semi-aquatic and have smooth, moist skins; the term toad generally refers to species that are terrestrial with dry, warty skins. There are numerous exceptions to this rule. The European fire-bellied toad (Bombina bombina) has a slightly warty skin and prefers a watery habitat whereas the Panamanian golden frog (Atelopus zeteki) is in the toad family Bufonidae and has a smooth skin.

Reading the introduction of the study (first link), they completely fail to explain why they call this language. Like, first they explain that fungi also have action potentials and that this seems to work like neurons and then they immediately jump to talk about how this could be a language. Am I missing something here? This seems like a legit paper, but why don’t they even attempt to explain or discuss this?

How do you define “wasp” though? All Hymenoptera? All Apocrita? All Apocrita minus Apoidea and/or Formicidae? All Vespoidea (minus Formicidae?)? Only Vespidae?

What about all the parasitic wasps? All fig trees would die and with them whole food webs. And if all the parasitic wasps that hold other organisms in check would die, this would also lead to a total disruption of so many biomes…