this post was submitted on 04 Sep 2023
280 points (100.0% liked)

196

17222 readers
23 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.


Rule: You must post before you leave.



Other rules

Behavior rules:

Posting rules:

NSFW: NSFW content is permitted but it must be tagged and have content warnings. Anything that doesn't adhere to this will be removed. Content warnings should be added like: [penis], [explicit description of sex]. Non-sexualized breasts of any gender are not considered inappropriate and therefore do not need to be blurred/tagged.

If you have any questions, feel free to contact us on our matrix channel or email.

Other 196's:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] flamingmongoose@lemmy.blahaj.zone 30 points 2 years ago (7 children)

What do you have to look like to achieve more than a 7? A biblically accurate angel?

[–] toiletwhole@feddit.de 23 points 2 years ago

Totally would hit that.

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 13 points 2 years ago

Yes. Specifically this one

[–] key@lemmy.keychat.org 10 points 2 years ago

Too many eyes but not fat or disfigured. 4/10.

The whole thing is designed to allow them to call people (especially women) "mid". They arbitrarily chose to use a gaussian distribution pattern so they had an excuse not to give anyone a score beyond 6s.

But real answer is be a hugely successful fashion model who the sub creator found attractive. Then their "objective rating standards" would include arbitrary criteria to bundle your face in. The whole sub could be replaced with a trivial ML model if it were actually about just giving their "objective" ratings. The internal weights used by the ML model would make about as much sense as the crap spouted in the screenshot.

[–] 1993_toyota_camry@beehaw.org 8 points 2 years ago (2 children)
[–] Kbin_space_program@kbin.social 14 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

I'd note that almost all of the headshots there have a lot of makeup, and the named ones are almost certainly professional makeup.

You don't even see light makeup until the 7s and 6.5 range. Damn neckbeard(s?) don't even know what a woman actually looks like, and apparently expect women to pay for a professional cosmetologist to do them up before they leave the house.

Edit: it might be an amusing experiment to post those given a "9.5", but from a shot where they have their normal day to day "face" on and see what rank they get. Or at least how long until its deleted.

[–] smollittlefrog@lemdro.id 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

To be fair, 8.5 is marked as 1 in 3000, meaning that 2999/3000 women look worse. Even 6.0 is marked as "Top 15%".

So definitely not something they "expect" most women to look like.

[–] smollittlefrog@lemdro.id 8 points 2 years ago

I wonder how many people would actually sort them similar to how they're sorted in the first picture.

Because to me the distribution of attractive people between 5.0 and 10 seems to be completely random.

[–] bouh@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Aren't biblically accurate angels androgynous?

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

They're fucked up is what they are. See above and also this

[–] EmperorHenry@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

isn't there an angel in the bible that's supposed to look like that?

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Yeah, that's what I'm saying. Do keep up, Jenkins 😛

[–] EmperorHenry@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

sorry. I had a long day today.

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

No worries lol, sorry if my snark was needlessly harsh 😁

[–] Shiggles@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 years ago (1 children)

There is the tiniest, infinitesimal amount of value in the statement that, likely because of the way we’re all graded in school, we don’t really use the full range of a 1-10 scale for attractiveness, and are sorta only really saying ugly, mediocre, attractive, or model.

There is zero value in saying that that’s an issue and the solution is a psychopathic and dehumanizing system.

[–] xxxSexMan69xxx@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 2 years ago (1 children)

When it comes to looks, the only meaningful scale consist of a 0 (not attractive) and 1 (attractive). E.g., if a woman I am talking to doesn't find me attractive, there is zero practical difference between me looking like Chris Hemsworth or an ogre.

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Duckduckgo doesn't seem to know what an ogre is..

[–] EmperorHenry@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)
[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Apparently not. First Brave Search image for "Chris Hemsworth ogre":

[–] EmperorHenry@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

that's just disney paying for results that make their actors look good I guess.

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

Yeah, probably

[–] LordAmplifier@pawb.social 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Biblically accurate angels are looking mighty fine though 👀

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

We must have very different criteria..