erin

Photography has far more depth, complexity, and creativity as an artform and comparing it to AI both misunderstands the process and does it a huge disservice. Even before lining up the shot, the photographer must choose the right focus length, exposure, and a number of other technical settings, then must choose a subject, perhaps modify the composition, and have the right timing.

Photography can be as simple as pointing a phone camera for a well timed moment or snapping a once in a lifetime shot with an expensive lens. AI art takes orders of magnitude less creativity or training to do well, because it's stealing the work of people that have already learned the composition techniques and have done the legwork, which is just being shoddily regurgitated by the plagiarism machine.

There is a difference between studying techniques, ideology, history, and mediums to be able to use a style created by another artist in your own creative works, and putting all the creative end products into the ideas blender and churning out a product with no creativity and no intentionality to the application of the process. What's the end game? At what point does human creativity become redundant and AI starts eating its own slop? Do human artists need to keep creating depictions of meaning or value or whatever else they find important to endlessly feed into the machine so it can duplicate them, missing any of the metaphor, subtext, and soul present in the original? At what point is it obvious that workers are having their labor stolen by the tech bro Soylent Green idea machine to enrich them at the expense of whoever's life work they seemed to be slop worthy of regurgitation.

AI can be an excellent shortcut or a great tool, and help us make our work easier and products better, but it is not a creator of original creative works, and cannot be validated at the same level as human artists. I, for one, would like to see a future where artists don't just exist to feed into their machine betters.

I own two cats, and they both have bells. They haven't killed any wildlife since then. Cats are not native animals in Europe, they are very much invasive and devastated local populations of birds and small mammals.

Trolling, intentionally obtuse, or just dumb? Because as we all know, cats never kill anything but pests. Native animals would never become endangered because of domesticated cats. At least put a bell on them or something so they don't kill the wildlife.

You're so very wrong about that. The chemicals used right now for lethal injection fail often, cause undue pain and distress, and often will paralyze you instead of killing you quickly while you slowly suffocate, unable to call for help. Nitrogen has no downsides. This isn't a "techbro" solution. It's a humane one. A guillotine was kinder to the one dying than the current method.

The current method prioritizes minimizing violence and maximizing comfort for spectators over being humane to the one dying. The only reason there is a paralytic in the chemical slurry is because the sleep and lethal chemicals sometimes fail spectacularly and the patient spasms painfully as they die. Their solution wasn't to change the method to be more humane, it was to paralyze them so they don't spasm. They're still in pain. They're still dying slowly. They're still scared. But we don't have to see it, so it's okay.

Nitrogen euthanasia is safe and humane, killing entirely painlessly. For some reason the fact that it's a gas, even an inert one, makes people crazy.

The laws are clearly outdated. Drugs for lethal injection frequently fail and cause much more pain and distress. Nitrogen has *no downsides." It's like the fact that it's a gas makes people crazy.

Regardless, she's acclaimed and talented. Her performance was excellent. Her previous performances have been excellent. If all the hypothetical naysayers have to go on is career length, it seems like a very weak motive for selective hatred.

I feel like characterizing Halle Bailey as "just some chick" is disingenuous at best.

We have more than enough resources for more than the world's population. The problem isn't overpopulation, it's manufactured scarcity. Telling people to just have less kids is victim blaming when capitalism requires letting some people starve to maintain the artificial value of products.

On the contrary, since growing my nails out my nails have been way more clean. There is an awkward period between no nails and long nails where stuff gets caught underneath, but once you grow them out (only two weeks or so), they're perfectly clean because there's just more space underneath and nowhere for gunk to get caught as the angle is wider.

(Classic guitar players have long nails)

I feel no need to be protected in my day to day life. My partner provides love, companionship, empathy, and a listening ear. Sure, some women might care about protection and toughness or whatever you're on about, but attraction varies from person to person. Most other women I know want to be heard and loved. People are allowed to want to fuck "fragile" men. They can be hot without needing to be "manly." You're putting so much stock in traditional gender norms, not realizing that it's not women that actually care about those. It's the men that are trying to be that. Some women will, of course, but women aren't a monolith. Want an example? Timothy Chalamet is very commonly considered to be an extremely attractive actor, and he's far more androgynous and "fragile," as you put it, than your traditional masculine ideal. Just as many women might be attracted to any number of different appearances, because people are different! The days of needing a strong man to support us frail women are over. Your insecurities and ideas of masculinity are clouding your judgment.

To answer your question succinctly: No, they aren't fragile looking, they're just slim. No, they don't look "dehumanized," they look like people. The dehumanization happens in industry, not with their faces. I know people that look similar. Some women find them hot, and want to fuck them, and idolize them, because they are hot! They're very attractive people, if that aesthetic is what you're into! If your only metric is how likely they are to win a fight, sure, they probably aren't at the top of the scale, but the vast majority of people DON'T CARE.

They told you to look into therapy because you have an unhealthy idea of what women are attracted to and what masculinity should be. They called you insecure because you sound insecure (why do women like the weak little boys and not big manly men :(( they look so frail and weak, don't women know they can't protect them??). Whether or not that's how you're actually thinking, it's how it comes across. Instead of realizing that some people do like strong men, you took it to a place of jealousy and defensiveness.

TLDR: Different strokes for different folks. Don't obsess over people you don't find attractive still being attractive to others, as it isn't good for your mental health and isn't a good look.