Written with ChatGPT no doubt

Yeah, and although greedy, maybe not enough to ruffle feathers over.

No payment for sub-1000 streams/year

Heat is electromagnetic radiation - photons, sound is mechanical displacement - phonons.

They mostly propagate the same due to being waves, in most other respects they are very different.

Heat convection is an entirely separate process where heat radiation is aided by the movement of the surrounding medium. Where it would otherwise heat up it’s environment, convection keeps the environment from heating up. Compare coffee in a thermos (very little convection) to a cup you’re blowing on (significant convection); more air movement - more cooling.

Also, destructive interference does not at all work like that.

Maybe a more useful analogy could be that waves have like walking animations, where in part of the animation they go up, and in another part they go down. Destructive interference happens when a wave in its’ “up” phase crosses a wave in it’s “down”, meaning the resulting movement looks like nothing. The waves don’t however interact in any way, and will continue on their way and on their own animation cycles.

The shifting and heating parts are technically true but require very specific circumstances, enough so that I’m more prone to believe it’s another misunderstanding of the physics behind this. But I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt.

Yeah, I’m sure you’re right

Unfortunately I don’t agree.

Good reasons to omit details include brevity, legibility, pedagogy and scope.

Showing the supporting evidence for all steps in an evidence chain is simply not feasible, and we commonly have to accept that a certain presupposed level of knowledge as well as ambiguity is necessary. And much of the challenge is to be precise enough in the things that need precision.

You’re right to be sceptical until more data is presented, but saying no claim of progress is ever true is quite obviously a gross misrepresentation of our current reality. You are doing this on digital devices interconnected with millions of users ar staggering speed and latency. Every part of which are scientific claims.

There’s a relevant physics anomaly called a Helmholtz resonator, or more broadly waveform interference.

I understand that this information is against your internal narrative, but a quick look at data for 2021 shows:

One in two women and one in five men felt unsafe walking alone after dark in a busy public place.

And data from 2022 shows 45% for the same measure.

As for harassment:

2022 - 55% of women 16-34 felt harassed

2021 - Three out of five, 60% felt harassed during the year.

Twice as many women reported being harassed as men, and several reported changing their behaviour because of harassment.

This is also echoed in international studies over multiple cultures. Women are much more often harassed than men, almost exclusively by men, and have more limited freedoms, expressions and rights than men.

This is not controversial, it is well established in study after study, there is an actual right answer to this, and it’s not the one you’re proposing.

How is it that you keep ignoring data when faced with it, and instead of presenting supportive data resort to arguing feelings and whataboutisms?

Edit: Link to 2022 raw data

From the study summary:

Three out of five women aged 16 to 34 years experienced at least one form of harassment in the previous 12 months

Three out of five is 60%.

Did… did you miss the #metoo movement?

Where like 60% of women get harassed regularly, and 50 % felt unsafe walking home in public, due to men. Or 79% of women felt unsafe while exercising, due to men. And 88% of travelling women felt unsafe, due to men.

Bears are hungry, scared, have cubs to protect, or mostly want to be left alone. They won’t stalk you, leer at you, catcall or grope you.

You sir, are the one lacking self reflection.

What I find interesting is that for me personally, writing the fantasy down (rather than referring to it) is against the norm, a.k.a. weird, but not wrong.

Painting a painting of it is weird and iffy, hanging it in your home is not ok.

It’s strange how it changes along that progression, but I can’t rightly say why.

deleted by creator

To be fair, you started moving the goalposts by invoking special privilege/motivation for misaddressing people.

But to answer why I would be rude to christians for misnaming me, is because in my culture it is rude to misname people, and even more so when they’ve offered a good natured correction.

If you say you’re William, and I call you Shirley, would you defend my right to call you Shirley?

And why would it be different if The Almighty Bob said to surely call you Shirley?

Not OP, but couldn’t “what about other, bigger problems?” be construed as whataboutism?

Although personally I’d put it closer to ridicule, which I also believe is John Greene’s intent (judging from how he talks about the issue in other social media).

But the issue is not with the AI tool, it’s with the human wielding it for their own purposes which we find questionable.

Consent.

You might be fine with having erotic materials made of your likeness, and maybe even of your partners, parents, and children. But shouldn’t they have right not to be objectified as wank material?

I partly agree with you though, it’s interesting that making an image is so much more troubling than having a fantasy of them. My thinking is that it is external, real, and thus more permanent even if it wouldn’t be saved, lost, hacked, sold, used for defamation and/or just shared.

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator