sthetic

in all nine species of female snakes they examined

I'm sure they actually did the study in an organized way, but I imagined them checking the snake species one by one. "Okay guys, that's eight out of eight so far. If the next snake also has a clit, we're calling it - all snakes have clits."

I choose guilty sex.

It makes it a little raunchy, without explaining why.

If he had said, "I don't believe you. I think you're denying it publicly, but in secret you have probably already directed your engineers to lay out the groundwork," that would be fine.

He would be accusing her of lying, rather than assuming she was an ignorant female nobody whose knowledge could not compare with his insight of, "but other companies did it."

It's a shame, because classic Ghibli movies are not shallow or inhumane at all. They were not based on trends. Miyazaki could not have made such beautiful films if he had not had real life experiences.

“The dragon is supposed to fall from down the air vent, but, being a dragon, it doesn’t land on the ground,” Miyazaki says. “It attaches itself to the wall, like a gecko. And then—ow!—it falls—thud!—it should fall like a serpent. Have you ever seen a snake fall out of a tree?” He explains that it “doesn’t slither, but holds its position.” He looks around at the animators, most of whom appear to be in their twenties and early thirties. They are taking notes, looking grave: nobody has seen a snake fall out of a tree.

Miyazaki goes on to describe how the dragon—a protean creature named Haku, who sometimes takes this form—struggles when he is pinned down. “This will be tricky,” Miyazaki says, smiling. “If you want to get an idea, go to an eel restaurant and see how an eel is gutted.” The director wriggles around in his seat, imitating the action of a recalcitrant eel. “Have you ever seen an eel resisting?” Miyazaki asks.

“No, actually,” admits a young man with hipster glasses, an orange sweatshirt, and an indoor pallor.

Miyazaki groans. “Japanese culture is doomed!” he says.

Even if we accept that the AI-using guy is correct - that he takes two minutes to formulate the perfect query, and gets a successful response based on that - he had to read books in order to know how to do that.

The people currently using AI were alive before it existed. They gained an education in a more traditional way, which perhaps allows them to take shortcuts using AI.

In the future, if nobody reads books, they will be even less able to prompt AI or to evaluate its responses.

I know you're getting downvoted a lot, but I don't think you're a Trump supporter or arguing in bad faith. I know what you mean.

People on the left, like myself, were always going to call the parade a failure. It was always going to be a sad, pointless attempt at spectacle. By its very nature, it was a failure. In no world were we going to say, "yeah I hate the guy, but damn if he doesn't know how to throw a bitchin' parade."

On the flipside, Trump and Maga folks were always going to call it a success. Or maybe there are reports of angry red hat people who expected a better show and were disappointed. Unlikely, though.

On what terms do you define its success or failure? Yes, attendance is one. If they expected ten times as many people, then, as you say, it's a failure. You aren't wrong for asking for a source.

I think your original comment was less along the lines of, "how do we know it wasn't an amazing success, though?" and more like, "wasn't the parade exactly as expected?"

Good points, and I think we generally agree. I definitely didn't mean to exclude anyone in those real or hypothetical situations you mentioned. To me, those examples are more about showing how gender is, or can be, biologically fluid. There are many "odd" situations that aren't binary. So amongst the many unusual ways that sex can occur biologically, "male brain in a female body" or "I reject the concept of gender entirely" are valid and believable.

I agree with your last point as well, but in the context of this post, would you tell Rachel Dolezal that she says she's Black, so she's Black? I guess I was trying to find some sort of difference between gender and race identity, the way the question was posed.

I'm definitely not claiming to have an unassailable argument, so thanks for responding with good points.

I'm no expert on either topic. But I believe humans basically start off as female in the womb, and either become male or don't. And there are many intersex conditions. The body responds to hormones typically associated with either sex. So gender is fluid in a biological sense. If someone transitions to male, female or nonbinary, they already kind of contained that potential.

However, race is a social construct, usually based on heritage as well as biological appearance. So it's hard to say how much biology is really involved. Does the human body contain the ability to be any race? Or to cultivate an appearance that prompts other humans to socially categorize you as one race or the other?

Maybe for people who are mixed race, there is a sort of spectrum available to them. They likely know how to present themselves in a way that gets them categorized as one race or the other.

But otherwise, not really. If you're White, and you say, "I identify as Black," the question might be: do you have Black heritage? If you don't, you can't really create it out of thin air. There wasn't a situation while you were in the womb where various hormones could have influenced you to appear more Black than you do. If your parents are both White, they were going to have a White baby, no matter what. Race is a social construct, but it's based on appearance and heritage. It's about belonging to a group, not about being an individual, the way gender is.

If you're assigned female at birth, and you say, "I identify as male," then cool! Your body already has the capability to become hormonally male. You can socially identify as male. Any human, of any race, has this potential. Any two parents could have a baby that is any sex or gender, depending on various factors.

It's not the same exact plane, but another article mentions a Boeing employee who did have nightmares about specific planes being sold to Air India. This plane was produced shortly after the time when she was keeping track of those ones:

Cynthia Kitchens, a former quality manager who worked at the Charleston plant between 2009 and 2016, has a binder full of notes, documents and photos from her frustrating years at Boeing, one page of which lists the numbers of the eleven planes delivered between early 2012 and late 2013 whose quality defects most kept her awake at night. Six of them went to Air India, whose purchases were bolstered by billions of dollars in Export-Import Bank loan guarantees. The plane that crashed was delivered in January 2014 from Boeing’s now-defunct assembly line in Everett, Washington, though its mid- and aft- fuselages were produced in Charleston.

Aww, thank you!!

Thank you. I appreciate that you took the effort to give specific compliments and critique.

I agree about the meat stick throne. I wish I had taken a little more time with the watercolour application, maybe so that the red of the meat sticks would be the focus of the last panel, and not be competing with blues and pinks.

I also hesitated to show the trucker on a meat throne, because I wanted him to be less of a king and more of an equal participant in the revelry, but I couldn't think of another pose for him. Plus... meat stick throne!!

Just for fun, I'm attempting to attach another photo I took of the comic, in sunlight, with brighter colours.

[(https://lemmy.ca/pictrs/image/2e0a9beb-6753-4e43-adc8-c44f74c1480a.jpeg)

He realizes that the non-sasquatch elf characters are also travelers who veered off the path, and slowly transformed into elves.

New people arrive over the years in various ways.

Whoa. I never thought of that, but it could very well be his dream.