PieDock

The top of this comment thread is a person claiming that men do all the hunting in every primitive society, not just hunting based on long distance running.

You came into the thread to criticise a paper that showed that women hunt in 50 different societies around the world. Even your estimate of 50% is plenty enough examples to debunk the “all the hunting” claim.

Women are perfectly capable of drawing a bow that is suitable to hunt monkeys, rabbits, squirrels, small birds, etc. Accuracy is more important than power.

If your strategy for hunting mammoths involves your physical strength, you’re gonna have a bad time.

You would need to be in luck. Let’s assume that they studied all 200 uncontacted tribes. To bring the overall rate to 50%, you would need 119 out of the 200 to be exclusively males hunting - 60% of those societies. The researchers studied 63 societies and found that 20% of them were exclusively males hunting.

But what’s the point anyway? The hypothesis is that males evolved to be bigger for hunting, even 50% of societies where women hunt is enough to make it implausible. In those societies, women are hunting in spite of their apparent size disadvantage.

I think you should ask yourself whether size is actually important for hunting. We don’t wrestle our prey. Size doesn’t matter if you’re bringing down monkeys from the trees with a bow and arrow, and size doesn’t matter if you’re trying to bring down a mammoth.

I suspect not. To get to 50%, they would need to study an additional 37 societies, and every single one would have to have only males doing the hunting.

You explicitly mentioned the Sentinelese. Exactly how would you go about this infrequent contact and observation with them?

In any case, let’s assume that hunting is exclusively performed by males in all of those peoples. How much would that change the statistic and the overall conclusion? 79% would be 72%

You think they should have surveyed the uncontacted people?

AI developers: your copyrighted work is such a small contributor to the AI’s output that copyright doesn’t apply. Also AI developers: but our AI won’t work without it.

PieDock

Formula 1 switched to semi-automatic in the 1980s. The technology has only improved over the last 40 years. If fast is what you want, driving a manual is insanity.

If you make a painting now, it wouldn’t be based on those thousands and thousands of paintings since, although you have seen them, you apparently do not remember them. But, if you did, and you made a painting based on one, and did not acknowledge it, you would indeed be a bad artist.

The bad part about using the art of the past is not copying. The problem is plagiarism.

Inspiration is absolutely a thing. When Constable and Cezanne sat at their easels, a large part of their inspiration was Nature. When Picasso invented Cubism, he was reacting to tradition, not following it. There are also artists like Alfred Wallis, who are very unconnected to tradition.

I think your final sentence is actually trying to say that we have advances in tools, not inspiration, since the Lascaux caves are easily on a par with the Sistine Chapel if you allow for the technology? And that AI is simply a new tool? That may be, but does the artist using this new tool control which images it was trained on? Do they even know? Can they even know?

Maybe the AIs should mix their own pigments as well, instead of taking all the other artists’ work and grinding that up.

Unfortunately, there is no guarantee that the leaking process will be the next process to try to allocate memory after you run out. It might actually be your window manager, for example.

The OOM killer is a last-ditch attempt by the OS to keep running, but it is very likely to leave your system in an unstable state.