182·
9 days agoChatGPT for tailoring resumes and writing coverletters, for one
- 0 Posts
- 143 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
Cake day: October 11th, 2023
You are not logged in. If you use a Fediverse account that is able to follow users, you can follow this user.
That it’s a totally fair choice makes it all the better. Vegas-style buffets are a production that really caught on globally (thanks to that marketing) and really are a distinct style. But like, theres fuckall other options for them, nevada is a fucking cultural wasteland (if you ignore those tens of thousands of years of indigenous culture, but who cares about THAT…)
So you say you’re autistic… <3You’re right that its the framing here that reads as very rude - if someone is expressing their desire to do something, coming in and presenting something else as a clearly morally superior choice and denigrating the thing they wanted to do is considered quite rude; both because it assumes they’re somehow ignorant of the alternative choices and thus couldn’t have made an informed decision, and because it comes across like you’re asserting your own preferences as “more valid” than theirs.
Much as with all other forms of encoding (limerick, haiku, .mp4, web packets, semaphore, all written languages, etc) the format in which a lemmy comment is left is as critical to the communication of it’s idea as the actual content of the words themselves.
Needlessly judgemental, wow.
2·16 days agoGuys I swear, this time It’ll happen. Forreal. I can feel it.
(Good on the EU for recognizing open source solutions as finally being truly viable options)
This is a public forum. You started this discussion, again, on a public forum. While I’m not particularly interested in winning (I can sate that desire by playing helldivers (lies I suck at that game)), I am interested in educating and reasoned discussion. I know you’re not, but you keep coming back despite that, and I’m curious why? What do you gain from this? If you didn’t want responses, why did you put your ideas out there? Was it just an excuse to vent, and if so, why did you come out to pick fights in the comments afterwards? Just… walk away, if that’s what you want.
Trying to get to the root of a commonly expressed anti-intellectual bias, a fundamental misunderstanding of what constitutes “science” and (exhaustively) explaining that what mythbusters has done with human remains is absolutely inline with the normal treatment for human remains in science is fair justification to argue a semantic point. Fundamentally though, mythbusters is science. Even by the definition you provide for hard science, it 100% fits with the process mythbusters used. Formulation of hypothesis, bias-controlled experimentation, reporting of process and results. That’s all science is (and even including ‘bias control’ is possibly too restrictive to meet the common definition).
If you use the definition from the non-simple wikipedia article,
the presumably accidental misuse of a highly colloquial term is quite evident. That obfuscation of meaning is one of the primary criticisms of Simple Wikipedia, in fact. This is again a commonly repeated piece of anti-intellectual rhetoric, wherein one assumes that science can only be done by those with accreditation, grant funding and a sterile white lab (obviously this is a slightly hyperbolic exaggeration of the specifics for comedic effect). Mythbusters is undeniably science, just as much as it is undeniably entertainment. The two are not mutually exclusive, and flashy editing does not impact the rigour (or lack thereof) of their methods nor the validity of their conclusions.
Hard science / soft science typically refers to the distinction between disciplines like mathematics or physics vs. less quantifiable fields like sociology - it has nothing to do with the entertainment value, presentation or perceived testing rigor. nor my own personal feelings towards you or your beliefs. The difference in our opinion seems to come down to my opinion (that science education is both socially valuable and is science) vs. your opinion (that the presentation of results reflects their value and that the treatment of human remains with deference should be a primary concern of any scientific investigation involving them)? Is that broadly correct?
You can’t see the applicability in investigating the creation of surface indications of handheld objects on skin being subjected to various degrees of force, or demonstrating a method of investigating that question to the general television viewing public? Not even being slightly sarcastic or insincere here, I’m very curious what qualities qualify something as being ‘science’ to you. Not being in a lab excludes archaeology, and not publishing your findings to Nature excludes
methe unfathomably vast majority of scientists from counting as ‘scientists’.
I think I said most of that already, I’m sorry I’m not quite sure what your point is. The risk of getting a prion disease is already extremely low, and even within that the majority of CJD infections are spontaneous. That’s sure the consensus in the literature, fwiw. An above average transmission rate would therefore be spectacularly unspectacular, given how few new cases would be needed to achieve that.
That sure is the conventional wisdom, isn’t it?
In truth there’s only ever been one example of Prion disease transmission through cannibalism in humans - Kuru - a disease present in one incredibly tiny population (the Fore) in Paupa New Guinea, once. Incidentally, it was essentially only transmissible if you consumed the brain (or spine) of an infected person, which was the part reserved for young children / pregnant women. Stopping the practice of eating the brain would have effectively eliminated the disease, and conveniently the australian colonial government and local christian missionaries had recently outlawed funerary cannibalism. I’m sure that, by their reputation for extreme tolerance and cultural sensitivity, they would never exaggerate the dangers of cannibalism to back up their claims.
Anyways, no new cases of Kuru have occurred since the Fore stopped practicing funerary cannibalism (voluntarily, once someone stopped just beating them and took the time to explain what was happening) and the disease has essentially been eradicated. So, though it’s probably best not to eat another member of your species without checking to make sure they don’t have parasites (and hypothetically Creutzfeldt–Jakob’s disease. Although there’s never been a case of it being transmitted via cannibalism, that’s simply because it’s vanishingly extreme rarity means it’s likely never had a chance to happen), there’s no particular harm that’s going to happen because of it.
Nnnno, you can hold that position independent of your feelings towards death. I am curious why you think it’s unnecessary to do that, though. It’s (relatively) common to use human remains for destructive testing in all manner of experiments. Is the problem that they’re filming it instead of publishing the skull fracture patterns of knapped stone clubs in the journal of archeology? This really isn’t any worse than, say, seeing how long it takes for human remains to fully liquefy when sealed in plastic and subjected to various conditions (more importantly, the rate at which organs decay while submerged in that soup). Is it worse than melting regions of a body with acid to test a theoretical new skin-grafting technique? Flaying their skin and muscles from the bone then macerating it to a homogeneous mixture to test for microplastic distribution rates in the 35-40 Indonesian Female demographic? Anything that happens to remains on a body farm? Those are all real examples. Thinking what they did is somehow worse than what bodies normally go through, that’s the romantic view of death I was referring to.
I think you have an incredibly romantic view of human death, and I don’t particularly want to disabuse you of that. So in that spirit, I will spare you the full gory details of what happens to donated human remains / medical cadavers.
Full Disclosure: In my personal collection I own a number of human bones (most but decidedly not all) given to me by the friend who’s bones they were. I use the fingers as a fidget toy sometimes. Also, the persecution of cannibalism is one of the great crimes of the western world. I include these to
amusecharacterize myself and, hopefully by extension, my explanations below.To answer your questions:
If they don’t even know how old they are
The reason stores like The Bone Room do not have personal or demographic information on the remains they sell is because medical cadavers are anonymized. The Bone Room respects that, even in cases where they have purchased bones with a known provenance, and the topic is extremely complex. In short however, this means that the morality of the remains being sold is almost entirely dependent on the reputability of the person selling the remains, and retailers are comprehensively vetted and monitored because of this (there are obviously exceptions, but they are immensely rare).
[...] how can they know with any certainty the circumstances of their death?
It is extremely rare for educational remains to be initially sold as parts (though there are of course examples where it did happen). In the wild and vast majority of cases, an individual bone is the result of donated remains being reduced over time through repeated dissections to the point that only the bones are left. Because of this, it is safe to say that medical cadavers are the most exhaustively inspected remains on the planet, and signs of foul play would undoubtedly be noticed (there are quite a few examples of this).
Where in the world can you just find an unclaimed skull to sell?
China and India were the sources of most modern medical remains, though both countries have stopped the export of human remains. While yes, I cannot deny that there were instances where questionable methods were used to obtain the remains (the term is ‘anatomy murder’), I only know of two specific examples off the top of my head. The first is the Burke/Hare murders, which were committed during the early 1800s, and the second is the very famous Body Worlds exhibit (and hoo boy is that horrifying). Both of these were the impetus for sweeping global legislation to prevent similar situations, and Body Worlds is the primary reason China stopped exporting medical cadavers (because, and I am being uncharitable, it is hard to credibly deny your crimes against political prisoners when you ship the bodies of said prisoners to western countries with bullet holes in their skulls).
What are the chances that these skulls aren’t the skulls of poor people [...] ?
Aside from cadavers sourced from india and china (which again are no longer allowing the export of educational corpses), the remaining remains on the market come from legitimate pre-mortis consent given by the former owner of the parts in question. There are many, many examples of this - leaving your body to medicine/science is quite common in the US, and is an absolutely vital part of our medical infrastructure, and is generally considered a very noble choice to make. It is important to explain here that medical cadavers in the US are shown a degree of respect that can quite accurately be described as veneration, and disrespect of donated remains is emphatically not tolerated. And while US-sourced medical remains are rare to see sold outside of a medical context (US law is extremely strict on this matter), it does happen. I urge you to consider why you think this would not happen in other cultures, or why they would not have similar attitudes towards body donation and donated bodies.
A specific example of a non-western attitude towards funeral practices (and oh boy is that a complex topic) would be memorial Japmala beads - a Nepalese tradition whereby Japmala (kinda like a rosary but for asian-originating religions) are made from bones donated to the temple by a (usually devout) person and are thence sold to raise funds. While done with consent, remains sourced from this practice are not infrequently sold for medical use on the condition that when the bodies are reduced to bones, they be returned to the temple. If some are removed, or missing (say, because they are a good example of some condition), or they were destroyed as part of their work, this isn’t objectionable - so long as the remains are treated with respect, it’s seen as benefiting the community as a whole.
This does not specifically translate in this case, but I’ve included it as an example of ethical sourcing of remains that really does not gel with traditional western views on the subject.
And two brief points:
It doesn’t take much imagination to draw the conclusion that the ethics surrounding the buying and selling of human skulls [...] ?
I can imagine a great many awful things, but that does not mean they are happening. This specific argument has really irritated me, in a way that I strongly suspect is unfair.
[...] than the momentary entertainment of of the global 1% [...]
Mythbusters began almost a quarter century ago, and has had an outsized impact on science literacy and education. I think it’s unfair to characterize this as mere passing entertainment for the global 1% (and additionally it totally ignores the US’ cultural hegemony). Although certainly not a traditional use of human remains, the fact that we are still having a discussion about the topic twenty years later as a result of the episode could easily be argued to be a sign of the great impact the show has had on culture in general and thus tautologically justifies its own existence.
Alright, hopefully that was less tiring to read than it was to write.
I would be psyched as hell for my remains to be used on one of the most influential educational science shows of the era (plus like, that is a metal AF use for my skull). IDK, I know I’m not one of those people that venerates remains but even if I was, this seems like a grander memorial and contribution to science than having your remains parted out to then sit for years in a box in a closet, waiting for the physical anthro undergrads to do the “reassemble the original hands from this mixed up pile of phalanges” exercise for the umpteenth time.
3·20 days agoThis very much depends on the subject, I suspect. For math or computer science, wikipedia is an excellent source, and the credentials of the editors maintaining those areas are formidable (to say the least). Their explanations of the underlaying mechanisms are in my experience a little variable in quality, but I haven’t found one that’s even close to outright wrong.
They may laugh now, but you’re gonna kick ass when you get isekai’d.
People root for underdogs.
And Palestine seems to be kinda on Russia’s side as well so remind me again why I should support them at all?
… Please stop agreeing with me, you’re awful.
Not trying to be that guy I swear, have you got a source? That number seems pretty high, even for Israel.
But it can’t be wrong, it’s confirming my preconceptions!!