metalslug

Members
  • Content

    1,097
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback

    0%

Community Reputation

28 Neutral

1 Follower

Gear

Jump Profile

  • License
    B
  • License Number
    2528
  • Licensing Organization
    PASA
  • Number of Jumps
    200
  • Years in Sport
    3
  • First Choice Discipline
    Formation Skydiving
  • First Choice Discipline Jump Total
    170
  • Freefall Photographer
    No

Ratings and Rigging

  • USPA Coach
    No
  • Pro Rating
    No
  • Wingsuit Instructor
    No

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Yes, two AI algorithms, about 25 years go as part of a hobby, albeit rudimentary and neither focused on grammar. I believe grammar AI is easier from the opinions of experts in that field whose opinions I respect, some of whom I've interacted with during my career in a related field. If you truly believe that then I suspect you're duped by Hollywood fiction. Although, I concede AI will come for your job. My espresso machine has already indicated an interest.
  2. Based on your posts, you believe they're generated from Hollywood movie scripts. Your 'Matrix' and 'Terminator' world awaits...
  3. Were you looking for the sarcasm font for this? That's not much different from the argument that moving to renewable energy will destroy a million jobs. AI is software. Software requires hardware. Hardware requires electrical power, maintenance, supporting infrastructure and a shitload of mined minerals for fabrication and maintenance. To say that machines will be supported largely by other machines is an unrealistic circular argument. I expect it will be primarily economics and politics that prevents 'dominant' AI from happening. Incidentally, to the OP; good grammar is at the easier end of AI, even some of the autocorrect apps I use (which are not large chunks of code) are really good at grammar. I've yet to hear of anything really special that's not exclusively based on raw mathematic power, much like an all-conquering chess computer is analogous to a forklift winning a weight-lifting competition. Creativity and improvisation are still valid arguments. AI only has the illusion of creativity; as many here will know even computerised 'random number' generation is not truly random and that's amongst the very simplest examples of spontaneous thought comparison.
  4. In the present case I rather suspect supply needs to get way ahead of demand, else it's a bit like launching a new mobile phone network that only covers a dozen towns and then expecting to pull customers away from AT&T. I think we call it competition.
  5. Morrison's statement was no less dishonest or deluded than opposing sentiments implying that motoring with EVs will not be less convenient than gas/diesel. A more honest middle-ground statement would be along the lines of; "EV's might ruin your weekend but if all Aussies swapped their vehicles for EVs it will reduce total global emissions by a whopping 0.3% and you might even enjoy the sanctimony of that, so suck it up." I won't be as bold as to claim that EV's have no advantages although it's certainly still subjective opinion for each motorist and some of this is covered in the OP article. The most obvious issue of course is the intended legislation to ban petrol/diesel vehicles. If the new government can't gaslight people with a proposition then they'll just beat them over the head with it and that will get interesting when compared to this Other than public designated recharge stations, the expectation is that EV owners would charge their vehicles overnight at their home; perhaps in their garage, carport or driveway. What percentage (US and globally) of vehicle owners actually have a garage, carport or driveway approximate to where they park? In many cases vehicle owners are obliged to park in public or communal areas overnight, sometimes a considerable distance from their door and/or any possible charge point. Is there a recourse for these motorists? A recharge station at every public and communal parking bay? A lot more recharge stations will need to become available to entice voluntary EV customers.
  6. An old white man is currently your president, as is the likelihood of your next one if Joe actually finishes his current term. Maybe it's time for this candidate ? Changing times indeed...
  7. Consider the entirety of that older post and especially the context of what I was replying to. The older statement had meant to imply 'women' in the context of DSD cases (the 'address them as' exception that I noted) as opposed to arguing a grammatical definition in that post. I concede the way I wrote it could be viewed an inconsistent within the thread, although not intended that way. Don't sweat an apology, that was always going to be a bridge too far.
  8. Another outright lie from you. I said I would address a specific kind(s) of genetically male person as a woman as a practical courtesy to them and then in the very same sentence I also asserted that they do not meet the definition. That's a far reach to your "genetically male person is a woman". Twisting logic is your specialty here. Similarly; despite what Merriam-Webster has stated; I'll regard freefall jumps from a high altitude balloon as skydiving, but not freefall jumps from a tree, an opinion that is likely to hold a majority view amongst those who know skydiving.
  9. ?? I cannot assist you with reading and comprehension courses. Do those on your own time and dime.
  10. Is that what you think this is about? Is gay and trans completely synonymous to you or are you attempting a strawman? Many gay people (arguably most gay people) are completely fine with a gender identity matching their biology. Those are not my definitions. In this case they are Merriam-Webster definitions and are much more widely accepted than the fringe opinions of a few on DZ.com and I'm sure you can all relate to that fact. Perhaps a comparison more relatable for you would be an argument that "Great Replacement Theory" is not racist because your definition of it does not matter. Does that sound like a fair argument to you? Probably not, because if it is racist then it might include ideologies or actions intended to undermine or disadvantage people of colour. Following on from that, many forum members here are not people of colour nor do they identify as Lgbtqi+ and yet they might advocate for the causes of those groups. Fair enough. In the same way myself and winsor might be seen to advocate for feminist causes or to speak against absurd cases of supposed 'hate crime', either via indirect association with an affected person or merely on principle. So; who would be an 'affected person'? Swimmers who competed against Leah Thomas, for example, or the victims of Karen White, or perhaps some of the 120000+ people registered on the UK's Orwellian NCHI (non-crime hate incidents), where a UK citizen can potentially find themselves listed for something as innocuous as mis-gendering someone (The police only ask that the ‘victim’ reports a ‘perceived’ sense of ‘ill-will’ or ‘dislike’.) Therefore, when you consider the term 'no skin off your arse' then first consider all the causes that you advocate for that are not targeting you directly.
  11. I just did exactly that. A moth that's lost it's wings is still a moth, despite not meeting the typical definition of a healthy specimen. But not a single case in which a man meets the definition of a woman.
  12. Again your own ignorant comments persist. Try this; Woman: An adult human female Female; of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) which can be fertilized by male gametes. There has never been an instance of any XY chromosomal person producing ova, not even DSD cases. Certainly there are cases in which XX women have had medical conditions or undergone procedures that affect fertility and/or impact the definitions above , but the intentions of the definitions are typical, for someone presumed to be perfectly healthy remain valid and therefore do not preclude them as women. Curiously, in my earlier post, nobody seemed to object to the Merriam-Webster skydiving definition , which I intentionally knew was flawed (it excludes balloon jumps, for example) and yet I'd be fine to regard a balloon jump, with freefall time, as a skydive. Similarly I've already stated in this thread that I'd be willing to address a XY Swyer syndrome person or full-transitioned transgender as female, as a practical courtesy, even while accepting that they don't meet the definition. What I would not do is credit a skydiver title to someone who has merely jumped from a tree with a grocery bag above their head or hand my rig to someone who identifies as a skydiver but lacking the required skydiving credentials.
  13. ?? Globally; do you believe that gender identity and gender fluidity are more widely accepted by non-white cultures ? You have about 9 pages of this thread to get through. Have at it.
  14. Agreed. The woke mob have been raging to redefine words since they made this a social issue and have been debunked earlier in this thread already. More hot air comments from someone who skipped their homework. Quite recently I even gave credit to a NASA scientist for their predictions. ...but you've already demonstrated that you don't follow thread topics here.
  15. Your thesis above has zero relevance to understanding a woman by definition, in as much as it's also completely superfluous to understanding skydiving by definition. Do you find yourself struggling with the above learning curves for every noun that you learn? .. porcupines, teacups, pineapples... ? The 'gender fluid' argument reduces the term 'woman' (or 'man') from being a noun to being an adjective; "I feel womanly." and by that logic the Matt Walsh argument appears; "My preferred adjectives are 'handsome and brilliant' and I'll take offence if others don't recognise and address me as such." I expect you're also in denial that 'alternate' definitions of a woman are very much a fringe opinion. Barely a decade ago this subject thread would never have existed because the definition has been largely undisputed for millennia. Is this because human biology has evolved over the last decade? Nope, only the subject activism. You seem to be willing to forgo scientific and grammatical consensus on this issue, or even consensus within the Lgbtqi+ communities that you like to believe you're advocating for. This seems inconsistent with your advocacy on other subjects.