It's not a cry for help. It's esthetics. Man chose more violent methods, and women chose things that seems more gentle. Or medicine is much more sucesful in treating overdose than point-blank headshots.
ideonek
joined 1 month ago
it's about "success" rate. Man, mostly choose more lethal form like guns, while women often choose pills. Women acctualt make most attempts than man, but are more often rescued.
I suspect in China there are cultural reason that unify the "preferred method off atempt"
"... for task that can be completed sucesfully with copy-pasting output with little to no changes": the same not peer-reviewed MIT study published hasetly "to protect the children".
We are better than this.
OK, let's slow down for one secound.
- if you re-designed it with complex multiplication problem instead od writtng tasks, and calculators instead of chat gpt - and change nothing else - you would get exactly the same result. If you reduce the challange to minimum, how do you expect brain to respond?
- The "we have this not-reviewed singular study based on 50 people we should raise the alarm NOW" is every sensational.
There are so many problems with AI, and we need so many checks and balances. Sure. But let's not change it into another "our pop-science vs their pop-science" kind of problem.
That's exactlyn the risk with violent ones. They make it easier to paint you as extremist or unreasonable radical. The big part of the effecivness of the non-violent one is that they are more sucesful at making people deflect to the right side.
YouTube's algorithm for some reason decided that what I want to watch the most in the world are videos of mostly white dudes citing US constitution to popice officers asking them to roll down a window during car stop. Sure, it's fun and the checks and balanced are important. It's not you don't have problem with police abusing power... But where are all those people where masked guys throw people in the unmarked ICE van. Isn't this the fight you prepared for your all live?
I'm honestly not sure about this 3.5% number anymore - there are a lot somewhat subjective qualifiers there. But the point is that the study was conducted based on protest in both democratic and authoritarian regimes. And - all over the board - the non-violent movements were noticeably more sucesful sucesful than violent one. Yes, idea that 3.5% means guaranteed success is wrong. But solution to protest being squashed ramians the same - more protests.
You baned ASBESTOS in 2024???!!! It's not the right century.
I belive word "democracy" modyfies word "movement" here. Not the country where moment happen.
I would ask what's wrong with BBC, but I don't want to get into that. This study is the source study: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/240678278_Why_Civil_Resistance_Works_The_Strategic_Logic_of_Nonviolent_Conflict
I think it was based on over 320 cases from 1900-2006.
Belarus is a hard case, since the meeting the goal depending on the estimates, and this varies a lot. But you could be right. The Bahraini uprising is more clear-cut exception to that rule. So fair enough.
But still the opinion that large sustained protest are ineffective is less evidence based that stance that they are effective.
No democracy movement has ever failed when it was able to mobilize at least 3.5 percent of the population to protest over a sustained period.
The answers to protest failing seems to be more protests.
I'm not trying to invalidate your point. I'm adding to it. It's one more reason why this TIL don't tell US anything useful. It nither ralible or unexpected data.