What was the point of going back a century for this study? Women were underrepresented as anything but love interests, objects to be rescued, mothers, nurses, or teachers a hundred years ago. 1920 was the first year women could even vote in the U.S.!

What's more, "artificial intelligence," as we understand it today, hasn't existed in fiction that long. This is the rationale mentioned in the paper: >We have examined films over the course of a century, from 1920 to 2020. The total number of films featuring AI is sufficiently small that this large temporal range results in a corpus that is manageable but meaningful. 1920 is an appropriate start date both because of the rapid development of the cinema in the United States and Europe after the First World War, and because this decade saw the earliest high-impact portrayals of intelligent machines and their creators, in Karel Čapek’s play R.U.R. (1921) and Fritz Lang’s film Metropolis (1927).

While the sample size may indeed be small, that's no excuse for ignoring the representativeness of the sample. In fact, despite the fact that that the earliest representation of a woman as an AI-scientist that they found was in 1997, they included a corpus of the previous 77 years.

I'm all for equality, and women certainly could use more representation in AI, both in fiction and fact, but this is just bad research methodology.

The chance of having ALS grows significantly for combat wounded vietnam veterans. My line had no issues. Father got hit w 8 rounds and had leg blown off. Died of ALS at 58. I had muscle issues from birth along with REM Behavior Disorder. Guess what happened? I have it now but w no support from anyone. It's awesome.

I grew up with a person that was one of the only ppl to get that COVID related Kawasaki disease. So that reveals the hidden truth that every young person gets this particular disease. No this is a edge case still most Alzheimer's cases are above 65

Isn't that called timber?

[removed]

Have you actually listened to zappa albums or just random songs?

My loss experiences were in reverse, I lost my mother before my pets. But the loss of my pets hit me much harder because they had been a positive part on my life.

I imagine that quite a few people struggle after the loss of a pet specifically because they think - and maybe are also being told - that they shouldn't feel as bad as they do because "it was only an animal". The first step in avoiding lasting psychological damage is accepting that the pet was just as important to one's life as people are, and that that is okay.

It doesn't go into your memory unless you absolutely love it, hate it or have to memorize it for some important reason.

Checks out. You can also like only parts of songs and hate the rest of it, but that's so rare as songs rarely switch up much from beginning to end.

>Researchers also noted that while the findings need further investigation, growing evidence suggests people who have had COVID-19 infection may be at an increased risk for new or worsening cardiovascular disease, which may have been a factor in the rising rates from 2019 to 2020.

https://newsroom.heart.org/news/heart-disease-death-rates-spiked-during-the-covid-19-pandemic-erasing-years-of-progress

Note: vaccines are safe ( so long you don't have a pre-existing condition). I am not saying vaccines are bad by any means.

My only question is what part of the infection would cause this to occur?

[deleted]

Guess: One friend likes Zappa, another likes Slipknot.

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

Findings in title quoted from the linked summary^1 and its hyperlinked journal paper.^2

From the linked summary^1 released 13 Feb. 2023:

>A new paper in Public Understanding of Science and an associated report by Stephen Cave, Kanta Dihal, Eleanor Drage, and Kerry McInerney shows the results of an analysis of the 142 most influential AI films in history, establishing that gender inequalities in film are more extreme than in real life.

>Just 8% of all depictions of AI professionals from a century of popular film are women – and more than half of these are shown as subordinate to men.

>This gender imbalance is even bigger than in the real-world AI industry, in which 20% of AI professionals are women.

From the hyperlinked journal paper:^2

>The aim of this study is to examine the gendering of portrayals of AI researchers in influential fiction film over the past century, 1920–2020.

>[We] explain our choice of media and period; our criteria for ‘AI researcher’; how we have coded gender; our criteria for ‘influential’ in film; and the corresponding sources of our corpus.

>We have examined films over the course of a century, from 1920 to 2020. The total number of films featuring AI is sufficiently small that this large temporal range results in a corpus that is manageable but meaningful.

>1920 is an appropriate start date both because of the rapid development of the cinema in the United States and Europe after the First World War, and because this decade saw the earliest high-impact portrayals of intelligent machines and their creators, in Karel Čapek’s play R.U.R. (1921) and Fritz Lang’s film Metropolis (1927).

>Of the 1413 films in our corpus, we identified 142 as featuring AI. Of these, 86 films clearly showed or referred to an AI engineer or scientist.

>The total number of AI engineers or scientists shown was 116, as 63 films showed only one such figure, 16 films showed 2 and 7 films showed 3 figures that met our criteria.

>Of these 116 AI engineers or scientists, 88 were men, 10 were male robots, aliens, animals or AIs, and 9 were corporations led by men, giving a total of 107 male figures, or 92% of the total. Seven were human women and two were female non-humans, giving a total of nine female figures, or 8% of the total.

^1 Who makes AI? Inequality in AI films, Leverhulme Centre for the Future of Intelligence, 13 Feb. 2023, http://lcfi.ac.uk/news-and-events/news/2023/feb/13/who-makes-ai-inequality-ai-films/

^2 S. Cave, K. Dihal, E. Drage, and K. McInerney (2023) Who makes AI? Gender and portrayals of AI scientists in popular film, 1920–2020. Public Understanding of Science. https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625231153985

I don't know, there are songs that grew on me. Went from meh to great. Sometimes knowing the context behind a song (and it's lyrics if I don't understand them) can change my feeling about a song as well.

[removed]

[removed]

Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

This is an extraordinary time to be living through, one has to hope the collective insanity eventually dissipates.

Whatever metric you use, these mRNA injections have been an abject failure. Countries that had high uptake have suffered wave after wave of Covid, cratered birth rates, extraordinary excess mortality in all age bands.

Those that didn't have high uptake aren't suffering so much and in Europe chronically unhealthy populations like Bulgaria are actually seeing the 'pull-forward' effect, with post-pandemic mortality falling below normal levels.

Yet against this backdrop of the most disasterous public health intervention in history, we have papers and articles bemoaning Africa's refusal to be as blind and credulous as Western populations.

Truly extraordinary.

It’s not conspiratorial that Covid vaccines were not popular because of low infection rate in sub Saharan Africa. You also have an entire continent that has been the plaything of the WHO for decades. Circumcising millions of men for no reason based on junk science…