garte

Same here.

I get what you mean and I had a similar experience growing up.

But: I think that they were there. We just didn't see them a lot. They were cleaning, working in factories, tending gardens, looking after children etc. but they were not represented and thus were not visible. Of course they were a minority, but I'd wager they were there.

Upwards social mobility and thus equality is only possible with recognition and representation. Without "being in pictures" they don't exist. That's why pictures should include "Non-Europeans" (this expression in itself is very problematic btw: there is no "European" as something biologically inherent in a person).

I'm impressed: the article is about the rich diversity of different sexes in nature (it does not even go into gender) but all you are getting out of it is some anti-woke sentiment?

Could you please re-read the article and at least absorb the complexity of sex and biology in nature in general? At least be a bit amazed how little we seem to grasp about reproductive processes even on a biological level. And then maybe even feel the need a little to reflect how the article might mean that you're not living in such "sad times" but (maybe) the opposite.

This thinking seems self-defeating to me and only serves to uphold the status quo or - sadly - make things worse.

I can't imagine Skynet starting with a Python script...

A very basic trait of our capitalistic system is that you'll always want more regardless of your actual, personal needs. You're always left wanting, always. And that's by design.

"Information" in the current sense (stats, news, (inter)national "politics") is a commodity that's being generated by the boatloads. Just because there's lots of it doesn't mean it's valuable in the sense that it actually pertains to you and your life.

So from my perspective you have the right ideas but wanting to satiate others with "information" is a bottomless pit (again, by design).

The information that is actually actionable is still right in front of us (at least in the west): it's local media (newspapers, radio, not TV). The slow, boring, local, tedious stuff. Apart from that it happens in associations, sport clubs, regional politics, NGO's.

For that, you don't need an AI.

Just fyi: I'm a doomscroller and news junkie so I'm not in a position to judge you. :)

Isn't what you're describing simply "being a friend" with an encyclopedia? Why would you want to create a machine to do that if we're made like that?

In a sense instead of training a machine you could steer yourself to become that person. Call it being a life coach or a pastor. That's a lot less hassle than actual, true artificial intelligence (which needs to be invented as of yet).

I'm genuinely curious, not trying to piss on your parade or anything.

The irony is strong in this one: Not building airports would definitely improve the situation as a whole.

You managed to combine sexism with useless consumerism while missing the point of the article entirely: owning 6 bikes while still using your car for the most part is not sustainable and might even hinder bike adoption in the long run. So why would you be in a bike club again?