Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Frumple]

Nnnoo... I'd actually call that fairly dead on label, if her studies were identifying the actual issue. If the tech's gender biased, it's gender biased. Even (especially, to a certain degree) if not intentionally so, or due to limitations in current technology. Now there's just further study, further technology refinement, and the fixing.

[TD1]

I'd say it isn't accurately labelled. If it was deliberately made to exclude women, that would be sexist, but it's just a flaw in computing.

And Unhappy Birthday, Talvieno!

[Talvieno]

Nnnoo... I'd actually call that fairly dead on label, if her studies were identifying the actual issue. If the tech's gender biased, it's gender biased. Even (especially, to a certain degree) if not intentionally so, or due to limitations in current technology. Now there's just further study, further technology refinement, and the fixing.

Gender-biased and sexist are two different things. Gender-biased means simply that: it works better with one gender than the other. Sexism implies prejudice. I don't think technology can be prejudiced. Calling it sexist implies that it was intentional or a conscious decision. as she says in the article:

Shape-from-shading is a different beast. Although techniques for shading 3D models have greatly improved over the last two decades—a computer can now render an object as if it were lit by a complex collection of light sources of all shapes and colors—what they they can’t do is simulate how that tiny, constant flickering of your eyes affects the shading you perceive. As a result, 3D graphics does a terrible job of truly emulating shape-from-shading.

She's saying we don't possess the technology for it, not that it was a deliberate decision on the part of the developers.

ninja'd. thanks, Th4DwArfY1. lol   

[TD1]

Yes, I agree. The word sexism makes it seem deliberate. No doubt why that was put in the title; to make people read it.

EDIT: You're NOT welcome, Talvieno 

[GiglameshDespair]

So because we don't have the technology good enough it's sexist? What? No!

The title just seems like clickbait.

[Elephant Parade]

To me, it seems like an unfortunate flaw in the design that should be fixed as soon as possible. Saying that it was "designed" to be sexist is a bit misleading, unless it actually was designed that way.

I expect this to be fixed soon, since Facebook probably doesn't want to appear sexist. Also, they'll want as many people using it as possible, and something like this would decrease the number of users significantly.

[scrdest]

Nnnoo... I'd actually call that fairly dead on label, if her studies were identifying the actual issue. If the tech's gender biased, it's gender biased. Even (especially, to a certain degree) if not intentionally so, or due to limitations in current technology. Now there's just further study, further technology refinement, and the fixing.

Tech. Gender biased. Nope.

[Frumple]

Yes, I agree. The word sexism makes it seem deliberate. No doubt why that was put in the title; to make people read it.

Right. Sexism definitely doesn't have to be deliberate. Some of the worst issues with is specifically with non-deliberate, sometimes institutionalized stuff. Particularly with science and technology unidentified, unconscious, unintentional gender bias  -- in the sexist "this is causing damage/inefficiency" sense -- has been one of the primary areas of proverbial battle for purging distorting sexist views and methodology from the field.

Mind you, it could have still been being used as click bait, but it's a fair use of the term.

[Talvieno]

To me, it seems like an unfortunate flaw in the design that should be fixed as soon as possible. Saying that it was "designed" to be sexist is a bit misleading, unless it actually was designed that way.
Also, they'll want as many people using it as possible, and something like this would decrease the number of users significantly.

Exactly this. They called it sexist to try to get as many people to read it as possible by labeling it as controversial... which I really don't approve of.

They should definitely fix it soon, and I'm willing to bet that they probably will.

Thanks, Th4DwArfY1, that was good for a laugh. I needed that.


Edit: Frumple, I'm just saying it would've been better to call it an unfortunate design flaw, rather than calling everyone making it out on being sexist. If they were okay with it, then sure, but I'm willing to bet they want to reach both men and women with it.

[Elephant Parade]

Nnnoo... I'd actually call that fairly dead on label, if her studies were identifying the actual issue. If the tech's gender biased, it's gender biased. Even (especially, to a certain degree) if not intentionally so, or due to limitations in current technology. Now there's just further study, further technology refinement, and the fixing.

Tech. Gender biased. Nope.

It's accidentally gender-dependent. Calling it "sexist" is a bit misleading.

Yes, I agree. The word sexism makes it seem deliberate. No doubt why that was put in the title; to make people read it.

Right. Sexism definitely doesn't have to be deliberate. Some of the worst issues with is specifically with non-deliberate, sometimes institutionalized stuff. Particularly with science and technology unidentified, unconscious, unintentional gender bias  -- in the sexist "this is causing damage/inefficiency" sense -- has been one of the primary areas of proverbial battle for purging distorting sexist views and methodology from the field.

Mind you, it could have still been being used as click bait, but it's a fair use of the term.

Eh. It's a relatively new problem, so as long as it gets fixed soon I don't think it's really sexist.

I agree that unintentional bias is bad, but I don't think that this has really developed into unintentional gender bias yet. It's just an unfortunate technical flaw.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

I didn't know people could feel so strongly in favor of completely misleading article titles. There is nothing 'sexist' about technical limitations, despite how much people want to burn themselves about the malecentric manocracy of VR programming [who are probably the same people who call programming in general misogynist because it doesn't have female-pronoun only hierarchy]

Now, if the technical limitations are artificial and made specifically to make women uncomfortable, guess what, that's not technological limitation and can be fixed in likely no time by a properly motivated team.

[scrdest]

Yes, I agree. The word sexism makes it seem deliberate. No doubt why that was put in the title; to make people read it.

Right. Sexism definitely doesn't have to be deliberate. Some of the worst issues with is specifically with non-deliberate, sometimes institutionalized stuff. Particularly with science and technology unidentified, unconscious, unintentional gender bias  -- in the sexist "this is causing damage/inefficiency" sense -- has been one of the primary areas of proverbial battle for purging distorting sexist views and methodology from the field.

Mind you, it could have still been being used as click bait, but it's a fair use of the term.

You're broadening it so much that even biology may be called sexist. And racist, after all dark-skinned people have an evolutionary advantage in climates with high levels of sunlight, whereas lighter skinned people are more prone to death from skin cancer.

When you make any -ism applicable to something that isn't even sentient, you've reduced your argument to absurdity yourself.

[Elephant Parade]

I didn't know people could feel so strongly in favor of completely misleading article titles. There is nothing 'sexist' about technical limitations, despite how much people want to burn themselves about the malecentric manocracy of VR programming [who are probably the same people who call programming in general misogynist because it doesn't have female-pronoun only hierarchy]

Actually, I looked up the definition of "sexist", and the article title is technically correct. There's a chance that the implications may have been created accidentally, not to gain views.

[Talvieno]

I didn't know people could feel so strongly in favor of completely misleading article titles. There is nothing 'sexist' about technical limitations, despite how much people want to burn themselves about the malecentric manocracy of VR programming [who are probably the same people who call programming in general misogynist because it doesn't have female-pronoun only hierarchy]

Actually, I looked up the definition of "sexist", and the article title is technically correct. There's a chance that the implications may have been created accidentally, not to gain views.

sex·ism
ˈsekˌsizəm/
noun
noun: sexism

    1.
    prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex.

It's incorrect by the dictionary I use.

[Tellemurius]

........ I don't fucking even........ I calibrated a oculus dev kit so my MIGRAINE RIDDEN MOTHER CAN USE IT >:|

Everyone has some different vision no one is ever the same, its fucking designed so people can adjust to match their eyesight. Lights don't effect you unless you are epileptic or have other vision disorders. I can still puke my guts out from VRs because the shit is not adjusted and my eyeball has the screen shoved right up to it.