eaten_by_a_grue's comments

Not only are you a hypocrite for earlier claiming that all such instances of the joke are inherently objectifying women;

> Remember that sexism is about the reinforcement of cultural stereotypes, rather than being just about gross bigotry or discrimination. What's sexist is that people assume, in a workplace, that jokes about what women say in bed are acceptable. Those jokes make me a little uncomfortable even in a casual environment; it's kind of gross that people are okay with them at work. The sexism isn't one person consciously thinking "Oh man let's women the butt of jokes about sex!", it's that women-as-sex-objects is such a pervasive trope that we don't notice it unless somebody like Jessamyn points it out to us.

What was it you said, again? Oh, right;

> "that's what she said" will always be a joke the brunt of which is the faceless fuck-object woman.

So if it's so heinous a joke, what is your meta-joke? Oh I thought about thinking about a faceless fuck-object woman? And you consider that harmless?

And you sure do feel free to address anyone that dissents with you as trivializing the issue or telling women to "lighten up." Once a woman has decided something referring to women is sexist we cannot say otherwise lest we be branded sexist ourselves? I agree that TWSS is a stupid joke and I wouldn't want to see it at work and Jessamyn was all of more mature, rationally trying to solve her complaint, and clever. But I will never agree that it is inherently sexist.

You imagining the joke in the way you want to and then claiming that everyone else feels the same. But then when you feel free to re-use it in a slightly different manner you are unequivocally being a hypocrite.

Like most people caught out doing something wrong, now you are trying to make "rational" arguments against it.

> And if that complaint results in the rule "no bots on IRC," she wins.

No, maturity and people with refined senses of humor win :)

I think having that phrase repeated to the extent of making a bot is idiotic, I think her solution is far more entertaining to read, and I am irritated by unalone's suggestion that "that's what she said" unequivocally objectifies women.

That's all of my feelings for this thread.

How is it okay for you to respond to every comment in this thread decrying men for being unaware of the horrifying effect these comments have on women, and also make the exact same joke that caused the original complaint?

I agree. And if that was the first bot to respond to a bot, I think it is irritating that men hate equality was the first conclusion.

Maybe those guys do hate equality, but from my perspective I would have been irritated by TWSS and then more irritated by the responder, I might then decide to complain before anyone else gets the bright idea to make another bot talking to a bot.

Hahaha. The stock options were already mentioned, so, here's mine:

"Hey, let's make a carbon copy of this popular tower game."

"Sure! That sits pretty good with me morally."

Using something like the Apple-provided CGLayer, you can draw the image once, then use it like a bitmap while it is in memory, AND they can keep it cached on the graphics card. These guys could easily produce code that does that.

Reference: https://developer.apple.com/library/mac/#documentation/graph... (it works on iOS too)

I find it funny that you combine awareness that nutrinos go through planets with a suggestion that they'd be good for communication.

I think it would work better if when self-modifying, it ran simulations on the result with its current utility function, but there would be a problem if it did end up modifying the utility function or modified away the simulation requirement.

It's hard to balance the ability to create new, more useful utility functions with prevention of creating a utility function at odds with what the original entity valued.