That seems completely different. I use non-foaming soap at home and can get out exactly as much soap as I want by pressing the dispenser head less (or more, or multiple times). If I didn’t lather it, sure, it’d run off with the water. But I do, and so it doesn’t.
If you’re getting so much soap that it’s washed away even after lathering, I don’t see how foaming soap is going to help with that.
Not until people with ADHD are the majority - maybe with a bit more social media we can make that happen!
There are two immediate plausible reasons for a statement like that. First, because statements are preliminary, so while it might be obvious to you, someone into tech, that the robot is remote controlled, and also obvious to anyone who’s done ten seconds of googling, the statement is probably written by someone who isn’t into tech and hasn’t done ten seconds of googling yet! That would, in fact, be investigation.
But secondly because there’s a big legal difference between “he deliberately made the robot grab my arse” and “I just walked the robot around and it malfunctioned and touched her arse.” Even if the robot is generally being directly controlled and that’s what the police understand, can they charge the person controlling it with assault, or is there a high likelihood it went wrong?
When the police just decide things without investigating you get American police outcomes.
hut puss
pspsps come out yer hut
Nor are children’s, that’s their point.
Dog breeds have different behaviours.
The real pet racism is saying orange cats behave differently…
But it does take effort to put ourselves in your mind where you think “girl boring, guy quirky” applies to this comic. This is what I’m still trying to understand. I’ve set out in some detail why I don’t think it applies which you’ve not engaged with at all (other than to re-assert that yours is a “perfectly valid and obvious reading” which, just to be clear, doesn’t explain why) so bye.
I click on news articles to read them, not to watch tiktoks
I can only think that you’ve misunderstood what I’ve said, so I’m going to try and explain it again. Afterwards, I’ll explain why I think you must have misunderstood and offer a final reflection.
The meme format, at least in the form criticised by your initial response, works by presenting one boring and one funny situation. It presents them with pairs of archetypical, gendered characters, rather than individual (though still gendered) ones.
This lays the meme format open to the criticism that it is stereotyping woman as boring. But it doesn’t work against the comic for two reasons:
Those differences, hopefully, also explain why I don’t agree that it’s the “same joke” in the comic as in the meme format: the joke in the criticised meme is, “lol, woman are boring aren’t they? not like men who are interesting.” The joke in the comic is, “lol, this person wanted the dream to be about sex (hehe), but really it was complete nonsense (hehe) and now she’s got mental whiplash from the unexpected turn”.
And I think you must have misunderstood, because none of this can reasonably be called “reading things into the comic.” I’m explaining the joke in the comic for you, because you haven’t understood it correctly. You said “No mention of the dream being funny is made at all” which sounds to me like you think something in my explanation of the joke required that the joke was explicitly mentioned. That’s a very peculiar interpretation of how jokes work, but you’re not really explaining your thought process at all so I have no way of knowing whether I’ve misunderstood you. Presumably I must have, because your assertion that her dream is “only there to highlight how wacky the man’s dream is” is not referred to in the comic either.
Finally - and it probably is final, because my experience with this kind of conversation is that you are probably not really invested in it to the point where you’re willing to read a reply of this length, so there’s little point continuing - your first reply was a single image, with no comment from you. People reading had to infer that you were criticising the comic from OP. I asked you about it, and you replied with a scant 6 words. From there, you only made one, brief attempt to explain yourself and refused to elaborate further.
People come at discussions from different places. You offered a criticism but were never on the same page as me, and never put the effort in to get us on the same page, even though I tried, and you instead resorted quickly to unpleasant accusations. Let’s try and be better than that.
They think it’s part of a pattern of characterising male behaviour as interesting and female behaviour as boring, which they think contributes to, or is used to push, the idea that men are interesting and women are boring.
Their original response is a reference to this meme format (you can see a more-crude-than-usual representation of the “chad”, “trad girl” and “doomer girl” archetypes that typically appear in that format).
Regardless of the merits of that (I’m getting into that in another thread) it seems that they’re not really willing to stand by their own position and will accuse multiple people (specifically, me and you) of acting in bad faith rather than consider that they might not be doing a good job of backing themselves up…
Nope, I honestly believe that there is absolutely nothing problematic about the comic, and that the criticism of the “girls with a time machine” format doesn’t apply. My previous replies are honest accounts how I feel about it.
No mention of the dream being funny is made at all.
That’s true, but I don’t understand why you’d say it. Certainly, I didn’t claim and don’t claim that it’s “mentioned”, I just claim that it is. Maybe you would wrongly accuse fewer people of bad faith if you explained things a bit more…
“That far”?
The joke in the comic is that one person expects one funny thing (sex is funny) but the reality is another funny thing (chicken sharks are funny). So it refers to two funny things, and also does a bait and switch, which is a third funny thing.
Imagine the comic without the third panel and you’ll see it loses a significant amount of punch
Delete the punchline and it loses punch, you say!
The bad aspect the meme format tends to fall into doesn’t happen here, because the woman’s idea isn’t boring, and by being about two individualised characters rather than generic wojaks or whatever it can’t really be interpreted as being about genders in general unless you’re being particularly uncharitable.
I don’t think sex dreams are boring, so I don’t think this is the same joke.
Isn’t this a criticism of a meme format? I don’t understand how it relates to the comic :(
People have been trying to incorporate speech recognition into healthcare for a long time. Ages ago I worked at a company which was trying to do it for consultants writing letters to patients’ GPs. And the idea was that this could reduce the need to employ thousands of secretaries and save money in the healthcare system. Writing up patient notes is not the same thing but also takes hours of people’s time which they could be spending doing something else important.
So this isn’t a need that’s been pulled out of thin air. It also shouldn’t be one that’s difficult to assess the efficacy of: we should have a pretty good idea of how to measure how effective speech transcription is, and we should be able to assess summaries for completeness and errors.
But medical data needs to be protected, and any process that relies on storing and processing it with US big tech is suspect there. Which it may well already be, but this is another opportunity for it…
It looks like a cartoon character - I could easily see it as representing an adult or a child, and the easiest determiner would be comparing it to other characters from the same thing.
Attraction to cartoon characters is always going to be pretty weird. Trying to lump the stigma of paedophilia on that too is a bit pointless IMO.