This isn't really news. It has been proven time and time again that hetero-female hypergamy and hetero-male patrimony exist and have real reproducable effects across cultures. It is instinctively understood by humans cross culturally that young healthy fertile women are the most valueable individual humans and that men need to be "managed" by society and civilisation in order to "exploit" them to build and maintain a culture. This is why women get more lenience when they commit crimes and this is why men are forced to use money or other indirect metrics like of value such as military or academic rank to gain a place in society. If those metrics no longer carry, men stear clear because "useless" (see contemporary US academia for details on that effect). People in currency-bound civilisations know that a man who's made himself decently useful "needs" more money than a woman to make his efforts worth while for him to establish his place in society. If we guys want lad(y/ies) _and_ offspring, kitesurfing and motorbiking all day won't really cut it for most of us if we can't establish a source of excess resources to offer up to the ladies.

This is also an evolutionary mechanism to keep men in check. If that doesn't happen, you get men organizing themselves and turning away and and eventually against society. Fascism is basically nothing other than the hetero-male tribe instinct going into survival-mode. If you don't want 15%+ of grown men going that route and _literally_ leveling the playing field for a hard "society reboot" you have to pay them and give them (a chance with) women and reproduction. ... Or sedate them with videogames and internet-porn, as the case may be. The latter will likely only work for so long. QED.

Good point, but probably not (directly) related to this study.

Yeah, it's not a good study. If nothing else (and there is much else) the sample size is too small.

OTOH, I find it difficult to understand why so many people seem to think it's "obviously wrong", when I would have predicted that result from a good study. People tend to be unreasonably biased, and not just about sex. There've been studies where two groups of people were divided at random. Those who ended up in each group tended to prefer their group over the other, even though the group didn't exist outside of the study. (I say that, but I don't know for sure that the folks didn't maintain their groups after the study was over...but it was a pretty short study.)

Lots of people anthropomorphize their car or motorcycle. It's one of the things people do.

That's a difference, it's just not a significant difference. It might well justify a larger study with more careful controls. But the result they produced is what I would have guessed, so I'm a bit biased.

Still, look at any sports team match. People tend to favor one side over the other for reasons that have nothing to do with skill.

I'm sure that's happening. I'm also sure it's only a part of the story. Some of the other posts have raised other contributory issues, like image quality. And actually I think your point is a valid example of a more general trend, i.e. people tend to favor those who are more socially approved. The reasons for the social approval are nearly irrelevant, but different groups within society will use different measures. (E.g. Catholics will tend to approve of different people than Unitarians, even if they adopt the same proposals.) Think of how some people rate their favorites sports team vs. the way they rate the other side.

That's a single data point. I've seen it be true, but I've also seen it be false. Also they tend to be differently Machiavellian, but I wouldn't say men were more Machiavellian than women, or the converse. Just that they tend to do it differently.

The study *is* flawed. The sample size is too small, and I doubt that the people tested replicate the world population average.

But it *is* "food for thought", and the result is the one I would have expected. People *do* tend to be biased in favor of the socially more approved of groups. (You don't need a study to prove that. Just read either the news or history, especially the history of a conflict.)

Do you really think those suggested biases aren't present? My guess would be that they are. People generally feel that "the superior group" deserves better treatment, where "superior group" is basically defined by public relations, with a large helping of "people like me".

I consider anyone who thinks otherwise an amateur and don't trust their judgement.

I would give some leniance in very special situations where there is a clear, thoroughly planed migration path to FOSS and the problem has very good reasons to require a currently existing tried and true proprietary solution that is cohesive and losely coupled to everything else in the company. Something like that however requires deciders to know what they're doing and those joints usually have their systems under control and can tell a vendor to go and f*ck themselves with confidence if anyone gets pissy or turns up with a fresh absurd future pricing table. Organisations like these usually are 95% FOSS already and basically follow the same rule stated above, for obvious reasons.

Those who don't get 20+ years of this VMWare, Oracle, SAP, whatever sh*t we've been seeing ever since the dawn of time.

Bottom line: Mission critical? FOSS only. Break that rule and I'm getting ready to cash out of your gig ASAP.

Well, part of the answer is clearly "because the official stance of the US govt. is that AI should not be regulated". (Yeah, it's more nuanced than that, but that's the short form.)

That one actually has some science behind it. Not enough to trust, but some.

Well, it would lose all sensory and motor connections. Sometimes some of them reconnect over a period of several months...but many never do.

I think you die of various neural problems before the reconnection has a chance to get started. (And, of course, you've got a horrendous case of "bubble boy" syndrome for the rest of your life.)

IIUC, there are cells in the body that retain the "true copy". (I.e., they've duplicated VERY few times.) However, they therefore aren't widely distributed. This means no "local process" in most of the body has access to them. It's why women produce only a limited number of ova. S.a. Hayflick limit.

I'm pretty sure that's too simple an answer. There are several lines of evidence that suggest much of aging depends on the blood (at least in mice). Which doesn't imply that there aren't other parts.

(One experiment I read about grafted together the blood steams of a young mouse and an old mouse. The old mouse appeared to get younger.,)