OK.

But that's not the actual reason I don't use rust or go. The actual reason is that I don't trust downloading stuff off the net from sites that I don't feel are sufficiently monitored. I prefer stuff that resides in, e.g., a debian repository. (Also programming in rust feels like programming with one arm tied behind my back. Safety measures that only make sense when one is doing multi-threading being applied everywhere.)

C is pretty good at that, but I haven't seen statistics for Rust. I suppose all the complex stuff could be optimized away during compilation, but I don't know that it is.

Well, it's not measuring dates, but it's measuring steady intervals. And IIRC correctly, the scale if femtoseconds. (Nope, that was a laser-comb clock. Perhaps attoseconds.)

I see. When you witnessed this demonstration, 46 years ago, did they mention anything about surveillance capitalism? How about online radicalization? Was the potential for the disruption of "community cohesion" brought up? We're there any thoughts shared on the matter of pirating copyrighted digital content? How much time did they spend on "digital sovereignty" and the future dominance of US based Big Tech over global data and communication?

I suspect not much. So perhaps we're not really discussing the same matter, are we?

Nah. I'll leave you to the whataboutery.

Europe is essentially incompatible with the internet. They never asked for it, and it's been nothing but trouble for Europe ever since it appeared. Had the clueless politicians you mention understood what it was at the time, they would have outlawed it immediately.

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".