According to a new study published by Scientific Reports, attractive women were more likely to be “right-wing,” while women whose faces displayed contempt were more likely to be “left-wing.”

The study found that masculinity and attractiveness weren’t linked to ideology in men, but happy faces (both men and women) were likely to be representatives of right-wing parties. Meanwhile, politicians who had a neutral expression or showed contempt were more likely to represent left-wing ideologies.

These findings were backed by more recent data that showed that liberal women are statistically the unhappiest and most mentally ill demographic in America.

For all the details see:\

You have reaches a new low of stupid and meaningless

Lia Thomas, the swimmer, recently stated that anyone who believes t***s-females (b********l m**es) hold any physical advantage over b********l f****es is by definition..."t***sphobic!"

What a crock and a departure from reality!

Perhaps not always, but in general, b********l m**es competing in women's sport is beyond unfair to the women. Over time all the record performances will be held by t***s-women.

I do not see a fair solution for the t***s-female athletes. They should be blocked from women's sports...they likely can't be competitive in men's sports...and the t***s population is so small as to make it unviable to establish a t***s g****r category in sports competitions. There are consequences to taking the steps involved in the t***s conversion process. Being a t***s-female athlete with no venue to compete is just one of the consequences.

Some here are giving in to the 'AI' controversy', if there is such a thing.

Firstly, let's make a strong distinction between computer assisted design and computer created product.
- The original computer design was AutoCAD, remember that one? It created a wire mesh of objects, humans, whatever, then the mesh was covered by another to finally create an apparent 3D object. It was also decried, especially by engineers. Now they not only adopted it but made it their main tool. Nothing today is created w/o AutoCAD and its successors.
That was/is computer aided design CAD.
- Computer created products simply do not exist. Please do not try to divert this by citing 3D printing (any scale) or robotics. Not one computer today really creates anything the moment a human gives instruction to a computer to give substance to an idea or concept, it is computer aided, like it or not.
The moment a computer decides by itself to create something, eliminating human intervention*, then we will be dealing with AI. This is not the case.

So far, I do not see where the controversy is. It is simply nonsense.

Now, how about art?
What is the difference between using a computer or a paintbrush or whatever tool comes to mind? Well, none. One is clean, the rest not so much. One is 'effortless' the others? Ouch. One can be done anywhere, the others are not that transportable, try moving a couple of ton rock to work with while traveling... A computer on the other hand will help create a model... Not create the final object.
Art as usual and always will be the domain of personal taste, $$$ interest and nothing else.

'AI' in photography?
It is just another tool given a new name because it attracts users toward a revamped set of instruction to remove, add, modify objects in a digital image that is really a capture of electrons to create pixels that in turn, as an array, assembled into an 'image'. There is no 'AI' here, just a more precise, more intuitive program in order to create a better result from an existing array of pixels (the image). Adobe** and other software companies who claim 'AI' are just promoting a fake 'AI'. The real intelligence here is that of the programmers, then of the marketing gurus, who have found yet another way to sell the programmer's work and sell.

Are 'AI creations' photographs? No, same as AutoCAD while they allow to create images these are constructs, today's 'golem'; humans are the (insane) wizards 'master's.

So let's ask again:
- Are AI images art? Yes.
- Are 'AI' images created photographs? No.
- Do you have to like 'AI' or hate it? No.
- Will you like 'AI', hate it, or ignore it? Up to you.

AI is just another freaking tool!!! It is as good or as bad as the human (drone) decides...

------------
* Human intervention... I already see the tin foil heads fuming and going to interject 'what about'? Every time a computer intervenes in anything, it is due to a programmer work that gave instructions to a computer in specific conditions. There is no 'AI' saying 'I think, therefore I am' or asking 'to be or not to be'.
** Remember 'smart objects'? The greatest since... Well nothing. That marketing line was squashed once it was discovered folks did not like PS CC 'smart object' default when opening a new image... (The default was the real change!!! Smart objects were obscure until then).