71–80 of 92 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What part of that chain of events would lead to a sexist outcome? Where's the gender bias introduced?
I think CES's half-formed "this is immoral" and "this is not a robot" excuses would have been less likely if the product was targeted at men.
As impressive as this toy sounds, I don't see how it is related to robotics. The comparison between a vibrator and a full sex robot does not make sense to me; a sex bot needs to articulate joints and show human expressions, a vibrator needs to make some ver slight movements in very specific places. I don't blame the author for being upset about this because I can't see a reason to retract the submission to the contes…
It does match the definition of a robot as based on this dictionary's second definition: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/robot There was also likely a long process for awards, its a pretty scumbag move to suddenly just not give the award/honor after announcing it, I can imagine my anger too if someone was going to give me an award and then not. CES is in the wrong here, they've been quite unprofessional. T…
Reminds me of the Miss Universe mix up with Steve Harvey and the Oscar mix up with Warren Betty except an order of magnitude worse.
If they wanted to avoid obscenity, they should have taken down all the toys and any sexist entertainment out there. It just doesn't seem fair to this curly looking innovative toy.
Indeed. Booth babes, 'fitness' models, etc are blatant wink wink nudge nudge "this isn't eye candy specifically to lure in male reporters and buyers, they're here to welcome you to our product booth and nothing else, honest".
For those who didn't read the article... The author is claiming that their is a partial lewdness order among products so that normal products <= robotic vibrator <= vr porn. Therefore, if the lewdness threshold doesn't ban vr porn it cannot ban robotic vibrators either. But since robotic vibrators are banned and not vr porn, discrimination must be at play.
No, I did not misuse the word "ban". Read the article: "My team rejoiced and celebrated. A month later our excitement and preparations were cut short when we were unexpectedly informed that the administrators at CES and CTA were rescinding our award and subsequently that we would not be allowed to showcase Osé, or even exhibit at CES 2019." I.e the product was BANNED. Really seems that in this HN thread people are be…
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18872924
You are bending yourself backward trying to ignore that sexism or discrimination may have not been the issue here.
If theses others products were there, why wasn't they banned too if there is sexism?
That article is only one side of the story, a side that clearly want to prove that sexism and discrimination was at play here. It's fine but it only tell argument in favor of that hypothesis.
In this case, maybe her stands was relative to her winning. That would means she could no longer showcase, but wouldn't actually be disallowed to showcase (except by the deadline, which isn't sexist I can assure you ;) ).
There's still so much sexism in the world, particularly in entrepreneurship, but blaming everything on it is dangerous and can actually hurt the cause.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, I did not misuse the word "ban". Read the article: "My team rejoiced and celebrated. A month later our excitement and preparations were cut short when we were unexpectedly informed that the administrators at CES and CTA were rescinding our award and subsequently that we would not be allowed to showcase Osé, or even exhibit at CES 2019." I.e the product was BANNED. Really seems that in this HN thread people are be…
You got an answer from someone else earlier than this comment that you didn't answer. There was vibrator, from women founder, who were at CES. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18872924 You are bending yourself backward trying to ignore that sexism or discrimination may have not been the issue here. If theses others products were there, why wasn't they banned too if there is sexism? That article is only one side o…
I'm not privy to the details of this story and there are always many possible explanations for any given set of observations. I can therefore not know for sure that the explanation is sexism, but it does fit the bill. Those who discard that as even a possibility are biased.
As impressive as this toy sounds, I don't see how it is related to robotics. The comparison between a vibrator and a full sex robot does not make sense to me; a sex bot needs to articulate joints and show human expressions, a vibrator needs to make some ver slight movements in very specific places. I don't blame the author for being upset about this because I can't see a reason to retract the submission to the contes…
Agreed, this seems like a blatant attempt at co-oping the empowerment movement in order to boost their bottom line. According to Fortune ( http://fortune.com/2019/01/09/the-ose-toy-ces2019/ ), CES responded to the author two months ago. If this is truly about airing grievances about losing the award, why wait until now to publish a respose?
Exactly this.
On a side note, where can I get more information about the Osé (e.g. prototype, demo video)?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who cares. They should write an article about their confusing rules then (it would not be the first, this comes up every year). But don’t cry sexism when there are female “sexual health” devices by female founders on display and winning awards. Maybe they are trying to change their image, and this device couldn’t satisfy another category. Maybe they decided it wasn’t novel enough in the areas that matter, and it’s ju…
That's like saying "don't complain about sexism in tech when there are female programmers". The fact that CES doesn't operate a 100% efficient program of sexist discrimination doesn't show that Lora DiCarlo didn't experience sexist discrimination.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What part of that chain of events would lead to a sexist outcome? Where's the gender bias introduced?
I think CES's half-formed "this is immoral" and "this is not a robot" excuses would have been less likely if the product was targeted at men.
For those who didn't read the article... The author is claiming that their is a partial lewdness order among products so that normal products <= robotic vibrator <= vr porn. Therefore, if the lewdness threshold doesn't ban vr porn it cannot ban robotic vibrators either. But since robotic vibrators are banned and not vr porn, discrimination must be at play.
”Robotic” vibrators are not banned. OhMiBod (woman founder, too) has had them on display for years, and have a booth this year. Apparently it adjusts intensity based on your heartbeat from your apple watch now! Also, a smart vibrator from last year, also by a woman founder: https://sextechguide.com/news/mysteryvibe-crescendo-app-upda... The lewdness thing is inconsistent but clearly has nothing whatsoever to do with…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They claim it is too obscene in the context of the innovation award categories- there isn't one for sex toys ( https://www.ces.tech/Events-Programs/Innovation-Awards/Honor... ). I absolutely agree that they are overly puritanical when it comes to adult products in general though.
The "Tech for a better world" category seems to be a catch-all, including such things as the Nissan LEAF, a smart pet bed, and a wine preservation opener.