51–59 of 59 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wish this comment stood out more but HN has eliminated displaying of points.
Huh? Points haven't been displayed on comments for at least 18 months.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is quite easy to test: just take 20 beauty queens from North Korea and see what diversity you get. I believe the genetic diversity in the two countries is about the same, but they have been isolated for around 50+ years, so there is some great science to be had once North Korea opens up (think Iceland).
"Beauty queens" is a terrible group to sample from. It is not in any way whatsoever random, which is what you would need to study. "Beauty" has many subjective components, which can change rapidly.
It's worrying how this keeps getting upvoted despite having been debunked before it even hit HN, and the top comments on both HN and the original post pointing to the article that debunks it. This is one scenario in which HN could really use downvotes.
For me it doesn't really make a huge difference if plastic surgery or photoshop are the culprit. So these women don't actually all look like clones, they're just presented as clones; great.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Beauty queens" is a terrible group to sample from. It is not in any way whatsoever random, which is what you would need to study. "Beauty" has many subjective components, which can change rapidly.
But that's not the point. Take 20 girls from each country who are considered by some popular standard to be beautiful, and measure variation. Since I'm assuming plastic surgery is not that widespread in DPRK, the results would be interesting, even if not very useful.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For me it doesn't really make a huge difference if plastic surgery or photoshop are the culprit. So these women don't actually all look like clones, they're just presented as clones; great.
That's actually a really interesting point about the cultural backdrop of the photos being produced.
Sure, I can't blame anyone for not believing in their job of photoshopping fashion pics.. but what I find much more unsettling is that young people do get influenced by this stuff, wether they know/want it or not, and wether the people pushing the stuff believe in it themselves or not. But it's not just fashion, our societies are half-assing a lot of things on a massive scale. Too many hustlers, too little pride in work :(
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But that's not the point. Take 20 girls from each country who are considered by some popular standard to be beautiful, and measure variation. Since I'm assuming plastic surgery is not that widespread in DPRK, the results would be interesting, even if not very useful.
But you aren't just measuring variation in the population. You're also measuring strictness of beauty standards.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would think there would be even fewer "eigenfaces" if someone had Photoshopped them to look alike.
Some of the photos were taken at slightly different angles. Perhaps that accounts for some eigenfaces.
It's worrying how this keeps getting upvoted despite having been debunked before it even hit HN, and the top comments on both HN and the original post pointing to the article that debunks it. This is one scenario in which HN could really use downvotes.