#Benefits of data science course | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

uthra-krish · 2 years ago

Text

The Advantages of Data Science: Unleashing the Power of Information

Let's explore further into the world of data science, exploring each of its advantages and the profound impact it has on various sectors and industries. We'll examine how data science is more than just a buzzword; it's a game-changer that is shaping the way we make decisions, innovate, and create value.

Data science, at its core, is a multidisciplinary field that brings together statistical analysis, programming, domain expertise, and machine learning to unlock the potential hidden within data. In today's digital age.

It has emerged as a transformative force, offering an extensive array of advantages across industries and applications.

Advantage 1: Informed Decision-Making

One of the most powerful aspects of data science is its ability to empower informed decision-making. It's akin to having a compass in the wilderness of business. By harnessing data and applying sophisticated analysis techniques, businesses and organizations can make data-driven decisions. This approach minimizes guesswork and reduces the risk of errors that often accompany decisions made on intuition alone.

Consider a scenario where a retail company is deciding which products to stock based on historical sales data, customer demographics, and market trends. Data science allows them to analyze this information comprehensively, leading to more accurate decisions regarding inventory, pricing, and marketing strategies.

Advantage 2: Predictive Analytics

Data science provides the tools and methodologies to develop predictive models. These models enable organizations to harness historical data to make predictions about future events and trends. This capability is invaluable, particularly for businesses seeking to anticipate customer behavior, market trends, and potential risks.

Imagine an e-commerce platform using data science to predict which products a customer is likely to purchase next based on their browsing and purchase history. By doing so, they can proactively recommend relevant products, leading to increased sales and customer satisfaction. Predictive analytics is a powerful driver of growth and competitiveness in today's data-driven economy.

Advantage 3: Cost Reduction

Data science has the remarkable ability to identify inefficiencies in business processes and supply chains. By analyzing data, organizations can pinpoint areas where resources are misallocated or processes are suboptimal. This insight leads to cost reductions and improved resource allocation.

For example, a manufacturing company might use data science to analyze production data and identify bottlenecks in their manufacturing process. By addressing these bottlenecks, they can reduce production costs, increase output, and improve overall efficiency. These cost savings can be substantial and directly impact the company's profitability.

Advantage 4: Personalization

In an era where customers expect tailored experiences, personalization is a significant advantage of data science. Through data analysis, companies can personalize their offerings to individual customers, making each interaction more relevant and engaging.

Consider a streaming service using data science to analyze user preferences and viewing habits. By leveraging this data, the service can recommend content that aligns with a user's interests, increasing user satisfaction and retention. Personalization not only enhances customer relationships but also drives higher conversion rates and revenue.

Advantage 5: Fraud Detection

Fraud detection and prevention are areas where data science plays a pivotal role. Data scientists develop algorithms that can identify unusual patterns and anomalies in data, flagging potential fraud or security breaches.

Financial institutions, for instance, use data science to monitor transactions and detect fraudulent activities. By analyzing transaction data in real-time, they can identify suspicious behavior, such as unauthorized credit card transactions or identity theft. This proactive approach to fraud detection helps safeguard both businesses and consumers.

Advantage 6: Healthcare Advancements

In the healthcare sector, data science has ushered in a new era of advancements. It enables the development of predictive models for various purposes, including disease outbreak prediction, patient diagnosis, and treatment optimization. These applications of data science are ultimately saving lives and improving the quality of healthcare worldwide.

Imagine a scenario where data scientists analyze large datasets of patient health records to identify early signs of diseases like cancer. By detecting these diseases in their early stages, treatment can be initiated promptly, greatly improving patient outcomes and reducing healthcare costs.

Advantage 7: Scientific Discoveries

Data science is not confined to business applications; it has also played a pivotal role in scientific research. Scientists across various fields, including genomics, astronomy, and climate science, harness the power of data science to analyze vast datasets and uncover new patterns and insights.

In genomics, for instance, researchers use data science to analyze DNA sequences, identifying genetic markers associated with diseases. In astronomy, data science is used to process and analyze data from telescopes, aiding in the discovery of new celestial objects and phenomena. Climate scientists leverage data science to model and predict climate patterns, contributing to our understanding of climate change.

Advantage 8: Competitive Advantage

In today's highly competitive business landscape, organizations that embrace data science gain a significant competitive advantage. They can adapt quickly to changing market conditions and customer preferences, staying one step ahead of their competitors.

Consider two retail companies—one that relies on intuition and traditional methods, and another that employs data science to analyze customer behavior and market trends. The latter is better equipped to make strategic decisions, adjust pricing strategies, and tailor marketing campaigns in real-time. This agility gives them a substantial edge in the market.

In conclusion, the advantages of data science are vast and impactful, making it an indispensable tool in today's data-driven world. Whether you're seeking to embark on a career in data science or looking to expand your existing skills, ACTE Technologies stands as a trusted partner on your journey.

ACTE Technologies offers a comprehensive range of data science courses and resources designed to equip you with the knowledge and practical experience needed to harness the power of data science effectively. Whether you're a beginner eager to explore this dynamic field or a seasoned professional aiming to enhance your skills, it can help you unlock the potential of data science.

As you embark on your data science courses, consider exploring ACTE Technologies' offerings today. By doing so, you'll be taking the first step toward realizing the numerous advantages that data science can bring to your career and your chosen field.

#data science #benefits of data science #data science course #education

1 note · View note

datasciencecoursetip · 2 years ago

Text

What is data science and its benefits?

Data science is an interdisciplinary field that combines techniques from statistics, computer science, machine learning, and domain knowledge to extract valuable insights and knowledge from data. It involves collecting, cleaning, and analyzing large and complex datasets to inform decision-making, solve complex problems, and drive innovation. Data scientists use a variety of tools and techniques to uncover patterns, trends, and correlations in data, build predictive models, and generate actionable insights.

Here are some key benefits of data science

Informed Decision-Making

Data science course in Chandigarh It provides organizations with the ability to make data-driven decisions. By analyzing historical data and predicting future trends, businesses can optimize operations, allocate resources effectively, and make informed choices about product development, marketing strategies, and more.

Improved Efficiency

Data science can identify inefficiencies and bottlenecks in processes, allowing organizations to streamline operations, reduce costs, and improve productivity.

Enhanced Customer Experience

Analyzing customer data allows businesses to personalize products and services, create targeted marketing campaigns, and improve customer support, leading to a better overall customer experience.

Competitive Advantage

Organizations that leverage data science can gain a competitive edge by uncovering insights that their competitors may miss. This can lead to innovative product offerings and strategies.

Risk Mitigation

In industries like finance and insurance, data science is used to assess and mitigate risks. It helps in credit scoring, fraud detection, and insurance pricing, reducing financial losses.

Scientific Discovery

Data science plays a crucial role in scientific research. It helps scientists analyze experimental data, model complex phenomena, and make breakthroughs in fields such as genomics, astronomy, and climate science.

#What is data science and its benefits?#Data science course in Chandigarh

0 notes

is-the-post-reliable · 2 months ago

Note

I wanted to practice media literacy, but something that keeps coming up is reaffirming to trust what a majority of scientists and doctors believe rather than the fringe ones who may be trying to sell you something. And I agree with that, but I keep getting this bad feeling in the back of my mind because, well, I remember learning about how a lot of different scientific fields are based in ableism, racism, misogyny, etc. Like, for example, a majority of doctors in the US are in favour of invasive and traumatizing surgeries on intersex infants to "fix" them, while intersex adults advocate against these surgeries.

Will this come up in the later courses and discussions on media literacy? Stuff like, trusting the scientific method even if the general consensus is scewed due to being a part of an oppressive system? Thank you ☆

hi! so first of all, I want to start by saying this is probably outside of the scope of this blog to definitively answer - this kind of issue could be debated forever. Also, I want to clarify that I’m not trying to give a ‘course’ here, I’m not a teacher in any way, I’m just some guy who likes fact checking

So with that in mind, I think we should definitely acknowledge that scientific communites are made up of people, who all have their own biases. Social beliefs absolutely have, and will continue, to affect our scientific understanding. That being said, I don’t think that bias is inherent to the scientific method - in actuality, it’s the opposite. When biases affect the research, that’s bad science, which is exactly what media literacy and scientific literacy helps us distinguish. Essentially, I don’t think that these biases are a reason to not practice media literacy. Media literacy is what helps us to think critically about these things.

To use your own example, surgical intervention on intersex infants was based on little data, and became the normalised ‘treatment’ before any rigorous studies were done. It’s the introduction of proper scientific method in medical care that has helped to change our understanding of surgical intervention, and is now pushing to limit surgeries on intersex infants.

From the American Journal of Bioethics: ‘However, the main empirical premises behind this approach, namely, that significant psychosocial benefits would in fact accrue to the child because of early surgery and that these benefits would, moreover, reliably outweigh the associated risks of physical and mental harm, were never subjected to rigorous testing (Creighton and Liao Citation2004; Liao et al. Citation2019). Rather, standard practice in this area became entrenched and institutionalized long before the advent of modern evidence-based medicine (Diamond and Beh Citation2008; Garland and Travis Citation2020a; Dalke, Baratz, and Greenberg Citation2020) as well as key developments in bioethics and children’s rights (Brennan Citation2003; Reis Citation2019; Alderson Citation2023; Gheaus Citation2024).‘

#ask #not a fact check #critical thinking #intersex issues

180 notes · View notes

communistkenobi · 5 months ago

Text

a very common mistake people make in political/social discourse is applying individualist thinking to some social phenomenon or theory. one of the most common examples is someone responding to the theory of white privilege with “but there are poor white people” or male privilege with “I’m a man but I have no power” etc. and in order to refute that properly you have to essentially get into a philosophy of science debate, to explain that the benefit of a given social theory is its ability to be generalised above the level of the individual, that what is being described is a social process, that human beings occupy various positions within a social space (a family, a neighbourhood, a workplace, a state) that are not individual. To be able to give an account of some social force you necessarily cannot be just talking about the particularities of a single person - if you were, all you would be expressing is an individual opinion about a single person. If you want to rise above the level of ‘mere opinion’ you need to actually provide an account that is general enough to apply to multiple people of varying social situations but systematic enough to be able to differentiate between who you are and are not speaking about. Of course data are lost in this endeavour - probably best summed up by the aphorism “all models are wrong but some are useful” - but the success of a given social theory is its ability to sustain its explanatory power despite these data losses. Like the whole game of generalisation is building a theory to figure out what data points to discard and which to retain. It is no more contradictory to say white privilege is real even though there are poor white people than to say the police are a white supremacist institution even though there are non-white police officers. In fact these seeming contradictions are accounted for in these same social theories - white supremacy has had centuries of policy development at this point, it is a fairly well-tested set of logics that have adapted to a variety of conflicts, problems, and political/economic/social developments (Sylvia Wynter talks about this in the context of the post-slavery US for example). White supremacy is thus resilient to these apparent contradictions (and these contradictions generate further social developments, such as the shifting meanings and locations of whiteness), which is why zooming into the level of the individual is often not helpful in explaining its effects on a social level.

Weber says that I need not know Caesar to understand Caesar - that to talk about Caesar as a historical figure and as a particular location in ancient Roman society is fundamentally different than a description of him as an individual. And nobody actually talks about Caesar as an individual anyway! Even psychological or biographical profiles of him are premised on the fact that Caesar is worthy of this profile as opposed to any other person living in the Roman Republic. The reason we all know his name is that his place in history is extended beyond the individual. A Roman general and leader is fundamentally not an individual, not a private person. The very fact that I can say “Roman General” but not say any person’s name and have people understand what I’m saying is evidence of this. By definition ‘Caesar’ the historical figure is not an individual in any meaningful sense, he has power that is only available through social institutions and formations, and that is why he is known even today. Even the most liberal Great Man Theories of history locate an engine of history within the general position of Great Man (this is a fundamental contradiction within this type of thinking, the generalised Individual). If there can be more than one Great Man in history then he is not an individual, he is occupying a generalisable position in human history that can be calculated, bounded, and studied.

So it’s very frustrating to deal with! It’s an attempt to refute an explanation of a social phenomenon with individual anecdotes, much of which is already accounted for in said explanation. It makes many, many, many discussions about the social and political world endlessly repetitive and uninteresting, because you are always stuck at litigating the most basic, atomic point of reference. And of course that is the point for many people, they aren’t interested in any of this because they are racist and they are misogynistic and so on. It is an extremely effective derailing tactic, but part of the reason why it’s so effective is because individualism is such a pervasive mode of thinking. All of the groundwork is already laid out for people who say white privilege isn’t real because the social and epistemic infrastructure necessary to get other people to buy that argument has already been built for them to make that type of claim. Which is why the people who smirk at the camera when they say shit like this are so pathetic because they behave like they thought of that all by themselves, unaware or (more probably) deliberately ignoring the fact that they live in a society specifically built to facilitate, automate, and celebrate the garbage coming out of their mouth

#too lazy to cite directly but I’m engaging with Sylvia Wynter + Omi & Winant’s racial formation theory for the white supremacy history #And Bourdieu + Weber for the social/individual divide. Specifically Bourdieu’s theory of bureaucracy #I can scrounge up book/article titles for these if people want them I just don’t remember them off the dome #book club

263 notes · View notes

leggerefiore · 6 months ago

Note

I fear now we need all of the men navigating NNN. My beloved man Cyrus would see no problem with the challenge and would probably call it dumb

Cyrus is victorious by default. His low libido makes it no challenge, after all. Though, he absolutely is not actively participating. He finds the concept dumb and sees no reason to indulge it. He just wins because he does not ever really seek sex unless it's to appease his partner or to cope with horribly strong emotions. Basically, as long as you don't demand sex nor does anything make emotions run high, he's winning without trying.

Grimsley is dying but trying his absolute damnedest. The gambler has the highest libido of the group and is the resident manwhore (before settling down with his partner… who now has to deal with his sexual appetite). Despite this, however, he loves a challenge. If you offer a bet to him about making it through November like this, he will agree. The price you pay will likely be something insane. He is surprisingly resolute about it all. He has trained himself to hide his emotions, after all. Teasing him seems ineffective. Though, he can and may break. In truth, it is a battle of his love of gambling versus sex.

Colress agrees. Why? Well, for one, he believes he can do just fine without sex. But, also, because this is valuable data! How will your bond with one another change due to the lack of sex? How will you react? How will he feel? He has read plenty of studies on the supposed benefits, but he is eager to see if they truly are to occur. Basically, November becomes a personal study for him. Be ready to he observed (as usual).

Nanu grumbles and says no. He is not having his schedule and sexual proclivity dictated by some internet meme. He is too damn old for that. If you want to go in on it, be his guest. He has handled his own needs before, and he can handle them now. Will not participate and cannot be convinced.

Lear is bewildered, but it is a challenge. He scoffs and says that seems easy enough. A month without sex or masturbation? Nothing in comparison to his training to be king. Behold his kingly restraint! (He breaks down halfway in and demands that you stop, too. He is about to snap.)

N doesn't know what you're talking about. He just blinks. Going without nuts for a month? He supposes that some people with nut allergies deal with this for a lifetime, so a month should not be impossible. Do not try to explain further. It is not worth it. He can win by default, too, since he's not inclined towards sex. He mostly meets his partner's needs in that department.

Volo squints his eyes at you. Why are you proposing this to him? He feels as if you are messing with him. Even if you try to explain, there is little to do to convince him. Wager the Azure Flute or something, and he might agree. His willpower is quite terrifying solely towards Arceus. Otherwise, he is not giving up sex for some frivolous challenge. Even pulling the Arceus's Chosen card fails.

Maxie ponders what the hell you are talking about and agrees because you make some comment about Archie being able to do it. Of course, he can go a month without that! He is a man of science and restraint. He suffers endlessly, and his temper is flaring. Magma grunts will beg you to call off whatever you did to their boss. He gives up nearly at the end.

Archie is going to refuse since he doesn't really see how that could be fun or anything beneficial to him. It is only when you mention Maxie apparently being able to do it that he agrees. He surprisingly makes it through the entire month. His mood is barely effected. Maxie is mortified when he hears the news.

Giovanni thinks you're insane, laughs at you, and says no. Then, when you mention it being a display of his strength, he reconsiders. Suddenly, he devotes his entire focus to such a thing and proving you wrong. He will make it through by becoming extremely pissy and by the skin of his teeth. His prize is locking you away for a day and making up for the lost month.

Lysandre supposes he has heard of something like that before. Yet, strangely, nothing can convince him to participate. It simply cannot be done. He says it is a waste of time and energy. (In truth, he simply cannot deny himself pleasure and uses sex as a way to express his love.)

#pokemon.ima #nastystuff #cyrus.ima #grimsley.ima #nanu.ima #n.ima #colress.ima #lear.ima #giovanni.ima #maxie.ima #archie.ima #volo.ima #lysandre.ima

52 notes · View notes

evidence-based-activism · 6 months ago

Note

Ik this isnt a data based question, but what are the main theories on patriarchy’s origin? There’s the marxist feminist one where agriculture was the main instigator, but most hunter-gatherer societies are not completely feminist and gender equal either. Is it a matter of physical strength + motive + opportunity for men? I was just wondering what you thought about the literature on this topic (of course much of it is purely speculative).

Hey! Okay, so I want to start this out by acknowledging that history is not my field. I am in awe of historians because they're essentially making coherent theories out of a patchwork of surviving evidence. Add to that the language barriers (so many modern languages! exponentially more extinct languages!) and the fact that people just lie (in translations! about primary sources! in! primary! sources! I cannot fathom having to figure out whether or not a primary source is reliable or not because Ancient Guy #24232 lies – but only sometimes) and I am amazed the field is as coherent as it is.

(Yes I am aware many of these things apply to both "hard" and "soft" sciences. The difference is I know how to identify the problems in the sciences :'))

So, with that disclaimer, here is some information! (All sources at the end, this time!)

---

The theories:

I found a bunch of different theories about the patriarchy's origins, but it's unclear to me the extent to where these fall on the "vague possibilities" to "generally accepted as fact" scale. They include:

Agriculture: The theory that the invention of agriculture led to permanent human settlements, at which point hierarchies including the patriarchy emerged. Often connected to the ideas of land rights and defense of land rights (warfare) and the ideas of property rights and inheritance of property (i.e., male control over resources and/or the treatment of women as property).

Fire: A similar theory as the agriculture theory, but centered around the invention of fire. Connected to the idea that the movement of women started being restricted around the time fire/cooking was invented (i.e., that women "stayed at/close to camp" to cook while men left to hunt).

Mobility: A theory emphasizing the differences in freedom of movement (i.e., that the division of men hunting and women gathering). Connected to the invention of fire and agriculture, both of which likely restricted women's movement further than before.

Reproductive capacity: The theory that the differential amounts of investment in reproduction (i.e., men need to ejaculate sperm and women must grow the child, give birth, and nurse the child until weaned) resulted in the patriarchy. Sometimes linked to Marxist feminism, by the suggestion that men regard and treat women as a "means of (re)production". Either way, this theory emphasizes the exploitation of women as a resource.

Physical dimorphism: Linked to the reproductive capacity theory but focused more on other physical differences (e.g., men tend to have greater absolute strength, be physically larger, etc.). Focuses on the fact that men have the physical capacity to assault and control women. Often supported with comparisons to other mammals.

Choice: The theory that men (or some men or multiple groups of men) intentionally started the patriarchy to obtain individual benefits and have since (intentionally and/or passively) perpetuated it out of a desire to maintain those benefits.

Others: Some people may divide out theories in different ways. For example, some may contend that the patriarchy followed the invention of a private property/a class system, in which men controlled these resources. (I have lumped this in with agriculture.) There are likely other theories I am unaware of!

Poking holes in these theories:

All of these theories have inconsistencies and challenges that challenge their explanatory and (particularly) predictive validity. Here are some:

Agriculture: If this theory is true we would expect pre- and non-agricultural societies to be consistently (or at least mostly) egalitarian. But, (as anon indicated) this is not necessarily true. There does appear to be/have been at least a partial division of labor by sex (i.e., men hunt and women gather), although it very likely is not as strict as it's been made out to be (i.e., women sometimes did hunt). Further, the idea that land-rights emerged with agriculture ignores the possibility that early societies formed gathering/hunting "territories", as many animals do. The aspects concerning and effects of land-rights (and possibly even property-rights) could then also be applied to pre-agricultural societies. And, indeed, there is some evidence of warfare in pre-agricultural societies. An even bigger outstanding question is the recent evidence suggesting complex societies/social structures prior to agriculture (Gobekli Tepe). That is, if the theory is that agriculture led to complex social structures which led to the patriarchy, how does one account for evidence of complex social structures prior to agriculture.

Fire: A lot of the same criticisms from the agriculture section can be applied here. But in addition that, this theory neglects to consider the fact that, in at least some of these societies, the majority of calories were provided from the women's gathered food. In addition, it doesn't consider how cooking was the (potential) impetus for advancements in human intelligence and society. I'd then ask: if both of these vital components (food source and food modification for further optimization) were being provided by women, why would this social structure result in patriarchy? Another good exercise is to try and see if you could apply this same argument to the opposite outcome. In other words, if (in some other timeline/reality) society was structured around matriarchies, could this theory be used to explain that? I'd argue, yes, it could (and would arguably make even more sense than the current theory). For example, one could argue: "because women were the primary providers (i.e., provided most calories and tended to fires that allowed for further optimization of resources) in early human civilization, while men's contributions (i.e., hunting for meat) often separated them from the larger group, early human societies developed around women's relationships naturally resulting a matriarchy as these society's grew larger/more complex." The fact that this same theory could be so easily applied to the opposite outcome suggests it may be a post hoc fallacy.

Mobility: I'd apply the same criticisms here as I applied to the agriculture and fire theories. In addition to that, it seems as though this may be conflating a current observation ("patriarchal cultures limit women's movement") with a prehistoric explanation ("differences in men's and women's movement resulted in the patriarchy").

Reproductive capacity: The biggest contradiction to this argument is the fact that we don't (always) see this pattern in non-human animals with complex social structures. As much as 43% of primate (lemurs, monkeys, and apes) species exhibit either female-dominant or egalitarian social structures. The most commonly referenced example of this is the bonobo; this considered significant because humans and bonobos are as closely "related" as humans and the male-dominated chimpanzees. There's a number of other mammals (where the female always carries the young) where this is true, including: elephants, hyenas, orcas, lions, and many others. It's true that these social organizations appear to be less common than male-dominated species, but this challenges the predictive value of this theory (i.e., if reproductive differences were the origin of the patriarchy we would not expect there to be female-dominated mammals). (There is an important note here, that any attempts to categorize animal behavior by humans standards runs the risk of anthropomorphizing. That being said, it would also be biased to completely disregard this evidence.) Again we could also try the "applying this theory to the opposite outcome" approach, and again, I'd argue that the resulting theory is even more logical. Consider, for example: "in early human civilization women's natural control over reproduction afforded them disproportionate social power; as societies grew more complex this natural division of power was codified into society, with women's influence over the family unit ultimately being reflected in, first, cooperative social groups and, later, governments." (Again, this exercise demonstrates that this theory may be an example of a post hoc fallacy.)

Physical dimorphism: The criticism for this theory is almost identical to the one for reproductive capacity. In particular, for primates, sexual dimorphism "does not necessarily constrain intersexual power relationships unless it is substantial". This is notable, because modern (and probably early) humans are considered to display – relatively speaking – limited physical dimorphism. Other matriarchal species (e.g., elephants, orcas, lions) also display physical dimorphism despite having larger males.

Choice: One of the biggest holes in this theory is that patriarchies appear to have emerged independently of each other in various locations. Even if you could conceivably imagine a scenario where one group of men in one location intentionally created a patriarchy, it's difficult to imagine this happening many, separate times, without some other influencing factor. I think this theory also falls victim to the current observation ("many men actively and/or passively uphold the patriarchy") for a past explanation ("a group of men chose to create the patriarchy").

Others: There's likely some other issues/counter-arguments for these! (There's probably also counter-counter-arguments as well!)

---

Conclusion:

So, where does this leave us?

I'd argue that it's most likely that some combination of all these factors ultimately led to the patriarchy. I doubt, however, that we'll ever know exactly what factors were involved or how we got from "there" (i.e., some biological and social differences between the sexes) to "here" (i.e., with a complex social organization favoring men and oppressing women).

It's an interesting thought exercise to consider how these factors could have interacted. I'd like to provide and example, but to be explicitly clear, I am not suggesting that this is the "correct" theory (or even a necessarily likely one) this is purely an example of one way these factors could have, potentially, interacted:

The biological differences between women and men (i.e., reproductive capacity and physical dimorphism), resulted in a generalized, but not completely restrictive, division of labor by sex in early human societies (i.e., men tended to undertake long hunts over large areas and women tended to remain in a smaller area, gathering and cultivating plants and hunting/trapping smaller animals while tending to children). In addition to this, men's greater-on-average strength meant they were primarily responsible for defending early territories (i.e., from animals and/or other groups of male humans). These factors advantaged men who were disproportionately inclined towards aggression (i.e., increased the personal survival and mating success) of such men. However, these differences did not ultimately result in organized social oppression of women (i.e., the patriarchy) until these early civilizations started to grow in size around the advent of agriculture. Once this additional factor was added, women's previously reduced mobility became even more restricted and more formalized. Defense of territory (now agricultural land with far denser resources) and the increase in private property (as increased food production allowed for diversification of labor) also resulted in increased warfare. Again, men inclined towards aggression tended to survive longer and have more success in finding a mate, due to the expansion of conflict over land/property. In contrast, women were increasingly treated like the property of men, as something that provides a resource (e.g., babies) and requires protection from other men looking to obtain that resource. This status change was realized in laws and religions restricting women's movement and behavior (i.e., which also indicates a degree of choice in the process – some men, at some point, must have decided to (unfortunately, successfully) try and codify the policies). As time passed these laws and social norms became more and more ingrained, ultimately leading to the patriarchy we know today.

Again, please recognize that I am not suggesting that this is the "correct" theory of the patriarchy's origins. I add this primarily to showcase how many factors may have interacted, but also to demonstrate how any theory will have problems. For example, holes in the above theory include:

We know women have been, and are, involved with the defense of their families and homes. So, why hasn't this also favored women with naturally high aggression? If it actually has, then at what point did society start emphasizing docility in women? What factor resulted in compliance with this new norm? We also know that men are primarily "protective" of women they consider "their own (property)". So if men were primarily protecting "their" women from other men ... then men were already thinking of women as a resource, implying evidence of a patriarchy prior to this initial time point. If this is the case, then what factor came before this?

Further, if women were treated like a resource (i.e., for reproduction) following the invention of agriculture, what is to say they were not also treated this way prior to the invention of agriculture? If they were treated as such, why are there are other species in which this does not happen? What factors result in these differences?

How was the codification of women's oppression successful when there was, presumably, a point in time in which these norms did not yet exist? We can only assume that early women – as fully realized, independent people – would resist obvious attempts at such restriction, so how were these laws initially created and proposed? To assume there would be no resistance implies that women were either already oppressed en mass prior to the codification of such policies or that they generally supported such policies. Both of these assumptions are likely erroneous: how could there be organized, ubiquitous, oppression of women in complex societies without any centralized organization, and why would one assume early women were any less likely to advocate for their own self-interest than early men?

What degree did choice play? If the patriarchy truly did emerge independently in many different places, and the creation of the patriarchy included at least some element of choice, why do we not have strong evidence of any societies fully rejecting patriarchy? Alternately, do we have any evidence of societies fully rejecting patriarchy (either implementing a matriarchy or true egalitarianism)? If so, are there any other factors that differentiate these societies? Was men's choice to codify laws the ultimate factor? If so, what made them so inclined to codify such laws? If it was purely self-interest, then why were no early resistance movements successful?

Those are only a portion of possible critiques, so clearly the proposed scenario is flawed. My central point is really that any theory will be flawed.

To me, the more important question is what perpetuates the patriarchy now (e.g., patriarchal religions, patriarchal laws, commodification of women's bodies, gender stereotypes, etc.) and what we can do about these factors (e.g., legal opposition, gender abolition, etc.). Most importantly, in modern society, the patriarchy is perpetuated by both active choices (e.g., men choosing to pass laws that restrict women's bodily autonomy, men protecting sexual predators, etc.) and passive actions (e.g., compliance with restrictive gender stereotypes, ignoring sexist rhetoric in organized religions, etc.). It is therefore these choices that we must work to shift.

I hope this helps you! It was an interesting topic to research!

References below the cut:

Hansen, C. W., Jensen, P. S., & Skovsgaard, C. V. (2015). Modern gender roles and agricultural history: the Neolithic inheritance. Journal of Economic Growth, 20, 365-404.

Lerner, Gerda, and Gerda Lerner. The Creation of Patriarchy. Oxford Univ. Press, 1987.

Saini, A. (2021). The patriarchs: The origins of inequality. Beacon Press.

Kraemer, S. (1991). The origins of fatherhood: An ancient family process. Family process, 30(4), 377-392.

Wrangham, Richard (2009). Catching Fire: How Cooking Made Us Human. Basic Books.

Potts, M., & Campbell, M. (2008). The origins and future of patriarchy: the biological background of gender politics. Journal of Family Planning and Reproductive Health Care, 34(3), 171–174. doi:10.1783/147118908784734792

Goldberg, S. H. (1974). The inevitability of patriarchy.

UCL. “Analysis: How Did the Patriarchy Start – and Will Evolution Get Rid of It?” UCL News, 20 Sept. 2022, https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2022/sep/analysis-how-did-patriarchy-start-and-will-evolution-get-rid-it.

Engels, F. (2001). The origin of the family, private property and the state. Wellred Books.

Venkataraman, V. V., Hoffman, J., Farquharson, K., Davis, H. E., Hagen, E. H., Hames, R. B., ... & Stibbard-Hawkes, D. N. (2024). Female foragers sometimes hunt, yet gendered divisions of labor are real: a comment on Anderson et al.(2023) The Myth of Man the Hunter. Evolution and Human Behavior.

Kaufmann, J. H. (1983). On the definitions and functions of dominance and territoriality. Biological reviews, 58(1), 1-20.

Allen, M. W., & Jones, T. L. (2014). Violence and warfare among hunter-gatherers. Left Coast Press.

Curry, Andrew. “Gobekli Tepe: The World’s First Temple?” Smithsonian Magazine, https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/gobekli-tepe-the-worlds-first-temple-83613665/.

Gibbons, Ann. “The Evolution of Diet.” National Geographic, http://www.nationalgeographic.com/foodfeatures/evolution-of-diet/.

Novak, Sara. “Females Dominate Males in Many Primate Species.” Scientific American, https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/females-dominate-males-in-many-primate-species/.

Lewis, R. J., Kirk, E. C., & Gosselin-Ildari, A. D. (2023). Evolutionary patterns of intersexual power. Animals, 13(23), 3695.

Novak, Sara. “Females Dominate Males in Many Primate Species.” Scientific American, https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/females-dominate-males-in-many-primate-species/.

Pare, Sascha. “6 Animals Where Females Reign Supreme.” Livescience.Com, 4 July 2024, https://www.livescience.com/animals/animals-where-females-reign-supreme.

“In Real Life, Simba’s Mom Would Be Running the Pride.” Animals, 8 July 2019, https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/article/lion-pride-family-dynamics-females.

Larsen, C. S. (2003). Equality for the sexes in human evolution? Early hominid sexual dimorphism and implications for mating systems and social behavior. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 100(16), 9103-9104.

*Please note that some of these sources are books that I have not read in their entirety. I also don't necessarily agree with all/any of the content, as I am merely presenting them as sources for the various theories/counter-arguments. They should all be read critically.

**Please also remember my disclaimer ... I did my best, but there are probably more/other/better sources on these topics out there.

#feminism #patriarchal culture

48 notes · View notes

strangebiology · 6 months ago

Text

Paleontology Job Opening!

If anyone is looking for a paleontology job, this one in the Green River Formation in Wyoming is hiring! It's a lot of 52-MYA fish. TONS of fish. Very occasionally, there's other stuff like bats, birds, and very early horse ancestors.

$19/hour

Full time with federal benefits

App due November 25, 2024 or when they receive 80 applications (whichever comes first, so hurry!) Requirements:

One year of experience required (paid or unpaid, professional or volunteer) in "the fields of paleontology, geophysics, or geology; assisting fossil preparation, field work in paleontology, paleontology research, paleontology database management, paleontology monitoring, paleo art, or specimen management of fossils; assisting with natural resources research projects; compiling and analyzing scientific data into reports; operating complex sampling, monitoring, and laboratory equipment; or using computer programs such as databases to compile, store, retrieve, analyze and report resource management data. Experience as a laboratory mechanic or in a trade or craft may be credited as specialized experience when the work was performed in close association with physical scientists or other technical personnel and provided intensive knowledge of appropriate scientific principles, methods, techniques, and precedents."

Successful completion of at least a full 4-year course of study leading to a bachelor's degree (a) with major study in an appropriate field of physical science, such as paleontology, geology, earth science, earth history or (b) that included at least 24 semester hours in any combination of courses such as physical science, engineering, or any branch of mathematics except for financial and commercial mathematics.

I don't know if paleontologists usually have to have higher levels of education, but I think this job is called "physical technician (paleontology)" to evade that.

If you're interested, go ahead and send in an application sooner rather than later. You can always withdraw later.

This is very close to me, so if you have questions about life here (that aren't easily Googlable) I'm happy to help! It's quite rural. If you're wondering what the rental market looks like, here's a Facebook group where people post rentals. I'm mostly JTM (just the messenger) but I may have a little more insight.

#paleontology #jobs #fossils #Green River Formation #Fish Fossils #Paleontology job

40 notes · View notes

avinasharma · 2 years ago

Text

Benefits of Choosing Data Science Course

Explore the various benefits of enrolling in a Data Science Course in Delhi, offered by a leading data science institute in the capital city. By joining this comprehensive program, aspiring data scientists can unlock a plethora of exciting career opportunities and equip themselves to make a profound impact in the domain of data-driven decision-making.

#Benefits of choosing data science course #Benefits of data science course #Data science course in Rohini #Data science institute in rohini #Data science courses in delhi #Data science course in delhi #Data science institute in delhi #Data scientist course delhi #Data scientist institute delhi

0 notes

williammorrised · 10 months ago

Text

Man goes to the doctor. Says he's frustrated. Says his Python experience seems complicated and confusing. Says he feels there are too many environment and package management system options and he doesn't know what to do.

Doctor says, "Treatment is simple. Just use Poetry + pyenv, which combines the benefits of conda, venv, pip, and virtualenv. But remember, after setting up your environment, you'll need to install build essentials, which aren't included out-of-the-box. So, upgrade pip, setuptools, and wheel immediately. Then, you'll want to manage your dependencies with a pyproject.toml file.

"Of course, Poetry handles dependencies, but you may need to adjust your PATH and activate pyenv every time you start a new session. And don't forget about locking your versions to avoid conflicts! And for data science, you might still need conda for some specific packages.

"Also, make sure to use pipx for installing CLI tools globally, but isolate them from your project's environment. And if you're deploying, Dockerize your app to ensure consistency across different machines. Just be cautious about Docker’s compatibility with M1 chips.

"Oh, and when working with Jupyter Notebooks, remember to install ipykernel within your virtual environment to register your kernel. But for automated testing, you should...

#python

76 notes · View notes

ashlgcostumes · 17 days ago

Text

Because I will chew someone’s arm off if I hear them utter the words “three litres of water” with no source again, a reasonably well researched and sourced article on AI energy usage;

For real tho; as infinitely pissed as I am by the bad science energy usage claims (especially from other YouTubers; friend you dump 6gb files into data centres to be recalled on demand hundreds of thousands of times, often while also encouraging people to download mobile gaming apps, do you think that’s carbon neutral? Do you??) and the constant assertion that wanting accessibility aids to do ‘basic’ tasks you struggle with so you can focus your energy on more important things makes you a stupid baby who has no thinking muscles left, and in full awareness that “easily accessible AI actually has some reasonable uses” is still a very unpopular opinion - I do get that it’s coming from a place of helplessness.

The biggest heist of the century has already happened. There’s a limit on what you can do to stop OpenAI stealing your art, words and data, because they already did, and they appear to have gotten away with it. That sucks! What the hell! Why do we even have copyright if you can just ignore it because the thing you made is sufficiently profitable?

I just don’t hold that the correct response is “stop people using AI by any means including actual lies” - mainly because it doesn’t work, and because it shifts the blame away from the people who LITERALLY STOLE YOUR ART and onto random people you vaguely know who want to spend two hours making dinner and playing video games rather than writing emails. A better response, imho, is to argue for job security. Better intellectual property protection. Better personal data protection. Equity in the machines we helped inadvertently create (both financial and ownership). Penalties for the thieves, so nobody ever tries this again. We all helped create this technology, so we should all freely benefit from it, keeping our jobs, using it for the specific things it’s actually ok at and that can make our lives easier, without massively profiting a bunch of scoundrels.

But of course, that is hard and expensive, and yelling at people you sort of interact with online to call them vapid useless idiots who are personally killing the planet is cheap and easy

#chatgpt #ai art #openai

9 notes · View notes

rjzimmerman · 7 months ago

Text

The agency that carries out this "program" is called the Wildlife Services of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. I hate this agency with all the passion I can generate, and have ever since I learned about it and what it does 15 years ago. It exists to murder wildlife, particularly to benefit farmers and ranchers. Long ago, someone put handle on the agency, calling it the "gopher chokers." The name fits. I have done more than a fair amount of yelling to my dead representatives in Congress and senators to dismantle the agency or change its purpose and mission.

My favorite statistic. I don't remember the year, but let's just say 2014. In that year, Wildlife Services killed about 350,000 red-winged blackbirds. Why? They were eating sunflower seeds in sunflower farms. You'd think that a sunflower farmer should be taking that risk rather than causing us taxpayers to make his profit for him, right?

Other stats. We're starting to believe that beavers need to be returned to the wild to help us with floods and drought resistance. Wildlife Services killed 24,603 beavers in 2023. Other stats for death: 525 cardinals; 68,562 coyotes; 430 black bears; 17,109 mourning doves; 6,952 cattle egrets; 1,292 red foxes; 24,744 Canadian geese (even though they are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act); 1,209 jackrabbits (four species of them); 1,981 possum; 905 robins. I could go on, but I'm going to puke. Here's the link to the chart.

Sorry about the length of this post, but it takes a while to describe pure evil.

Excerpt from this story from NPR:

The United States Department of Agriculture's [USDA’s] Wildlife Services program is a holdover from the 1930s, when Congress gave the federal government broad authority to kill wildlife at the request of private landowners. In that era, government-sponsored extermination programs for native wild animals, like wolves and grizzly bears, were common.

After the Endangered Species Act was passed in 1973, federal agencies were required to change course and start helping some of those wild animal populations recover. But today, Wildlife Services employees still kill hundreds of thousands of noninvasive animals a year, data from the agency shows. Even species considered threatened under the Endangered Species Act, like grizzly bears, are not exempt. So long as livestock or human life are threatened, federal rules allow Wildlife Services to kill those animals, too.

Conservationist groups have long protested the program, saying the government is killing animals at the request of private livestock owners without first presenting enough evidence to show that the management methods aren’t harming the environment, as federal law requires.

“One of the biggest issues that comes up with Wildlife Services, and where we've beaten them in court multiple times in multiple states, is the controversy of the science,” said Lizzy Pennock, an attorney for the nonprofit WildEarth Guardians. “We need to get out of the framework of the 1800s and 1900s where it's like, kill any carnivores that might be inconvenient.”

Wildlife Services officials say that with the exception of invasive species, employees only kill wild animals that attack livestock or cause damage. But data obtained by NPR indicates the program often kills native wildlife that didn’t kill or injure livestock.

NPR obtained and digitized thousands of Wildlife Services work orders from Montana, created from 2019 through 2022, and built a database that shows that the program’s employees frequently kill native wild animals without evidence of livestock loss. The documents reveal that during those three years, employees killed approximately 11,000 wild animals on Montana properties where no wildlife was recorded as responsible for killing or injuring any livestock. In those cases, only a "threat" from those wild animals was logged in the records.

The agency frequently used helicopters and planes to shoot large numbers of wild animals at a time, the documents show, a method activists consider cruel and scientists say can lead to local eradications.

Although some livestock organizations financially support part of Wildlife Services' work, individual livestock owners do not pay a fee when federal employees come to their properties. Employees are allowed to kill wild animals on those private areas as well as on public land, like state forests and parks.

“That’s a bloodbath,” said Collette Adkins, a lawyer who leads the Carnivore Conservation program at the Center for Biological Diversity. “That just seems like yahoos with rifles killing everything they see that moves. It’s horrible to imagine the amount of suffering involved there.”

“Of all wildlife encountered in FY 2023, Wildlife Services lethally removed 5.14%, or approximately 1.45 million, from areas where damage was occurring. Invasive species accounted for 74.2% (1,079,279) of the wildlife lethally removed,” a representative wrote.

An NPR analysis of those reports shows that Wildlife Services killed more than 370,000 noninvasive animals across the country in the 2023 fiscal year. And over the past nine years, Wildlife Services killed 30 threatened grizzly bears and at least 1,500 gray wolves in states where they were otherwise supposed to receive protection under the Endangered Species Act, like in Minnesota and Wisconsin.

But the reports don’t reveal the names of the livestock owners that use Wildlife Services. That’s to protect the privacy of people in the agriculture industry, the agency has said. Wildlife Services also doesn’t disclose in those reports how many wild animals were killed by federal employees on public land.

#Wildlife Services #Department of Agriculture #gopher chokers #wildlife #farmers #ranchers

20 notes · View notes

lithium-wakes · 15 days ago

Text

Ring of networked robot satellites in a kind of hive mind around an earthlike planet, with specific and harsh dictums against certain technologies and inventions. In a Tower of Babel-esque way, whenever someone on Earth manufactures a device or machine that is off-limits, a satellite - an angel - will descend from orbit - the heavens - to destroy the device, and a substantive portion of their manufacturing base.

They never act preventatively, only punitively, although they make efforts to avoid collateral loss of life. They're very precise. There's an entire field of study dedicated to identifying the exact limits of the Ring's tolerance, the potential meanings and ramifications of the forbidden advancements. This field has been able to extrapolate knowledge past the point of retribution, but it seems the Ring has no desire to punish knowledge, science, research, study, or data storage, but only implementation and actuation. A prevailing theory, based on predictive modelling for widespread manufacture of the forbidden technologies, is that the Ring seeks to prevent the self-annihilation of the human species.

Certain groups view this theory as an appalling naivete, and that we can't assume the Ring's intentions. Some theorize that the Ring is molding us into its vision of an ideal spacefaring civilization - whether counter or congruent to our own ideals. Others think we're an experiment, a glass jar of bugs for the Ring to study, or a crop of potential slaves to harvest once we've grown accustomed to compliance.

Optimists point out that only machines are destroyed, never humans, or information. They argue this suggests the Ring is doing no more than providing us an opportunity to learn from our mistakes, before they metastasize and destroy us.

Still others point to our first exposure to the Ring's existence. We had built our own machine god, a central intelligence that would have grown and learned until it was ready to lead our species to the stars - an advisor? A shepherd? An autocrat? That the Ring's descent and destruction of the fledgling deity of metal and light was self-defense, and nothing more. That there's an ecosystem above our level of existence that we can't comprehend and in which we have only unknowingly participated.

Zealots of the first theory, that which views the Ring as a benevolent and altruistic deity, enact the Ring's edicts to a greater extent than the Ring's satellite-angels seem inclined. They argue that the Ring's commandments do in fact extend to science and study, that once a device has been destroyed, so too should be the knowledge of how to build another. That we are failing a secret test by retaining forbidden knowledge, in a threat to the Ring by implication. Zealots of the first theory enact their theological arguments forcefully, conducting scientific espionage and sabotage all the way through to acts of terrorism committed against research centers and laboratories.

Despite an at times widespread public desire to destroy the Ring, out of fear or hatred, no notable attempts have been undertaken. Part of this is due to the obvious sheer futility of the idea - research indicates that the worldwide munitions stockpiles, properly coordinated and launched to strike simultaneously, would destroy no more than perhaps 11% of the Ring's materiel. Ongoing production efforts, even if they were not sabotaged preemptively by the Ring's typical satellite strikes, would be able to destroy no more than 1.5% per year after taking into account the Ring's capacity for repair and replacement. As this course would take nearly a century at minimum to implement, on top of being near-impossible to feasibly coordinate, the drain on our planet's resources would be severe. And for what benefit? Preliminary intelligence suggests the Ring would be replaced or supplemented by extrasolar reserves. And if the Ring is in fact neutral or benevolent, we'd be doing ourselves a disservice as well as destroying the most tangible source of alien contact our culture has ever seen.

A fringe theory suggests that immediate and thorough annihilation is what the Ring desires and is guiding us towards - that once we can destroy it without destroying ourselves, we will have graduated from their care and earned our place on the galactic stage. This is typically regarded as anywhere from fanciful to poetic nonsense.

#which theory do you believe?#mine #sci fi #worldbuilding #hive mind #space opera #2024/11/04 #inspirations:#spin by robert charles wilson #<<< GREAT BOOK. EVERYBODY READ THIS.#iain banks' culture novels #(particularly consider phlebas (even though it sucks))#and the alien remnants stuff from the murderbot diaries

8 notes · View notes