Most active commenters
  • master-lincoln(3)
  • genrilz(3)

←back to thread

164 points thunderbong | 13 comments | | HN request time: 0.499s | source | bottom
Show context
albert_e ◴[] No.41855365[source]
Practically --

I feel hardware technology can improve further to allow under-the-LED-display cameras .... so that we can actually look at both the camera and the screen at the same time.

(There are fingerprint sensors under mobile screens now ...and I think even some front facing cameras are being built in without sacrificing a punch hole / pixels. There is scope to make this better and seamless so we can have multiple cameras if we want behind a typical laptop screen or desktop monitor.)

This would make for a genuine look-at-the-camera video whether we are looking at other attendees in a meeting or reading off our slide notes (teleprompter style).

There would be no need to fake it.

More philosophically --

I don't quite like the normalization of AI tampering with actual videos and photos casually -- on mobile phone cameras or elsewhere. Cameras are supposed to capture reality by default. I know there is already heavy noise reduction, color correction, auto exposure etc ... but no need to use that to justify more tampering with individual facial features and expressions.

Videos are and will be used for recording humans as they are. The capturing of their genuine features and expressions should be valued more. Video should help people bond as people with as genuine body lanuage as possible. Videos will be used as memories of people bygone. Videos will be used as forensic or crime scene evidence.

Let us protect the current state of video capture. All AI enhancements should be marketed separately under a different name, not silently added into existing cameras.

replies(15): >>41855531 #>>41855684 #>>41855730 #>>41855733 #>>41856141 #>>41857383 #>>41857590 #>>41857839 #>>41858056 #>>41858420 #>>41859057 #>>41859076 #>>41859617 #>>41860060 #>>41863348 #
sadcherry[dead post] ◴[] No.41856141[source]
[flagged]
1. ndndjdjdn ◴[] No.41856357[source]
Next up. Stop taking showers people!
replies(3): >>41857540 #>>41864050 #>>41874184 #
2. master-lincoln ◴[] No.41857540[source]
How is this a fair comparison? There are health benefits to hygiene, there are none from make-up
replies(3): >>41857964 #>>41858855 #>>41858905 #
3. wruza ◴[] No.41857964[source]
Yeah, looks don’t get you anywhere in this world as a woman. /s

…We may talk all day how bad and unfair that is, but none of that changes the reality for an average person out there.

replies(1): >>41859635 #
4. hgomersall ◴[] No.41858855[source]
I'm not sure there are any established health benefits of showering routinely. Cleaning in response to contamination, sure, but every day with lots of soap etc I'm more sceptical of.
5. genrilz ◴[] No.41858905[source]
This is actually probably more fair of a comparison then you'd think. Daily showers are bad for health your health[0], but I absolutely do them because my body produces a lot of oil and odor. This is a cosmetic reason similar to make-up.

[0]: https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/showering-daily-is-it-ne...

replies(2): >>41859017 #>>41864066 #
6. master-lincoln ◴[] No.41859017{3}[source]
You said daily, nobody prior did. Once a month is probably more beneficial than not at all...
replies(1): >>41859351 #
7. genrilz ◴[] No.41859351{4}[source]
I feel like we might have been reading the original arguments in different ways, so let me summarize how I see this thread:

I interpreted ndndjdjdn's comment as sarcasm. (due to the use of the phrase "next up") That is, I think he was saying that if you take sadcherry's logic to its limit, then people wouldn't shower or would shower less. sadcherry's logic is that people shouldn't wear make-up because it cosmetic is not beneficial to health. Thus I think ndndjdjdn was talking about the fact that people use showers for cosmetic reasons, and believes sadcherry probably doesn't actually want people to shower less, and so should probably rethink his views about make-up.

You then posted your comment, saying that the health benefits of showers justify them even if they do have cosmetic benefits.

I then comment, saying that I shower in a way that is bad for my health because of cosmetic reasons. I wanted to imply that a lot of people shower like this, and therefor the fact that moderate showers might have some health benefits is irrelevant, because the way many/most people shower is actually unhealthy. I probably should have been more explicit about the fact that I thought many/most other people shower in unhealthy ways.

As an aside, I don't actually know of any concrete benefits to health besides making sure open wounds don't get infected. I tried to search the web for other benefits, and the only additional ones I got are exfoliation (which is cosmetic) and relaxation. (but relaxing things aren't generally classified as "healthy") With that in mind, I tend to believe the health benefits of showers are probably pretty over-hyped, (though not non-existent) and more like a cultural fiction to keep people showering than true knowledge.

I'd be interested to hear if you have a different take.

replies(1): >>41859501 #
8. master-lincoln ◴[] No.41859501{5}[source]
I agree on this, I previously didn't interpret the showering as a cosmetic action, but see that this line of thought would make sense now.

To your aside of health benefits of showers: I also tried to research this, but other than getting rid of contamination (hazardous elements e.g. during construction or demolishing, or just dirt on wounds) I couldn't find any serious claim that washing the skin is beneficial for health (outside of making sure hands are clean before touching food or mucous membranes), I just assumed there should be one.

I take my confident stance on this back...

9. Mountain_Skies ◴[] No.41859635{3}[source]
What it really does is create an arms race within women, where those who opt out, with a few exceptions, are at a disadvantage to those who continue on and escalate. As a group, it would be a quality-of-life improvement for most, if they as a group ended the arms race but since there's no way for the group to enforce that, the arms race continues, with social media and technique videos advancing the front even further. For some the cost of participating in war becomes more expensive than the downsides, so they opt out and simply live with the disadvantage.
10. sadcherry ◴[] No.41864050[source]
Guys who equate stopping to spend 30+ minutes a day painting your face with stopping to shower are part of the problem.

It's exactly those unnatural expectations of looks that are put on women, starting at a really young age, that are the issue here. Not boys, just girls. It skews expectations and boom, everybody feels like they have to do it. It's very sad. I'm not saying don't shower, don't cut or even brush your hair, etc. All fine. But the full-on makeup you see walking through a random city in the morning, geez, what are we doing to ourselves. And what are the guys doing? Nothing close to it, but spend a lot of time justifying it.

11. sadcherry ◴[] No.41864066{3}[source]
There are parts of my body which, if not cleaned daily, will stink uncomfortably. Harvard webpage or not.

I'd equate perfuming it over to make-up, not showering..

It's also quite sad that a statement "we should put less make-up on" is immediately drifting into a discussion about not showering. Way to ridicule a viewpoint.

replies(1): >>41872907 #
12. genrilz ◴[] No.41872907{4}[source]
EDIT: I got arguments mixed up. It's master-lincoln who was making the health arguments, not you. You were talking about not holding women to unreasonable beauty standards. I mostly agree, although how to actually stop doing that is very much an unresolved question. I'm leaving this comment here because I think it is interesting, I may explore how to break down beauty standards in a future comment.

First off, I know this is long. It is long because I am having to deconstruct the way we think about showering and make-up. I do think the deconstruction is interesting, but I wouldn't blame you for deciding not to read this.

Though ndndjdjdn's comment was phrased pretty snarkily, but I do think it is a good point. I'll try to explain why, addressing the first and last points, followed by the middle point:

I grew up on a farm. It can smell "bad", especially right after a rain storm. However, since I lived there my entire childhood, it mostly just smelled different rather than bad. I wasn't bothered by it like visitors were, though if I had to pick, I'd prefer the non-after-rainstorm way it smelled to the after-rainstorm smell.

If everybody stopped showering, then everybody would start smelling "bad". I'm sure people would adapt quickly enough, though they would still probably prefer the smell of people who regularly shower to some extent. Thus people tend towards the "showered" state to be more appealing to other people, even though people would probably get used to it if we all eliminated regular showering from our habits.

Similarly, I have seen both IRL and online where men think women who aren't wearing make-up are sickly or ugly, and that women who are wearing natural make-up aren't actually wearing make-up. If a woman stopped wearing make-up, then men would suddenly find that woman to be less appealing, though men would probably get somewhat used to it if all women stopped using make-up. Thus women are pressured to be in the "make-up" state, even though men would probably get used to it if all women eliminated make-up use from their habits.

I would like to note that the logic of the last two paragraphs is the same. Thus, my rebuttal to your point that the body would stink "uncomfortably" is that it probably wouldn't be uncomfortable if everyone stopped showering.

Now to address the middle point. I don't think there is a meaningful difference between showering and showering + wearing perfume (which I will call "perfumed" from hear on). People being in the "showered" state is considered normal, and from that point of normalcy, being in the "unshowered" state is bad and the "perfumed" state is good. However, if we are trying to figure out the best way for the world to be, I don't think what is currently "normal" should matter at all.

Now let's lay out the states people can be in:

Smell wise, people can be in the "unshowered", "showered", and "perfumed" states. As laid out in the comment you are replying to, "unshowered", or at least not daily showered, is the healthiest of these states.

Sight wise, women can be in the "no make-up" or "make-up" states. As you point out, health wise the "no make-up" state is the healthiest of these states.

Thus, if we are prioritizing health above cosmetic appeal, everybody should be in the "unshowered" and "no make-up" state. As I have argued earlier, everyone would probably get used to this eventually, but there would always be pressure for people to shower and wear make-up. Thus I think it is inconsistent to want people to be in the "showered" and "no make-up" state if you are arguing health is the reason. My personal take is that we should just let people make whatever choices they want based on their own values, and not mine or yours.

Thank you for coming to my TED talk. I hope you at least found that interesting. If you did read all the way through, I'd be interested to hear your response.

13. jujube3 ◴[] No.41874184[source]
Sir, this is Hacker News. Nobody here takes showers.