Have a rough childhood? I was never in a room with an angry human who was a foot taller and 100lbs heavier until much later in life. Sounds like maybe there's something to consider here in terms of normalizing aggressive male behavior.... hmmm

Does the question say "with a bear, in an enclosed space, where the bear only has you as a source of food?" No, it didn't. Your entire argument is based on "women - and people like you - are dumb and don't know what they're talking about if they think men are less scary than bears." But the truth is, YOU don't understand the question being posed. You are literally doing the thing that people have a problem with. You aren't asking questions. You aren't seeking clarification. You aren't giving the benefit of the doubt. You aren't trying to understand. You aren't doing anything to indicate that you aren't exactly the reason why so many women picked the bear.

You could have said all of this in a way that wasn't being an ass. But you chose not to. Thank you for self-identifying as part of the problem.

I understand that it wasn't your intention, but by shifting the conversation towards "have these people been near an angry bear? Well I have" you inadvertently detract from the issue at hand. It misses the point of the conversation: everyone knows an angry bear in your face is a more immediate threat than an unknown average male on the street. That's not why the women pick the bear.

Here's what you're missing:

A) it's much less about whether the bear is a bigger threat and much more about how fucking awful men must treat women for the average woman to go "hmmm... Maybe the bear, tbh?" The fact that it's even something women have to think about for more than a split second is a dramatic failure of our society. THAT is the point, and any discussion of "well you don't know about bears then..." is reply-guy shit that misses the entire point and simply serves to further solidify how blind most men are to what goes on in the day to day life of women.

B) An aggressive bear is a known quantity. Is it a threat? Obviously. But it's a threat that we understand extremely well. Like, a quick Google search will teach you everything you need to know about what to do if you see a bear. But a strange, unknown man? Who the fuck knows. They might seem perfectly pleasant and reasonable, act like your friend, and then flip the fuck out when the woman refuses to sleep with him that night in return for all that manly protection he provided during the day or whatever. THAT is why women pick the bear: a known problem is often preferable to uncertainty that could lead to being extremely vulnerable against a really smart attacker.

Remember, the question wasn't "would you rather be in a locked room with a bear or a man?" It was "would you rather be stuck on an island with a strange bear or a strange man?"

And to your final question, why can't we just respect other humans? Great fucking question, but the misogynists should be the ones facing that inquiry, not the people on the internet trying to point you towards them. It may be more uncomfortable and even dangerous to confront them, but don't take the easy way out by asking victims and their allies to be "nicer" instead

THIS is EXACTLY the point of the meme. If you understand this, and are a man, you stfu and nod along, or support the women talking about it as a good ally should. The men who don't understand this are the reply-guys trying to explain how all the women are unreasonable and this is discrimination against men and blah blah blah

Some people think "just buy a fire extinguisher". Other people think "why not prevent the fire in the first place?" And a few people think "I prefer defense in depth. Mitigate the fires to the degree possible and keep a fire extinguisher nearby for emergencies."

Only one of these people has it right. Can you guess which one?

Punching up and punching down are extremely different and your comparison is deeply disingenuous.

Black men don't hold positions of power in society simply by being black. Black men don't get off with nothing but a slap on the wrist for serial sexual assault because "we don't want to ruin the promising life he has ahead of him".

Knock it off with the false equivalence.

Good job telling on yourself! This is my favorite part of the meme.

You don't have to be a predator to enable and protect predators.

Try listening to women next time instead of being, you know, exactly the thing they're talking about 👍

Tl;Dr: a meme went around asking women if they'd rather be stuck on an isolated island with a strange man or a strange bear. Most women chose the bear, largely due to the bear being more predictable and easier to deal with than a man inclined to do them harm, which, based on the experience of most women, is a whole lot of men.

Fragile men took this as an attack on all men everywhere and were offended at being "called a predator".

There's a pretty good thread in my comment history where I try to address the issue with one such fellow male and their response is about what you'd expect, confirming all the reasons why women chose the strange bear over the strange man

Except we know what the lifecycle of physical storage is, it's rate of performance decay (virtually none for solid state until failure), and that the computers performing the operations have consistent performance for the same operations over time. And again, while for a car such a small amount can't be reasonably extrapolated, for a computer processing an extremely simple format like JSON, when it is designed to handle FAR more difficult tasks on the GPU involving billions of floating point operations, it is absolutely, without a doubt enough.

You don't have to believe me if you don't want but I'm very confident in my understanding of JSON's complexity relative to typical GPU workloads, computational analysis, computer hardware durability lifecycles, and software testing principles and best practices. 🤷

Imagine you have a car powered by a nuclear reactor with enough fuel to last 100 years and a stable output of energy. Then you put it on a 5 mile road that is comprised of the same 250 small segments in various configurations, but you know for a fact that starts and ends at the same elevation. You also know that this car gains exactly as much performance going downhill as it loses going uphill.

You set the car driving and determine that, it takes 15 minutes to travel 5 miles. You reconfigure the road, same rules, and do it again. Same result, 15 minutes. You do this again and again and again and always get 15 minutes.

Do you need to test the car on a 20 mile road of the same configuration to know that it goes 20mph?

JSON is a text-based, uncompressed format. It has very strict rules and a limited number of data types and structures. Further, it cannot contain computational logic on it's own. The contents can interpreted after being read to extract logic, but the JSON itself cannot change it's own computational complexity. As such, it's simple to express every possible form and complexity a JSON object can take within just 0.6 MB of data. And once they know they can process that file in however-the-fuck-many microseconds, they can extrapolate to Gbps from there