Hacker Cinema
Horrible Histories
2009 · TV series · 92 min episodes · 11 seasons
Created by Terry Deary
Based on the best-selling children's books and liberally splattered with guts, blood and poo, a group of British comedians offer an anarchic and unconventional take on some of history's most gruesome and funny moments, with topics including the Stone Age, the Middle Ages, the Egyptians and the Romans, among others.
2 positive1 negativefrom 3 commenters
Where to watch
No streaming data for this title.
3 comments on Hacker News
my kids learnt lots about historical people from the Horrible Histories series - both the books and excellent TV series(one of those series that appeals to adults as much as kids)
Let's not lose track of what this discussion is about: it's not about whether your uncle might be feeding you bullshit, it's about whether ChatGPT is a good source to learn about new topics you're not knowledgable on. Your crackpot uncle is not the baseline here – a well-reviewed book (or documentary series, or podcast, or whatever) is.
That there are crackpot books out there is besides the point; I can trivially find out which the good books and crackpot books are. With ChatGPT you need to verify every single reply it gives you.
And there is nuance here. Take Horrible Histories. I like Horrible Histories – it's fun, and generally the history is accurate. But it's not perfect and has mistakes, and there's a ton of lists enumerating these mistakes, so you can safely watch the show and then read these lists to ensure you're not believing a mistake.
There is no "historical inaccuracies in ChatGPT" list. It would be impossible to construct such a list. You need to verify every single reply it gives you, and every detail of that not just the general gist.
General critical thinking helps you surprisingly little because many of the signals of reliability that you usually rely on are lacking. Thinking you can trust ChatGPT on topics you're not already fairly knowledgable on and can't be easily empirically tested (e.g. math, programming to some degree) is a good way to get fooled.
The article says very little and I'm surprised it was posted. I could not find any specific data that backed this claim. I'm not doubting it. However, the Office for National Statistics didn't make it easy to assess full time vs part time work.
It's also unclear why this data is only looking at men. Why not discuss both genders (or look at the situation collectively)?
What I agree with is automation is part of the problem. What is also obvious is that female employment rate has changed since 1971 (see ONS website), which went from about 50% to around 70-75%. This looks similar to (but inverse to) male employment which went down from 90% to about 75%. This may be a social change that nobody looks after the kids anymore and both couples work to earn an income. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
However, I'm assuming the UK is similar to Australia where we have sexist hiring policies. For example, the police have mandated minimum quotas of 50% female police officers (regardless of number of applicants or suitability of applicants for the role. Suitability was addressed by significantly lowering physical requirements for the job and substituting it with more weapons for the officers). Naturally, these "equal opportunity" situations are a 1 way street (eg. Male teachers# are around 20% - see www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/how-can-we-get-more-men-to-become-teachers/). Think of Emma Watson's "He for She" campaign, everything he has, she gets. Yes, a 1 way street. Such discriminatory policies would logically impact employment negatively for some people.
What also concerns me greatly is that gendered bullying by the media and governments to actively discriminate against men and boys. Keep an eye out for articles about promoting girls in STEM and an absence of talk about promoting boys in learning language#. Look at posters of kids in education or front pages of magazines - by my reckoning, it's about 80% girls (if not higher#). Sites like code.org have been extreme in their sexist campaigning against boys. I see a train wreck coming in 10-15 years.
# to illustrate part of the issue, see this web site. http://www.edchange.org/multicultural/papers/genderbias.html
You will see quotes like 'girls perform equal to or better than boys on nearly every measure of achievement' and 'standardized testing indicates that girls outperform boys at all levels of reading and writing and in Alberta testing shows that girls, "...significantly outperform boys on reading and writing tests, while almost matching them in math and science."'. Yet, the article goes on to say how the education system is stacked against girls. Having observed significant class time at a few schools, I can guarantee that the gender bias is heavily against boys that would shock any non-sexist person. Even when I picked up sexism by teachers, they ignored it. For example, a group of kids was misbehaving (about 5 boys and 5 girls). A female teacher said "why is it always the boys" quite loudly. I responded "half said them are girls". The other teachers looked away as if to say "I'm staying out of this one". I see exclusion and ignoring of boys consistently. I even saw one classroom where the boys were so despondent at the sexism in the learning materials that they switched off and didn't ask a single question. Afterward, I asked the boys about the class (passively) and they unanimously voiced the extreme sexism of the topic as isolating them. To anyone with eyes open, it's a gender war and it's extreme: it's like nothing we have ever seen (despite false claims to the contrary). Watch Horrible Histories (especially the later specials) if you want to see examples. I can't believe how much sexism they cram in these episodes targeted at young kids.