My point wasn’t that women aren’t looking at the surroundings, but that they don’t do it as is portrayed in the image. You said it yourself: “checking and rechecking the whole time” That doesn’t match singular hotspots, but rather a more spread-out heatmap with peaks at certain positions.
Navigating that scene in real life (or even simulated) would make the data orders of magnitude more annoying to interpret. On a static image you can just overlay all eye movements and produce a heatmap. But for a subject that’s actually (or virtually) moving, none of the data would coincide and you’d have to manually find out which focus points were actually equal.
I’m not buying that heatmap data. Why are almost all the dots on the left red? That would mean that women pick a random spot and focus on that for an extended period of time before moving on to the next. This is not really how you’d investigate a scene. The right images are much more believable to me: Short glances at random points to get an overview of the scene and then re-investigating points of interest.
I am a man, though. Women: Do you really stare random points into oblivion?
Edit:
Ok, at first I thought this was actual eye tracking information. However,
[researches] asked [participants] to click on areas in the photo that caught their attention.
Then the different-colored dots make even less sense. And why are there fringes?
If the GDPR were worth a damn, this leak of over 200M data subjects’ data should be more than enough to completely liquidate this company to pay for damages.
I’m saying economic development is contributed to by so many factors that even 12-month predictions are often off by a few percent points. That, to me, makes 10-year predictions while assuming different circumstances completely untrustworthy.
I’m really not a fan of statements like “UK GDP is now 6–8 per cent smaller than it would have been by 2025.” Given how economy analysts regular just throw darts to guess, I mean ‘predict’, economic growth, this means nothing.
If you argue like that then neither intelligence nor societies exist. A the fundamental level, every neuron just computes its output from its inputs, quite predictably even. That doesn’t mean emergent behaviours cannot exist.
Boy, I recently had to look into the Java backend to figure out… something. I can’t remember.
It turns out that they needed to inject a bean into their class which was itself calling a factory, which according to documentation, instantiated three other classes just to make a fucking HTTP request! What’s worse, that clusterfuck of a (fairly standard) library required the base URL to be declared separately from the actual paths, and both the base URL needed to end with a slash, and each path must begin with one. Every reasonable programmer would assume that this is a mistake because the final path would end up with two slashes, but the library actually required that.
Didn’t we already do that?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haber_process