No, but particles states can only be in a limited set of positions / values.
While these values take a larger range, they are still limited. I believe the coin example jjaredsimpson gave was, while hyperbole, to show that the states are limited, and thus can't be used in and of itself as an explanation of free will.
A woman's voice is not used due to it being a "servent". A woman's voice is used, because testing has shown both men and women respond positively to women's voices, while the same is not true of men's voices.
Of course, along with a women's voice, it makes sense to go along with a woman's name.
I wonder whether people whould have enjoyed different kinds of male / androgynous voices. Soft voice? Energetic coffee-powered male voice to make us feel like businessmen during an MBA? Effeminate male voice because it would trigger sympathy? Masculine female voice because it mixes styles? Aged-man voice because it evokes wisdom? Grand-mother voice because it evokes good tips for life? Celebrity voices?
I concur that the initial female voice of Siri, Alexa and Cortana reminded me that all assistants shouldn't be women, and I believe future ones will match people's preference, so the only voices that will be universal will be those 3 voices, female and young.
How about an uptight british butler voice (Cogsworth from Disney's Beauty and the Beast) or the lovable lackey of evil voice (Pain and Panic from Disney's Hercules)?
It can have a female voice without it having a woman's name; the "Google Assistant" is a good example. It's extremely off-putting that the only software we give human names to is the software we boss around, and when we do give it a name, the name is always female.
> It's extremely off-putting that the only software we give human names to is the software we boss around, and when we do give it a name, the name is always female.
That's not true though. Just a cursory glance at the Play Store with the search term "voice assistant"[0] reveals mostly gender neutral with some male and female. I "equalled" the female names and plussed the male names:
Dragon Mobile Assistant;
=Cortana – Digital assistant;
Indigo Virtual Assistant;
Smart Voice Assistant;
OK Google;
=Robin - AI Voice Assistant;
DataBot Assistant;
=EVA Free - Voice Assistant;
utter! Voice Commands BETA!;
voice Assistant;
+Jarvis - My Personal Assistant;
Google Allo;
Extreme: Personal Assistant;
=AIVC (Alice);
HOUND Voice Search & Assistant;
Google Now Launcher;
Genie;
=Amazon Alexa;
My Assistant;
Heaveen;
+SpeakBro;
+ANDY Voice Assistant (FREE);
Cyman Mark 2 Free;
+Noah Voice Assistant Beta;
My Android Assistant;
AVX Free - Voice Assistant;
Moto Voice;
+EVAN Free - Voice Assistant;
Voice Assistant;
Get Assistant - Root
Tally: 5 female and 5 male with 20 gender neutral including some arguable, e.g., "Cyman" (Simon?) and Robin. This isn't the most scientific thing but it certainly exposes the assertion "the name is always female" for what it is. The really unfortunate thing is this erroneous belief is so ingrained that half the comments here are bike shedding about this exact point instead of discussing how cool this piece of software is. Not that I'm helping that problem.
> It can have a female voice without it having a woman's name;
Sure, you can use an unrelated word. There are many startups with silly names and that has not stopped them.
But if the creator decides to choose the name of a person, (perhaps to give their project a little humanity, or for whatever reason - it doesn't matter), and they are using a female voice, let us not pretend that a female name is not simply logical.
I've heard people complain that the combination of the female voice, and the naming of the Google service "assistant". There truly is no escape.
You can't give it a masculine name, because it would be nonsensical. You can't give it a feminine name because people will complain that you're associating femininity with subservience. You can't give it a descriptive name because people will complain that you're associating femininity with assistant/secretary work.
I think we're all better off if we just calm waaay down and accept that people like hearing feminine voices from programs with feminine names; and it just so happens that people want a piece of software which does secretary work.
Especially in terms of psychological effecting drugs
If the people getting the placebo get better (in the case of psychological drugs.. feel better) as often as those on the actual drug, then it's quite likely the drug is doing nothing and both sets of patients are getting better because the belief of taking a drug that makes them better is causing them to get better.
(apologizes for the confusing paragraph)
And hence, the drug is deemed worthless and thrown out, time to get on with a trial of another drug.
The only way to be sure that the drug is doing nothing is to repress the placebo effect as much as possible.
There are people dying or suffering that could be helped with drugs that failed the placebo test. (Some of them could even have been helped with the placebos themselves)
Because the most reasonable people will have well thought out and reasoned arguments and will have tried pretty hard to understand the problem from all sides that it has. And you rarely see that in anything on the internet that is difficult to talk about, you see a lot of quick fire, purely emotional responses.
and what's inside can't get out easier. Which is the whole point of the "greenhouse gases" what energy gets in can't escape as easily so there's a net gain over time causing the globe to warm.
I thought this was explained to people.
I believe the current Anti-Global warming argument is not whether or not the earth is warming, but whether humans have any significant factor in it happening.
While these values take a larger range, they are still limited. I believe the coin example jjaredsimpson gave was, while hyperbole, to show that the states are limited, and thus can't be used in and of itself as an explanation of free will.