In the defense of oral conversations (especially in person), any conversation dealing with emotions is much easier for me in person. There is so much to be wrongly interpreted through text : an emoji with many possible interpretations, the meaning of a dot at the end of a sentence, guessing the actual emotion of the other person behind the text… I think there are many ways to misinterpret a text and the amount of text required to make sure your message is correctly understood is often greater than if the person was in front of you + it can be annoying (for the sender and the receiver) to justify everything you‘re writing to make sure it’s not misinterpreted.
To summarise, I think a written message will more often be misinterpreted than the same message said in person because there is more information in the latter : the person’s face and intonation. And to achieve the same chance of correct interpretation through text would require a longer message that often makes it feel “bloated”.
On a different topic but answering to the same quote : advancements in quantization of models to significantly reduce model memory consumption for inference without reducing model performance might also mitigate the imbalance between ALU ops and memory bandwith. This might only shift the problem a few orders of magnitude away, but still, I think it‘s worth mentioning.
It wasn’t possible to reach full immunity but you never need to be the fastest gazelle to escape the cheetah, just faster than the slowest one.
intimate relationships and acquaintances are the number 1 group of perpetrators
The “faster than the slowest one” doesn’t apply in the context of sexual violence. You might not care about someone else’s bike being stolen but you will never drink less hoping your friends or others are assaulted instead of you.
This has been discussed in the comment already but most advice given to prevent bike theft is agreed upon. The only argument I can see against locking your bike is someone saying “It’s taking too much time” for example. And locking your bike doesn’t prevent you from enjoying your bike so there is almost no reason not to do it.
However many risk reduction advice regarding sexual assault go directly against what the person wants to do. Advice such as “don’t wear such revealing clothes” or “don’t get wasted” often go directly against the person’s intention when going out to party. I agree that not all advice are like this. For example, an event that provides glass covers to prevent drugging doesn’t prevent your enjoyment of the night.
I think the parallel between bike theft and rape falls short in many ways discussed here and in the comment already. I think it makes the problem appear “simpler” than it is and should not be used as an argument for encouraging risk reduction advice.