BlargMcLarg

>one would rather have them do team activities like sport or boy/girl/mixed scout

Plenty of developed countries where mixed team activities are the norm and the fertility rates aren't looking that much better once you filter first/second generation immigrants (including, many are already bordering on Japan's levels).

Having them do sports together until the age of 18 isn't going to solve the increasing cost of milestones, consumerism, increasing standards pushed by multimedia, crushing work cultures, pushing the norm to 30+, and more. Several of the aforementioned countries don't have half of these and still sit at 1.6 or less, while continuing to drop.

>Norah Vincent wasn't transgender

That's what I said. "Women going incognito".

>Please back up your statements with evidence.

Spend a few days in online circles reading experiences of transmen, then do yourself another solid and spend another few days wading through online circles for men specifically. It's not too hard to see a few transitioners go "well X kinda sucked as a woman but Y definitely sucks now that I am a man".

>The fact that you liken HRT to "picking your poison" is ignorant and disingenuous

What's disingenuous is your extremely uncharitable interpretation, and I would urge you to take a step back and read with a little more favor towards the writer.

Think for a moment by bringing it back to its basis. As a woman with gender dysphoria, you have to pick between undergoing HRT and potentially having disastrous effects on your psyche, or suffering harsher consequences from your dysphoria for living as a woman.

To claim there are 'no downsides' when even the people for who the procedure exists have to pick between the lesser of two evils rather than a straight up boost, is completely off the mark. Vincent's example at least suggests women without dysphoria can't just 'live as a man for a bit' without it having downsides. Transitioners experiencing the same despite a net gain due to their unique circumstances would confirm it, more than deny it.

You fail to see that the laser focus on trans people is exactly why GP's comment doesn't mesh for the average person, as 'people who seriously desire to do this' are not necessarily people who feel uncomfortable or less comfortable with their own gender.

So please, stop making this seem like an attack on trans people. It isn't. It is merely a rebuttal against the idea that men living as women and women living as men, no further qualifiers given, only out of some 'desire to try it', has no downsides.

Norah Vincent basically broke her psyche trying to live as a man, and the story has barely left an impact on the status quo. Similar stories exist among transmen rather than women going incognito, even if in their case it would be to pick their poison.

The idea that there are no downsides doesn't mesh with reality.

Many industry professionals ignore or are unaware of known attack vectors. Meanwhile, many schools do teach a semblance.

Given how young and emotion-driven the field is, a sweeping statement like this is useless. If security is remotely concerning to you, get a security expert as your baseline.

Strange article trying to extrapolate a very biased subpopulation and grasping at other aspects to claim this year was "the year of Linux on the desktop". Unix was already dominating anything non-personal and non-mobile. Personal use outside enthusiasts and devs is still a blip on the radar.

If anyone thinks otherwise, ask yourself how Windows continues to get away with such consumer-unfriendly practices.

People are the problem in cases of entertainment. You don't need to watch only sequels or remakes, or deal with the latest broken mess made by some AAA filled with lootboxes. The options are out there still.

It's a different story for industries where doing the alternative has a high amount of friction. Entertainment is not one of them.

Generally speaking, the ones hit hardest by inflation are the ones unable to afford such loans to begin with.

It's also shortsighted.

Who are the people moving out? Primarily those without money or assets to stay. People who tend to skew younger.

So you drive out the younger, start a feedback loop where more young people leave, inverting the population pyramid. This is accelerated by the lower birthrate.

Congrats, you now live in a place where young people are overwhelmed by grey pressure and the only realistic alternatives are decreasing quality of services, or siphoning wealth to push for more services. The latter solution nullifies most benefits stubborn NIMBYs amassed for themselves a few decades before they got old.

Aka "congratulations, you played yourself".

In other news, despite stereotypes, the NL is not nearly as obsessed with recreational drugs as the US is.

Do they? Plenty of places still put IT down as a "cost center" first and foremost, using that as a basis tobproactively run their staff barely above the level required for maintenance alone.

Conversely, they also tend to believe their value calculations are better than those of dev teams, going as far as to ignore proposals. You think MBAs are able to consistently guess better than someone actively doing the work?

Can't speak for the US but here, "suit" jobs are generally held to higher regard even if the job no longer requires a suit. Fancy names and a history of good pay definitely help.

If anything, IT is the outlier in "well-paid office jobs which garner lots of respect".

It's basically an augmenting tool. Can't rely on it 100% without a check, can't just do it without a vague idea of what the code does. As a combined boilerplate + search assistant it takes crazy amounts of work away as long as your specs are well defined, though.

>That's the only purpose of a male when compared to the female - this is a simple fact, no need to take it personally.

There is nothing factual about this unless your world view is an infantile one which believes the only valuable difference between men and women is the ability to create sperm vs the ability to carry eggs. Common complaints from women clearly reveal that isn't the case.

1: The US is different. Way more applicants and traffic than the remainder of the world. This also affects selection mechanisms (low accuracy, high filtering, little feedback) and application strategies (various levels of effort, shotgun approach).

2: The first job is by far the hardest. Everything else is peanuts comparatively (unless you're an outlier).

Clue is this piece:

>I can’t recall the reference but I read in a book that it’s 10x easier to find a job while you’re already employed. My experience complies. Don’t waste that multiplier.

When company A thinks someone is worthy of picking, companies B-F suddenly believe that individual is worthy of picking too. One door opens, suddenly they all open.

Combine both and it starts to make sense why application numbers are so ridiculously high.

>This approach is based on pushing information rather than pulling it

This is really what's at the heart of almost every discussion regarding communication. Many if not most places introduce polling rituals as a one-size-fits-all solution, whereas many people work best pushing information and having everyone else react to it. It is no different than event-driven structure vs polling.

Every time you create more 'polling' systems and push some claim (the infamous 'new employees won't speak up without standups' comes to mind), there is less pressure to teach them asynchronous ways of working. Every time some manual procedure is pushed as a fix, the alternative of an automatic procedure is pushed aside because 'costs too much money' and 'look, manual works, communication!'.

A few decades ago maybe. It is easier compared to the other majors, but easy makes it sound like a firm handshake is the only necessity. Hasn't been like that since 2008 minimum.

Twitter is both. The records hop from 'left wing bias' to 'right wing bias' over and over. Plus, the internet skews left-progressive, which makes even centrist views seem right-conservative.

For every case of ACAB you can find a case of white hate or man hate with loads of retweets left alone or soft-endorsed, with the opposite being flagged for ToS violation. Both those statements are far more dominant among far-left.

People did in fact have a problem with Twitter too.

It's just more obvious for Musk since 1) he prioritized himself over doing a more general sweep including more than what affects him alone and 2) he has been obnoxiously vocal for multiple years now, painting a massive target and begging the public to troll him.

I don't understand the obsession with infantile "right left" division US politics has and is plaguing the entire world with. There is more nuance to this.

I have a hard time believing homogeneity is the most important factor. Cities are expensive in Europe and rural life isn't exactly popular among expats. Now take your pick between Europe, struggling to keep native talent over finances, using tax breaks for expats to win them over and causing bad blood among its citizens, their own country, or some other rich first world country.

The most common complaint in Europe is that we are emulating the US at the cost of the middle class and below.

>has proven enough times in the past

Past experiences do not mean future success. This isn't even about Carmack: past 'heroes' end up failing in their decision-making in the future many times, and they were followed for no other reason than 'they have a track record'.

The sooner that myth dies, the better.

Except Musk has selectively applied and prioritized whatever he deemed harmful to himself prior to anything else on top of having hamsters in his head run overdrive on how he still 'supports free speech'.

It's abundantly clear from his actions and inactions what is important to him, we have millennia of written history on these cases. At this point people are willfully ignoring it.

And Elon also goes against common advice and purposely paints a giant target on himself. Not all too irrelevant considering kids are taught at age 2 and held accountable for creating enemies.

Elon's case isn't exactly average even among the ultra-rich.

Those mental gymnastics happen primarily because anyone looking at the situation for longer than a minute can see people in power use mental gymnastics to keep themselves ahead just as much.

The real issue here is people believing 'do unto others' is even remotely a concern for people in a position of power.

Musk has stated several times he wants "free speech" and when pushed further, mostly talks about "speech that is not at odds with the law".

So yes, that is pretty inconsistent with banning an account which did nothing illegal. Assuming it was Musk who issued it.

>from a non-leftwing source

Can you people stop going "left wing right wing" for one day and see things for what they are instead of this infantile black-white spiel?

Give up.

This guy has been actively trying to make enemies to garner a few "hello there fellow kids" points, actively uses every trick in the book to make sure he not only has to pay zilch in taxes, but draws the maximum in benefits, being one of the richest people on the planet and continuously taking credit for things he at best funded, at worst didn't do anything for. Meanwhile he's throwing up a gigantic smokescreen and misleading people in ways that benefit his company while being disastrous for the environment, and has the gall to show his ideas as some kind of divine intellect.

An account functioning as an event hub for public information regarding his jet is about the least he has to worry about once the chickens come home to roost. If the location alone was that bad, he could give a warning and ask the account to only post climate-related info. These are the people shaming you at every corner and ready to push you under the bus the moment something dares to scratch their empire.

Nothing about their existence is ethical. People defending them under the guise of 'ethics' is exactly how they got there.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Tesla,_Inc.#Musk'... seems like a good start. The rabbit hole itself certainly goes far deeper than anyone could traverse in a few hours.

A car doesn't emit nearly as much as a leer jet. If it was just a matter of 'rich people doing rich things without influencing others', it'd be an entirely different story.

>unless they are politically connected

You might as well say 'everyone'. Anyone rich enough to use, let alone own, a private jet is almost by default politically connected.

It is discrimination. It is an acceptance that making current generations stop is more difficult than preventing future generations from starting.

>ICE cars

Common narrative is smoking is bad, whereas ICE cars still bridge a gap. ICE cars also aren't an addiction. The comparison is completely off the mark.