> If you stop watching videos, there will be no reason to make the videos.
Deal!
1,293 karma · joined November 25, 2014
Deal!
Plus, on top of the medical risks, starting on puberty blockers will make confused kids who didn't need them more likely to get surgeries later. That's bad, and yes, it's a trade off between not unnecessarily medicalizing confused kids and "helping" "real dysphoria" cases earlier. And I'm telling you very clearly that the answer depends on how many there are of those, but you don't want to engage with the question. Because there just aren't that many "real dysphoria" cases.
And let me preempt your next bad argument: No, a doctor can't tell them apart. That's where we are now, and they get a "dysphoria stamp" after a visit. The incentives are not aligned, they just want the money.
The goal posts have always been firmly on "Don't mess with children". I've told you many times, nobody cares what adults do, sex change surgeries have been around for a long time and nobody cares. Nobody wants to ban them on adults.
But don't mess with kids.
It's not the same. Nobody cares what adults do. They do have agency over their own life and I defend their freedom to fuck themselves up in the most creative way they can think up.
But don't go after children. There is a reason they can't legally consent to many things. It's too easy to manipulate children to make really bad decisions they later regret, so at least lets not make irreversible damage.
Sorry, but no. I'm torn between hoping you'll understand once you have children of your own, or hoping you never, ever go anywhere near any child.
No! What you have here is a bunch of confused girls that will do whatever tiktok influencers tell them to do. Do nothing and it'll pass in 99.99% of the cases. Start blocking puberties and you end up with a lot of unnecessary surgeries and sterile people who will suffer the rest of their lives.
How many people temporally confused by social contagion are you willing to sacrifice for each "real case" that you catch earlier? Where's your line? Ten, a hundred? A thousand? All of them?
You don't want to engage with the question, I get it, but it's the whole point here.
> Irrelevant, as if they later get surgery it is because they, once they are mature enough to decide, determine that it is the best outcome for them
Yeah, because the sunk cost fallacy develops only after puberty, or what? No. As you very well know, once they start on that road the identity kicks in and it's "who they are now". Which is exactly what you want, a normal person comes in, an activist for life comes out. Who cares about the actual person, right?
It's insane, as you very well put it. They can't get a tattoo, too permanent, but they can get their tits chopped off. Makes total sense, yeah.
And if you had to bet money, if I told you some kid started on puberty blockers, what would be the odds they later got surgery or further irreversible damage done? Higher or lower than if they didn't start on puberty blockers, as they did 10 years ago?
If I'm right and social contagion is much more prevalent than "real dysphoria", that is a very relevant point, and makes fighting against the contagion the right thing to do, not dishing out puberty blockers like candy.
Now, you can tell me that you believe there is little social contagion and we'll have to agree to disagree, but don't try to twist your way into roiding kids up, it doesn't make sense. And you know it.
- "Communists" is shorthand for "envious losers who'd rather destroy society than improve themselves". "Elite overproduction" is what you want to google. I just think "communist" has a more, idk, "classic" ring to it.
Now, you can argue whether we have an "envious loser" problem or not, and how big their influence is, and if it's too late to do anything at all, or all is lost already.
Or you can pull out the dictionary.
Again, no. It's only when they started telling children it was a good idea to sterilize themselves. Just don't do irreversible damage to children, it's that easy. Find other shibboleths to identify good communists that don't involve chopping bits off kids.
The difference with the others is that you can stop liking dumb edgy stuff when you grow up, but you can't grow new tits.
As for the financial agenda... yeah, exactly. Just follow the money. What did you find?
Nobody had or has any problem with what consenting adults do.
One of the ideas that helped me there comes actually from them: "Rationality wins". Which is the old: "If you're so smart why aren't you rich?".
Not easy to apply for anybody, it's much easier to be a smart loser.
Well, the prompt was to give diagnoses, not questions. Ask GPT for the follow up questions first, then the diagnoses.
This is fascinating in that, because now the machine speaks human, we subconsciously ascribe human agency to it. This guy was instictively treating it like a colleague, who would naturally ask follow up questions unprompted. But you still have to prompt the machine properly.
So, 50% diagnosis success rate for the wrong prompt, for a LLM that can still grow, for a model that is not specialsed in medicine? In the literal first month of the "AI age"? Doctors are so done.
If you read this sentence "In normal rendering, React does not care whether "props changed" - it will render child components unconditionally just because the parent rendered!"
and understood that react doesn't re-render a component when its props change, well, I read that sentence in a different way.
Who would object to using this built-in capability for positive purposes for once? Baffling.
Remember, it's not a lie if you believe it
The vDom was fast enough that it made re-rendering your view on every state change possible.
Now you don't have to worry about rendering, you describe your components as pure functions and you're done with that side of things, now you "only" have to worry about the state of your app.
Seeing comments here wondering "How am I supposed to use jQuery with React otherwise?" is baffling and disheartening.