SenorSourdough

I do not see ads by default as an NYT subscriber but they have prompted me with a big bottom banner splash in the past to allow ads as a subscriber. I declined and haven't seen any ads that I'm aware of since.

Sounds like there are ads in the app maybe? But I see zero in the browser as well.

I disagree with such a compartmentalized way of thinking about these issues, where it's inappropriate to discuss gendered language when it comes up in some other context. That's often the only effective opportunity to address this kind of problem. A comment about the use of gendered language is relevant in response to a comment that uses arguably gendered language.

Language is fluid. The thing that was "right" to say 500 years ago wasn't right 100 years ago, and what was "right" 100 years ago wouldn't be right now. There are clear arguments for why encouraging people to think about the gendered language that they use and how it perpetuates gender roles would be beneficial in combating sexism. The arguments for maintaining existing language because it is currently the most popular tend to be pretty thin.

You understand that there are millions of women who are victims of abuse, sidelined or disregarded by society, and constantly repressed because of sexism, right?

Losing your job is a temporary problem for most people. Sexism, like the kind that is baked right into our language, is an inescapable daily struggle for many women.

We have the capacity to think about both women's rights and the recently unemployed at the same time. It's frankly sad that you can't look deeply enough at this issue to see it as more than a problem of "grammar preferences".

Sure, but the idea of "mankind" is gendered / male-centric in the first place. We just defaulted to male because we always default to male.

Training yourself to default to non-gendered language like person-kind and to think about whether a term originates from problematic aspects of gender dynamics is a relatively easy first step towards breaking down some of the insidious aspects of sexism that are imbedded in language.

Is the problem that we have too little time to meet people?

It strikes me that the problems are more related to increased isolation/individualism, increased distraction, degradation of real-world communities, and increased fear of making unwanted/unexpected advances. People who have free time just aren't choosing to use it in ways that encourage the creation of organic relationships.

Only if they are less than 55 pounds.

I also lean towards the stairs (or at least not just standing on the escalator), but in my experience it's like 80/20 or "worse" between people who go for the escalator vs the stairs. Of the escalator crowd though, there are a good chunk who prefer to walk rather than stand.

Stairs are faster and better exercise than (standing on) escalators. I guess you can make the argument that walking up escalators is faster, but stairs are almost always wider and less congested, whereas getting stuck standing on an escalator happens all the time anywhere busy.

It's mind boggling that there is any good way for an app that just tracks your social media usage to make money when they have to tunnel all their user's internet usage. (Assuming they actually made any money on that $500k revenue...)

From the post, it sounds like the users receive the purchased item immediately but the app developer needs to confirm that the charge went through properly. Otherwise the funds are returned but the user keeps the purchased item.

Without acknowledging the purchase the money was refunded back to the people who purchased it. And the best thing was the dark theme would be activated even if the user got the money refunded.

From the article, it sounds like they will be using some microgrids as well in areas where geography would hinder recovery after disasters.