charliesharding

> This creates an easy explanation/scapegoat for a problem rather than trying to actually figure out all variables involved.

He certainly doesn't help that impression with the florid language he uses:

"THE QUOTIDIAN MACHINERY of patriarchy functions as a complex of many moving parts. The same mechanisms that pull women down are the ones that push men up, compensating for the latter’s initial lack of numbers in undergraduate studies until they become an overwhelming majority among the academic elite. All these various parts, some seemingly innocuous and others quite abominable, operate together, defeating attempts that remediate only a single aspect of the patriarchal machine."

Very understandable and a valid thing to be concerned about, thanks for clarifying. I didn't think you came off as foaming-at-the-mouth. Great example of why I love the level of discourse here.

It's a terrifying problem facing the world and like you said - it definitely could be the case that by the time rapid change starts occurring, it will already be too late. However, it might also be the case that it will just be a slow change that will be more manageable to tackle in time. "Rapid change" when it comes to climate science could mean over the course of a thousand years or over the span of seconds (K-T bolide impact extinction, Ordovician-Silurian (if it was caused by a gamma ray burst)).

The problem is that climate science is an incredibly complex field with an overwhelming number of interconnected factors and so all hypotheses are built on upon assumptions that are built upon assumptions. This is why it often comes down to the verbiage that you see so often in these types of discussions where people "believe" one way or another. The stakes are extremely high though and we can already say for certain that historically rapid change is taking place.

While I personally believe that it is a problem that warrants immediate action, I think it's counter-productive to demonize and strawman all who don't hold one's exact views as climate deniers or (on the other side) climate alarmists. This will only further entrench people in their views, widening the divide between people, and causing them to be more dismissive of anything that doesn't affirm their belief.

If people were more open to actively trying to hear out the other side and find common ground, it will be easier to come to a joint conclusion. By earnestly listening to people, they will in turn be more likely to hear you out as well. The vast majority of people don't actually hold extremist positions but because of the easy amplification of a noisy few, rampant strawmanning is taking place.

(I don't mean to imply you personally are doing any demonizing, or are guilty of the strawmanning, It's just something I often see in comments and wanted to give my two cents)

Regarding the "God will save us" comment.

It's easy to be skeptical but there are plenty of rational Christians who believe humans are made in the image of God, and while humans are inherently sinful (think the greed that plays a role in accelerating climate change), this brings them further from God. They believe that the closest to God you can be is to be essentially humanitarian. Humanitarians by definition would put aside personal gain to help their fellow humans (help reduce/eliminate climate change). Also that since the earth was given to us a gift, it is our responsibility to be good stewards.

Not all religious people think this way, but there does seem to be a sizable contingent who do.

It's a near impossible battle to fight, but that doesn't make it ok to give up. You eat an elephant by taking one bite at a time (and trying to convince other people how good elephant meat tastes)

In that case - any game that has purchasable content would be rated 'M' and it isn't a far leap to just say that every game should be rated 'M' because of the potential for addiction. What about candy and soda? Sugar is also addictive

It's not that I don't think it's a problem, it's that I think regulation isn't a good solution. Game companies would just find a way to circumvent the system. What if loot boxes could be bought with in-game credits? What if you could buy short term in-game credit boosters for real money? The regulation route, if continuously followed to address the problem, would end up with all games being rated 'M', or being subject to high regulations/restrictions which would affect anyone who wants to enjoy them. After all, games themselves are designed to short circuit your brains reward system to give you hits of dopamine. The root of the problem is that kids aren't always capable of understanding these complex issues, and it should be up to their parents to inform and constrain how their kids enjoy games.

They raise a valid point with a needlessly sensationalist title - but it does feel like a natural (d)evolution of the gaming industry. This is what happens when a studio becomes successful, hires a lot of people, then tries its hardest to maximize profits.

The real solution here is that parents need to educate themselves on how to lock down permissions on game purchases and manage their children's playtime/addiction levels. Government regulation is not a good substitute for parenting.

Remember, as a consumer, you can still support games that don't employ these tactics! Personally, I have way more fun playing Rimworld, Factorio, etc.

Don't see much mention of it in other comments so for what it's worth.. don't underestimate the importance of being involved in a community. While I would personally suggest a church community, it could be anything as long as you're open to receiving help and giving it to others when you can. Nobody wants to feel like a charity case but anyone who has had kids understands how hard it is and people are often willing to give you a hand with babysitting occasionally or with food/supplies. Good luck and congratulations!

Also the lack of social services

I agree - I think it's an absolute misunderstanding of what a tip means. It completely removes incentive for the dasher to follow delivery instructions, grab extra napkins, ensure food is stored upright, etc. I would be so much more on board with agreeing to a set tip amount beforehand if I don't manually enter one after the food was delivered after x amount of time..

One could argue that you're worsening the lot of the world by not having kids that you impress the importance of addressing climate change upon. Your children could help to radiate that message outwards and may even become scientists that help to reverse it! Of course there's no guarantee that they'll adopt your views but if you fundamentally believe the world is capable of saving then it's worth a shot :)

Would it follow that having kids is good for our well-being too? Sometimes I wonder if the decline of the family/people choosing not to have kids is linked with increasing rates of mental health problems

They do tend to emit disproportionally high smug levels though.

It's just passing the buck to the companies providing the electricity so the consumer can pat themselves on the back and order vanity plates that say "0 MPG" and "OIL HAHA".

I wouldn't have led highly publicized protests against a company that I was accepting paychecks from

I don't really understand why it's surprising to anyone that they would face "internal retaliation" after exposing their employer as evil and boycott worthy to the entire world. By publicizing it to the degree that they did and attaching their name to it, they were putting their interests over the company. If my company started doing business practices that I didn't approve of, I would try my hardest to change the direction from the inside out or I would leave and then criticize. I don't understand the desire to stay with a company and accept paychecks while simultaneously publicly denouncing and leading protests against them.

Not cheering the rise of white male suicide, but viewing it as a side effect of an important social shift which topples the historical dominance hierarchy

Yes, living does irreparable damage to everyone. The best you can hope for is to not put your family and friends through the unnecessary hell of coping with your death, dwelling on what they could have done/didn't do to prevent it. You can come back from how you feel now - that's the nature of being alive

Because it does irreparable damage to your family and friends

Considering cats are the subject of some of the most ancient memes and foxes are arguably trending in their meme status... Could this new hybrid revolutionize memes as we know it? We live in exciting times

I suspect the downvotes are for those who think it really can be answered with a simple no. Or perhaps because it doesn't end in a question mark..

On topic though I recently tried switching to FF and was surprised at how much slower pages were loading. Has anyone else experienced this? Is this just a matter of caching?

While effective and (some might argue) the only way to deal with the washington post.. You can also just disable javascript with dev tools

Unfortunate but at least it's in the minuscule "anti-spoofing" text. Might not even be visible to the naked eye

It's because she has a condition where she has XY chromosomes (typically signifying a male)

Right, but she does have XY chromosomes - which is what sparked this whole debate

Posts like this make me wonder who doesn't think they're safe so I did some light digging for anyone who's curious.

"Skepticism with vaccines crosses party and demographic lines, according to the Pew Research Center study released Monday, with about 5% of Republicans and 9% of Democrats saying vaccines are unsafe, and 11% of men and 8% of women saying the same.

Younger people, however, were significantly more likely to believe vaccines are unsafe, with 15% of Americans aged 18-29 saying vaccines aren’t safe, compared with just 4% of Americans over age 65."

https://time.com/3701543/measles-vaccines-poll-anti-vaxxers/

> American Apparel

Wow, they've come a long way from how they were founded. Sad to see

I agree with a lot of points this article makes. I have never understood why siri and google voice assistants have a feminine voice. It's good that they want to take the "I" out of responses to highlight the fact that you are talking to a robot.

However I don't understand how they can point to unequal representation of all groups in a field and say that it's a problem. Assuming that all groups require equal representation assumes that all groups are equally distributed in a population and that all different kinds of people should have an equally distributed interest in all fields. This is obviously not the case. I will adamantly oppose any kind of legislation or policy that seeks to restrict any individual based off of the "groups" that they belong to, whether that be gender, race, religion, ice cream preference, etc. However to go further and try to actively include people based off their group identity is fundamentally guided by the same assumption that causes discrimination based off of groups. It is reducing the individual to the intersection of the groups they belong to and not regarding them as the free agent that they are.

"[statistics about how different "groups" of people aren't all equally represented in all fields]. Clearly, something needs to be done about these issues. We’re hardwired for bias"

Am I the only one who sees this statement as ironic? Their own bias is that this is an issue - not a result of individuals making choices.

It's been mentioned a few times but I believe haptic feedback is absolutely necessary to the future of the touch screen.

How many times have you handed your phone to someone to show them and in the process both you and the person receiving accidentally made a multitude of gestures, resulting in your phone freaking out and opening all kinds of random apps/windows..

I love how the new iPhones have the "press" ability on apps to open more options. Personally I wish all interactions required a little bit more force (besides, say, scrolling). When almost half the device is responsive, it makes it all too easy to accidentally perform actions.

Does anyone know where the technology is with this? I remember seeing articles a long time ago about potential for brail via haptics in screens

Paying them more will drive up costs. When costs go up, less people use the apps. When less people use the apps, delivery drivers get less money. Nothing exists in a bubble and it's important to look at underlying issues rather than crying foul play

mobile first! :D

"People in wealthy countries became more antiauthoritarian, more critical of traditional rules and roles, and more dedicated to individual expression and choice."

It seems like she considers it and speaks directly to it. Is it that she doesn't ultimately blame capitalism? She says that the decline of the family is closely tied with the neoliberal focus on the individual.