devjungle

There are a lot more layers to the case than you would originally think. Like an obligation to flee if reasonable to do so etc. Legal Eagle on YT did a great breakdown of it all.

It's not as simple as "can't claim self-defence if you initiated violence yourself".

This must be a recent change? It's been driving me nuts lately. I have to resort to adding a lot of negated search terms to compensate but it's still sub optimal.

One point that wasn't mentioned in the podcast, but that I thought of, was that if you had sort of blockchain that meant the data could not be deleted.

And thusly argues that we make appropriate changes because of seemingly biological differences - not inadequacies, to make that clear. I posit that that's a good thing.

That doesn't say that they aren't suited, only that it might explain the reason "we don't see equal representation".

There is no mention of "lacking" anything.

Someone can be fantastic at something in particular ways and still be unmotivated to pursue it for various reasons having absolutely nothing to do with particularly a "lack" of ability - and that premise aligns superbly with that sentence and the entire memo.

It also take just as little effort to ignore this usage. I understand why you would say that, but what someone writes is their own - they might feel differently. Besides, "he" (or now, just as appropriately "she") is very common when referring to an unknown in English. Anyone reading should understand that there is usually no intent to exclude and that it's merely a side effect of the language.

Yep. This is what I'm leaning towards as well. They can't lock us all up!!

How do you begin to even read that notation stuff? Do you know of any resources for learning it?