2,503 karma · joined February 1, 2016
What point are you trying to make with this statement? It’s also true that there hasn’t been an election in the past 17 years. I’m unclear what you’re trying to imply about the will of the Palestinian people here.
The future is now!
https://apple.github.io/foundationdb/data-modeling.html#vers...
If you read section 4 of the CPS report they reference, you’ll find some interesting stats that Illinois Policy neglected to highlight:
- The investigative unit in question does not have discretion over what it must open a case for; they must open a case and investigate every claim even when said claims are submitted anonymously, or without evidence, even without names attached.
- That same investigative unit recently had its role expanded to include broader, non-sexual violations of the CPS guidelines for staff/student interactions.
- Over the past four years, it has only substantiated 300 policy violations, of which only 16 resulted in criminal charges.
So … suffice it to say Illinois Policy is selling a pretty slanted narrative there. They aren’t a neutral party. The actual report paints a hell of a lot less damning picture.
It is extremely misleading to say that 500 sexual misconduct allegations were leveled against teachers in one year.
The fact that CEOs talk to each other has been plainly obvious to me for quite some time. Every single instance of coordination can always be explained away, but the pattern seems rather clear when you take a step back and look at the broader context.
This smells odd to me.
With all due respect, equating these things with “sub-human” or “irredeemable” is something you’ve done, not something the original commenter did.
I don’t view being an alcoholic or someone imprisoned as sub-human or irredeemable. We grew up poor and many people in my family suffer from these catastrophes, but they aren’t sub-human or irredeemable.
These things happen to everyone, but they happen more frequently to those in poverty.
(Search the page for "Original Smart Fan Speed Control Switch", there's seemingly no way to link directly to the requisite page section... which is a thing I could rant about but will not).
irb(main):001:0> ["foo", "bar"].map(&:reverse)
=> ["oof", "rab"]
For example, pgvector is listed as not having role-based access control, but the Postgres manual dedicates an entire chapter to it: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/user-manag.html
Hence why I’d be interested to know more about the supporting details for the different categories. It may help uncover some inadvertent errors in the analysis, but also would just serve as a useful jumping-off point for people doing their own research as well.
There is a world of difference in those word choices. Saying “no reason” certainly gives you an excuse to write a sanctimonious comment like this, but it’s misrepresenting what was said.
I think what she means here is “nobody ELSE should write a database,” because they certainly found it necessary and beneficial to do so.
(In all seriousness, usually you shouldn’t write a database. But somebody has to, you know? There’s no need to gate-keep like that.)
> Tremble’s letter said it is unknown whether filling the reservoirs at 1 p.m. would have ultimately made a difference.
And there’s this whole whiff of “kooky liberals prioritizing silly native crops over fire prevention” in the coverage about the issue, which certainly makes me suspicious as well.
I suspect time will show that the decision was not at all clear-cut and all relevant details are not yet known.
1. https://www.staradvertiser.com/2023/08/16/hawaii-news/reques...
Believe it or not, in some places it's actually required to ride in the road along with cars (my current city, for example).
> in practice that's absurd
Honestly, agreed.
> When you have a frail bicycle riding amongst numerous cars trying to keep up, or inciting rage and causing problems by not being able to, of course there will be accidents.
Big yikes, though. Given the likely dire outcomes of collisions between cyclists and cars, and the overarching systems that tend to force cyclists to share the road with drivers in the first place, it feels wrong to me to blame cyclists for "inciting rage".
All of the artists are dead.
> Not only does this harm Plaintiffs and the artists or their heirs by depriving them of compensation,
Hereditary wealth and continued rent-seeking is a very, very poor argument in favor of eternal copyright protection.
> but it undermines the value of music,” the complaint adds.
Music has inherent value and worth that can never be quantified or monetized.
Honestly, screw the record labels. We can argue about the technicalities of copyright law until the cows come home, but this suit is morally disgusting to me.
It’s not a good answer - driverless tech just simply isn’t ready.
Passenger safety is the same myopic view that allows car companies to build vehicles that are increasingly dangerous-for-pedestrians. It seems blindingly obvious to me that vehicular safety should include its effects on non-passengers.
What a disingenuous way to frame the issue. Driverless car companies should be bending over backwards to work with public safety departments, not this “move fast and break things” shit.
...yeah, I got that. I'm honestly not sure what you're on about now. I think the kindest read of the situation is that you got lost when I asserted that your paper doesn't back up your claim (and perhaps undermines your claim), or something. Other reads of this type of rhetorical circle are less kind.
In any case, you're right: you've been very clear that you think queers are predisposed to be pedos. Your paper studies a small sample of known pedophiles. It is ludicrous to suggest that such an unrepresentative sample could ever support such a broad, sweeping claim.
And, as the link to Psychology Today discusses, modern research doesn't even support the limited claims this paper made about over-representation of homos in the small sample size.
I'm not dodging context. In fact, I'm adding context and directly engaging with the quality of your source (which is inapplicable, outdated, and seems to actually undermine your argument). You're arguing in rhetorical circles rather than engaging with what I've pointed out about your source and it's implications for your claims.
Not sure that really makes me the one arguing in bad faith, or muddying the waters.
---
> Did you have any comment about that? > Cool. This is your one actual substantial criticism.
Too substantial to refute. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
But I'm okay with that. I always found the "gays are the product of abusive, broken homes" to be a really silly argument for people to make, anyways. After all, it tends to make people feel pity for queers, and that doesn't really accomplish your goal. ;)
---
> I'll summarize. The humor unfortunately gets lost in the process.
Hoo boy. Presuming the transcript is accurate, can't say that really codes as "humor" to me. "Vitriolic" might be a more accurate label.
> Foucalt [...] wanted to abolish age of consent laws all the way down to infants > Gayle Rubin [...] defending pederasty > Queer Theorists ever since [...] reaffirmed this defense of pedophilia > Allen Ginsberg, Harry Hay, David Thorstad [...] all involved with NAMBLA.
What you're doing here (with the video's transcript and your own info) is tying different individuals together from queer history and then using that to imply that queer people are inherently bad. Why must we all be presumed guilty and inherently broken? I mean, straight people signed that stupid french petition about age of consent laws too, you know.
(I do not deny that people have done some shitty things and held some shitty beliefs. But I also do not accept being painted as a pedophile because Foucalt was a pedophile. That is an impossible logical leap that should be laughed out of the room).
> But I know, as I'm sure you do, how frankly such topics are acknowledged and discussed internally within the gay community.
That is not my experience with the queer community. How is it that you know, from whom?
> How commonly such things as nonmonogamy and pederasty are understood to be inherent to the condition
[citation needed]
> how much trauma is widely acknowledged as a contributing factor
We go through a lot of trauma, that trauma doesn't make us queer. Who's telling you this nonsense?
> how well it's understood that the "Will and Grace" pop culture personas and the "born this way" slogans were just pretty lies that were necessary to placate those evil Others.
Ah, there we go - the accusations of ill intent. We're scheming. I think this is where you traditionally are supposed to insert the "recruitment" bits, right?
---
I'm really happy you're taking the mask off, now. You are incredibly, deeply invested in hating queer people, and it's disgusting.
You need not apologize for it, but it certainly makes things rather confusing. A reasonable interpretation of a request for citations is “a request for citations [in support of the claim you make]”.
——
> Why leave off the second half of that sentence?
Mainly because I implicitly addressed it further down in the reply in the bit about “despite over-prevalence…”.
> Now take a look at the preceeding sentence: "This suggests that the resulting proportion of true pedophiles among persons with a homosexual erotic development is greater than that in persons who develop heterosexually."
What, exactly, is the point you’re trying to make? Leaving aside all other doubts about the study, what practical point are you making? Yes; homosexuals are over-represented in this study, and that’s interesting. Yet the study clearly states that the majority of sexual predators are heterosexual.
> The final line is just boilerplate CYA we don't want to suggest anything bad about homosexuals language at odds with the rest of the paper. Standard deferential genuflection for any research that contradicts liberal priors.
This paper was published in 1992. Back then, societal attitudes towards homosexuality were far worse. Given that, I don’t buy the argument that this was any kind of standard deferential nonsense towards liberalism. Even many liberals didn’t like queers back then; you didn’t need to walk on eggshells.
That said, my point about the author’s entire career still stands - which further casts doubt on the “deference” claim. Not everything is inauthentic lip-service; sometimes it’s a genuinely held belief.
> Who made that claim? I certainly didn't.
Sure, Jan. An especially irritating feature of this website is commenter’s tendency to pretend that “context” doesn’t exist. You made the claim by listing it as a source for a prior claim that gays were pedos. Retreating to verbatim textual analysis of your literal words doesn’t negate contextual understanding.
——
> I only claimed correlation, not necessarily causation. But, come on, leaving out the whole preceding section of the abstract is hilarious
In the preceding section you say that posting a link doesnt make a claim; and now you say it does make a claim. Fun!
But, I did in fact reference that part of the abstract in my response; I just didn’t feel the need to word-vomit it all back to you. Even when you do, though, it still denotes a pretty small effect size … which is the comment I made about it earlier.
Did you have any comment about that?
——
I didn’t comment on your video because I didn’t watch it. I’d be happy to read a textual version of that information and respond to it. In any case, I don’t think it’s incredibly valuable to engage in that line of argument: you also didn’t provide citations for every single claim you originally made. That’s fine, honestly.
——
Here’s an interesting idea: why don’t you list out what you think those sources are saying, and what claims you think they make?
Or, if you’d like, maybe consider this discussion of recent results which seem to be fairly contradictory to your pedophilia paper, https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/fetishes-i-dont-ge...
Could you provide some citations showing how this is becoming less prominent over time?
> Because these areas both have political policy recommendations, they are just politics by definition.
That’s interesting, don’t you think? Wouldn’t that discount most practical research as “politics”?
It’s also comforting for me to refute, because as a gay man the cumulative effects of such persistent negative stereotypes is substantial. Refuting the disinfo helps, somehow.