6,845 karma · joined July 15, 2015
No. People imagined this for some reason.
HN is not a person. People's opinions differ. This is not 2 faced.
The context was how to distribute software to Linux users. Not how Linux users could run Windows software.
> But if this were law, so too goes the guy I saw in a park fire spinning,
He would have been there without you seemingly. Everyone who saw him there would have seen him. You meant your recording?
> so too goes the joy I captured on a strangers face at seeing a beautiful chandelier,
They would have seen the chandelier and felt joy without you seemingly. You meant your recording?
Did you ask to send them a copy? Did you ask to keep it? Did you ask to share it?
> and so too goes the countless photos of nature that happen to have people in the background.
A recording of a person and a recording of nature which happens to have people in the background are different. And some countries understood this when they made their laws.
> I give some grace to the regular population on this topic
Notice of termination was the 1 bill section not connected clearly to a problem in the video. The Delivery worker record-keeping and safety obligations and Worker training sections were about injuries and accidents clearly. The Direct employment section would prevent to transfer liability to contractors.
marginalia_nu said all news.
> Rather than giving up on news entirely, in the long-run, I’ve just dropped political podcasts and opinion pieces. I think these products exist to give us the feeling of being informed, but mostly it is just speculation.
The idea was this would teach something. And another idea was All the news is just outrage porn and non-stop predictions of impending doom. What could someone do for months or years? Cycle outrage porn and detox. Or avoid all news. But you saw news differed and you could control your news.
The assumption I had not was false.
Yes.
No. And this shallow dismissal builds the mood you complained about.
The trial protocol said diagnosed with gender incongruence. And explained this.[1] Not questioning their gender.
[1] https://www.kcl.ac.uk/ioppn/assets/pathways/trial/pathways-t...
The context was gender dysphoria treatment. Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize.[1]
> This notion of using these drugs to disrupt healthy and physiologically normal puberty, was not even a little part of their purpose.
Gender dysphoric puberty has unhealthy effects.
> gender dysphoria often resolves itself as the process of puberty and natural maturation unfolds
I never saw this claim supported by studies which did not include children who did not meet gender dysphoria criteria. And those studies found persistence predictors when they looked. Meeting gender dysphoria criteria for example.
Puberty blockers are reversible generally. Suicide is not.
Many people believe adults should be denied assisted suicide.
Your point was what?
To control access is gate keeping.
Puberty blockers' effects are reversible generally. Puberty's effects are not.
Gender affirming care regret rates are very low.
> I know that might be seen as unfair to a lot of people, but given the persistence with which gender affirmation is being pushed, I feel that cases like me are simply considered collateral damage.
Access to gender affirming care is pushed persistently because denial of gender affirming care was and is pushed persistently. And the benefits are significant. And regret rates are very low.
Do you understand that no regretted treatment would require no treatment? What ratio of regretted treatment and regretted non treatment would you consider fair?