Why is the commentary of far-right reactionary, who is not a legal expert, commenting on a canadian law, that has nothing to do with warrants, with a citation pointing out that legal experts disagree with him, at all relevant to this conversation?
To be clear, what's not mentioned in that Federalist article is that the child does have the mother's parental consent, from whom the father is currently separated.
> mitigate regret, remorse.
There are any number of studies [0] of trans "Desistance" all of which overwhelmingly show the number one reason people regret transitioning is societal, familial, or workplace treatment. The remorse comes from things like, for instance, a father refusing to use the correct pronouns or refer to his child by their chosen name. This remorse rarely comes from an actual rejection of the gender identity the individual transitioned to.
I agree with you, but I also think the commenter you're replying to agrees with you.
The issue is not that Tesla FSD should come with the hardware, the issue is that if I buy the hardware I should have the right to do whatever I want with it, and so we shouldn't leave aside that Tesla prevents us from running our own software.
This is relevant to the NVidia situation since their software doesn't add features, it limits things the chip is already capable of. Just like Tesla won't let you run Comma.AI or something similar on their hardware...
There's some internal debate about this in the Jewish community. Many Russian Jews were actively speaking Hebrew and publishing, for instance, Hebrew newspapers while western European Jews were mostly speaking Yiddish. Regardless I think my point is that language is a really important part of culture and saying "only 3 people speak this" doesn't ring true to me as a good reason not to treat any language as culturally important or relevant.
Something that I've been looking for as I try to learn more about WebAssembly is good examples of tasks that, when converted from Javascript to WebAssembly, would be good uses of WebAssembly for performance or memory or other reasons. Does anybody have a link to a blog post or good documentation like that?
Buying an item, and then selling it later, is not effectively renting. It's buying an item and then selling it later. The fact that they had the option not to sell and could choose to exercise it doesn't disappear when they do choose to sell it.
In this specific case I think it's completely wrong to say that people who sell back physical copies are effectively renters.
I want to say: I don't talk as casually as this in a work channel, though I do sometimes discuss politics and current events. That's not because I don't think it's professional, but rather because I'm jewish and what happened to this employee feels like a very present threat.
It is a well-documented fact that neo-nazi hate groups were a significant presence in the riot and preceding "protest" at the capital. Stating that fact ultimately lead to a nazi-apologist coworker denying it, and then the jewish employee being fired.
Discord's voice chats have no apparent upper limit in how many concurrent users they support - they basically say "the upper limit is how many your client device is able to support without crapping out".
I haven't read into this but it seems like they're doing peer-to-peer for audio or the server load is INCREDIBLY efficient, given this.
I see this comparison a lot and I want to point out exactly why it’s false:
We oppose discrimination against protected classes because generally we recognize that people cannot elect into or opt out easily of those classes. It’s generally greed upon that people do not choose to be gay.
Parler’s users choose to post white supremacist content.
I see no contradiction in insisting that gay people be served under the law while advocating that private companies retain their right to refuse service to White supremacists.
The Supreme Court has backed this up: discrimination on the basis of sex, which includes sexuality, is illegal, while discrimination on the basis of political ideology is not.
I don't really see how that's relevant to the specific issue of scientific rigor, and in this case is a strangely one-sided issue. as Dr. Gebru pointed out, soon after she took steps towards legal action against google (I don't think a suit was actually filed) she was also given an award by Google for her work and performance.
Also, it's strange to be giving google so much benefit of the doubt here. On the same day this happened the NLRB filed two formal complaints against google for retaliatory firing practices. If any participant in this drama has a known record of retaliatory and unfair labor practices, it is google, as documented by the federal government's extremely detailed complaint.
I think there's a place for HR to help somebody give feedback about social or work-style issues. If somebody has a track record of getting defensive with face-to-face feedback it might be useful to have a manager present as a mediator and go through a formal process.
That's just not the same as giving scientific feedback in the review process for research and shouldn't be in the way there.
If somebody used HR as the mechanism to communicate feedback on the scientific rigor of research I was leading I would also find that concerning and objectionable. Human Resources is not peer review.
I think maybe we're a bit too far afield. I don't think people are talking about phrases like "a little problem" or "a big deal". Do you take issue with the point I raised about "falling on deaf ears?" Why are we talking about hypothetical complaints people might have about the word small when we have real examples about the use of "falling on deaf ears" or "master" terminology in tech.
I think people are making good faith attempts to communicate that those phrases hurt their feelings. I think it's not wrong to make a good faith attempt to avoid hurting people's feelings. I think complaining about a hypothetical slippery slope misses the point.
> I am not interested in devoting half of my brainpower to self-censoring
But we already do this. You don't just blurt out everything you think. If you walk by somebody in the supermarket who smells strongly of perfume do you just shout "you stink"? When you're speaking to a group you're probably picking appropriate language to use. You're not dropping a bunch of f-bombs at work and probably not using a ton of programmer-specific technical jargon or metaphors with your friends who aren't in tech.
When one of my closest friends from childhood came out as trans it took me a month to stop using the wrong pronouns for them. I had to think about it in the moment... until I didn't anymore because I built up a habit and got used to it. Now it takes no brainpower at all. This is normal. This is how normal habit-building works.
> Being conscious of your partners emotions...
But not my coworkers? Not my black peers? Not a potential hearing-impaired contributor to one of my oss projects on github?
I said this to another commenter who pointed out that "walk in my shoes" could be excluding language to folks who are paraplegic, I'm honestly happy to hear this feedback and consider using more inclusive language.
Frankly this is good feedback simply from a precise communication perspective. We often use special metaphors when we mean to describe complexity, and "trivial" would more easily communicate what I meant regardless.
This came up recently in my romantic relationship: I used "small" to describe an emotional feeling I was having and it did hurt the feelings of my partner, who is short. They didn't like that size was used to describe a negative emotion and I appreciated that they shared that with me and gave me an opportunity to think about a more precise way of communicating my feelings that didn't connect a negative connotation to something they identified with.
Why is this so hard to understand that I would seek to live this way? I think we should be excited to practice radical compassion with each other.
I really appreciate your thoughtful take here. One thing I think is important to note is that I don't want, and I don't think any hearing impaired person would want (though I can't speak for all of them) for you to spend really any time feeling guilty about a potential offense you might have caused.
What I'm advocating for is radical compassion and empathy. When you hear somebody say "this thing can hurt me" worry less about all the times you were involved in that, and consider more how you can help folks avoid that harm in the future.
That's not to say we should ever introspect. I noticed that with a friend of mine who recently came out as trans I was still often using gendered language "dude, man, etc" from before they came out, even if I usually got their pronouns right. They didn't ask me, but the introspection I was doing prompted me to offer them an apology and commit to doing better about those kinds of things. That has brought us closer and given me a better perspective for being a good friend and ally to them.
I don't think anybody thinks you're trying to be a jerk, or intentionally seeking to hurt people's feelings. What I'm reacting to is a vocal minority of folks, often in tech, who seem to react to being told "Hey, this thing sometimes hurts my feelings when I notice it" with "How dare you accuse me of being literally Darth Vader. This is THOUGHT POLICING."
Just... try your best to be kind to people. If that means you're the CEO of github and you can change "master" to "main" why the heck wouldn't you?
However, I don't think I owe you all an apology, and you'll notice that I never asked anybody for an apology for using "fall on deaf ears" or anything else. I did say we should practice radical compassion and if somebody says to us "hey this phrase bugs me or hurts my feelings" there's very few reasons I can imagine why we shouldn't accept that and consider using different language.
I'm happy to trade "live my life" for "walk in my shoes" in order to make folks who use wheelchairs feel more included in my communities. Why not? What do I lose? It's not like "walk in my shoes" is some deeply important idiom to me and if I never say it again I will be forever a less-happy person.