The same way someone saying that you would look better without glasses, or would look better with short hair, or would look better if you worked out more is all belittling.

You are trivializing the choices or non choices a person made. You are implying that the way a person looks is in some way wrong or could be better, that they are less than.

My experience is that you would come off as a lot more approachable online if you used less words. You might think that using all those words covers up your flaws but I think you could use a lot less words and be your authentic self and people would like being around you more.

What do any of those things have to do with the conversation. They didnt understand why men sharing an opinion about women’s makeup was a problem. I explained my view of it.

Life is unfair and people can be mean isn’t a justification its just whataboutism cope. Rather than actually letting people consider that maybe their behavior has hurt people you are helping them justify it because people maybe somewhere other people were mean to some other person probably.

Sharing your opinions of how others chose to dress or act is weird unless you are doing it to influence others. Trying to influence people by belittling them is rude.

You could be saying it about how someone dresses, or dances, or what bike they chose to ride.

It is unfortunate that men belittling women about their makeup is so pervasive in our culture that after at least three generations of people highlighting how hurtful it is, people still think their right to state their opinion of random people is more important than people’s right to go through their day without being accosted.

Frakkin toasters man

You can literally see they have Terminal installed in the screenshot. It may not be default but it is certainly on that computer. But a web search is far more important than a program installed on the computer.

When one divorced parent gets their toddler prescribed Adderall without the other parent being informed. AAP recommends against it for ages 3 (not 2 but 3) to 5 but it is allowed.

I’m not saying I even have an opinion on this, but I do think if someone said they think 3 is too young to take Adderall I think that doesn’t automatically tell me they are anti medicine or a bad person.

What does minorities have to do with this?

Armenian’s were a majority. The Fur people of Darfur are a majority in their region. Palestinians are a majority.

Genocide is a method often used in converting a majority to a minority.

I agree with your endpoint that those people don’t care, but I think if you told someone like that that they don’t care about minorities I think you would be confirming their thoughts not convincing them away from it.

Because I don’t think a 2 year old should be given Adderall without a parent knowing?

I personally am pretty open minded about these things, I was able to get birth control with my partner when I was 15 without her Catholic parents knowing. That was very important, but I recognize that if we were 10 it maybe becomes a different conversation involving parents.

You might say a parent could be included but you also have cases of divorced parents where one parent is for and another is against and there is a question of if the childs opinions are theirs or their parents. What age should the child be able to make the call? 15? 10? 5?

You’ve got a bunch of nutjobs that will turn that phrasing into a white genocide conversation is the problem.

The second part of that is that genocide is a subjective term due to classification of ethnic groups being subjective.

Honestly this well encapsulates the problem I tend to have aligning on goals with other progressives and some liberals. Every time folks try to simplify something as complex as genocide down to a yes or no question it means they are already invalidating the majority of positions and forcing a conversation of agree with me or call me wrong. That isn’t how it works, that isn’t how discussion and debate work. Forcing people into Yes/No thinking doesn’t lead to progress, asking for people to think critically does.

The reasonable debate is at what age is that allowed. I do not think that has an easy answer other than legal age of majority for the country you are a citizen of. I think that the problem is there are harder answers than that worth seriously considering.

I can’t imagine thinking any medical procedure has a simple answer, especially anything that permanently alters you.

Medical professionals are people, sometimes they make the right choice, sometimes the wrong choice. There are people who shop for the wrong answer, and also people who get the wrong answer and live in suffering. It is important to question things and have a discourse.

If my 16 year old came to me and asked to have their hearing removed as a solution to their mispohonia and that their therapist agrees and they found a surgeon… I don’t think I could just jump on board with that call.

Genocide is a term that is both over and under used. There are currently about six genocides ongoing. I don’t see the point in trying to call someone out on it because no one is actually doing anything for or against it outside of a very small number of people.

If someone asks me if I’m anti genocide I assume they mean something they specifically consider a genocide and they are trying to use this as bait to get me to out myself in some way. They don’t actually expect I’m personally participating or countering it in any way.

Trans rights also is a loaded term now because there are a LOT of individual rights Trans people are needing to fight for all in parallel. It’s better to be specific.

Sure someone who says they are against trans people is awful, but I find folks set the bar in different places and use that to start an argument. The easiest example is, what age should someone be allowed to transition which is an intensely challenging question to answer even on a medical level.

Gonna resurrect Tay?

Yea but if someone uses those bindings then you can’t just not support it.

By the time this code gets into a large scale production system it will be 2029. That is when the bugs will come in if someone leveraged the Rust bindings.

You can ask the big company users at that time to contribute their fixes upstream, but if they get resistance because they have relatively junior Rust devs trying to push up changes that only a handful of maintainers understand, the company will just stop upstreaming their changes.

The primary concern that a major open source project like this will have is that the major contributors will decide that interacting with it is more trouble than it is worth. That is how open source projects move to being passion projects and then die when the passion dies.

Yea and if the Rust developers don’t show up to the show? Rust is a baby and it has done so little on its own. This isn’t a neat little side project, this is code that a major vendor will want to take up and will demand be maintained. There are implications on a global scale.

It’s mostly in that linked thread. The high level of it is a guy wanted to push Rust code. The maintainer said no it would mean the API for this would be tied to Rust and that is unacceptable. It cause another big contributer to throw a fit and Linus said he can’t be everyone’s mom. They kept fighting for like 2 months apparently? Now Linus stepped in, looked at the code and said the Rust code clearly doesn’t impact the API in the way the maintainer was saying it just breaks itself if the maintainers allow changes to the API.

I kinda dislike the idea that it’s cool for people to contribute code that is so easy to break. I have a feeling after it happens a few times they are going to claim that it is being done intentionally and that the slap fights will carry on.

Linus shouldn’t have to get involved at all. Each part of the Kernel should be handled independently by the maintainers. Linus responding publicly to outside forces is fine but once he has to step in to handle public fights between individuals who are supposed to work together it is a problem.

Linux staying C focused is a valid thing to do. It is very hard to get folks to contribute to the kernel and if you cut out anyone who doesn’t know Rust, a language with at best 5% the adoption rate of C, you will run into spots where sections of the kernel are unmaintained due to no willing and qualified person covering it.

Adding Rust based functionality and support is great. Changing APIs to require maintainers to learn Rust to continue to maintain the code they are experts in is unacceptable.

I think this looks great. I’m not going to run a 20 foot USB cable accross my living room so wireless is pretty much a must. I think the only concern I have is if it discharges if I store it and if so what the bringup time would be.

Ukraine was the 3rd largest nuclear power in the world, and is famous for it’s history with nuclear energy.

The issue here is that them starting the enrichment process is grounds for the start of WW3, and they wouldn’t complete the effort in time to offensively defend themselves. You’d have to give them entirely complete nukes and even that would just mean it’s nuke launchin time for a number of folks.