Pretty sure most 70-year-old American ladies would be quite surprised to be addressed or referred to as "guys". I'm not sure who you hung out with while you were here, but it may not have been a representative group. (Some people think "guys" is a universal referent, other people don't. The first group seems to skew heavily to younger males.)
And what of the effect suppressing/policing speech has on society and wellbeing? Believe it or not, censoring yourself and having to be in a heightened state of alertness with every word you say, against a litany of possible ways someone might take offense also has a negative effect on people.
It's funny, I don't experience that "heightened state of alertness" at all. Maybe the onus should be on those people who have no way to know if what they say could be offensive to get a clue and learn about the world?
Great, diversity and inclusion for everyone! (except anyone who doesn't agree with you, or anyone with poor social skills - fuck em). Business as usual. You know there are plenty of people, women included, who AREN'T offended at all by the term "guys" to refer to people.
And tomorrow when inclusion for neurodiversity/autism becomes the next social cause, you can talk about how you value diversity SO MUCH, all the while telling them to "get a clue" when their "diversity" manifests itself.
In my experience, autistic people are far less likely to offend people than charismatic "leader types", mostly because they are willing to learn and don't just blow off feedback with some bullshit about having the right to be offensive. Don't use them as a shield. And yes - people who don't agree on the value of inclusion cannot be included without destroying the inclusivity. Popper, paradox of intolerance, etc.
Bullshit shallow understanding of autism. The people from your experience are people who are clearly autistic, enough so you know that they are, and hence get some leeway. The majority of them are not so obvious, whom you will gladly burn at the stake for saying the wrong things.
Even besides that, this extremist view of "if saying X offends Y, we must ban saying X" is bullshit. If you are offended by the use of gendered pronouns as a 0.1% who does not fall into male/female, tough shit. Its not used out of some hatred towards non-binary people, its simply a matter of convenience. You are talking about "inclusivity", but arguing over which goddamn pronoun to use.. there are real problems to solve re: inclusivity.
Ands its great that tiptoeing around gendered pronouns is easy for you, it might not be so easy for people who don't speak English well. I will be "inclusive" of them by assuming good intentions rather than assuming they are trans-hating assholes simply because they used a "he" instead of a "they".
Anyways, great job fighting for inclusion via nitpicking pronouns. Rosa Parks would be pumped knowing all it takes to bring about racial equality is to get the slaveowners to stop saying the N-word.
Yep. I only drink black coffee, no sugar, and I don't eat sweets, cookies, or anything. In fact, I mostly don't consume anything but coffee from I wake up until dinner time, 6-7 PM.
Haven't noticed any of the supposed side-effects doing so could cause. For a while, not eating for hours was also supposedly bad for you. Then fasting started to show benefits. It turns out traditional dietary advice might not be worth jack shit.
One study found a slight increase in acid reflux when drank on an empty stomach, a problem I don't have, other than that there does not seem to be any associations with gastritis, ulcers, or dyspepsia.
Yes, intermittent fasting is said to be quite good for organisms. Maybe a form of hormesis. I'm unfortunately not in a position to comment much on caffeine's health effects aside from various interesting and likely true points of speculation but I find what you shared interesting and do not doubt for a second that medical science (including nutrition, and immunity) is not properly understood except by a rare handful who have the ability to see things whole.
I believe coffee has a lot of beneficial properties, but I have a slight concern regarding caffeine as it reduces CBF. That might impair cognitive functions. Supposedly you can mitigate some of the vasoconstriction with flavonoids.
I always drink my coffee black. I don't drink the stronger blends like you might get in a French roast or at Starbucks. I do dring espresso however a few times a year.
I think Starbucks tries to cater to people who like the flavours in black coffee, but enjoy drinking their coffee with dairy. My theory is that it's 'roasted to pair with dairy' and if you drink starbucks coffee black, cold brew, or espresso without dairy, you're missing half of the 'starbucks' flavour.
I prefer my coffee black, so that makes starbucks worse than most fast-food coffees flavour-wise (though I still enjoy Starbucks locations and amenities better :D)
> I'm at least confident if my ISP started blocking Netflix because they made a deal with Comcast, the hammer of the FCC or FTC would fall on them in short order, and there would be consumer outrage.
You mean "while net neutrality is the law", right? Because that's exactly what you will lose if net neutrality is no longer required.
Don't condescend. My prediction for the odds of Netflix or other major site getting blocked by a major ISP still hovers at roughly 0% with the new FCC ruling. Even without Title II classification, there are other ways for the government to intervene in anti-competitive behavior (and indeed, they have). EDIT: It's worth pointing out that ISPs in general have shown much better behavior w/r/t censorship than content providers.
>Even without Title II classification, there are other ways for the government to intervene in anti-competitive behavior (and indeed, they have).
You don't actually believe this will happen or can be relied upon do you? There are ways for them to do it but we are at the mercy of whoever is in charge of the executive that particular year. This administration will never step in. Maybe if we get a new administration and never have a Republican in office again and the Democrats completely restructure their priorities and come out in favor of trust busting in contrast to their decades of moving right and doing favors for corporate power this is a feasible assumption.
Also, maybe ISPs will just choose to leave money on the table after they gut NN and do nothing because they really care about having a free and open Internet /s
I didn't make a statement either way about likelihood of it happening, I replied to your naive hope that the FCC would still jump in and stop Comcast from doing so after net neutrality rules are abandoned. If you think that this would still be illegal, please do explain which laws and regulatory bodies would be involved and how it would be enforced. Also, it is not at all worth noting that a group who are legally barred from a behavior engage in it less than a group that is not legally barred. Why on earth would it be?
Well, because the way that mesh networks (at least mesh-toplogy networks) function is to route packets to neighbors. Nodes don't blindly and neutrally route packets along; they select specific packets to route to specific neighbors.
Any useful network uses routing. Comcast is not defying net neutrality by delivering all the packets addressed to your IP to you. Net neutrality is not breached until Comcast or your mesh network starts handling the packets differently based on who they came from and the business decisions about that source.
Right, sure. But on a bus, routers blindly route all packets. They don't discriminate.
On a mesh (at least in OSLR or BATMAN), nodes only route certain packets. They are also free to drop packets for any reason, be they geographical or economic. Nobody can demand that a node perform routing.
I can absolutely imagine a malicious regulator claiming that the law requires every node on a small-town mesh to cart Fox News to the other side of town with just as much priority as packets originating from within the town. And that's not really sustainable for a mesh.
That is at best a misreading of the parent comment. Try quoting whole sentences and see if you can identify the parts of the argument that you chopped out.
It does have something to do with Gab- if net neutrality goes away then Comcast can block their site exactly the same way Apple can refuse to put their app in the App Store.
Well, your hypothetical moron is apparently unable to understand net neutrality at all, even the very simple version that "net neutrality means that the ISP can't block one company. If net neutrality goes away. Then it doesn't matter if Gab gets their site registered - Comcast will be allowed to block it. What you are arguing for is extending net neutrality principles to App Store providers and domain registrars, instead of just ISPs". And yes, the existence of so many idiots on one side of politics is exactly why this is a partisan issue.
