Sall Grover is the creator of a woman-only social app in Australia that was taken to court over that sex exclusivity. Posted a few controversial statements to test the atmosphere and this is the result.
This is a very common form of dishonesty on this topic.
First, even if we give you the benefit of the doubt and say it is factual, you do not need to lie in order to spread hatred, or at the very least provoke/troll people. "But it's true" is a childish defense in that context. If you were being honest, you would defend the practice of provoking/trolling people regarding gender identity (rather than merely defending the generic concept of saying something factually true, which is akin to the classic "I'm not touching you" game of provocation). And to be clear: I am not arguing against that theoretical argument in this comment - I am just saying that you should make that argument, since clearly you believe it but are being oblique about it.
Secondarily (and I do mean secondarily - it's entirely subservient to the first point and basically just an exercise in argument): The statement isn't factual, since it's just disagreeing with a context in which a word is used. It's literally a semantic argument, which is always more or less subjective.
Let's say she was testing the moderation system on a different topic. For example she'd posted the statement "Jesus was nothing more than a man", which resulted in her post being instantly censored and her profile slapped with a content warning.
Would you still be making the claim that she is "spreading hatred"?
I would still say she was making a factual statement that she was censored for. As we have evidence that this person was a historical figure and not just some figment of fiction. Only those with a particular ideological belief, i.e. most Christians, think there's more to it.
Fortunately that's not what happened, and such ideologues are not in charge of imposing those beliefs on others via Bluesky's moderation system. But it's clear that those who assert that some men are women are imposing their beliefs. Which is exactly what Sall demonstrated.
This is just the common case where it's a thing one could express a morally honest opinion about, even if it's emotional or negative, but is instead expressed curtly for the purpose of encouraging hatred broadly. I.e. it's the exact definition of trolling (and specifically, group-hatred by intrinsic qualities like sexual feelings, race, etc, which is understandably the most commonly moderated type of trolling). I'm not going to go so far as to say that all platforms must moderate that type of content, but it is of course a decision that falls within the realm of reason for any given platform. So, it seems dishonest to spit on it as "censorship" (ever more, "brutal censorship"), assuming you are agreeing with the GP.
I don't think it's an exaggeration, and I don't think it's daft - I think the point of the common quips of the general format "trans 'women' are men", without more context, are almost always (and obviously in this case) simple provocations, intended to disparage and humiliate, in addition to serving as slogans that implicitly support an unstated argument. However, we have no way of knowing which arguments they are supporting, aside from a broad and unnecessarily bitter rejection of the concept of people who feel mentally like a different gender from their biological gender.
So, purely as a random example: One of those unstated arguments is often the "don't let trans women into women's bathrooms" debate. I sympathize greatly with women who don't feel comfortable sharing a bathroom with trans women, and don't think anybody should be put through that (and I also sympathize with the trans woman's side of that problem, and have no good solution to offer to either side, but that's beside the point I'm making), but despite sharing that sympathy, I don't pretend to be unable to recognize hateful versions of that "sympathy" - that would be petty ideology.
But this is strong disagreement you are talking about, not hatred.
And if you look at the history of what Sall Grover has had to endure regarding this issue - being harassed, threatened, dragged through the legal system - it's very obvious why she strongly disagrees with the idea that some men are women, and why she is so very outspoken in drawing a line in the sand on this.
If someone decided you weren't allowed to participate in this community for using "schizoid" in a derogatory fashion I'd call it censorship all the same.
I’m kinda flattered my post history was even looked at.
Your position conflate the limited power mode have with tan ideological harm.
The surest tonic for this is to volunteer as a mod. Please try. I got into it because I felt I had to put my money where my mouth. Most mod teams need volunteers, and normal people to share their experiences.
By your criteria police are simply violent. Judges are simply judgemental. Heck everyone with a gun is a violent person.
I think that's in line with pick-your-own — Bluesky has the concept of ‘labelling service’ (with Bluesky as a/the default labeller) and client actions based on those labels (hide/warn/show).
If that's all that's happening, the really bad part is contributing to the perception that Bluesky is just a left-Gab (and if that's what you want, there are perfectly good Mastodon cliques already).
There used to be a US-politics labeller, of value to non-Americans, but it seems to have fallen over.
It's a pretty understandable semantic argument, where tons of people are going to be irrationally biased in whichever of the two directions suits them on a given example.
Sorry, which two directions? Surely you can have more than two distinct opinions on how to best handle moderation. Which is a fatal flaw to the twitter "community notes" feature, too.
It seems like it doesn't take much to terminate thought for you.
If you want to suggest that moderation and censorship are the same—two concepts with obviously differing senses in English—take a stab at making the argument instead of just asserting it in, ironically, a cliche.
You can also just turn it off globally by turning off the "Intolerance" setting on the Bluesky Moderation account - visit @moderation.bsky.app and set it up how you want.
There is a cultural divide on where you stand wrt transphobia. The default appview is indeed not down with it, where Twitter is ofc very down with it.
The protocol is ambivalent towards it, so if you seek hate, you could host your own. I'm very fine (happy even) with the bsky team not being invested in that side of history.
Anyone who looks at Levine and thinks something along the lines of wearing a dress, must be a woman rather than that is obviously a man in a dress has deeply sexist ideas about how women should present themselves.
You can label this as "transphobia" if you like but that's just a tacit acknowledgement that the "trans" belief system is built upon sexist principles.
Whatever you mean, you can probably write about it without encouraging hatred for groups of people based on qualities that, by themselves, are harmless, like whether they feel male or female, are biologically male or female, are gay or straight, white or black, etc etc.
Seems that if I write that "X that feels Y is X and not Y", then I'm apparently encouraging hate. But the real point is that I feel descriptions should belong to the person describing, not the person described.. How is this hate?
Some people believe that whether you're a man or a woman is based on thoughts in your head, rather than the material biological reality of your sex. They also believe that these thoughts mean you can be neither woman or man, which they call 'non-binary'.
Of course to everyone else this is a rather absurd thing to believe. Like the healing power of crystals or some nonsense like that.
I disagree. Words have meaning, you can't just use your own personal definitions. The modern definition of "gender" is based on the concept of gender identity and includes more than two genders [0][1]. If you want to make your point understood by most people, you should say "there are two biological sexes", although that is also not correct[2].
The dictionary pages you linked to illustrate that there are multiple senses for the word 'gender' in modern use, and that its use as a shorthand for 'gender identity' is not the only one.
Also, as the Wikipedia article you linked discusses, 'intersex' is not a type of sex additional to female and male. It's a word used to group various disorders of sexual development.
The article they posted was a satire on USA Today naming Levine, a man, as one of their Women Of The Year.
This quote from their article highlights the absurdity:
"Levine is the U.S. assistant secretary for health for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, where he serves proudly as the first man in that position to dress like a western cultural stereotype of a woman."
Really the only "intolerance" here is from those who can't stand their ideological beliefs being made fun of, and decide to retaliate via the platform's moderation system.
GVM dispatch is notoriously slow(-ish), yeah. But it does not require JIT. Otherwise it wouldn't work with NativeAOT :) (the latter can also auto-seal methods and unconditionally devirtualize few-implementation members which does a good job, guarded devirtualization with JIT does this even better however)
I remember when this feature was specifically not available with NativeAOT.
It's good that it is now, but how can it be implemented in a way that has truly separate instantiations of generics at runtime, when calls cross assembly boundaries? There's no single good place to generate a specialization when virtual method body is in one assembly while the type parameter passed to it is a type in another assembly.
> how can it be implemented in a way that has truly separate instantiations of generics at runtime, when calls cross assembly boundaries
There are no assembly boundaries under NativeAOT :)
Even with JIT compilation - the main concern, and what requires special handling, are collectible assemblies. In either case it just JITs the implementation. The cost comes from the lookup - you have to look up a virtual member implementation and then specific generic instantiation of it, which is what makes it more expensive. NativeAOT has the definitive knowledge of all generic instantiations that exist, since it must compile all code and the final binary does not have JIT.
The newer mac version was actually showing huge promise. It was a couple of versions away from being a great choice as primary IDE. That said, I do understand why they axed it. The market would have been tiny for all that investment.
I don't think it did officially, there were definitely server plugins that did it back in the day but AFAICT it wasn't official until this 2015 update:
If you're remembering playing with the r_drawothermodels console command to get a faux-wallhack effect, that was still subject to the engines clientside occlusion culling so it didn't show everything the client (and real cheats) were actually aware of.
The thing I remember was that my friend's graphics card had a global transparency setting built in (AKA a wall-hack mode lol). You could see other players come into view as soon as the came into an area that was rendered. Then a CS patch came out and the players weren't visible until very shortly before they would become visible had we not had the uhh... transparency mode on haha.
Yeah that's the same deal as r_drawothermodels, crudely forcing the GPU to render objects that are behind other objects would give you a partial wallhack, but that wouldn't disable the engines occlusion culling so once it determined that an object was definitely no longer visible it would skip drawing it altogether, and you would stop seeing it through walls. "True" wallhacks were able to override the clients occlusion culling and reveal everything, so to defend against that the occlusion culling needs to happen on the server, which came much later.
> By contrast, normalizing vitamin D levels, eating healthier (more fruits, vegetables, nuts, seeds, whole grains, etc), achieving a healthy weight, sleeping better, having less stress, having positive social interactions, and so on all have been shown to boost the immune system and reduce the burden of most infectious disease -- along with reducing the economic burden of many other health issues resulting from "diabesity" and also reducing many costly mental issues like depression.
Those are things everyone should be doing for their general health. Citing general health recommendations for a specific illness would be redundant. In other words, not a conspiracy.
Furthermore, general good health does not prevent someone from catching a virus, nor getting ill from it. Of course it may diminish both the likelihood of catching it and the severity of the resulting illness, but, again, the point of the sentence you quote is that a _specific_ tool for mitigating the scale and severity of a _specific_ contagion from the health care system's perspective is effective.
And of course, you can be the healthiest most diligent person in the world, and if you run into a heavy hitter it'll still take its shots at you. Bryan Johnson who is focused on life extension caught covid and measured that it decreased his lung capacity and that many months later it was still decreased compared to prior.
As the old adage goes, an ounce of prevention is worth more than a pound of cure.
From "Here’s How to Avoid Catching Colds and the Flu": https://time.com/4672626/vitamin-d-cold-flu/
"For the new study, a meta-analysis published in The BMJ, researchers looked at individual data from nearly 11,000 people who had participated in randomized controlled trials in more than a dozen countries. The researchers found that people who took daily or weekly vitamin D supplements were less likely to report acute respiratory infections, like influenza or the common cold, than those who did not. Those who had low vitamin D levels before they started supplementation got the biggest benefit: For people with the most significant vitamin D deficiencies (blood levels below 10 mg/dl), taking a supplement cut their risk of respiratory infection in half. People with higher vitamin D levels also saw a small reduction in risk: about 10%, which is about equal to the protective effect of the injectable flu vaccine, the researchers say. No significant benefits were associated with high doses of vitamin D spaced out over larger periods of time."
So, given this BMJ-published research, why can researchers in the article's paper get away with claiming that flu vaccines are more effective than any other option (including vitamin D supplementation) when the research suggests otherwise?
> why can researchers in the article's paper get away with claiming that flu vaccines are more effective than any other option (including vitamin D supplementation) when the research suggests otherwise?
What is the prevalence of <10 mg/dl Vitamin D deficiency in population? (Serious question.)
(I'm pretty sure you mean ng/mL. Some countries measure in nmol/L, too. [1], [2])
Obviously it depends on which "population" you're talking about, but it's pretty common. Insufficiency is also relevant and should be avoided if possible. The NIH estimates perhaps 1 billion global cases of deficiency (including "subclinical deficiency") and "50% of the population" (so ~4 billion) cases of insufficiency. [3] Prevalence unsurprisingly varies by sun exposure (climate and lifestyle) and absorption (i.e., "skin melanin content" as [3] puts it), and also by age.
Vitamin D supplements are quite cheap. I currently take 4000 IU/day and have taken as much as 10000 IU/day (for months at a time) in the past. Whatever the government might imply with its "RDA" or whatever, this should be completely safe, at least for anyone without very specific preexisting medical conditions - and the treatment for excess vitamin D levels (and the commonly associated hypercalcemia) is generally to just lay off for a while ([2], [4], [5]). Supplementation does work - I have blood tests to prove it. Regardless of any of the previous discourse about influenza or any other virus, it's probably a good idea for a very large fraction of the HN audience.
> Insufficiency is also relevant and should be avoided if possible
Sure. But that isn't relevant to the clinical question of reducing hospitalisation. About 40% of the American population is deficient to some degree; if we assume half are deficient to your threshold, that explains why vaccines are the most effective method: 40% (flu vaccine efficacy) of 100% (total population) is more than even 100% (assuming 100% efficacy of Vitamin D in preventing ILI hospitalisation, which is of course nonsense) of 20%.
> supplementation does work - I have blood tests to prove it
Nobody debates this. I take vitamin D.
> it's probably a good idea for a very large fraction of the HN audience
It's a good idea to talk to a doctor about it. Vitamin D is a hormone. Self administering large doses of hormones isn't good broad-spectrum advice.
My comment says ng/mL and nmol/L, and my sources agree. Your comment says mg/dl, which is different. A milligram of 1,25-dihydroxycholecalciferol is quite a lot; the nanogram range makes much more sense for this measurement. As you say, it's a hormone.
>Sure. But that isn't relevant to the clinical question of reducing hospitalisation.
I answered the question you asked, and I'm not the person you were originally responding to.
>Nobody debates this.
I'm glad that you don't, and that apparently nobody you know does. My personal experience differs.
>Self administering large doses of hormones isn't good broad-spectrum advice.
When I told my primary care physician about what I had done many years ago on the advice of a specialist, he told me quite directly that basically everyone around here should be supplementing vitamin D (particularly given how common it is to spend so much of our lives indoors). Toronto is not even at the 45th parallel. The doses in question are really not large, taken for example in the perspective of their measurable pharmacological effects.
Yes, that's the point. My comment says ng/mL, because it should say ng/mL, because that is the correct unit for blood serum level (i.e., the thing that is tested in order to determine deficiency). In your first comment, you wrote mg/dl, which is incorrect. I did not "amend" anything to IUs. IUs are the dosage unit for supplementation. It's irrelevant to my initial correction.
>Sure. That's medical advice.
It's medical advice that explicitly indicated that the sort of personal request for medical advice you propose, is not actually necessary.
Once again, having vitamin D levels within the recommended range correlates with many aspects of _general health_. It does not have any _specific_ influence on influenza viruses. Not only is it not specific, but taking vitamin D doesn't directly do anything except raise one's existing vitamin D levels.
If you don't understand the difference between A) the general health benefits of not being deficient in a vitamin/mineral/amino-acid/etc., and B) a _specific_ vaccine's effects against a _specific_ pathogen (or group of pathogens), I don't know what else to tell you.
I wonder if your premium is higher if you've bought Ludicrous Mode, because there's a higher possibility of you being one of those ... aggressive drivers.
I certainly hope so. Although using geofencing around private roads/tracks to determine where the aggressive maneuvers are being used would be most fair.
Like if someone's driving metrics are totally smooth and predictable on public roads, but then they go nuts on a race track, a lower premium makes sense.
Now that I type that out, how does car insurance work while driving on a private race track?
Maybe just owning a Cybertruck is evidence enough that you're an aggressive driver. It's heavily marketed as being so strong that in case of any collision, it "will win". Someone who dropped six figures on the Cybertruck is going to want to drive it to the limit suggested by all the advertising.
You’re probably being downvoted because the metrics they use do not measure whether you are a safe driver.
The metrics simply correlate with accident rates. For example, your premiums increase if you drive late at night, which does not mean that you are a bad driver. Their metrics also do not punish you for accelerating aggressively or driving at high rates of speed (only if you turn too fast or hit the brakes too hard, but if I slam on the brakes in the name of safety, or perform an evasive maneuver, does that mean I am an unsafe driver?)
Also, it’s worth pointing out other insurance companies have a solution for this that has worked for decades. If someone proves they are an unsafe driver by receiving a infraction or filing a claim, then you adjust the rates. No need to spy on the person with invasive amounts of data, or use arbitrary metrics that use correlation instead of causation. But Tesla has to reinvent things that were not broken in the first place, like door handles (just replaced the door handle on a brand new model S because dust got in there LOL).
> if I slam on the brakes in the name of safety, or perform an evasive maneuver, does that mean I am an unsafe driver?
If you have to frequently do that, it's probably because you put yourself in situations where an earlier safer choice of action would have avoided the need. Frequent abrupt/high-G maneuvers to turn accidents into near-misses probably does correlate strongly with future losses (you’re eventually going to “fail to miss”).
"A superior pilot uses his superior judgment to avoid situations which require the use of his superior skill.” — Frank Borman.
It's a nice sounding quip, but I don't agree at all. The pilot putting themselves in risky situations will acquire a superior skill. Which will partially, but not nearly fully, compensate for the risky situations they put themselves in.
A bear whisperer is more likely than an average person to be eaten by a bear. An experienced cave diver is more likely than an average person to drown.
I responded to your quote, which didn't restrict itself to airline pilots. There are also people flying their own planes for fun. And military pilots. Both of which may pull risky stunts in real planes.
I am a GA pilot. I also do sim-based training rather than going out and doing risky in-airplane training in order to be safer. (There are some things that we do in airplane because it’s the most effective way available, but most of the really risky items we also do only in the sim.)
I confined my upthread answer to airline pilots because that’s what’s familiar and relevant to most readers and seems most directly relevant to risk-reduction for passengers/non-participants. (We don’t do risky training exercises with pax on board either.)
The point you're missing is that the risk-taking & skill-honing that aggressive drivers perform is being done on public roads with other drivers who just want to commute safely.
Your arguments are about pilots training in controlled conditions that don't put others at unnecessary, non-consensual risk.
Teslas offering isn’t particularly different from any of the other traditional insurance companies that offer the OBD2 dongle or companion app to monitor your driving. The only difference is there’s no opt out for a higher rate.
Also, Tesla isn’t unique here. Root insurance did this well before Tesla did.
So given the context, why is Hezbollah not responsible for the current escalation?
Hezbollah was founded to drive Israel out of Lebanon, and Israel is no longer in Lebanon, so not sure how that context makes any difference to who started and is to blame for the current round of escalation.
You are implying that the context that matters is equal to the context where Israel hasn't done anything wrong. If you don't know you're doing that, I don't know what to tell you. Maybe you're used to entertaining a much less observant audience on this topic.
It's pretty simple - tell me why you think it's justified for Lebanon to attack Israel?
You're dancing around the "context" but not actually saying why that context makes it legitimate for Lebanon to attack based on the pre Oct 7th status quo. Sure Lebanon and Israel have some territorial dispute, but it's like 20 sq km, not something you should start a war for.
Lots of neighboring countries have a bloody history, that doesn't mean starting a new war is legitimate, right? Can Poland start firing rockets at Germany because Germany invaded them in the past?
No thanks. You're obviously brainwashed by particular narratives, and have only absorbed one perspective of the facts that you were already emotionally dependent on. Not at all unusual on this topic.
I'm very open to hear different narratives, but seems like you aren't exactly willing to hear or share, so not even sure why you commented from the get go.
This is a discussion board, and in more than happy to discuss the topic, there's no need for personal attacks.
reply