The self-contained electron app works better for most people I think.

I believe it’s 1% for access to the “entire post-open ecosystem”, rather than 1% per project which would be unreasonable. So you could use one or thousands of projects under the Post-open banner, but still pay 1%.

It will take years to develop the post-open ecosystem to be something worth spending that much on.

Also chromosome tests aren’t a foolproof indication of sex anyway. People can have one set or another while still having the properties associated with the other sex, so it doesn’t really work as a definitive measure. The question is reasonable until you examine it and it’s motives.

The question subtly suggests that if she had a Y chromosome then she has some biological advantage and therefore doesn’t deserve the medal she earned. Does she actually have an advantage from the Y chromosome? Are we going to ensure through DNA testing that all competitors are going to be exactly equal by genetics? If so, we’re going to have 8 clones of Usain Bolt competing for the 100m sprint. Michael Phelps arguably had a biological advantage by having hyper flexible shoulders, are we disqualifying those biological advantages? Of course not, so what do they actually mean when asking those questions about the chromosome? They don’t have meaningful answers to the questions I raise, they just want to add fuel to the fires of the culture war for their own political means.

This really got me, thank you!

I think there’s a bit of “whoosh” happening…

I said in another comment but basically the left have a tougher message to sell than the right. The right says that the system works but it’s the foreigners/benefit thieves/refugees stealing your money/house/jobs. That is inherently quite easy to understand without much thought or critical thinking. The left on the other hand have to tell you all about Thatcher, Reagan and neoliberalism before we even get to the point of solutions which are usually incredibly radical like changing the fundamental economic model we’ve all been operating under since the 80s. Inherent in that is a fear that the left’s solutions will take assets and wealth away from people. While the right promises that your assets, wealth and property rights are sacred and that it’s the “other” that will have their assets, wealth and rights taken away. Again, very easy-to-understand messaging for the right versus the left.

Genuine question, where are the extreme left rising? I haven’t seen any but that might be the algorithms/my news sources talking.

I totally agree that neoliberal economics are essentially what we understand to be economics now. To be clear, I’m not blaming the left, I think it’s a case of they have a more difficult message to convey. To explain the problems that neoliberal economics has and to propose a solution to them is a really hard task compared with “it’s the foreigners at fault”. It’s a much clearer, more concise and seemingly solvable problem compared with “we need to overhaul the global economy”.

So I didn’t make a statement about that. I’m making a statement about what these results might tell us, admittedly in a very simplistic way.

Far right parties gaining significant popularity especially in France and Germany. It’s not great for the neo-liberal centre who created and perpetuated the economic downturn we’re all in and indicates a failure of the left to present a coherent alternative. There’s a lot to unpack about it. France has already dissolved their parliament and triggered an election because of these results.

Literally just bought what I believe to be last generation’s X13 on ebay for half the price of the new one. It’s been great so far, especially with the power efficiency of Ryzen CPUs. My one complaint is the soldered RAM, which judging by the new lineup is getting phased out, thankfully.

My specific point here was about how this friend doesn’t trust the results AND still goes to Google/others to verify, so he’s effectively doubled his workload for every search.

I’ve had this argument with friends a lot recently.

Them: it’s so cool that I can just ask chatgpt to summarise something and I can get a concise answer rather than googling a lot for the same thing.

Me: But it gets things wrong all the time.

Them: Oh I know so I Google it anyway.

Doesn’t make sense to me.

I’ve been programming for too long, my brain just autocorrected the typo so initially didn’t get the joke…

Yeah then you start debating the merits of hate crime as a concept and I am not even slightly equipped to deal with that!

I had similar queries around “biological sex” vs gender a while ago and my understanding now is that biological sex is surprisingly hard to define. You can’t go by genitalia because sometimes a person creates the “wrong” ones. You can’t go by chromosomes because again, sometimes they’re different. And you can’t go by other physical traits (Adams apple for example) because again sometimes it’s there, sometimes it’s not, completely unrelated to sex. You can sort of go by hormones but not really (just look at professional sport) so it’s all a bit of a mess. It’s way easier for me to just accept there’s a spectrum and move on, because to me it’s way harder to actually define where the line is than to just dismiss the line entirely.

Without the context of your understanding of the debate as you’ve outlined here we can only guess what you meant by “the debate” in your previous comment so thanks for taking the time to describe it. I absolutely agree that there needs be great care around the legitimacy of when someone declaring their gender should be taken seriously or not in some limited and extreme circumstances (prisons spring to mind). I think your characterisation of the terf argument if you speak to normal people is about accurate from my limited experience. The media and some outspoken terfs like JK are on the more extreme side of that where they say that it is already “too easy” to legitimately change their gender. Which is where I fundamentally disagree with them since I know the hoops some of my friends have had to jump through to even get the smallest amount of help from health providers.

(I’m using “legitimate” above as a sort of catch all for legal or what the person genuinely feels. I don’t think legal and legitimate are the same thing in this context, hence the distinction.)

In the nicest possible way, what do you mean by “both sides” in this context? One side says that trans people either don’t or shouldn’t exist and the other side says they should exist. I know that may sound extreme or combative but that’s fundamentally “the debate” so I genuinely want to understand how you reached this “both sides have merit” stance that some people close to me also take but I’ve never understood.

Personally I rename them to something meaningful and they get merged if there are no other references. PayPal is especially bad for completely meaningless rubbish in the payee field and they tend to be ad-hoc purchases so I don’t fiddle with them much. The category is the most relevant bit for me.

Yes I was wrong to say that this an implementation detail rather than a protocol problem as the OpenSSH release notes to prevent this vulnerability include extensions to the SSH Transport Protocol, however I still believe that the headline is sensationalist at best since it can and has been protected against by patching ssh clients and servers. It would be entirely unreasonable in the majority of cases to simply stop using SSH on the basis of this vulnerability and that’s why I think the headline exaggerates the problem. The Register has a much more measured take on this including comments from the paper’s authors that people shouldn’t panic and try to fix immediately.

Bit of an alarmist headline here. The vulnerability has been patched in the most common clients (openssh) and it was because the protocol wasn’t being implemented correctly. To say that the SSH protocol “just got a lot weaker” is just not true.