Much to my chagrin, modern games don't focus on high frame rates. 30 fps is the new standard, 60 fps if you're lucky, most PC ports of console games are locked to 30/60hz and require physics-borking hacks to lift the limit, and even the games that do support arbitrary framerates tend to have a target FPS designed into them, such that even a monster PC with all of the graphics settings turned down will frequently choke.
Their definition of "woman" doesn't have the requirement of a vagina, though. In their minds, gender is a subjective mental state. Ask if they have a penis. When it comes down to concrete realities, I doubt that most of them would say "no".
If someone abducted me and forced a sex-change operation on me, then I'd have to say that I had a vagina, but I'd still say that I was a man. I'd consider the physical state of my body a result of an act of mutilation.
Them saying "I am a woman", or me saying "I am a man", is a statement of gender (a social construct) rather than sex (a biological fact).
Traditionally, we'd consider sex and gender to be in lockstep, and it wouldn't be useful to consider them as anything but perfect synonyms. "I'm male" is a simple enough concept. It means three things: that I have a penis, consider myself male, and I'm attracted to females.
Add in the 5%-ish of the population where the 3rd point is completely false, and the larger percent where it's true, but not completely exclusive.
Add in the smaller segment of the population where the second point doesn't match the first.
Add in the yet smaller segment where even the first point doesn't have a binary truth value.
This isn't to say that there aren't delusional people that would argue about the observable biological state, just that mostly I'd think they're talking about their perception of their own gender, rather than their perception of their sex.
With Linux distributions it's entirely possible to meet [ed: developers] at conventions and build a path of trust quite directly to the signing keys. I'd argue it's generally more secure than "random CA said this domain name belongs to Red Hat". It might even be more secure than this particular CA that I believe Red Hat have previously used, said this new TLS key belong to Red Hat.
While all this is true, I find it hard to beleive that anyone prefers to dodge the dark patterns, forged images with embedded malware, and adverts of The Pirate Bay rather than direct from the distro web site.
There are any number of ways to deanonymize users once javascript is running, not to mention the greater possibility of escaping the sandbox. It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario.
I know they're trying to serve users that can't be expected to play the whitelisting game, but they really should be stricter here. It's already trivial to differentiate a Tor user from a regular one, they might as well set the most secure defaults possible.
You already can make your account private to only your friends on most of these services. I guess giving up the attention isn't worth it for some of these people.
What about inverting the status quo and deducting UBI for each child you have (with a grandfather clause of course)? The problem would solve itself in a few generations. You've gotta work and plan if you want to have kids. If you want to party for your entire life, go ahead, but you don't get to leave kids behind for the rest of us to deal with.
At which point CPS intervenes. The other piece of the puzzle would be high quality orphanages, operated with expectation that the chidren will not be adopted, instead dedicated to providing the best possible environment for development.
Our current system tries to fill the role of the orphanage as best it can without taking the children away from their parents, and I don't think it works for anyone involved. Bad parents are enabled, poor kids rarely overcome their upbringing and continue the viscious cycle, well adjusted kids from stable homes have their education disrupted and often violence inflicted on them by the poor kids, and it only gets worse as time goes by.
In American schools an overwhelming amount of time is spent teaching about the sins of our country and other white people. Slavery, Jim Crow laws, the genocide of Native Americans. In a unit on WWII, a week would be spent on the entire war, and the other 3 specifically dedicated to the Holocaust. All in all I'd say we spent over half of our history lessons and a third of our English lessons covering subjects like these.
Very true, and a great point. There are still gaps, though. How many schools teach you the reasons that Germany turned against Jewish people after WWI? In fact, how many schools teach the history of WWI in any kind of detail at all? And what about the reasons for the Southern resistance during the Civil War? My recollection (and I went to an expensive private school) was that these wars were characterized as simplistic, binary good/evil conflicts, where a bunch of "bad" people went nuts and had to be sorted out by "good guys" who were obviously right. If someone asked a question like "why did National Socialism focus on Jewish people", that person would be immediately shunned and the question would be offensive——again my experience. If you don't let people ask difficult questions, and provide answers for them, it isn't so much an education as a program.
I was trying not to ruffle feathers, but that's what I was getting at. I was quite liberal as a teenager but even I could tell that history/social studies was mostly used as an opportunity to indoctrinate. The one teacher I had that tried to provide opposing views on every topic got canned.
I agree with you but the schools' focus on the Holocaust, in my experience, was heavily centered on the Jewish experience, despite that many millions of non Jews were also exterminated. I guess this is because America has lots of Jews but not so many Poles, handicapped, homosexuals, etc (or they don't have much political power).
Also I remember learning about measles blankets and all that, but it never got to the point of using this historical context to inform a discussion of the current social/economic situation Native Americans face. All in all it was portrayed as a romantic and fair battle between cowboys and Indians.
Tldr the only war crimes we teach our kids are those whose victims have survived and attained some political prominence.
I think Chrome does this as well. The real problem is that it doesn't seem to work with dynamically created forms, and web devs ruined everything with client-side templating.
But along the same lines, I would like it if browsers waited 5 seconds before actually killing a tab that you closed. That would not only fix your problem (if you applied it to page history changes as well), but solve most accidental data loss problems, and most importantly for me, be the end to having to reload entire pages just because I held down Ctrl-W for too long.
I'm well aware. I'm saying that the tab should appear to close but persist in the background for a short period of time so that I can Ctrl-Shift-T and get my untouched context back.
What if you're watching a video on youtube? Even if you mute it, the video will continue to play, and if you resume the video later, your saved time will be 5 seconds later than what you thought it was.
Good point. It's times like these I wish there was proper separation between the "hyperlinked documents and dumb form-based UIs" web and the "jerry rigged universal app runtime" web.
EDIT: But if it were an option or an extension, I would gladly enable it to help for 99% of sites I use and either accept the occasional weirdness or blacklist it for Youtube et all
Even if everything is cached, there is an annoying delay while the tab is reconstructed and the server is pinged. Even for something as trivial as a directly viewing a single image.
That's my main pain point (I really do think about frequently), but if others are having problems with AJAX-generated forms or whatever, it would help them too.
Another example would be losing your place in on an infinitely scrolling page (yet another web anti-pattern) because you accidentally closed the tab. I would appreciate having a second to correct my mistake before I having to do the"scroll wildly for 30 seconds until it catches up to where I was" song and dance.
