I’m sorry to jump in out of nowhere, but this argument can be used against your top comment in this thread. Some people listen to single tracks, others to whole albums. Am I missing something? I thought you two were just comparing points of view, not trying to decide who was right.

Do you think that’s universal or only applied to the USA? And how does the article support your opinion?

Please, don’t take this to a private conversation if it’s not a private matter. The topic you were discussing would benefit others and being open offers the chance for someone to jump in with a unique perspective.

Now, about the way you expressed your opinion on the assault received. I don’t have a degree in psychology, but I believe you shouldn’t so nonchalantly analyse someone’s behavior after just one interaction and you definitely shouldn’t treat it with levity (“to die on”). Also, personally, I think you should only advise people to seek help when it’s for their on benefit, not because you don’t approve their behavior. You might have had the best intentions, but the language you use is important.

You didn’t ask the same thing.

I think the topic was supposed to be about babies and children. Anyway, surgery is an option, but not the only one.

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/phimosis/

I’m very sorry for you. People might not realize how traumatizing having to deal with it can be. It definitely shouldn’t be the responsibility of people without proper support or training.

I’m pretty sure this is one freedom US people won’t let technology take away in the name of safety and ease of use. The roads and the culture are the problem. You can go fast and people will say going as fast as you can the whole time is the right way to drive.

People should check the history of Marcos Pontes, the Brazilian astronaut, before parroting the narrative that only the most qualified and deserving get the job. It ended up being a case of you can do it if you have the money (or your government decides to pay to escape further embarrassment).

Headphone manufacturers need access to system functionalities such as proximity auto-pairing and automatic audio switching.

If Apple were a restaurant, they wouldn’t provide tableware for free and would charge you for bringing your own while tying one of your hands behind your back.

Hey, as long as the competition is reasonable, you can be as unreasonable as you want and say the customer has options. Curious they never say their customers appreciate what they do as a defense.

Considering you can’t sell platinum for money, you could add complexity by converting it to another currency when exchanging hands. No value lost, exact same ratio. You buy platinum, you spend it on the store or it decays when you give it to another player. Platinum carries real world value, decayed doesn’t. Would that work? The only reason for doing that would be to obfuscate the fact platinum has real world value. The players being constantly aware of the fact might mess with the economy.

Honestly, their monetization is really something I could never criticize.

My cynical take is that Facebook wants the money from ads target at children, but not the responsibility of vetting the apps they might download because the trust the platform they are in. Google and Apple just want to pass the responsibility to developers and create laws that punish them for misusing tools they want to provide so other people deal with the complaints.

Still being cynical. It’s not that big corporations can’t do anything. They just can’t do anything without using their own money.

The conflict that people that hate both copyright and exploitative AI had just got resolved. It’s nothing new, but I still get surprised by how shameless the justifications can be.

“Your honor, if I hadn’t stole all that money, I couldn’t be investing to make myself more money. Think about it, it was so much that I had to hire people to help me, so I created jobs.”

Google control the browser most people use and that browser could be defaulted to use a different search engine, which controls what you see when you have a question. They can take control from google and allow a real ally to buy it.

I think that is a little backwards thinking. Common folk are at these events taking the pictures. Common folk are producing high quality content. I’m pretty sure the celebrities themselves wouldn’t have as much information on their peers as the collective of researchers do. Far from mere spectators.

It wasn’t true. I wasn’t even trying to deceive anyone, but the problem is that people will mostly believe without asking for sources if they don’t care. I put an edit above now.

My oopsie. Clarification above.

Curious. When talking about scams, I would say everyone, even scam experts. Maybe there’s the fact that specific populations are targeted based on how much one will profit from their efforts.

Let me spin that for you so you see the problem.

Mastodon, the social network backed by terrorists. By signing up, you put your name on a FBI watchlist as well.

edit: I didn’t make it clear that this would be the spin that would be possible to use against mastodon. It’s not true, but it doesn’t have to be to cause harm.

As I said, we can’t discuss it from a theoretical point of view. The way I would go about it is:

• Trans athletes in their specific fields are outperforming all cis athletes
• The roster is filled with trans athletes basically

Those conditions would indicate that trans athletes are in practice having their own competition that excludes cis athletes. And this would be the starting point for discussions, not a reason for segregation. Top athletes are more likely to have a constitution that is out of the curve, but that is not enough to guarantee top spots. They have to work for it as well and most cis athletes advantages are just celebrated, instead of the criminalization we see when trans athletes excel.

I invite you to explore your own consideration. You say there’s separation for a reason, but what’s the reason? Is it practical or ideological? For instance, clothing regulations and criticisms are heavily ideological and adhere to traditions more than they do to the needs of the practice or individual choice. So, is the separation issues being brought a result of experience and reality? Do we really need a new category to put individuals in because a few from a very small group excel? Michal Phelps is an outlier, but the sport didn’t change because of his advantages, because it doesn’t make sense to.

What I’m trying to say here is that there’s no real problem being discussed when we talk about trans people in sports, just a hypothetical one.