deadbeeves

It's outer space because as far as a human is concerned it's outside the atmosphere, even though it's actually skirting it. If you need a space suit for EVA then it's outer space, basically.

Outer outer space could be called interplanetary, interstellar, intergalactic, etc. Not sure if there's words for the space between the Earth and the Moon (other than HEO), or above the Moon but inside the Earth's sphere of influence.

Something something microevolution within kinds.

My bad, I didn't realize we were talking about misogyny%, I thought we were talking about misogyny. In that case, let me clarify something.

Misogyny, being a form of sexism, is a thought, not an action or an effect. Therefore to know if for example something someone said is misogynistic you need to understand why they said it.

This misogyny% you're speaking of is clearly not a thought (otherwise intention would matter), so it's not sexism. If sexism didn't exist there could be still be misogyny%, because it's something that happens irrespective of anyone's intentions. A woman could mishear something someone said and decide not to speak, and that would be misogyny%, I guess. The speaker was misogynistic% when he read aloud the schedule for the cafeteria because he didn't speak clearly enough. It's not clear to me whether eliminating misogyny% is even theoretically possible.

That aside, what's the alternative? Are you saying women shouldn't have stuff they say critically analyzed, let alone opposed? That they should be met with either approval or silence, because otherwise some women might prefer not to speak? Isn't that itself a misogynistic (no percent) and condescending, not to mention dangerous, idea? Think of the political idea you find most reprehensible, put it in the mouth of a female politician who sees nothing but support and take that mental image to its logical conclusion.

People say stupid shit all the time. It's not just important, but critical to challenge wrong ideas. If that means some people will speak less, and some of those people will be women, well, that's life. I guess it's unfortunate those people never learned how to deal with criticism.

Is this really about "fixing sexism", when she herself notes that the man page was changed 6 years ago? It reads more like attention-seeking (or rather validation-seeking, seeing the response) behavior to me.

>A very common bit of misogyny is saying the second while meaning the first.

Maybe. That sounds more like a motte-and-bailey. It could be misogyny, or it could be something else. Obviously someone looking for misogyny will think the ulterior motive is misogyny, but it could be just about anything.

>So if Vanessa had an objection to some of my writing that struck me as related to gender, I might politely ask her for details, but would see it as my burden to do any deeper work.

Everyone is accommodating, until the complaint is about something you care about. If you give them an inch, they'll take a mile. That's all I'll say.

A separate question that further complicates this is whether the writer was aware of that etymological connection.

I guess I'm just less confident than you in my ability to read people's minds. But I do find it funny that we're arguing about intent when the initial point was that it didn't matter.

That's not how etymology is determined. The etymology of a word describes the reason why it's spelled or spoken the way it is. "Jizz" was chosen because it sounds like "jazz", but different. We can infer that the person who chose the word meant to convey that jizz music is like jazz music but different.

We can suppose that if the slang for sperm didn't exist that the writer would definitely have chosen "jezz", "juzz", or "jozz" instead, but personally I don't have any evidence to make that claim.

When did I say that, and how is it relevant if they knew it or not?

>So yes, when somebody pops up to basically say, "how dare anybody consider the feelings of women"

If Vanessa makes a complaint and I say "okay, but why should we care that you don't like it?", am I saying that we shouldn't care women don't like it, or am I saying we shouldn't care that Vanessa is the only one who doesn't like it?

>the best way I can demonstrate my good intent is by correcting anything that is out of line with my intent.

I mean, it's your writing. You can do whatever you want. I'm saying a) it's unreasonable to demand that others change what you don't like just because you don't like it, and b) it's not unreasonable for others to ask you to defend your request for changes.

I'd like to know how they arrived at the conclusion that it happens disproportionately.

I'm not sure what you want me to conclude from this. Yes, "jizz" is indeed a vulgar slang in English. By a different etymology it is also the fictional name of a fictional musical genre that's similar to real jazz. By yet another etymology it is also the behavioral characteristics of a bird that enable a birdwatcher to identify it. It would be entirely correct to say "look at that jizz, that's definitely a golden-crested pygmy goose". Someone else listening in might be confused, but that's their problem.

Words have multiple meanings. To ignore this and require that everyone just uses those meanings that you personally are aware of is an unreasonable request.

Sorry, but how is anything of what you've said an example of "putting women 'in their place'"? Do men not have their credentials questioned or their opinion dismissed online, or is it misogyny purely because it's men doing it to women?

>I have to wonder about the resistance to mild change

That's easy to wonder when you're the one asking for the change. It's awfully convenient that "intent doesn't matter", as that puts the burden of action on the speaker/writer. If intent did matter, then the listener/reader would need to consider what the other person is trying to say and adjust their interpretation of the words accordingly. But since it doesn't, all that matters is that someone took offense at a particular word, and so it is the writer who needs to correct themselves.

Agreed, but that's a very different statement from "it causes physiological effects", or even "it raises the heart rate".

If THC was especially good at destroying mitochondria we'd be seeing lots of cannabis users with cases of necrotic tissue due to cells being unable to maintain their metabolism.

Name an activity that causes no effects whatsoever on an organism's physiology.

Well, did the woman sell heroin to children?

It just means that the professionals don't risk their lives and they're executing desperate people.

"1 kg of drugs containing 30 g of heroin"? So is that 30 grams of heroin plus filler, or is it 1 kg of something else that's been adulterated with heroin? What does "drugs" mean?

Well, to be fair to him, he didn't.

Just tell them, "the point of this exercise is for you to practice writing in English, not for me to grade you. If you use ChatGPT to do it for you I won't be able to notice, but it will be pointless. It's better if you don't do it at all than if you do that."

I understood "wide and shallow" to mean for example a directory tree with a single directory and lots of files. The example I gave is independent of where in the hierarchy the files are.

Is your objective that your students learn, or to police them? In the latter case, yes, you have those two options you mentioned. In the former case, you can just continue as you were. Some will cheat and some will not. The ones who do are only cheating themselves.

I don't think that's true. Variable frequency certainly helps efficiency, but like the other commenter said, HLT did exist. The CPU would use less power when told by the OS to do nothing for a short while.

I don't understand. I thought # was the prefix for the level 1 VM, not for the level 0 OS (the host). If you used # to send commands to level 0, what was the prefix for level 1?

>Treemaps struggle with data that is either (wide and shallow) or (thin and deep).

That hasn't been my experience. If treemaps have a limitation is that they can't deal well with very large numbers of highly homogeneous items (e.g. all nearly the same size). The worst case is if you have to show over a million items of the same size in a 1000x1000 bitmap.

It doesn't sound very annoying, then. You use the exact same encoding scheme, but skip a verification step. Actually it sounds more convenient.

But UTF-8 is just a way to encode a number as a variable-length string of octets. Why would you be unable to encode, say, a terminating U+D800 as a string of three bytes at the end of a UTF-8 stream?

I see assertions in favor of a conservative (in the literal sense; a return to a lost past prosperous age) viewpoint, but no attempt to justify why these assertions are accurate or why the proposed solutions would be effective.

First of all, we will probably never know how life originally started, because it was a process at the molecular level that happened billions of years ago. Even if we found a chemical chain that leads to life, we would have no way to know if that particular one is the one that led to current life.

Second, anyone can ask any questions they like and anyone can answer or not any questions they like. No one is obligated to engage with you just because you asked a question. Actually, if someone tells you that they think you're asking your question in bad faith that's a courtesy they're having towards you, because they're giving you the chance to convince them that you're actually being sincere. They could have simply ignored you and gone on with their day.