floatingatoll

Siri can’t understand “set a timer” more often than 3 in 4 tries for me, and any sentence with more than four words will have one error in it no matter what. I envy you the accuracy your voice assistants offer you, but for me, voice control makes me want to snap my phone in half from frustration at how terrible it is. I still can’t remember why I have a reminder set with the name “2910”, which is the transcription of my spoken English sentence at the time. So at the very least, I imagine the holdup is that voice control failure conditions are miserably bad, when it fails; and, “Delete this sentence” -> “Formatting C:\” misunderstandings are too easy in modern OSes still. (Windows still offers “Format” as a primary context menu choice on the boot hard drive!)

Nope, I wouldn’t agree, sorry.

You’re attempting to redefine the gender characteristic “man” in terms of physical sex characteristics “male”, which isn’t valid; this invalidity is proven by the existence of both intersex men and intersex women.

You’re also using the invalid term “biological sex” to refer to “sex at birth”, which can be male, female, or intersex — but due to your imprecise phrasing, your use could also refer to “current sex”, which is a modifiable state that can be altered surgically and thus invalidates your point further.

Minor49er, I don’t think you’re participating in good faith here. You’ve presented a view that doesn’t stand up to the facts after repeatedly being confronted with them in multiple threads, your concluding question “Don’t you agree?” is a direct quote from the sealioning comic, and you’ve asked the mods to delete this post in a different thread while continuing to engage here. You’ll need to shop your anti-trans trolling elsewhere, as it’s not productive for me to engage with you further.

Apple doesn’t treat point releases that way. They have, for decades, been making breaking changes in late cycle point releases in macOS.

Generally, no; if one represents as binary gender “woman” with subgroup “trans”, it is implied and understood that they are not a member of binary gender “man”. That they are a member of subgroup “trans” is not relevant to resolving their binary gender either-or, in your example.

They might be “male at birth” or “intersex at birth” on certain medical paperwork, and those physical sex characteristic will remain unchanged in subgroup “at birth” regardless of any shift in gender or medical alterations to their present-day sex characteristics.

(To avoid any possible confusion, I’m keeping in mind that “male” is sex and “man” is gender, as this is often confused in discussion of these topics. One’s sex is a physical characteristic like one’s eye color or skin tone; most people assume that everyone has just one and that it doesn’t change, neither of which are true. One’s gender is a behavioral characteristic like accent or musical tastes; it can’t be reliably guessed from any physical characteristic, and it can change at any time, either gradually over years or all at once at a coffee shop or anywhere in between.)

The simple presence of a penis attached to a woman in a women’s changing room does not imply in any way that a person is behaving inappropriately, any more than it does when attached to a man in a men’s changing room, or an androgynous person in either. Taking offense at someone’s unaroused body in a changing room, when they’re keeping to themselves and changing, however, is a severe violation of social protocol in many cultures.

Some intersex people have two sets of genitalia, one for each changing room; they must use one or the other, as only the two options are offered in the vast majority of cases. If they are intersex women, then those around them may be made uncomfortable by their body’s physical features. It is everyone else’s responsibility to deal with that discomfort and let them finish changing without comment, same as they would expect to be left alone about their own physical features while changing.

If a person is behaving inappropriately in a changing room, such as staring at the sexual features of many others, or making rude gestures towards or uninvited comments about physical features, then they should be asked to stop or leave and may be subject to punishment by the business and/or local authorities for their behavior — no matter what their own genitalia are, whether they’re a match for the gender label (if any) on the door of the changing room or not.

Operations engineers are engineers, just as much as other engineers. But when you’re discussing the subgroup (opseng) in specific and whether it’s a member of the overall group (engineers), it’s logical and appropriate in conversational English to refer to the subgroup by specific label, as the comment you’re replying to does.

Women can be sexed at birth as female, male, intersex, neither; women can have genes for XX, XY, XXY, etc; women can have zero or more genitalia; women can have masculine, feminine, androgynous, mixed facial bone structures.

Each of these is a valid subgroup of women which can, if necessary, be described as a subgroup. Normally, just “women” should suffice, but the app linked by this post actively excludes at least one of those subgroups from the label “women”. So it becomes necessary to discuss those subgroups by name, such as “trans women” and “black women”, in order for discourse to occur.

If convicted of conspiring to obstruction or some such phrasing, they might be ineligible for office.

If that space defined “trans women” as only those who have completed both facial feminization surgery (with AI evaluation of their face bones) and required that they have completed vaginoplasty or vulvoplasty so that their genitals are sexed female, then no, it would be just as discriminatory to trans women as the app under discussion here is being to all women.

If this imaginary trans women space accepted all serious forms of presurgical or partial-surgical proof, such as a doctor’s letter or a hormone prescription or an orchiectomy or etc, then that would not be discriminatory and would be fine.

The core issue here is that this app is trying to enforce gender as purely a function of physical characteristics, denying altogether that gender is more complicated than that and is not guaranteed to be linked to any physical characteristics whatsoever. Their ”women only” definitions fail the transgender women test, the intersex test, and the “born female-sex athletes with high testosterone and masculine facial features” test.

Either they are blithely unaware of these complications, or they are unconcerned with them. That is, itself, newsworthy.

We’ll see. The imperfection of their solution is certainly the surface story, but I suspect it’s meant to be a haven for TERF hate speech (not just a haven for all women) and won’t survive.

This app has several dog-whistles for TERF hate groups, that are designed to fall just below the threshold of deniability until considered as a whole by someone familiar with TERF hate speech markers:

- Dedication to the color "pink" representing women (classical pre-birth gender roles)

- Defining the gender "women" as exclusively people who were sexed female-only at birth (assumption-by-framing discrimination vs. transgender, intersex)

- Implying that gender is permanently affixed through bone structures to each human body at birth (classical definition that gender == sex)

- Declaring that only binary genders "male" and "female" exist (inflexible binary gender roles)

So I expect that this app will end up banned for promoting hate speech as a result — not because they're attempting to create a women-only space, but because they're attempting to create a social space where TERF hate speech is welcomed and encouraged.

It’s news that their definition of the gender “women” excludes women whose facial bone structures are unacceptable to the app.

It’s news that their definition of the gender “women” excludes women whose skin color is unacceptable to the app.

It’s news that their definition of the gender “women” excludes women whose biological sex at birth is unacceptable to the app.

None of these criteria have any bearing whatsoever on gender. They’re saying “women” out loud, but what they’re trying to filter for in practice is “people who were sexed female-only at birth and meet a restrictive set of facial characteristics”. Women have a variety of biological sexes at birth (male, female, both, neither). Women have a variety of facial characteristics (feminine, masculine, androgynous, mixed). So it’s news that they’re trying to discriminate by redefining “women” to exclude some women.

> It never hurts to be [gorgeous]

I disagree. For example, if you're made up gorgeous and this leads a security checkpoint guard to notice you, and then they're checking you out and realize that your shoes are unusually fashionable, and then they notice that your badge lanyard is the wrong color and your badge looks a bit crinkly, now your cover is blown — all because you drew their eye.

That's not to say that there is no value in attractiveness — it's just not a guaranteed upside that can be taken for granted as harmless. This also shows up in spycraft, where "unmemorable" can be a very strong asset.

I appreciate that this is mathematically interesting, but from a practical standpoint, they should focus on “the emissions from gas stoves combined with an absence of fresh air inflow and poor exhaust outflow” if they want to see actual change.

Looks are critical to account for in engineering a physical con. Not that one necessarily needs to be gorgeous, but one needs to be fit to the scene, in a way that minimizes the chances of someone undesirably thinking twice about your actions.

You can, of course, deviate from my recommendations as you see fit. As you note, you’ll have a higher incidence of breakages (due to inverted-Postel), and that means a higher incidence of debugging/support issues as a result. As long as you make that choice consciously, I see no reason to object.

Note that placing the period inside the quotation marks creates uncertainty about whether the quoted sentence terminated with a period or not. I understand that classic formal English demands it, but I enjoy the irony that adhering to ‘grammatical decency’ led to reintroducing the same uncertainty about whether that sentence-terminating quote is a fully-quoted sentence, or merely a phrase.

Machines will occasionally add trailing slashes, and they will rarely remove them.

Users will occasionally add trailing slashes, and will occasionally remove trailing slashes.

So as long as $PATH and $PATH/ map to the same outcome, and redirection from the ‘wrong’ one to the ‘right’ one to the other uses a 307/308 to allow non-GET methods to redirect, then everything will always work out okay.

Varying from that recipe in any regard is a source of pain and trauma in every complicated ingress scenario I’ve worked with for twenty years. (Dispatch methods, regular expressions, exact string matches, all of them.)

User flags can do that. There’s also a flamewar response algorithm that reacts poorly to, for example, ideological wars between differing groups. You could email the mods using the page footer’s contact link and let them know that you’re seeing unusual behavior in the site; they can look into further, but might otherwise miss your comment here without the email.

Too bad they didn’t turn in those buzzing AirPods for the buzzing noise recall.

“No one thinks anyone else deserves payment for creating good work, unless they’re the one who could be getting paid, in which case it’s a travesty that they’re not” is an ethical standpoint that’s widespread in Silicon Valley. For example, it’s why Facebook users don’t receive dividend payments for the investment of their harvested data. “We realized that we could profit from inattention|opensource, so of course that’s ethical, because Finders Keepers rules” is a bad look for both parties in this post — the plug-in author who takes a revenue share without providing a financial statement, and the site operator who can’t be bothered to pay $20 for a core revenue stream of their site.

Quoting the last paragraph of the guidelines, which has a bunch of supporting hyperlinks:

> Please don't post comments saying that HN is turning into Reddit. It's a semi-noob illusion, as old as the hills.

I dislike that they’re an SEO company, but I don’t object to self-serving posts, as long as they’re also curious and interesting to me. Seeing a comprehensive list of how Google rewrites page titles is interesting to me, because I’m fascinated with headline writing.

I’m sorry that you find self-serving content and calls-to-action to be problematic, but I would warn you to expect more of them on HN over time (as neither are violations of the site guidelines). There’s no need to claim it’s going to turn us into Worse Than Reddit. It’s been this way for HN’s entire life, or at least the chunk I’ve been present for. HN’s just the same as it always was. I respect your outrage but you chose an invalid expression of it.

Not exactly an answer, but they risk losing the right to drive (not just in Germany - EUCARIS exists) and being forced to sell the vehicle Or Else, alongside whatever fines are permitted. For example: https://www.autoevolution.com/news/judge-orders-speeding-dri...

The top HN search result for Stripe is, by a considerable margin, the post from two months ago, about Stripe ghosting candidates and retracting offer letters: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29387264

On the first page of top-ranked results for the word “Stripe” I noted two other articles as well that appeared, on the surface, to be critical of Stripe.

I encourage performing your own search and assessment rather than trusting my brief skim, but it’s certainly enough for me to recommend further research along those lines if you’d like to contrast the historical data with moderation concerns.

> He’s said that on this thread

Permalinks:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30067683

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30067919

> Millions of views sounds like a stretch.

Your suspicion is supported elsethread by this estimate of 100K or less: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30067872

Post IDs also support that observation, per elsethread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30068454

What fraction of those who starred a project on GitHub become committers to and/or donate more than once to it?

I've always assumed that this is a vanishingly small amount, on the order of one in ten thousand or so, but I could be underestimating.

Individual items purchased are PII. Timestamped records of presence at any given store might be. Store addresses, however, are not.

Try in Chrome with all extensions disabled?

No, unless women are not a minority in that job bucket at your employer. Remediation for insufficient diversity is acceptable. Gratuitous hiring of “do nothing” / “under spec” employees is not, but that’s not in play in your case. I am not your lawyer, this is not legal advice, etc.