vecplane

Subpixel font rendering is critical for readability but, as the author points out, it's a tragedy that we can't get pixel layout specs from the existing display standards.

What does jart mean?

The details seem to be concentrated in this YouTube video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFrVcTmxycg

I'm not pursuaded by this argument. Good luck trying to fight against freedom of speech.

Is it feasible to generate comprehensive plagiarism analyses for most or all published works?

YouTube is effectively a Google Podcasts platform already.

Paying for YouTube Premium to avoid ads is some of the best money I spend each month. I wish I could do the same for Spotify podcast ads. I do pay for Spotify already to avoid ads in music, but I can't seem to avoid them for the Joe Rogan Experience.

Cool concept! Would this work with React Native, now or in the future?

Is this describing the practice of 'grayboxing' in design?

How many of these recent UFOs will turn out to be actual weather balloons?

Lots of 'um ackshually' in the replies here. This my first time seeing the 'new' spelling and I don't like it. I'll keep spelling it Turkey.

Same feeling for Cote D'Ivoire - I'll just say the Ivory Coast

If I had to quantify, I'd say maybe on the order of ~$10/month, like a media subscription.

Hard to say for sure, and hard for me to predict where the market would price a service like ChatGPT long-term.

It's useful as a learning tool. I can ask it how to do almost anything, or how almost anything works.

When I want to learn how to do something new in a programming language, I ask ChatGPT and it explains in detail with a first pass example in code.

Interesting to see this on hacker news. Obviously illegal human trafficking is abhorrent, and I hope we learn more about the charges soon.

It's also interesting that he became an internet phenomenon after previous similar allegations, so I've always be apprehensive about him and people like him.

This is a deranged and nonsensical response. We all knew what boys and girls where until yesterday. Leave the kids alone.

Your argument sounds like 'these ideas are wrong so yours is wrong too' without contending with the content of my arguments and examples.

I'm totally willing to be kind and treat other people with respect. Never claimed otherwise.

But I also hope people see the errors of their ways, how harmful it can be, and to not try to indulge children and teenagers who get caught up in it. Leave the kids alone.

I don't think any of those examples are good analogies. None of those involve 'pretending to believe obvious lies' or self-mutilation.

The harm of social transition is relatively minor and easily reversible. It's not as concerning, but it still perpetuates the phenomenon as 'tolerable'.

The harm of physical transition is permanent and devastating. We should consider the precautionary principle when engaging in irreversible actions.

Puberty blockers, sex hormones, mastectomies, and the rest are not compassionate treatments for dysphoric youths, but children are being fast-tracked into these decisions without much thought for how likely they'll be to regret it. Certainly many do, and it's an awful tragedy.

As all humans have before two seconds ago, we should let children grow into their bodies, and then they can make better-informed decisions as adults.

My main point being: this stuff is absolutely unacceptable for children, and adults are free to behave however they want, but I won't 'accept' it or go along with it.

It's kind to say the truth. It is unkind to go along with an obvious lie.

The best outcome is when people overcome the dysphoria, not when we all pretend it's ok.

It is not compassion to lie to people and pretend they are what they are not.

Gender dysphoria is real, social contagion is real, and we shouldn't accept or embrace a self-destructive ideology that radically derails the lives of teenagers and younger.

Adults can behave however they want, but it should be considered child abuse to foster transgenderism and transsexuality in minors.

Did you watch the second one?

Her Nanette special - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5aE29fiatQ0

Nanette 2 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWJhMnYv6Mg

Can Nanette 3 be about autism?

Please forgive my ignorance - what are the benefits of this approach, as opposed to Remote Desktop into a Windows machine?

Thanks for your reply. Which dictatorship did you escape?

I'm happy to hear that more people are finding value in religious texts.

Why exactly did they ban Gab?

We don't tax wealth, we tax income, transactions (sales), and many places also tax real estate per year.

There's a big difference between those things and taxing your whole net worth every year.

Neither has any right to each other's property without consent.

There's a sound argument for levying broad taxes on services that are widely distributed, that you can't easily opt-out of, and that are reasonably beneficial and necessary.

Roads, police, fire fighters, border security, armed forces, environment regulators, etc. I'm certainly open to debating what does and does not fall into this category for fair and acceptable taxation.

But to argue that 'we are taxing your wealth because you have too much' obviously falls outside of that category.

Not true - nations compete to attract talent and capital, and one means of attracting these things is lower taxes and favorable regulations.

Are you arguing that nations should stop competing for talent and capital, because the taxes get a little too low in some places?

Or he can keep doing what he's doing and people can stay out of his way.

So long as he's not infringing on the rights and freedoms of others in an unjust manner, why should he have to jump through hoops like that?

Not so - property rights are a large part of human rights, inherent to being human.

Others may ignore your rights and abuse your freedoms, but that does not make it acceptable, and it doesn't mean those rights and freedoms don't exist.

The wolves and sheep are aggressors and prey. Your hypothetical is an analogy for theft - the majority 'taking' what it wants by disregarding the rights and freedoms of the minority.

I'm not arguing for that at all. I'm arguing that you don't have a right to other people's property just because they have a lot of it.

Democracy is two wolves and sheep voting on what's for dinner.

The voting majority does not necessarily have a right to my property because they said so.