I believe fully in trans rights, and any reason why a person may be trans has no bearing on whether that person should have equal status in society as anyone else.
And this kind of argument is to me a dangerous sociopolitical mistake:
> While these are endocrine disrupting chemicals, people aren't transgender because their hormones are imbalanced.
One should acknowledge that there may be a very significant difference between hormone effects in a breastfeeding infant while the brain is full tilt in the process of wiring itself vs later in life after things like language and identity are established. We definitely don't know. We can also acknowledge that we don't know how hormone effects combine with environmental/social effects. That need not alter one's feelings about gender diversity.
It's the same as the "gay people didn't choose to be gay" argument when really it should just be ok to be gay. Don't let reasons get in the way of reason.
It's fine to say that begging is ok. I also think it can be ok. It's even possible to call this not begging if you believe that it lacks non-reciprocity (personally I don't think so, but anyway). But it feels like you have a very weird definition of begging based on the rest of your description.
> They are not nagging
Begging and harassment are two different unrelated things that are sometimes done at the same time but not necessarily.
Not a native English speaker, so I may be far off on this discussion, but for me this kind of activity where you write a blog post and ask for donations is closer to busking than to begging.
I find the crusade against 'um' to be annoyingly misplaced. It frustrates the shit out of me that iOS speech-to-text dictation refuses to write my 'um's and 'uh's with no way to change that behavior. If a person asks to remove them, fine, but don't fucking alter my speech patterns when I'm sending messages to people.
Think of the motor as a barrel and you can decide whether you put the magnets covering the barrel walls or covering the top and bottom, and your goal is to have the most magnet surface. At short barrel lengths, you get more magnet surface if you cover the top and bottom instead of the walls.
The area of the top+bottom is (2 * pi * radius * radius)
The area of the wall is (2 * pi * radius * length)
For them to have equal magnet area, you need length to be equal to the radius, which is bad. That makes your motor really thick. In the axial design, you can make the motor thin and still have the same magnet area as before, so your motor now weighs a lot less.
If you want a visual of how significant this size difference is, this image shows the sizes of the two motor types in relation to each other at equal strength because the axial motor no longer needs any of the barrel length: https://imgur.com/qwe3tuH
Apple has used this kind of blurry resizing animation in the past. For example, circa macOS 10.14 Mojave resizing windows in Split View would have the same effect: https://youtu.be/KDDMUxBtnkI
current view transition stack on ios was built for static transition between two well know layouts, like portrait to landscape rotation change. i would like live reflow too but i suspect 99% of existing apps aren’t ready to reflow at 120hz when they’ve been written around tween(start layout, end layout) style for decades
UIKit apps can already resize fluidly on Mac Catalyst and iPadOS. I suspect the issue here is more related to the video encoding / streaming used for iPhone Mirroring.
They should just license the tech from Google. Google might be missing the urinal with forcing Gemini down everything while not improving basics, but their keyword detection remains good for me.
Listening to SiriusXM commercials in my car often triggers it for me. Howard Stern saying "SiriusXM" on his show also often triggers Siri on my apple watch.
... try being a Canadian with a bit of a hearing deficiency that is always saying our "verbal tic" of: "sorry" just prior to asking people to repeat themselves...
The uncanny hands-but-not-fingers movements they all do really bothers me. Their hands flop around but stay completely limp. Like they're robots who heard that humans move their hands when talking but don't have any fine motor control.
Yeah, the biggest problem is really that they all have the same approach, so these specific details stick out more through repetition. They don't let their presenters speak in their own voice or in their own presentation style. It's ironic for the company that made that 1984 commercial. The attempt at using different speakers to add variety actually ends up doing the opposite because the similarities become even more evident when a dozen people all behave in the same way.
This has been a thing for all tech companies for years.
According to what I was told by some FANNG people (I've never worked for them myself) some employees were/are were sent to public speaking classes after being hired specifically to teach socially awkward programmers how to talk on stage, and this is what they teach them, weird hand movements and all.
> AI “writes bad code,” “introduces bugs,” “creates technical debt,” or something along those lines.
It is strange to me that your question is so narrowly scoped, as though code is the only current use of AI and as though bugs are the reason to be against it and not a clear existential crisis that the world has not demonstrated any capability to meet.
The end goal of AI, literally the goal, is to make it so that workers aren't needed anymore. Ignore for the moment that AI isn't good enough right now to have eliminated all the worker roles yet. That is still fundamentally its goal. You will tell the AI what you want, the AI will give you what you want, ..., profit. No nasty employees to deal with.
I would rejoice at this if I lived in a society that decided it would use the fruits of each new labor efficiency to provide for the populace instead of telling me that people who don't work should die in a gutter. But I do not live in such a society.
And this kind of argument is to me a dangerous sociopolitical mistake:
> While these are endocrine disrupting chemicals, people aren't transgender because their hormones are imbalanced.
One should acknowledge that there may be a very significant difference between hormone effects in a breastfeeding infant while the brain is full tilt in the process of wiring itself vs later in life after things like language and identity are established. We definitely don't know. We can also acknowledge that we don't know how hormone effects combine with environmental/social effects. That need not alter one's feelings about gender diversity.
It's the same as the "gay people didn't choose to be gay" argument when really it should just be ok to be gay. Don't let reasons get in the way of reason.
reply