Thanks for taking the time to explain - that does make a lot of sense, if you coisider being trans or gay a learned/chosen behaviour. That hadn’t crossed my mind, which is why the premise seemed impossible to me. The difference, of course, between being gay and being a gambler is that nobody is born a gambler, therefore the comparison doesn’t really hold up. That’s why I used the creationism example: Carbon-14 is what it is. LGBT people are who they are. They didn’t choose to be that way any more that C-14 chose its decay rate. I suppose that doesn’t matter all that much in practice - if more people thought like you rather than being homo- or transphobic, the world would undoubtedly be a better place than it is.

Todoist works great and I don’t need to learn a whole operating system to use it. Plus, it works on my phone!

More like Surely Wrong, amirite?

In addition to the complete lack of ethics, I don’t understand how this even works as effective marketing. Are HR people supposed to see this racist content and think wow, this looks like a great company to do my recruiting?

I also believe gay marriage goes against God’s plan

I support same sex marriage (my church doesn’t) because I believe in freedom of choice

I applaud you for supporting same-sex marriage, but - apologies if this sounds like I’m picking on you, I’m really not - this is like someone who claims to be a young-earth creationist but agrees that radiocarbon dating is accurate. I don’t understand how these mutually-exclusive thoughts can happily coexist in your mind. I wish we could discuss this over a drink because I’m very intrigued by whatever epistemic process led you there.

he supported the bill to ban gay marriage and that’s terrible,

but I’ve also heard that he left his politics at the door and treated everyone with respect, including the LGBT people at Mozilla

How on earth can you reconcile these two statements? “I respect you so much I’ll pass a law to make you illegal”?

Not really. Mandarin for example has different characters for “he” and “she”, but they are homophones (“ta”, or “tamen” plural) so you can’t tell who’s who in spoken language. Hungarian doesn’t use gendered pronouns and Finnish doesn’t either (actually, now that I think of it, that may be where you borrowed yours - isn’t it “hen” too?)

Thanks for the context - I still intensely dislike the “political” reaction, but people can learn and change. I also don’t like that Canadian arch-jackass Tobi Lutke is a major supporter of the project; he’s a bit like Brendan Eich. I’ll reserve judgment until the browser launches. I’ll definitely be keeping an eye on it.

Interesting, thanks for the correction! I thought it was a medieval form that stuck around.

Masculine being the default was the case for English (and French) too, but not anymore, and certainly not by implying anything other than the masculine is “political”.

I’m hoping it’s a cultural misunderstanding due to his Swedish background.

Jag pratar inte Svenska but I know enough that it has gendered pronouns just like English. Actually, it’s better than English in that it preserved the neuter singular pronoun (which used to be “thou” in English) so there’s even less excuse in terms of linguistic background.

You don’t consider it rather exclusionary to imply that only men use computers?

There was a pull request to change “he” to “they” somewhere in the code and the dev refused, saying people should leave “their politics” out of it. I wouldn’t say it’s transphobic specifically - it may also be misogynistic. Either way, it doesn’t look good.

Yeah, but it’s cheaper than therapy.

“Your honour, I can’t be convicted of murder, because the victim was only dead after I killed her - she was perfectly fine before”

I’m really torn about this comment - on one hand it’s environment-destroying AI, but it also saves the need to watch a pointlessly long video that should have been an article and probably consumes as much compute as the AI summary.

First hands, then feet.

Well, I wouldn’t say that with any certainty - there’s certainly a chance the pulling off of the hijab was motivated by xenophobia, but even if it was, that only puts it a distant third behind the violent assault and the robbery. It shouldn’t be the first thing mentioned in the headline because it implies having her hijab removed is worse than getting her store robbed and her head kicked in.

Use of force makes this robbery by definition. Theft is done without coercion, usually without the victim’s knowledge (pickpocketing for example).

The headline doesn’t even mention this was a robbery. Don’t you think that’s more important than an article of clothing?

That’s a weird element for the headline to focus on. From the article:

The NCCM says the woman, who is a local Pizza Pizza owner, saw a group of people, including teenagers, attempt to commit theft in the restaurant, and once she went to confront the group, the situation quickly turned violent.