No, but if you also find all religions audacious and absurd, then wouldn’t atheist be a more accurate term anyway?

I agree, though you’d need to make sure it isn’t something that a human could notice and mistake as a PR convention for your repo, and then mimic

My problem with this, is it sort of divides people into “normal” brains, and “not normal” brains. But there is no such thing as “normal” brains. Everyone’s brains work differently. I think labels / diagnosis are important in cases where a person’s brain is different enough in a particular way that it becomes a problem (for them, or for interacting in society, or whatever), but in these cases I think the value of the label is to communicate in which way the person suffers a problem, so that people can be aware of it. It seems strange to me, to have a label which essentially means “I suffer from some kind of problem related to how my brain works, but I’m not going to tell you which problem”.

Edit: after reading other comments, I’ve realised that one place that neurodivergent makes sense as a label, is for building a community of people who share the experience of facing problems in life due to how their brain works. That’s of course, very valid.

I don’t think any language is sacred. But I also don’t want to negatively impact anyone with my choice of language, so it very much depends on context. And some slurs have such a strong cultural stigma that there exists almost no context where they would be ok.

Yes it is obvious that it is flippantly dismissing others opinions, but do you seriously think that no people might want to justify it anyway, to rebuke the person acting flippantly? Or else why respond at all?

Whether meant serious or not, the topic the original comment brought up was the justifiability of the event linked in the post. I see no reason to assume that someone directly responding to that comment, was not responding to that topic.

Even if you think they weren’t justifying anything, can you at least recognise that it can certainly look like they were?

The reason I thought they were using it as justification, was because their comment was a reply to a comment that said something like “justify that tankies”

I mean that’s clearly very bad, but the bad thing in particular in that scenario is separating you from your language, which afaik isn’t happening here? At least not yet?

Sure but this is very similar to messaging isn’t it? Like most of my friends use WhatsApp, but a few people use signal and that number is increasing.

At least with email, a single client could presumably send encrypted emails to others when possible, and regular emails when not. Add opposed to messaging where I cannot send messages from signal to WhatsApp

That’s fair, but it assumes that mandating one language means that the other language will be defunded. Is that happening here? I think ideally both languages (national language, native language) would be funded and studied

So call out the journalistic bias, or hypocritical behaviour of the BBC. But if the topic in general is brought up in conversation, just pointing to the US as some kind of justification, is definitely whataboutism. It sidesteps actual critical thinking by playing to familiarity: “well if this country does it, then it must be fine!”, which is clearly a logical fallacy.

All countries actions should be criticized equally. No countries actions should be justified by being the same as another country.

If the autonomy of these states are being infringed by this law, then that is a problem. In that case, I think the reduction of autonomy is far more concerning than the particular curriculum change.

Did you read my messages at all? As stated, I very much oppose the colonisation and forced subjugation and assimilation of native peoples, including in Australia. But I do not think that English being a mandatory subject in Australia is a bad thing.

Is the idea of someone knowing more than one language, so foreign to you?

You are making some wild jumps in logic.

Learning another language is not “destroying a culture”, this is a dog whistle of hardcore conservatives who are afraid of diversity. What would be destroying a culture, would be forcefully restricting the use of the native languages, such as forbidding the use of the native languages in schools. But I am not aware of this happening, nor was I arguing in support of that in any way.

Also, justifying a curriculum choice in schools is a far leap from justification of colonialism. I am very much against the forced subjugation of native peoples, but that is not the topic.

As a kid I used to think it was dumb when in myth or story, the ruler would visit some kind of oracle/witchdoctor/etc for advice or good luck. And yet here we are.

I’m not ML by any means, but I don’t really see the problem here? Schools are for learning useful life skills, etc. Surely learning the official language of your nation is a very useful life skill to have? Mandating that kids be taught a language does not mean forcing them to unlearn their native language.

While I don’t actually think that mandating the official national language as a class in schools is at all a problem (or a new idea), your argument is blatant whataboutism. Something cannot be justified merely by comparing it to somewhere else (especially the US, I might add).

Is it really so hard to make it secure? If both parties are using some kind of secure email client, couldn’t the clients just encrypt and decrypt the subject/content?

So worst case, your mom/aunt deal with the same amount of advertising crap that they always have, but anyone who wants to can remove this stuff and use the same Linux as they do today.

It’s certainly different than C, but IMO Rust’s type system is also a dramatic improvement.

No no you misunderstand. The literal servers are oxidising