flamingos-cant (hopepunk arc)

Webp’s strongest soldier.

  • 301 Posts
  • 707 Comments
Joined 3 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 12th, 2023

help-circle


  • Yeah, if they did more than just make “she’s a woman who likes man things” jokes it could have been great, it even ends by saying Douglas was in the wrong. It’s honestly not even that bad by 2000s sitcom standards, it came out 2 years before that Family Guy episode. Which makes Glinner destroying his entire life over it all the more morbidly fascinating.





  • You need to use a symbol, not a string:

    (setq org-export-with-sub-superscripts '{}
          org-use-sub-superscripts '{})
    

    write something like this: log_{critical}_{error}

    That’s what you’d need to write to have subscript, with the above set:

    • log_critical => log_critical
    • log_{critical} => logcritical

    Edit: org-export-with-superscripts => org-export-with-sub-superscripts


  • First of all: how can I turn of the need to manually stop the code execution for code blocks when exporting

    From the docs:

    You can prevent Org from evaluating code blocks for speed or security reasons:

    • To speed up export, use the header argument ‘:eval never-export’
    • For greater security, set the org-export-use-babel variable to nil, but understand that header arguments will have no effect in this case.

    The next thing is, that my function names include underscores, which in orgmode translates to making the following text lowercase.

    Do you mean subscript, like HELLOWORLD? Also from the docs:

    If you write a text where the underscore is often used in a different context, Org’s convention to always interpret these as subscripts can get in your way. Configure the variable org-use-sub-superscripts and/or org-export-with-sub-superscripts to change this convention. For example, when setting these variables to {}, ‘a_b’ is not displayed/exported as a subscript, but ‘a_{b}’ is.


  • Gender as a term has existed since the 14th century, the distinction that gender = social/cultural aspects and sex = biological aspects is a recent phenomenon, but still predates the internet. The problem with ‘biological male’ is it actually doesn’t tell you anything, it’s just a way of calling someone a man with plausible deniability. Are you talking about chromosomes, sholder-to-hip ratio, hormone levels or any of the other biological stuff we conceptually tie to sex? And what is the BBC referring to when calling this unnamed woman a ‘biological male’ (they’re not referring to anything biological, they are calling this woman a man).

    also, right from the article disproving your annoyance…

    They’re referring to the nurse, not the trans woman. The part I quoted is literally the only time the article refers to the trans woman.