• 0 Posts
  • 55 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: October 13th, 2023

help-circle


  • It’s definitely wrong to degrade or harass this guy for doing it.

    Buuut this is being made to support a bad law that should be opposed. The law is a bellwether for compulsory age and identity verification, which should strike fear into the hearts of everyone. And especially everyone who cares about their privacy (which really should be everyone, but …).

    Furthermore, it’s questionable whether a law like this can apply to open source software. IMO it really can’t - who exactly is liable? Is the world really better with ageless Linux outlawed?





  • Not every men’s group is a shitty stereotype.

    determine the relative “okayness” in an individual case

    Well, yeah?

    OP asked the question in general terms, I answered in general terms. With more specific information you can make a more specific judgement. That’s why I said “stereotype, not rule” and separated is vs ought?

    I don’t need to list out every possible reason someone might want a gendered group to show that there is a valid reason. Instead just give one. In fact I avoided talking about domestic abuse shelters exactly to avoid this sort of ‘whataboutism’.


  • As ~always with gender and politics, there’s a pretty big gap between what is and what ought.

    What is: The people who make and seek out men-only groups have a stereotype of being shitty, sexist people. The stereotypes around women-only groups are a lot weaker and less negative. These stereotypes are not rules, but do certainly lead to some social stigma.

    What ought 1: In a better world gender-specific groups might exist for people to find support and connection around their gendered experiences. There’s some experiences that aren’t commonly shared across genders and it can be a lot easier and safer to share with people who you know also have that experience.

    What ought 2: In a still better world there wouldn’t be a significant desire for such groups because we are all sensitive and caring enough that such a group doesn’t make sharing meaningfully easier or safer, because it’s already easy and safe.













  • Also the number of outcomes isn’t connected to the solution space reduction the way you say. If you don’t know whether the fake coin is heavier or lighter, both tilt-right and tilt-left are effectively the same result. So at least your first test really only has 2 meaningful outcomes.

    In general, you’ll only reduce your solution space DOWN TO (not by) 1/(number of distinguishable outcomes) if the possible solutions are evenly divided among those outcomes. It’s easy to have a problem where “result 1 narrows it down a lot, result 2 doesn’t tell us much”