Think of the children
Yes, I got your point. Mine was that many of the things we do (specially online) cannot be protected by trying to keep it "secret" in the way you previously described. Because they often involve a "Bob", even if it's one we sometimes don't even notice.
So it makes sense for someone to try and look for ways to at least get some level of protection from Alices in other ways than just "don't tell Bob" even if they might not be flawless (you gave some examples of such ways in that last response).
When Bob is active part of what you don't want Alice to know, it doesn't matter whether you "tell" Bob or not, he knows.
You can try and hide it from him, add layers like an onion, but even that isn't necessarily a failproof guarantee that you left no trace, even onions can be peeled or holes pierced.
Systemd "enabled" services are literal symlinks... whenever a target runs, it tries to start also all the service files on its "wants" directory.
You can literally enable any service for next boot by making a symlink in /etc/systemd/system/multi-user.target.wants/ (or whichever other target you want it to run on) as root (and installation scripts are run as root).
ln -s /usr/lib/systemd/system/whatever.service /etc/systemd/system/multi-user.target.wants/whatever.service
Personally, while I appreciate when people add a "snippet of explanation", I do prefer that to be in the comments. Not as the main text of the submission.
Making it part of the submission can feel like editorializing. If I want to read the artice, I read the article, if I want to read opinions / interpretations of the article, I read the comments.
Using the "text snippet" for opinions or interpretations can cause bias... and it also might encourage people to repost the same content multiple times just so they can post with a different bias.
I think the comment section is a more organized and suitable place for that. It also allows people to use their votes to decide whether the opinion/explanation deserves the upvote, separatelly from whether the link itself deserves promotion.
I think it's also safe to presume that in the ultra future tech advanced society of Star Trek, they can remove the bacteria that causes body odor in humans.
A lot of odor-causing bacteria are actually beneficial for us though. And what causes Vulcans to experience that "odor" might not be coming from bacteria to begin with.. for all we know it might be one of the thousand of compounds that leak into the air we exhale directly from our lungs.
Virtually every gas or volatile liquid is susceptible to cause odor. The only reason we interpret pure water as odorless/tasteless is because water is everywhere so our senses evolved in a way that it doesn't trigger a response. There are many other compounds we don't really perceive because we are used to them at the concentrations that exist in our breath.
If let's say an alien species is not used to having 78% Nitrogen in their atmosphere, and they happen to have receptors sensible enough, then being in a ship with breathable air similar to Earth might just make them puke in disgust after having a sniff of what we might consider "clean air".
I'd argue it'd make more sense for everyone to wear the equivalent of a high tech mask (supressants?) rather than having to re-engineer the biology of the species every time they encounter an alien that might have a different set of compounds they might find unpleasant.
Me neither? That's why I was hoping they might have added some markdown extension.
I have done it in the past with mardown-it-wikilinks npm package, for example.
Also, I'd argue the wikilinks (internal links) using [[any term here]] from Wikipedia, that optionally allow automatically inferring the link, is much more comfortable (and less error-prone) for the usecase of a wiki system, than the [text required](/link_here_also_required_even_when_redundant) from markdown.
I was hoping they might have added some markdown extension to do something similar, but it seems not.
In the past, English had "thou" for 2nd person singular and "you" was exclusive to the 2nd person plural.
I don't see why that can't happen with "they" vs "he/she" too.
Though it's a bit sad that it would likely result in a more ambiguous language that could potentially lead to misunderstandings. Unless we start to use constructs like "they all" for adding specificity, in a similar way as how "you all" (or y'all) is sometimes used.
You aren’t giving it to them so why would anyone bother giving it to you?
Isn't that the point being made by he/she/they? (now I don't know what to call @Bondrewd )
I don't think Bondrewd was "preemptivelly" calling them "morons". The way I read it, Bondrewd was referring to those "who don't give me the same benefit of the doubt". Bondrewd did not specify if those who complained belonged to any particular "group of people", what was said is that they did do that so, given that, he won't bother.
Also note that there's more than one party here... the ones scolding/complaining are not necessarily the same ones being "misgendered", so that's why there can be different "they"s involved. The ones that don't give the benefit of the doubt (regardless of whether they are the ones being misgendered) are the ones that, according to your own statement: we don't have to "bother giving it to them"
Free version is excluded. No charging tiny side projects, or students or something, it only affects already paying customers.
Wasn't the free version already excluded from the changes before?
What they have done for the Free version is set the limit to 200k (it was 100k before) and they'll no longer be requiring the Unity logo to be shown, even on the free version.
The problem comes when the vegan store has items you want but they decided that they will not distribute them to stores that also sell chicken stock. And if that happens with multiple other cases you'll be forced to visit multiple stores to get your groceries.
Which wouldn't be that weird if it wasn't because all those stores belong to the same "universal general store" chain that was originally designed so you would only need to visit your closest store to access all products.
I mean, federating with an instance doesn't necessarily mean you NEED to have it added to the default feeds.
It could theoretically be done in such a way that it only shows content from the communities you are subscribed to, and never show content from that instance in general feeds, for example.
Or it could even be done in such a way that instance blocking is enabled by default for every user, and each user has to opt in to see content from other instances outside of maybe a selected curated few that might be allowed by default.
If making your own instance were something common for normal users, then I expect the federation would have to face thousands of single-user instances made by random people without ever being sure which ones are safe and which ones are just bots/spam/illegal-stuff.
A lot of instances would (understandably) want to disconnect from the fediverse if that were a common thing.... or at the very least they would use allowlists for federation instead of blocklists (in fact, some already do). So it would just result in more fragmentation, not less.
This means the process for your instance to initiate federation with all other ones would likely become more complex/inefficient than directly creating one separate user account in each of the instances you want to visit (if it isn't already).
I feel the issue is in the design of how the fediverse places so much responsibility in each individual instance... instances shouldn't be required to mirror third party content just so people can access it. It should be possible for people to simply connect to third party websites if they want to (with their home instance only acting as a sort of identity provider, like OpenID), without the home instance having to proxy/host that content if they don't approve of it.
Yes, the way his hand is positioned, it would not have worked if they had wanted to make it hold the wooden stick. They'd have needed to edit the hand too much and it would have likely been noticeable / even weirder.
Probably they decided: fck it, let them grab it however they want. Maybe it'll even become a thing.
And it looks like it worked, since we are talking about it and spreading the ad. Smart advertising, imho.
That might be a particular consensus in English grammar, but it's still 100% dependent on what your linguistics are. If, at some point in time, the consensus in English grammar were to assign different pronouns based on age, or what kind of job that person has... then that would still be a linguistic trait, even if you were linking it to a perceived physiological appearance / job position, they'd be doing it because the community in that language wants to do it, not because biology/economics dictates it.
So, like every consensus, the only thing making it change is for people in that Universe to agree with the change. Something that happens frequently, and has happened already several times across history.
300 years ago people used the pronoun "thou" for the second person in singular, and "you" was only used as a plural. And a lot of people pushed back against change too, but change did stick with the community, to the point that today everybody uses "you" and "thou" dissappeared.
It wouldn't be unrealistic to assume that the same could happen, for example, with "they", another 300 years in the future.
This has nothing to do with biology, it's 100% English grammar. Biology books are not the ones explaining what's a "pronoun". In fact, many languages don't even have pronouns, and yet their biology books can perfectly be translated.
English grammar is constantly evolving. In fact, it would make it a lot more realistic if there were more strange expressions and mannerisms, even outside of pronouns. Battlestar Galactica did add some funny nonsensical expressions like "frak", "rook", "frimp", "pogees" and popular phrases like "so say we all" that added a layer of depth to their futuristic culture, making it a lot more believable.
I don't think this mod really helps with "realism". It would in fact be unrealistic to expect no linguistic changes at all in 300 years. The only reason why I think some people are mad is because they think it's pandering to a political agenda so they don't even want to see an option be given at all.... despite it actually being a totally optional and even totally believable aspect of a future hypothetical culture. Whether you agree with the direction that this hypothetical futuristic culture developed towards or not.
But that's not what you are doing. You don't need this mod to make the choice that allows you to play the way you want.
I mean, I have no problem with modding anything anyway (in fact I believe it was wrong for Nexus to remove the mod, the only thing it did is making certain kind of obstinate people go into a silly crusade to defend a silly mod). But this mod is objectively removing options, not adding them.
The mod doesn't work, though. I can call my male character "Silvia" (a female name). The game gives you the option to choose names that do not match what is culturally traditional.
They should give you less options. Don't allow choosing names either.
In fact, remove character customization entirely, then there won't be any "imperialism", right?
I'd go further: make the game more lineal. Remove meaningful choices for the story. Do not allow the player to play in a way that might end up fitting any particular imperialistic agenda. People shouldn't have freedom to choose to follow any ideal.
What niceness level exactly?
The most nice I can be in my system is -20.. but being too nice to one process leaves others with less time and resources in their life.