DefederateLemmyMl @ SpaceCadet @feddit.nl

* Gen𝕏

---

Read more

Posts

1

Comments

585

Joined

2 yr. ago

I still don’t see how one is offensive and one isn’t, when they describe the exact same thing.

Female as a noun sounds more formal, distant and depersonalizing than woman. Language is all about nuance.

going to war over it is really stupid.

I agree with you there. In most cases, and without additional context, I think it's best to assume ignorance rather than malice.

On the other hand, it's also fair to say that this "going to war" only started a few years ago when incels deliberately and maliciously began using the term female to speak about women in a dehumanizing way.

it’s usually only used in scientific or academic context

Also law enforcement typically uses it for the same reason. It's more encompassing (the term female includes women and girls) but it also sounds formal and depersonalizing, and the depersonalizing bit is why it can sound creepy.

But again, it's a nuance that not everybody may pick up on. I don't like to assume malice when something can be adequately explained by ignorance.

I'm a non-native speaker myself by the way, and I didn't pick up on this nuance until the incel thing came about a few years ago and people started to get upset about them deliberately using the term "females" as a dehumanizing way to describe women.

Besides, have you never seen internet posts like in AITA or such using F/M?

I think in those cases they refer to the adjective female and not the noun.

the other part is a person whom speaks english as a second language. Its not always a clear translation, particularly with English since the language is bastardised from many languages, and many “grammar rules” can be broken, by our own design.

It isn't even incorrect English. If you look up female as a noun, in the dictionary it says:

female noun:

1. An animal that can lay eggs or give birth to babies; a plant that can produce fruit
2. (formal) a woman or a girl

As for why English has two words for it, it comes down to its mixed roots: female has a Latin root and came into the English language via French. It's ultimately derived from femina, which is Latin for woman. The word woman comes from the proto-Germanic wiban, which originally means wive, which itself coincidentally has the same proto-Germanic root.

Yes, that's essentially what I did.

You're welcome, cunt

Maybe not everyone is a native English speaker who can sense the difference in nuance in contemporary usage between words which are essentially synonyms.

Using double NAT here because my ISP won't even support/allow putting their box in bridge mode and I don't even have root access to it, just some limited functionality via their web GUI.

I haven't had any issues with it.

You typically use either discard or the fstrim.timer, but not both at the same time.

Using the discard option means that trims are being done on the fly every time blocks are deleted, using fstrim.timer means that trims are being done periodically. The former carries a performance penalty, so it's usually not recommended unless you need it (for example, if you regularly do huge amounts of writes and deletes on this drive).

Trim support is standard. Any kernel released in the past 15 years or so will have trim support built in. So that's not something you should worry about.

How trimming is triggered is another matter, and is distro dependent. On Arch and Debian at least there is a weekly systemd timer that runs the fstrim command on all trimmable filesystems. You can check it if's enabled with: systemctl list-unit-files fstrim.timer. I can't tell how other distributions handle that. On Debian derived ones, I imagine it's similar, on something like Slackware, which is systemd-less and more hands-off in its approach, you may have to schedule fstrim yourself, or run it manually occasionally.

There is also the discard mount option that you can add in /etc/fstab, which enables automatic synchronous trimming every time blocks are deleted, but its use is discouraged because it carries a performance penalty.

Hope that answers your question.

That's because free speech, by design, is one of the more important defenses against government overreach.

Yeah on modern hardware, resource usage by the DE is negligable compared to what some applications use (for example web browsers, or chromium based apps).

So are you suggesting that posts are down because the people that were making them are dying off? I have my doubts about that one.

Facebook's demographic isn't skewed enough towards old people and it hasn't existed for long enough for that to be a significant effect.

I mean, it isn't as if octogenarians and septagenarians were making the bulk of Facebook posts 10 years ago, is it? The bulk of the people on Facebook are currently in the 18-44 range, and the 65+ group is actually a very small fraction. Source: https://www.statista.com/statistics/376128/facebook-global-user-age-distribution/

I would also like to remind you that Facebook started as a way to connect college kids in 2005. Those kids are now in their 30s or early 40s and very much still around. They've just given up on Facebook.

My big take away is that social media as we know it is likely generational

I don't think that's the right takeaway. The demographics of certain platforms may be skewed, but people who for example were active on Facebook 10 years ago still exist, they're just posting a lot less.

I think engagement is down across the board because of various reasons: the continuing crappification of the various platforms, people are starting to realize the risks of oversharing and public sharing, people are getting turned off about loud toxic discussion, people are becoming aware that their data is being mined by faceless corporations who don't have their best interest in mind, in short all the negatives of these platforms have become more obvious to the average user.

I prefer this performance that she also did: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEcqoqvlxPY

Any money that goes to nuclear could be going to renewables, which would get us there more quickly.

That's a false dilemma. Nuclear and renewables provide different things, so they shouldn't be compared directly in an "either or" comparison, and certainly not on cost. Nuclear power provides a stable baseline, so you don't have to rely on coal/gas/diesel powered generators. Renewables cheaply but opportunistically provide power from natural sources that may not always be available but that can augment the baseline. The share of renewable energy in the mix is something engineers should figure out, not "the market".

Also, monetary cost shouldn't be the only concern. Some renewables have a societal cost too, for example in the amount of land that they occupy per kWh generated, or visual polution. I wouldn't want to live within the shadow flicker of a windmill for example.

Then you should check your sources, because the actual title of the article is "India, Pakistan, China: Air pollution is now cutting life short in these 6 countries"

Which implies something entirely different than your doomsday title.

You editorialized the title, turned it into an ordinary doomscrolling clickbait title that is misrepresenting what the article actually says. Going by the comments here you did fool a lot of people with it.

India, Pakistan, China: ...

You left out an important part.

In most Western countries, air has been getting consistently cleaner the past decades due to increasingly strict regulation.

As I’m older now 10 year old games still feel “new” to me.

It's not just you getting older, it's also diminishing returns.

It takes more and more effort, both in manpower as in graphical processing power, to make graphical leaps, and the visible returns are getting less.

You can compare it to video formats:

• VHS => DVD: huge quality upgrade
• DVD => 1080p HD: yeah that definitely looks better
• 1080p => 4k: I guess it's a little sharper?
• 4k => 8k: Well it's ... more. Also: why is everything running so hot?