skeletorfw @ skeletorfw @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

34

Joined

2 yr. ago

Honestly the first set of students coming in at undergrad after covid that I had were simultaneously wonderful and also felt about 2 years behind where they usually are socially. It was a bit of a struggle getting them to properly sit down and think. They did absolutely thrive when you got them going though (with some kinda more experimental pedagogy) so I do still have hope.

Ahh yes, that's the one! Thank you

Yeah that's the one! Only seen it once (coinciding with a supermoon which was frankly surreal).

Coronas are a bit different I believe, though another one of the same group. I've always just called them their individual names, with coronas being tighter and more spectrally-distorting than halos. Maybe the only other collective name I've heard would be the minimally descriptive "atmospheric phenomenon" but that's no fun at all.

Edit: Just took a brief look and indeed coronas are related but formed by refraction through water droplets rather than ice crystals! Cool to know!

That would be a 22° halo, a fairly uncommon atmospheric phenomenon where light refracts through hexagonal ice crystals in the atmosphere resulting in an average deviation from the angle it comes in at by around (funnily enough) 22°.

There are lots of other interesting atmospheric phenomena including sundogs, moonbows, and the much rarer 46° halo!

Ah I used it more for building my own blocklists so hadn't looked for that. Sorry that I can't help more

Possibly try "Yet Another Call Blocker", though I believe I had to install it using fdroid.

I first found it when I had a day of 1 spam call with the first digits matching my own number every few minutes.

Honestly no, though I really think this is a factor of how close to a pole you are. It's hard enough to deal with the dark coldness, not getting bright til like 10am would be even worse.

Even when reading the paper there was very very little meat. It's conjecture built upon conjecture but very little of it seems to stand on its own for me. It's another theoretical framework that is nice to write about but doesn't actually even try to explain much.

Their argument seems to be that there is selection working on everything to increase complexity. Even cursorily there seems to be major problems with such a conjecture. They feel to me like they confuse persistence with drive.

A thing that lasts longer is more likely to be observed by someone born at a random point in time. This is persistence. This doesn't mean that things try to get to a state where they last longer, particularly not chemical structures!

This reminds me a lot of that assembly theory paper that came out a week or so ago and was (in my opinion deservedly) battered by most reputable evolutionary biologists.

Not at all, but it does add context. I'm sure you agree the phrase "build a wall" has a significantly different implication to what it had in 2005.

Well a dictionary is descriptive, and so describes how people use words. It'll change with societal meaning as it always has.

I am very much a scientist here specifically I am a biologist but we weren't doing science in this meme were we? More specifically we weren't asking what gender the people in the image had.

Nonetheless maybe it's easier to think of gender like a name. You are given one at birth and you don't get to choose it. For the majority of people they're okay with their name. Others feel that their name doesn't fit them and so change it. If you don't know someone's name then I assume you don't just call them "Bob", you probably ask them what their name is. Same goes with pronouns, you can just ask. Or if they seem like if you ask they'll punch your face in, maybe just assume, that is okay in context.

In the end we're not very different in age, I do understand that the world changes and adds an extra load to the stresses you already face. That said it really is just a case of trying not to assume too much and bring chill if someone says "hey actually I'd prefer they rather than she". You are really unlikely to get cancelled by anyone that matters if you just say "oh of course, I'll remember that".

I say that as someone who has definitely put my foot in it many times before when not understanding a social nuance and making a faux pas.

Sorry, bit of a long one here, but bear with me ♥️

Specifically it is more often in the phrase "biological females".

It's a very unnatural way to refer to a person, and as such is usually a very specifically chosen wording. In a very literal sense everyone who can be described as female can also be described as biological, however here the term has an implied delineation in it. A "biological" and a "non-biological" or "artificial" female. This is where the anti-transness comes in; the appeal to nature of "artificial" women being inferior to the "biological" women.

Now there's an extra little bit of subtlety here in that it often is contextual. Usually you would not refer to a person as a female as a noun, but rather as female as an adjective. There is a significant subset of people thus who use "female" as a noun either as a substitute for "biological female" or sometimes just as a chauvinistic way of dehumanising women. Either way it's rarely a good look.

The anti-trans movement, and the right wing in general has a distinct trend in not quite saying what they mean too. So in the same way that the right wing will demonise "groomers", "scroungers", and "the woke left" (i.e. LGBTQ+ people, the homeless, anyone that will call them out), the TERFs will demonise the implied "non-biological" females.

It is a parlour trick, an extremely thin veneer of plausible deniability that means they can go "nooooo you're overreacting, I never SAID that I hate trans people, I just don't like it when people deny that biology exists". It's a way of shutting down arguments so the right wing can say whatever they want with impunity.

Tldr: some nasty folk use "females" as a shorthand for "biological human females" which is a very terfy phrase in the same way as "blood and soil" is very distinctly fascistic.

In this particular case however I don't think that the reddit OP was being a terf and the mods were definitely just flat out wrong. It probably warranted a post removal and a warning but not a ban.

Yup, in my experience the best way to beat a rules lawyer is to be a better and funnier rulemaker.

So this sent me down an absolute rabbit hole. As a DM there's a few ways I'd consider to stop this being entirely game-breaking:

• You could argue that the only thing strength before death shows is that you can activate strength before death between hitting 0 and getting knocked out. A wizard is no samurai. Therefore concentration spells are not allowed.
• You could argue that life steal requires life to steal, and as such you can't life steal yourself.
• You could enforce the requirement of the figurine required for vampiric touch, then engineer a scenario to remove it at a critical moment and see if they realise.

Personally I would instead depart from RAW and point out a version of option 2, but a lenient one. Something like "you can do this but you are sapping your very essence to do it. Every time you do it, you permanently lose 10% of your HP" or "every time you do this you increase the number of death saving throws you must succeed before you die". Or my personal favourite: "every time you do this you perturb the very laws of nature. Nature is rather fond of its laws and so decides to perturb you right back. Roll on this table to see what happens." and make the table include the above alongside a few other things and maybe a roll on the wild magic table.

In the end I enjoy ingenuity but the role of DM gives you a lot of latitude to... handle... those who believe they found a loophole.

Yeah, that is exactly how sponsorblock works: crowd-sourced manual identification of sponsor segments!

And apparently the lids of bins :P