Is the touch sensor for the touch screen, the camera, and the microphone, also similarly connected to the CPU via a signed encrypted connection?
(If so, I'm wondering how third party repair outfits were able to "repair" iPhones before the software update, if not, I'm wondering what the point is when it comes to protecting just one part of the system, one that isn't even used for data entry.)
To use your example, women are often paid less than men. That's a fact. Saying that this is "because the patriarchy works to oppress women" is both way too simplistic and pushes a story arc that is both divisive and false
That wasn't actually my example, but OK. Now, who is making this claim, as simplistically as you're making it? Who is saying "The pay gap" (to use your example) or "The addtional hurdles women need to pass to be taken seriously in IT" (to use mine) "is entirely the result of" (what I assume you to mean) "deliberate sexism" (I assume, because "the patriarchy" is a description of a result, not a description of a cause per se except that institutional sexism is inherently partially self sustaining.)
Answer: there really isn't anyone. The argument being rejected by those who scream "SJW" as an insult is not "Deliberate sexism is the cause of all women's problems", it's "X is a form of sexism that harms women", "The substantial pay gap between men and women is evidence that sexual discrimination is occurring","Women are having specific avoidable problems in the workplace that do not apply to men, in large part because workplaces are built around traditional male culture."
Saying those things are what gets you labelled an SJW. And your views and opinions consigned to the bit bucket.
Men are not saying "when my daughter grows up, I want her to earn less just because she's a woman." Or "My wife should earn less, even though we could really use the extra money."
But again, this is a straw man. If someone said "Yeah, all men are deliberately oppressing women" then, sure, we can laugh at them. But that's something said by very few people, I haven't heard anyone say it. The much despised "Third wave feminism" actually differs in large part because it's male positive compared to its predecessor, men are seen as positive participants, and the focus is on social structures that (usually) unintentionally harm women, not on deliberately sexist institutions and acts. Germaine Greer was writing in a world where husbands would "discipline" their wives for buying her books. Anita Sarkeesian is doing video series on how to avoid sexist cliches when you design your video games that you probably didn't realize were sexist to begin with, to an audience it's presumed actively wants to know these things.
[SJW] is a term with a relatively short half-life. It's as stupid as "road warrior" for people working on a laptop or tablet while going from place to place, and you don't hear the general population using either term much, if at all. These self-styled "road warriors" use it in a kind of "see how hard I have to work" appeal to martyrdom, but those outside "the anointed" will mostly just roll their eyes.
It is, thankfully, a term I never hear in real life. If I hear a real life person judge another by calling them a beta cuck SJW, I'll probably defriend them. Is it me, or do Gamergaters sound like they've had half their brains removed?
SJW is meaningless. It is, in reality, no matter how you use it, applied to anyone who suggests some groups are at an unfair disadvantage compared to, in the US, white English speaking men, for reasons beyond simple biology.
Until it really does start being used against that tiny minority of extremists, and not to everyone pointing out issues with society and discrimination, it can't really be said to have meaning.
And yes, for the zillionth time Powell and Rice both used personal email addresses - and both received emails that were later classified
If think you're forgetting the "If the Clintons do it it's illegal" act of 1995. Neither Rice nor Powell are Clintons, therefore obviously they're not under indictment, or worthy of any criticism whatsoever...
It's a shame the term is so meaningless that you probably believe it as strongly as someone who believes that you are an SJW (after all, you advocate for transgender people) believes that you are one too.
Be honest: it's a meaningless term, usually applied by anyone who feels uncomfortable about their own racism or sexism (or other prejudices), applied to anyone who made them uncomfortable in any way. If I say "Isn't it a shame the average, well qualified, woman is going to have to fight harder than the average, average qualified, man to get and hold on to a job in IT", it's a simple observation, but I'll get labelled an SJW as a result.
And you? Well, you personally might not. I don't know. You know I'm fairly left wing, and sympathetic to the plight of minorities, but I'm also happy to say when I think people are unfairly demonized, such as Pax Dickinson or the parents of Leelah Alcorn (and to a certain extent you and I had disagreements on the latter, which doesn't surprise me.)
So, given that, what's the point of using the term? Is it used, in practice, for any real life use other than shutting down debate? "OMG! This person suggested I might have certain advantages in life that aren't available to black people, let's call him an SJW and then nobody will take him seriously!"
'cos that's how I see it used. It might, once, by some people, have been used to denote a particular type of over-zealous and highly obnoxious troll who used social justice issues as their weapon, but it doesn't today, and when you use it on Slashdot, you use it in an environment where virtually nobody is referring to those trolls. You're using it in an environment in which it'll be read, and understood, as referring to feminists, civil rights activists, LGB(T*) activists, and, transgender activists, regardless of whether they're hysterical, or just do passive, entirely optional, advocacy, say, in the forms of videos explaining carefully how they feel movies or video games could be improved so that they're not unintentionally a problem for many women.
How's this, in the last 10 years, what if instead you didn't have 4G / LTE etc, instead you just still had "inefficient EDGE" BUT unlimited data, all month long, endlessly?
You mean... what if the cellphone carriers didn't take advantage of any of the advances in technology that had happened, and just gave us the same shit sandwich they were giving us 11 years ago?
I'd be pretty pissed about that completely different situation too. I'd say to them "Look, why not use the new spectrum the government is opening up for you, use something really efficient like LTE, and offer us more bandwidth for the same cost given we're paying you the same amount of money now as we were when you were still upgrading your network?"
Technology has improved. You'd expect that to result in actual improvements beyond being able to see a web page render more quickly on your mobile. We know capacity has improved, so why can't we access it?
I'm finding it fairly amusing that Windows 3.x actually looks quite fresh and, ugly pre-anti-aliasing font aside, fairly modern. Which is odd because at the time, as a user of AmigaOS 2.04 at home, I thought it looked clumsy and ugly (and everyone else started to agree about the look of Windows 3.x when Windows 95 came out.)
There's a lot of flatness to the Windows 3.x UI, which is something that's in vogue again.
I believe the problem here is that there's no word for "not temporary" that incorporates the meaning here but not the usual meaning of the word "Permanent".
This bill is not temporary, that is, it doesn't have a time limit or expiration date that kicks in if Congress doesn't act.
Gigabit LTE means that you'll be able to use up your entire high speed data quota in less than a minute, unless the carriers finally update their data pricing models.
How is it that we've ended up with $10 for 10Gb or less of data now for about ten years? In the meantime, we've gone from inefficient EDGE to unbelievably efficient LTE, with HSPA+ available now for, what, the last five years on most GSM family networks?
Yet the data prices haven't budged. The carriers have more bandwidth than ever, more efficient ways of using it than ever, but they still think they're running ancient EDGE or cdma2000 networks.
On a positive note, this is more bandwidth than most people's cable modems. I wonder if the cable industry will catch up.
Cultural and social cues too. British people, for example, frequently accuse people from a certain large Northern European country of having no sense of humor. Why? Well, because when they/we (I'm an ex-Brit) make sarcastic comments in front of them, said Northern Europeans take it seriously.
Now I have to assume sarcasm is fairly universal. I'd be surprised if aliens from the Planet Thargh IV are not familiar with the basic concept of "saying the opposite of what you mean because it's absurd, and finding humor in its absurdity". So the chances of said country not actually actually being familiar with the concept is pretty unbelievable.
More likely is that the transmission - the social cues, the way English speaking people exaggerate the first few words of a sarcastic sentence ("Oh a sarcasm detected. Well that's a useful invention!") to indicate that we're being sarcastic and not serious - is different.
There's another location where sarcasm just never seems to work (and, alas, I'm dumb enough not to realize it half the time): The Internet. Or rather, written text, where sarcasm is interpreted as stupidity more often than not. We've even developed cues to try to ensure it's not misinterpretted, from "/s" to fake HTML tags. Again, this suggests everything is about the cues.
Computers probably can detect sarcasm if taught the cues. It ought to be easy: look for cues, determine meaning of sentence, if cues present and interpretation in local context is absurd, call laugh().
Or raiseEyebrow(). Whatever seems appropriate for the lowest form of wit...
I've always used a serif font for reading, san serif, even Helvetica, just isn't the greatest for large amounts of text except in cases - and recentish Kindles aren't one of them - where the resolution is so attrocious that seriffed fonts just aren't practical.
I'm kinda surprised it was as big a deal as it was, I'd have thought most people weren't using Helvetica.
Wayland is a fairly controversial replacement for X11, written by the people currently maintaining the X.org X11 stack.
As the summary implies, Wayland been criticized for lacking significant features of X11 such as network transparency. Defenders have argued that network transparency is a minority application and that they don't like the way it's implemented in X11 anyway,
Those of us who use network transparency are rather bothered by being told that something that works fine for us (and it does, I regularly have to configure LibreOffice systems running on AWS instances, and have never bumped into any of the supposed problems Wayland advocates insist I have) are things we don't really need or want. We're not happy about losing functionality simply so that someone can go from 59fps to 59.5fps when playing Call of Duty.
Previous proposals have varied from proposals for an optional intermediary protocol sitting between Wayland and the client (apparently by people who have no idea what the transparency part of "Network transparency") and even the ability to stream the contents of Windows using H.264.
This proposal sounds, at least at first glance, to be better than those hacks. Hopefully it means they're finally taking the issue seriously.
The downside here is that means you can't just get rid of CPU intensive ads by disabling Flash.
Like the HTML5 video tag, that was supposed to free us from evil Flash, but just brought forth the unblockable autoplaying autoloading multimegabyte video ad, this isn't as great a piece of news as it might seem...
It would also use much less land (no runways needed), and could terminate in the middle of a city a'la Grand central station.
Unfortunately the "cost savings" Musk envisaged for the LA-SF version were in part achieved by not going anywhere near the cities it served, sitting tens of miles outside - a situation more extreme than most airports, which at least try to be close to the cities they serve.
You can probably build a pretty cheap airport "serving" LA if you build it fifty miles away too;-)
What, I think, is telling is not that they're just making these somewhat dumb comments, it's how effing angry they are, as if Cortana not putting up with simulated harassment is in some way taking something valuable away from them.
Ever since, well, just before this GG nonsense started, Slashdot's readership has been really circling the toilet. I wonder how these people have jobs given their anger issues with women.
Kinda true, kinda not. The idea was to replace CAHSR, but CAHSR is itself billed as a replacement for flying.
Personally I think the Hyperloop proposal is done in bad faith - the system Musk proposed was supposedly substantially cheaper, but only served two of the four cities joined by CAHSR, was something in the region of a hundred miles away from those two cities, couldn't carry anything like the same number of passengers, and Musk hand waved quite a bit about costs (did he really think the CAHSR people hadn't considered viaducts? And in what world does a viaduct - even for a single pipe stuck up on stilts - cost only a quarter of a million dollars a mile?) suggesting it would probably cost several times the amount Musk proposed.
And, I'll be honest, I think travel in those things will be a nightmare. But I'd expect nothing less from anyone in the car industry - these are people who have never "got" public transportation, largely because they love driving so much they can't imagine anyone else wouldn't.
It's actually kinda awkward to draw any conclusions from that as adjusting for other factors isn't trivial.
Imagine, for a second, if A causes B, but only when combined with C, D or E. (And C, D, and E don't cause anything on their own, only when combined with A)
A is going to look like a cause of B, but C, D, or E will be relatively difficult to correlate with B, especially if they're common. That may result in people assuming that, say, C had nothing to do with B simply because A was present.
I know, I know, basic stats and all of that, and I doubt video games are causing (much) harm (nothing's completely harmless;-)) but I'd be more comfortable with more studies.
For the most part I'd agree with this, but you might be underplaying her skepticism a little by saying she isn't arguing "poor representations of women in games make people harm women in real life".
She certainly is arguing that poor representations of women in games contributes to general atmosphere that ends up resulting in tox... uh, I better avoid academic jargon that's widely (deliberately?) misunderstood here.. behaviors by many that are harmful to women. She also points out I believe that such tropes tend to put off many women, who would otherwise be much more confortable dropping $60 on your latest blockbuster, but feel excluded from the non-casual space as a result.
But Sarkeesian is also clear that a few sexist tropes in games are not solely responsible for harm done to women, that they don't exist in a vaccuum, and that it's entirely possible to enjoy a game and find a few tropes in it a little dubious.
The biggest point I'd make to people who think, after being told by numerous YouTube "personalities" that Sarkeesian is an advocate of censorship, is that Sarkeesian's criticisms are constructive criticisms. She's not demanding bans or boycotts, she's saying "Hey, game developers, here's a few things you might want to avoid", and telling players "Listen, I know you love this game, just be aware of these issues when you play it."
(Game developers actually love her videos in my experience, which tells you all you need to know.)
Unfortunately, we don't live in a world where nuanced comments that are neither "BAN THIS!" nor "WE WANT MORE OF THIS!!" are understood. Most people seem to think that every argument has two sides, no more, no less.
Typical SJWNPAT (my acronym for SJW Normal Person Anti-Terrorist), all Twitter is doing is censoring people for criticizing Ethics in Western society. Sure, some people have claimed in ISIL's name to have murdered a few people here and there, but first of all THOSE people they supposedly "murdered" are professional victims and their claims of being murdered are highly suspect no matter how many videos we produced of them being beheaded and threads on/r/WesternSocietyInAction you can point at where every laughed at the Beta Cuck Infidels. And secondly, just because they said they were ISIS doesn't mean they were, I mean, it's a hashtag, you can't police that. You can't blame some guy on Twitter who is just concerned with Ethics and sends a few rape threats to Hillary Clinton THAT ARE CLEARLY NOT SERIOUS with some other guy who murders people because that's totally unfair. And also (continued on thread 94)
What are Trump and Cruz's views on NSA mass surveillance? I doubt that either oppose it but I'm happy to be proven wrong. Rubio's comments don't seem, on the surface, to be out of whack with 99% of Republicans. I'd be surprised if other current candidates considered by most to not be insane strongly disagree with him on this. (Yeah, Rand Paul might, but he's already dropped out, and in any case...)
What makes Rubio more attractive than those two are that he's not on the theocratic wing, unlike Cruz, and... well, he's not Trump.
It's an collaborative cloud-ready framework that leverages Python based open source technologies to extract data across multiple standards based web sites.
(Wow, actually looking at their website, I got it right, and I made that up initially.)
Slashdot Mirror
Is the touch sensor for the touch screen, the camera, and the microphone, also similarly connected to the CPU via a signed encrypted connection?
(If so, I'm wondering how third party repair outfits were able to "repair" iPhones before the software update, if not, I'm wondering what the point is when it comes to protecting just one part of the system, one that isn't even used for data entry.)
That wasn't actually my example, but OK. Now, who is making this claim, as simplistically as you're making it? Who is saying "The pay gap" (to use your example) or "The addtional hurdles women need to pass to be taken seriously in IT" (to use mine) "is entirely the result of" (what I assume you to mean) "deliberate sexism" (I assume, because "the patriarchy" is a description of a result, not a description of a cause per se except that institutional sexism is inherently partially self sustaining.)
Answer: there really isn't anyone. The argument being rejected by those who scream "SJW" as an insult is not "Deliberate sexism is the cause of all women's problems", it's "X is a form of sexism that harms women", "The substantial pay gap between men and women is evidence that sexual discrimination is occurring" ,"Women are having specific avoidable problems in the workplace that do not apply to men, in large part because workplaces are built around traditional male culture."
Saying those things are what gets you labelled an SJW. And your views and opinions consigned to the bit bucket.
But again, this is a straw man. If someone said "Yeah, all men are deliberately oppressing women" then, sure, we can laugh at them. But that's something said by very few people, I haven't heard anyone say it. The much despised "Third wave feminism" actually differs in large part because it's male positive compared to its predecessor, men are seen as positive participants, and the focus is on social structures that (usually) unintentionally harm women, not on deliberately sexist institutions and acts. Germaine Greer was writing in a world where husbands would "discipline" their wives for buying her books. Anita Sarkeesian is doing video series on how to avoid sexist cliches when you design your video games that you probably didn't realize were sexist to begin with, to an audience it's presumed actively wants to know these things.
It is, thankfully, a term I never hear in real life. If I hear a real life person judge another by calling them a beta cuck SJW, I'll probably defriend them. Is it me, or do Gamergaters sound like they've had half their brains removed?
SJW is meaningless. It is, in reality, no matter how you use it, applied to anyone who suggests some groups are at an unfair disadvantage compared to, in the US, white English speaking men, for reasons beyond simple biology.
Until it really does start being used against that tiny minority of extremists, and not to everyone pointing out issues with society and discrimination, it can't really be said to have meaning.
If think you're forgetting the "If the Clintons do it it's illegal" act of 1995. Neither Rice nor Powell are Clintons, therefore obviously they're not under indictment, or worthy of any criticism whatsoever...
It's a shame the term is so meaningless that you probably believe it as strongly as someone who believes that you are an SJW (after all, you advocate for transgender people) believes that you are one too.
Be honest: it's a meaningless term, usually applied by anyone who feels uncomfortable about their own racism or sexism (or other prejudices), applied to anyone who made them uncomfortable in any way. If I say "Isn't it a shame the average, well qualified, woman is going to have to fight harder than the average, average qualified, man to get and hold on to a job in IT", it's a simple observation, but I'll get labelled an SJW as a result.
And you? Well, you personally might not. I don't know. You know I'm fairly left wing, and sympathetic to the plight of minorities, but I'm also happy to say when I think people are unfairly demonized, such as Pax Dickinson or the parents of Leelah Alcorn (and to a certain extent you and I had disagreements on the latter, which doesn't surprise me.)
So, given that, what's the point of using the term? Is it used, in practice, for any real life use other than shutting down debate? "OMG! This person suggested I might have certain advantages in life that aren't available to black people, let's call him an SJW and then nobody will take him seriously!"
'cos that's how I see it used. It might, once, by some people, have been used to denote a particular type of over-zealous and highly obnoxious troll who used social justice issues as their weapon, but it doesn't today, and when you use it on Slashdot, you use it in an environment where virtually nobody is referring to those trolls. You're using it in an environment in which it'll be read, and understood, as referring to feminists, civil rights activists, LGB(T*) activists, and, transgender activists, regardless of whether they're hysterical, or just do passive, entirely optional, advocacy, say, in the forms of videos explaining carefully how they feel movies or video games could be improved so that they're not unintentionally a problem for many women.
Oh this is very easy to explain: it's because the first color Macintosh didn't come out until 1985, and all Macs before that had 512x384 screens.
I use it to access LibreOffice instances running on remote AWS servers. It's perfectly fine.
It would be nice if X11's critics actually used X11 once in a while, rather than whined incessantly about how bad it is because in theory it's bad.
You mean... what if the cellphone carriers didn't take advantage of any of the advances in technology that had happened, and just gave us the same shit sandwich they were giving us 11 years ago?
I'd be pretty pissed about that completely different situation too. I'd say to them "Look, why not use the new spectrum the government is opening up for you, use something really efficient like LTE, and offer us more bandwidth for the same cost given we're paying you the same amount of money now as we were when you were still upgrading your network?"
Technology has improved. You'd expect that to result in actual improvements beyond being able to see a web page render more quickly on your mobile. We know capacity has improved, so why can't we access it?
I'm finding it fairly amusing that Windows 3.x actually looks quite fresh and, ugly pre-anti-aliasing font aside, fairly modern. Which is odd because at the time, as a user of AmigaOS 2.04 at home, I thought it looked clumsy and ugly (and everyone else started to agree about the look of Windows 3.x when Windows 95 came out.)
There's a lot of flatness to the Windows 3.x UI, which is something that's in vogue again.
It's Scandawegian for "Website that doesn't support Unicode and incorrectly validates forms containing unicode", I believe.
I believe the problem here is that there's no word for "not temporary" that incorporates the meaning here but not the usual meaning of the word "Permanent".
This bill is not temporary, that is, it doesn't have a time limit or expiration date that kicks in if Congress doesn't act.
Only in a solution of chamomile tea and soy milk, but, seriously, who in their right mind would mix that disgusting combination?
Gigabit LTE means that you'll be able to use up your entire high speed data quota in less than a minute, unless the carriers finally update their data pricing models.
How is it that we've ended up with $10 for 10Gb or less of data now for about ten years? In the meantime, we've gone from inefficient EDGE to unbelievably efficient LTE, with HSPA+ available now for, what, the last five years on most GSM family networks?
Yet the data prices haven't budged. The carriers have more bandwidth than ever, more efficient ways of using it than ever, but they still think they're running ancient EDGE or cdma2000 networks.
On a positive note, this is more bandwidth than most people's cable modems. I wonder if the cable industry will catch up.
Ken M is actually funny. Of course, as an Ken M enthusiast I'd add one more reason he's a huge improvement over APK here.
Cultural and social cues too. British people, for example, frequently accuse people from a certain large Northern European country of having no sense of humor. Why? Well, because when they/we (I'm an ex-Brit) make sarcastic comments in front of them, said Northern Europeans take it seriously.
Now I have to assume sarcasm is fairly universal. I'd be surprised if aliens from the Planet Thargh IV are not familiar with the basic concept of "saying the opposite of what you mean because it's absurd, and finding humor in its absurdity". So the chances of said country not actually actually being familiar with the concept is pretty unbelievable.
More likely is that the transmission - the social cues, the way English speaking people exaggerate the first few words of a sarcastic sentence ("Oh a sarcasm detected. Well that's a useful invention!") to indicate that we're being sarcastic and not serious - is different.
There's another location where sarcasm just never seems to work (and, alas, I'm dumb enough not to realize it half the time): The Internet. Or rather, written text, where sarcasm is interpreted as stupidity more often than not. We've even developed cues to try to ensure it's not misinterpretted, from "/s" to fake HTML tags. Again, this suggests everything is about the cues.
Computers probably can detect sarcasm if taught the cues. It ought to be easy: look for cues, determine meaning of sentence, if cues present and interpretation in local context is absurd, call laugh().
Or raiseEyebrow(). Whatever seems appropriate for the lowest form of wit...
I've always used a serif font for reading, san serif, even Helvetica, just isn't the greatest for large amounts of text except in cases - and recentish Kindles aren't one of them - where the resolution is so attrocious that seriffed fonts just aren't practical.
I'm kinda surprised it was as big a deal as it was, I'd have thought most people weren't using Helvetica.
Wayland is a fairly controversial replacement for X11, written by the people currently maintaining the X.org X11 stack.
As the summary implies, Wayland been criticized for lacking significant features of X11 such as network transparency. Defenders have argued that network transparency is a minority application and that they don't like the way it's implemented in X11 anyway,
Those of us who use network transparency are rather bothered by being told that something that works fine for us (and it does, I regularly have to configure LibreOffice systems running on AWS instances, and have never bumped into any of the supposed problems Wayland advocates insist I have) are things we don't really need or want. We're not happy about losing functionality simply so that someone can go from 59fps to 59.5fps when playing Call of Duty.
Previous proposals have varied from proposals for an optional intermediary protocol sitting between Wayland and the client (apparently by people who have no idea what the transparency part of "Network transparency") and even the ability to stream the contents of Windows using H.264.
This proposal sounds, at least at first glance, to be better than those hacks. Hopefully it means they're finally taking the issue seriously.
The downside here is that means you can't just get rid of CPU intensive ads by disabling Flash.
Like the HTML5 video tag, that was supposed to free us from evil Flash, but just brought forth the unblockable autoplaying autoloading multimegabyte video ad, this isn't as great a piece of news as it might seem...
Unfortunately the "cost savings" Musk envisaged for the LA-SF version were in part achieved by not going anywhere near the cities it served, sitting tens of miles outside - a situation more extreme than most airports, which at least try to be close to the cities they serve.
You can probably build a pretty cheap airport "serving" LA if you build it fifty miles away too ;-)
What, I think, is telling is not that they're just making these somewhat dumb comments, it's how effing angry they are, as if Cortana not putting up with simulated harassment is in some way taking something valuable away from them.
Ever since, well, just before this GG nonsense started, Slashdot's readership has been really circling the toilet. I wonder how these people have jobs given their anger issues with women.
Kinda true, kinda not. The idea was to replace CAHSR, but CAHSR is itself billed as a replacement for flying.
Personally I think the Hyperloop proposal is done in bad faith - the system Musk proposed was supposedly substantially cheaper, but only served two of the four cities joined by CAHSR, was something in the region of a hundred miles away from those two cities, couldn't carry anything like the same number of passengers, and Musk hand waved quite a bit about costs (did he really think the CAHSR people hadn't considered viaducts? And in what world does a viaduct - even for a single pipe stuck up on stilts - cost only a quarter of a million dollars a mile?) suggesting it would probably cost several times the amount Musk proposed.
And, I'll be honest, I think travel in those things will be a nightmare. But I'd expect nothing less from anyone in the car industry - these are people who have never "got" public transportation, largely because they love driving so much they can't imagine anyone else wouldn't.
It's actually kinda awkward to draw any conclusions from that as adjusting for other factors isn't trivial.
Imagine, for a second, if A causes B, but only when combined with C, D or E. (And C, D, and E don't cause anything on their own, only when combined with A)
A is going to look like a cause of B, but C, D, or E will be relatively difficult to correlate with B, especially if they're common. That may result in people assuming that, say, C had nothing to do with B simply because A was present.
I know, I know, basic stats and all of that, and I doubt video games are causing (much) harm (nothing's completely harmless ;-)) but I'd be more comfortable with more studies.
For the most part I'd agree with this, but you might be underplaying her skepticism a little by saying she isn't arguing "poor representations of women in games make people harm women in real life".
She certainly is arguing that poor representations of women in games contributes to general atmosphere that ends up resulting in tox... uh, I better avoid academic jargon that's widely (deliberately?) misunderstood here.. behaviors by many that are harmful to women. She also points out I believe that such tropes tend to put off many women, who would otherwise be much more confortable dropping $60 on your latest blockbuster, but feel excluded from the non-casual space as a result.
But Sarkeesian is also clear that a few sexist tropes in games are not solely responsible for harm done to women, that they don't exist in a vaccuum, and that it's entirely possible to enjoy a game and find a few tropes in it a little dubious.
The biggest point I'd make to people who think, after being told by numerous YouTube "personalities" that Sarkeesian is an advocate of censorship, is that Sarkeesian's criticisms are constructive criticisms. She's not demanding bans or boycotts, she's saying "Hey, game developers, here's a few things you might want to avoid", and telling players "Listen, I know you love this game, just be aware of these issues when you play it."
(Game developers actually love her videos in my experience, which tells you all you need to know.)
Unfortunately, we don't live in a world where nuanced comments that are neither "BAN THIS!" nor "WE WANT MORE OF THIS!!" are understood. Most people seem to think that every argument has two sides, no more, no less.
Typical SJWNPAT (my acronym for SJW Normal Person Anti-Terrorist), all Twitter is doing is censoring people for criticizing Ethics in Western society. Sure, some people have claimed in ISIL's name to have murdered a few people here and there, but first of all THOSE people they supposedly "murdered" are professional victims and their claims of being murdered are highly suspect no matter how many videos we produced of them being beheaded and threads on /r/WesternSocietyInAction you can point at where every laughed at the Beta Cuck Infidels. And secondly, just because they said they were ISIS doesn't mean they were, I mean, it's a hashtag, you can't police that. You can't blame some guy on Twitter who is just concerned with Ethics and sends a few rape threats to Hillary Clinton THAT ARE CLEARLY NOT SERIOUS with some other guy who murders people because that's totally unfair. And also (continued on thread 94)
What are Trump and Cruz's views on NSA mass surveillance? I doubt that either oppose it but I'm happy to be proven wrong. Rubio's comments don't seem, on the surface, to be out of whack with 99% of Republicans. I'd be surprised if other current candidates considered by most to not be insane strongly disagree with him on this. (Yeah, Rand Paul might, but he's already dropped out, and in any case...)
What makes Rubio more attractive than those two are that he's not on the theocratic wing, unlike Cruz, and... well, he's not Trump.
It's an collaborative cloud-ready framework that leverages Python based open source technologies to extract data across multiple standards based web sites.
(Wow, actually looking at their website, I got it right, and I made that up initially.)