I honestly wouldn't care because I wouldn't live in an area like that to begin with. Besides, everything there is already stupidly expensive anyways, and the mere fact that you live there means you're already throwing your money away as it is, so what difference does it make?
Something to add to this: Practically every social problem everybody talks about as if it affects everybody really doesn't, it just affects people who live in high cost areas. For example, if you live in New York, you notice a night and day divide between the have's and have-not's, and if you're a have-not then you quickly tell yourself that you are being oppressed, and you see stupid short-lived and ultimately pointless movements like Occupy Wall Street constantly come and go. However if you live in an area that is sanely priced, this doesn't ever feel like an issue whatsoever, and nobody ever feels a particular need to do this, so it just plain doesn't happen.
Jesus fuck why would they need a $100,000 student loan? Are all of their kids becoming doctors or something? If not, they're paying way too fucking much.
I got my bachelor's degree for under $20,000, at an in-state university (2 years community college, 2 years university,) and right out of the gate I got a job as a network engineer with an income that is over 4 times what my cost of living is in an upscale area. This was only two years ago, by the way, and many of my peers have done the exact same thing. Just don't be stupid and get some low demand (read: worthless) degree like art, history, philosophy, etc, and especially don't do it at a super expensive school.
Even then, I wouldn't pay for your kids' college; my parents certainly didn't, they just provided a place to live with food and it was on me to pay for it. That would encourage your kids to get more bang for their buck rather than pretend that they have a bottomless pocket to pull money out of. The university even kept nagging me to accept the loan they were offering every semester, but I always refused it because I didn't want to pay the interest.
Going to college means you need to be smart about things, and that includes being smart with your money. Otherwise you may as well get a low skill job as a cafeteria contract worker while living in a high cost area that you can't at all afford, and then on top of that, add insult to injury to yourself by having three kids to sink your bottom line even further.
I'd have sympathy if somebody was living in a low cost area with a low skill job and couldn't make ends meet, but if you're living in one of the most expensive places that a person can possibly live in and then complain that your employer isn't paying you enough...god damn...just make a smart decision for once in your life and move already. There are many, many places where you can live happily on minimum wage. By the way, this would solve the problems in the SF area from two angles:
- There would be fewer people available for shit paying jobs, so inevitably the pay goes up. - There would be fewer people living there, so rents inevitably go down.
Increasing the minimum wage won't do you any favors, by the way, as all it will do is put upward pressure on rents and other living expenses, which means you just end up right where you started, only now any money you may have saved won't buy you as much.
It doesn't come down to that, it comes down to gametes. There has never been a documented case where a hermaphrodite has both their male and female gonads being fertile; it's always one or the other, and it's most probably impossible to have both because the hormone that makes one fertile also destroys the other.
You asked for a biological definition, so I gave it to you. Go ahead and google "biological definition of male", ditto for female. Why do you think removing testicles from male dogs is called neutering?
There isn't a definitive biological definition of sex. Chromosomes, genitals, hormone levels, none of them are clear cut or work on all cases.
There very much is. Male means having gonads for production of spermatozoa, female means having gonads for production of eggs. If neither exist, then the biological sex is neuter.
Given that 62.7% have an identifiable mental comorbidity, and 81.4% have a personality disorder, I think there's a very, very high probability that the high suicide rate comes from mental illness rather than societal pressures.
Considering the mental health field has been moving steadily away from classifying Gender Dysphoria as a mental illness, I'm not sure that argument's as useful as you think it is.
Not exactly. All dysphorias are a diagnosis of depression (dysphoria means the opposite of euphoria.) They're likewise wanting to rename it yet again to gender incongruence, but even so it still manifests as a dysphoria. But that aside, 62.7% of trans people have at least one psychiatric axis I comorbidity:
In addition, 81.4% have at least one psychiatric axis 2 condition, with the average being 3.0 conditions per patient: (The most common being narcissistic personality disorder.)
While the DSMV doesn't classify transexualism itself as a mental disorder, the psychiatric community isn't unanimous in that belief, as noted in the above link. Also noted in that link is that many believe these comorbidities should be treated first. But, they often aren't as practitioners can be and have been fired for merely suggesting that this happen because it goes against the current (political) thinking that this has nothing to do with mental illness.
In my (non-expert) opinion, this has a common pathway with species dysphoria and BIID, who also typically have the same comorbidities. At the very least, if they treated these comorbidities, you'd probably end up with a much lower suicide rate among them.
I think what can be done is to educate people on what makes a good investment and what doesn't
And how would you do that? If there were rules about what makes a good investment and what doesn't, then we'd all be millionaires. They already have accountants who review the company's financials (this is and always has been step 1 for big investors) and from there it's usually an emotional decision. VCs in particular are a fickle bunch, but to be honest there is not and can not be a legal requirement for you to invest in a particular business based on social factors.
No, it's not already in place. The previous administration allowed that to go away by not answering the civil rights legal challenge, which just went into default. Nonetheless, the military does have a right to discriminate, and does so based on age and disability, but this particular case was never properly reviewed.
In that case they'd just need to clarify that this is exclusionary for those who use hormones (if they're using them, them they'd have to stop using them in order to enlist or remain in service) and if they've had their genitals removed then that would also exclude them.
They also can't show any form of mental instability related to this either. This would be similar to people with bipolar disorder, depression, adhd, etc, who also can't enlist. This would also apply to any generalized dysphoria (meaning the opposite of euphoria) as that is another form of depression.
Those who are already in the service with an existing medical condition can sometimes remain in the service, depending on the circumstances, even if their condition is otherwise excluded from service (I recall one guy who had an eye removed due to cancer was able to remain in service.) There is an appeal process for this where you have to argue your case in front of a medical review board, and it is decided case by case. But they can't enlist to begin with (unless they get a congressional waiver, which is quite rare.)
I can speak further about this because I was discharged from the Army for having a condition called Congenital Stationary Night Blindness. The way the military works is that no matter what job you have, combat or not, you still have to have a wartime duty, which applies to ANY military occupation. For example, the Army (music) band functions as enemy POW prison guards during time of war. All service members, including cooks, are expected to be able to fire weapons and throw grenades, because every single one of them are expected to be either in or very close to the combat zone.
In my particular case, the logic is that if I was out in the combat zone (my MOS was 19D) or anywhere near it, and night came around, I would be ineffective and would end up being a liability to my battle buddies. Sure, there are night vision goggles, but what if they are damaged, batteries run out, etc? Doesn't work, hence discharge.
In the case of a transgender, if the combat situation caused them to ever separated from their unit for a long period of time (something that happens often) they'd become a liability to their battle buddies. MtF trans would also have to carry other gear around if they've had bottom surgery, which also presents a logistical problem.
At least, this applies to the Army, the same would definitely apply to the Marines, so those two would be right out. It would also likely apply to the Navy as well since they are out at sea for years at a time (definite logistical issues there,) and can and do approach combat zones. Air Force personnel are rarely in the combat zone (except for pilots) but they are typically near the combat zone where they can and do make contact with the enemy.
Furthermore, in any service branch, they don't position you based on your military occupation, rather they position you based on wherever your unit is deployed to, and your unit has many different occupations within it. They aren't going to say "well, our unit can't deploy here because we have a transgender person in it."
Social sciences are what are called soft sciences. They are measurable and falsifiable, but they aren't (and can't be) as rigorous as hard sciences like hard sciences, especially natural sciences (except biology which sits probably in the middle between being a hard science and a soft science, as it often lacks the ability to be rigorous.)
Wait til they find out that you can't live without glutamic acid and aspartic acid, which are in basically everything. Basically the only questionable ingredient in aspartame is phenylalanine, which *may* inhibit weight loss, but because phenylalanine is in oh so many things and is an essential amino acid (meaning your body needs it but can't make its own,) that will need to be looked into further.
Mercola also attacks aspartame because it will harm people with phenylketonuria, which is an extremely rare condition, and if you have that, aspartame is the least of your problems as the amount of it in aspartame sweetened foods is much lower than i.e. dairy products, meat, soy, etc. Because aspartame is 100 times sweeter than sugar, they use relatively little amounts of it. For example, there's 10 times as much phenylalanine in milk as there is in diet soda.
There's also 8 times as much aspartic acid and 7 times as much methanol in juice than there is in diet soda. Yet we're supposed to be afraid of it anyways.
So shit sources like Mercola, Naturalnews, foodbabe, nutritionfacts.org, Dr. Oz, greenpeace, and the whole organic movement, are making a shit ton of money by being in the business of peddling unadulterated bullshit.
I don't know about iphone, but for Android this is dead simple to do: Long press on the notification, tap block, tap done. The app still works as normal, just no notifications.
People who poo on economics as not being a science somehow completely miss the fact that it's a social science. In other words, it involves people, which can be unpredictable.
A great example of why is the laffer curve. The laffer curve is a concept, not a hard rule that states what happens after taxes reach certain percentages. Nobody ever uses it in any formulaic manner, but nonetheless it applies universally.
There are also other matters like price elasticity. In general, supply lowers prices and demand raises prices, but some goods like gasoline aren't influenced that well by supply and demand, and then some goods like ramen noodles are heavily influenced by supply and demand.
The point is, people are unpredictable as hell, but even so, you can very reasonably model their behavior. If you still disagree, then psychology (also a social science) shouldn't be considered a science either for the same reason.
No but if you were a business buying Office and you wanted perpetual upgrades, you just had to buy it through SA, so you could already get that feature if you wanted it.
This happens to me a lot. My email address is lastnamefirstinitial@gmail.com (I too got in on the very early beta of gmail.) I get people all the time signing me up for shit, or in one case some girl I don't even know sent me some nudies. Then sometimes I fuck with whoever sends me the emails.
One time somebody in Canada bought a car at a dealership and gave them my email. Said dealership sent a survey about how the sales went, and given how much I hate dealerships I gave them a really shitty rating.
I also canceled somebody's hotel reservation in Colorado, and since they used my email, only I got the notification that it was canceled so they probably went all the way out there just to find that they didn't have a room.
I've also done the password reset and taken over accounts.
Kodi's origins were in piracy, more or less. It was built from a pirated xbox SDK, distributed on thepiratebay, and didn't observe the GPL licensed mplayer that it was based on by not releasing the source.
I don't think this is a case of traffic discrimination, and is indeed optimization without negatively impacting Netflix. Traffic tends to burst rather than be constant, and Netflix is no exception. Imagine (hypothetically) that Netflix was to burst 60mbit of traffic your way for 1 second so that your client then doesn't need to retrieve any more data for another 19 seconds. Why do this when we can drop it to 9mbit for 1 second to get another 2 seconds of video? Modern networks are quite reliable, so we don't need a massive buffer, and all you've done with the prior scenario is use over 6 times the amount of burst traffic than was needed, thus potentially taking away burst traffic from somebody else sharing your backbone link.
- Everytime there is a change to the software version, like say Office 2013 to 2016, under a subscription model, one will automatically get the newer version, w/o having to buy a new license of the software. Upgrade rights are built in. If one doesn't want that, yeah, go w/ the traditional box.
They already provided that before with software assurance.
I would have modded this up if I had points because it touches on the fundamental problem with China that will also result in them never going anywhere with AI: The regime is just too oppressive.
China is never going grow that well if their researchers can't have unfiltered access to the internet, nor will they attract any global talent.
Most AI-chicken-littles predicate their doom-and-gloom on the assumption that only "the rich" will have access to new technology.
It's silly because the argument effectively goes like this:
- People have jobs to create goods to get money - People use money to buy goods other than what they create - Automation replaces people for creation of all goods - People have no jobs and don't create any goods - People don't have money and can't buy anything - Rich people use automation to create goods for no purpose because nobody can buy them
Something tells me it's just not going to end up that way. Historically what ends up happening is things that used to be expensive are no longer expensive, so people can afford them regardless of income. There are still rich and poor, but the poor continue to gain material wealth. Think in terms of how car phones and 55" 480i TVs were solely in the domain of rich people during the 80's. Now poor people have smartphones and 55" 4k TVs. Thus the poor have become wealthier, thanks to automation.
AI-chicken-littles are typically focused on money as defining wealth without realizing what's wrong with that.
Wrong. The verdict was decided by a jury, not by a judge. Gawker did appeal, and the judgement was stayed. They also filed for chapter 11, which doesn't necessarily mean the end of the company. Gawker then lost on appeal.
I get it, you hate Peter Thiel, but that doesn't make this verdict any less relevant, nor does it make Gawker any less of a shitty sleazy website.
Slashdot Mirror
Unlimited technology from the whole universe, and you cruise 'round in a Ford P.O.S.
I honestly wouldn't care because I wouldn't live in an area like that to begin with. Besides, everything there is already stupidly expensive anyways, and the mere fact that you live there means you're already throwing your money away as it is, so what difference does it make?
Something to add to this: Practically every social problem everybody talks about as if it affects everybody really doesn't, it just affects people who live in high cost areas. For example, if you live in New York, you notice a night and day divide between the have's and have-not's, and if you're a have-not then you quickly tell yourself that you are being oppressed, and you see stupid short-lived and ultimately pointless movements like Occupy Wall Street constantly come and go. However if you live in an area that is sanely priced, this doesn't ever feel like an issue whatsoever, and nobody ever feels a particular need to do this, so it just plain doesn't happen.
Jesus fuck why would they need a $100,000 student loan? Are all of their kids becoming doctors or something? If not, they're paying way too fucking much.
I got my bachelor's degree for under $20,000, at an in-state university (2 years community college, 2 years university,) and right out of the gate I got a job as a network engineer with an income that is over 4 times what my cost of living is in an upscale area. This was only two years ago, by the way, and many of my peers have done the exact same thing. Just don't be stupid and get some low demand (read: worthless) degree like art, history, philosophy, etc, and especially don't do it at a super expensive school.
Even then, I wouldn't pay for your kids' college; my parents certainly didn't, they just provided a place to live with food and it was on me to pay for it. That would encourage your kids to get more bang for their buck rather than pretend that they have a bottomless pocket to pull money out of. The university even kept nagging me to accept the loan they were offering every semester, but I always refused it because I didn't want to pay the interest.
Going to college means you need to be smart about things, and that includes being smart with your money. Otherwise you may as well get a low skill job as a cafeteria contract worker while living in a high cost area that you can't at all afford, and then on top of that, add insult to injury to yourself by having three kids to sink your bottom line even further.
I'd have sympathy if somebody was living in a low cost area with a low skill job and couldn't make ends meet, but if you're living in one of the most expensive places that a person can possibly live in and then complain that your employer isn't paying you enough...god damn...just make a smart decision for once in your life and move already. There are many, many places where you can live happily on minimum wage. By the way, this would solve the problems in the SF area from two angles:
- There would be fewer people available for shit paying jobs, so inevitably the pay goes up.
- There would be fewer people living there, so rents inevitably go down.
Increasing the minimum wage won't do you any favors, by the way, as all it will do is put upward pressure on rents and other living expenses, which means you just end up right where you started, only now any money you may have saved won't buy you as much.
It doesn't come down to that, it comes down to gametes. There has never been a documented case where a hermaphrodite has both their male and female gonads being fertile; it's always one or the other, and it's most probably impossible to have both because the hormone that makes one fertile also destroys the other.
You asked for a biological definition, so I gave it to you. Go ahead and google "biological definition of male", ditto for female. Why do you think removing testicles from male dogs is called neutering?
There isn't a definitive biological definition of sex. Chromosomes, genitals, hormone levels, none of them are clear cut or work on all cases.
There very much is. Male means having gonads for production of spermatozoa, female means having gonads for production of eggs. If neither exist, then the biological sex is neuter.
I've provided a few citations for why that might be in another post:
https://apple.slashdot.org/com...
Given that 62.7% have an identifiable mental comorbidity, and 81.4% have a personality disorder, I think there's a very, very high probability that the high suicide rate comes from mental illness rather than societal pressures.
Considering the mental health field has been moving steadily away from classifying Gender Dysphoria as a mental illness, I'm not sure that argument's as useful as you think it is.
Not exactly. All dysphorias are a diagnosis of depression (dysphoria means the opposite of euphoria.) They're likewise wanting to rename it yet again to gender incongruence, but even so it still manifests as a dysphoria. But that aside, 62.7% of trans people have at least one psychiatric axis I comorbidity:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...
In addition, 81.4% have at least one psychiatric axis 2 condition, with the average being 3.0 conditions per patient: (The most common being narcissistic personality disorder.)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...
While the DSMV doesn't classify transexualism itself as a mental disorder, the psychiatric community isn't unanimous in that belief, as noted in the above link. Also noted in that link is that many believe these comorbidities should be treated first. But, they often aren't as practitioners can be and have been fired for merely suggesting that this happen because it goes against the current (political) thinking that this has nothing to do with mental illness.
In my (non-expert) opinion, this has a common pathway with species dysphoria and BIID, who also typically have the same comorbidities. At the very least, if they treated these comorbidities, you'd probably end up with a much lower suicide rate among them.
I think what can be done is to educate people on what makes a good investment and what doesn't
And how would you do that? If there were rules about what makes a good investment and what doesn't, then we'd all be millionaires. They already have accountants who review the company's financials (this is and always has been step 1 for big investors) and from there it's usually an emotional decision. VCs in particular are a fickle bunch, but to be honest there is not and can not be a legal requirement for you to invest in a particular business based on social factors.
No, it's not already in place. The previous administration allowed that to go away by not answering the civil rights legal challenge, which just went into default. Nonetheless, the military does have a right to discriminate, and does so based on age and disability, but this particular case was never properly reviewed.
In that case they'd just need to clarify that this is exclusionary for those who use hormones (if they're using them, them they'd have to stop using them in order to enlist or remain in service) and if they've had their genitals removed then that would also exclude them.
They also can't show any form of mental instability related to this either. This would be similar to people with bipolar disorder, depression, adhd, etc, who also can't enlist. This would also apply to any generalized dysphoria (meaning the opposite of euphoria) as that is another form of depression.
Those who are already in the service with an existing medical condition can sometimes remain in the service, depending on the circumstances, even if their condition is otherwise excluded from service (I recall one guy who had an eye removed due to cancer was able to remain in service.) There is an appeal process for this where you have to argue your case in front of a medical review board, and it is decided case by case. But they can't enlist to begin with (unless they get a congressional waiver, which is quite rare.)
I can speak further about this because I was discharged from the Army for having a condition called Congenital Stationary Night Blindness. The way the military works is that no matter what job you have, combat or not, you still have to have a wartime duty, which applies to ANY military occupation. For example, the Army (music) band functions as enemy POW prison guards during time of war. All service members, including cooks, are expected to be able to fire weapons and throw grenades, because every single one of them are expected to be either in or very close to the combat zone.
In my particular case, the logic is that if I was out in the combat zone (my MOS was 19D) or anywhere near it, and night came around, I would be ineffective and would end up being a liability to my battle buddies. Sure, there are night vision goggles, but what if they are damaged, batteries run out, etc? Doesn't work, hence discharge.
In the case of a transgender, if the combat situation caused them to ever separated from their unit for a long period of time (something that happens often) they'd become a liability to their battle buddies. MtF trans would also have to carry other gear around if they've had bottom surgery, which also presents a logistical problem.
At least, this applies to the Army, the same would definitely apply to the Marines, so those two would be right out. It would also likely apply to the Navy as well since they are out at sea for years at a time (definite logistical issues there,) and can and do approach combat zones. Air Force personnel are rarely in the combat zone (except for pilots) but they are typically near the combat zone where they can and do make contact with the enemy.
Furthermore, in any service branch, they don't position you based on your military occupation, rather they position you based on wherever your unit is deployed to, and your unit has many different occupations within it. They aren't going to say "well, our unit can't deploy here because we have a transgender person in it."
Social sciences are what are called soft sciences. They are measurable and falsifiable, but they aren't (and can't be) as rigorous as hard sciences like hard sciences, especially natural sciences (except biology which sits probably in the middle between being a hard science and a soft science, as it often lacks the ability to be rigorous.)
Wait til they find out that you can't live without glutamic acid and aspartic acid, which are in basically everything. Basically the only questionable ingredient in aspartame is phenylalanine, which *may* inhibit weight loss, but because phenylalanine is in oh so many things and is an essential amino acid (meaning your body needs it but can't make its own,) that will need to be looked into further.
Mercola also attacks aspartame because it will harm people with phenylketonuria, which is an extremely rare condition, and if you have that, aspartame is the least of your problems as the amount of it in aspartame sweetened foods is much lower than i.e. dairy products, meat, soy, etc. Because aspartame is 100 times sweeter than sugar, they use relatively little amounts of it. For example, there's 10 times as much phenylalanine in milk as there is in diet soda.
There's also 8 times as much aspartic acid and 7 times as much methanol in juice than there is in diet soda. Yet we're supposed to be afraid of it anyways.
The logical fallacy that is all the rage these days is:
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.c...
So shit sources like Mercola, Naturalnews, foodbabe, nutritionfacts.org, Dr. Oz, greenpeace, and the whole organic movement, are making a shit ton of money by being in the business of peddling unadulterated bullshit.
I don't know about iphone, but for Android this is dead simple to do: Long press on the notification, tap block, tap done. The app still works as normal, just no notifications.
People who poo on economics as not being a science somehow completely miss the fact that it's a social science. In other words, it involves people, which can be unpredictable.
A great example of why is the laffer curve. The laffer curve is a concept, not a hard rule that states what happens after taxes reach certain percentages. Nobody ever uses it in any formulaic manner, but nonetheless it applies universally.
There are also other matters like price elasticity. In general, supply lowers prices and demand raises prices, but some goods like gasoline aren't influenced that well by supply and demand, and then some goods like ramen noodles are heavily influenced by supply and demand.
The point is, people are unpredictable as hell, but even so, you can very reasonably model their behavior. If you still disagree, then psychology (also a social science) shouldn't be considered a science either for the same reason.
No but if you were a business buying Office and you wanted perpetual upgrades, you just had to buy it through SA, so you could already get that feature if you wanted it.
This happens to me a lot. My email address is lastnamefirstinitial@gmail.com (I too got in on the very early beta of gmail.) I get people all the time signing me up for shit, or in one case some girl I don't even know sent me some nudies. Then sometimes I fuck with whoever sends me the emails.
One time somebody in Canada bought a car at a dealership and gave them my email. Said dealership sent a survey about how the sales went, and given how much I hate dealerships I gave them a really shitty rating.
I also canceled somebody's hotel reservation in Colorado, and since they used my email, only I got the notification that it was canceled so they probably went all the way out there just to find that they didn't have a room.
I've also done the password reset and taken over accounts.
Kodi's origins were in piracy, more or less. It was built from a pirated xbox SDK, distributed on thepiratebay, and didn't observe the GPL licensed mplayer that it was based on by not releasing the source.
I don't think this is a case of traffic discrimination, and is indeed optimization without negatively impacting Netflix. Traffic tends to burst rather than be constant, and Netflix is no exception. Imagine (hypothetically) that Netflix was to burst 60mbit of traffic your way for 1 second so that your client then doesn't need to retrieve any more data for another 19 seconds. Why do this when we can drop it to 9mbit for 1 second to get another 2 seconds of video? Modern networks are quite reliable, so we don't need a massive buffer, and all you've done with the prior scenario is use over 6 times the amount of burst traffic than was needed, thus potentially taking away burst traffic from somebody else sharing your backbone link.
- Everytime there is a change to the software version, like say Office 2013 to 2016, under a subscription model, one will automatically get the newer version, w/o having to buy a new license of the software. Upgrade rights are built in. If one doesn't want that, yeah, go w/ the traditional box.
They already provided that before with software assurance.
I would have modded this up if I had points because it touches on the fundamental problem with China that will also result in them never going anywhere with AI: The regime is just too oppressive.
China is never going grow that well if their researchers can't have unfiltered access to the internet, nor will they attract any global talent.
Most AI-chicken-littles predicate their doom-and-gloom on the assumption that only "the rich" will have access to new technology.
It's silly because the argument effectively goes like this:
- People have jobs to create goods to get money
- People use money to buy goods other than what they create
- Automation replaces people for creation of all goods
- People have no jobs and don't create any goods
- People don't have money and can't buy anything
- Rich people use automation to create goods for no purpose because nobody can buy them
Something tells me it's just not going to end up that way. Historically what ends up happening is things that used to be expensive are no longer expensive, so people can afford them regardless of income. There are still rich and poor, but the poor continue to gain material wealth. Think in terms of how car phones and 55" 480i TVs were solely in the domain of rich people during the 80's. Now poor people have smartphones and 55" 4k TVs. Thus the poor have become wealthier, thanks to automation.
AI-chicken-littles are typically focused on money as defining wealth without realizing what's wrong with that.
Wrong. The verdict was decided by a jury, not by a judge. Gawker did appeal, and the judgement was stayed. They also filed for chapter 11, which doesn't necessarily mean the end of the company. Gawker then lost on appeal.
I get it, you hate Peter Thiel, but that doesn't make this verdict any less relevant, nor does it make Gawker any less of a shitty sleazy website.