Some companies still make physical keyboard Android phones, they're just unpopular.
Two years ago my mom begged me for a phone that had a keyboard, and after I bought it for her she had it for all of about 10 days before she wanted one without a keyboard.
the soviets were also not communist. They were a pure command economy tied to a totalitarian leadership.
NONE of those things are communists. In POF, I doubt that we will ever see a communist nation ever on this planet. Probably the closest things are the farms in Israel.
We actually have seen it, just it doesn't last long at all. The USSR even began that way, but it declined so quickly that they had to replace the economic system with socialism.
For an excellent case study on this, read about the Icarians. They had plenty of resources, including a few cities already built whose prior residents just left, (i.e. Navoo Illinois, when the Mormons who built it were forced to leave by the state government) and even got to pick and choose who joined the commune, selecting those with a higher work ethic and rejecting those who didn't. In fact most who came were wealthy and gave up all of their possessions to the community, doing the whole "to each, from each" thing. The problem is, the GDP gradually declined and what happened to them is the same thing that happened to every communist country that came after them; they had to gradually establish a command economy, and the more they did this the more tired of it that people became until enough of them left that the whole thing just fell apart.
Russia tried to solve this by erecting a wall to keep people in and enacting "work truancy" laws (i.e. the police would make sure that you were at your designated place of work,) and that lasted them all of about 25 years, but they were still dirt poor the whole time. The Icarians weren't an official government though, and they had no ability to do this. They could have lasted longer if they did, but to what end? Communism is a really crappy idea no matter how you look at it.
Who needs future proofing when the cable only costs $4? At the rate new cables come out, it would take monster cable basically 50 years to break even with monoprice.
I thought the whole thing with 4k was that Netflix only supports playready 3 on PCs, which Microsoft only implements in edge, while edge can't decode HEVC without hardware support in the CPU, and kaby lake is the only CPU that does so.
That is basically what the numbers say. The 15% increase means these are mostly replacement PCs and laptops, and people likely cannot get Windows 7 for them easily or transfer it form their old machine.
I think it's more likely that 15% was gained during the most egregious cases of Microsoft pushing it really hard on windows 7 users (i.e., clicking the red X doesn't cancel the upgrade, or outright removing the red X) and doing other dirty tricks that are quite mean to their customers, like upgrading without any prompt at all and then you can't cancel until 10 is already installed and running where it shows you an EULA, then after you refuse the EULA it downgrades back to 7. Each operation is quite dangerous for the typical PC user because when things go wrong, (and they do) they usually can't fix it, or even be able to google a fix. But, Microsoft doesn't see a problem with that, as it went on all throughout the first half of the year. After that was over, the quarterly gains Windows 10 saw were very tiny, usually 0.5% +/- 0.15%
It will probably take two years or so before 10 sees a 30% market share, it will likely be until 2020 that it sees 7s current market share.
The problem I see with this is that white collar jobs have been replaced by technology for centuries, and at the same time, technology has enabled even more white collar jobs to exist than those that it replaced.
For example, the word "computer" used to be universally referred to as a job title, whereas today it's universally referred to as a machine.
Well, that would depend on how it was done. In the 80's, there was a situation that made it so that you had to be wealthy for even a chance of receiving a transplant because nobody wanted to donate organs without selling to the highest bidder.
However if it was a single buyer system (i.e. it's illegal for anybody to buy organs except for one designated entity) with the organ recipient not being expected (or even allowed) to personally compensate the donor, then you could eliminate that problem because there'd effectively be a fixed price.
And while price fixing does reduce supply in some markets, namely markets where it costs so much to provide the goods that some people just determine that it's not worth it to try to sell those goods (long lines at the gas pump in the 70's is a good example) in this case you're very much creating the opposite situation. Namely, people will want to do it because there's a decent financial reward, even if the price is fixed.
This will probably never happen in the US though. Too many people have this idea that it will lead to widespread organ theft, thanks to an old urban legend promoted by an episode of Law and Order where a dude woke up with a missing kidney. So far, there haven't been any actual confirmed cases of organ theft anywhere in the world, only unproven rumors.
The truth is, harvesting organs is not at all simple and it takes a lot of effort (and knowledge) to keep them alive outside of a body. Contrary to popular belief, you can't freeze organs, they can't come from a person who is dead on arrival, (only about 3% of all deaths are viable for organ harvesting) and you actually need a whole team of doctors just to harvest them, never mind implanting them.
And by the way, if you search Google for 'organ theft', the first two links are crap.
The first is a wikipedia page that mentions people selling their own organs on the black market, which does happen but it's by definition not theft, and the rest of the sources talk about a Kosovo incident that hasn't been confirmed; even Wikipedia's own dedicated page about the topic says so.
Note that ALL THREE of the examples cited are either false or didn't result in actual organ theft.
- The Chinese kid's eyes were gouged out by his aunt. - The African girl had nothing happen to her, and they wouldn't have done anything without her positive consent at any rate (it was a UK hospital, after all, and the donor has to agree multiple times over the span of a few weeks.) - As for Kendrick Johnson, the fact that the brain was missing should immediately raise a red flag, and indeed it turns out that the doctor who performed the autopsy removed them, and the funeral home inserted newspaper to fill in the body cavity (which is legal; same with other common materials like cotton and sawdust.) After Kendrick Johnson's family lost the lawsuit, they're now being sued for defamation by multiple parties, and will probably lose.
Similar to the law against "sexual tourism", where it's illegal to travel to another country for the purposes of sexual acts that are illegal in the USA, but legal in the visited country.
I'm curious how that works, because those laws aren't at all uniform in the US. Most states have the legal age of consent at 16, some at 17, and some at 18.
However, even if people were permitted to sell organs, as part of their estate, then the money would be part of the estate. It would then be attached by the hospital that created the availability in the first place, as compensation for the medical expenses.
If it's done as single buyer, then hospital wouldn't be the buyer and wouldn't be involved financially, other than charging the recipient for the cost of the harvesting, which is something they already do.
This idea would also be for living donors, as what is currently done in Iran, so it wouldn't necessarily be for a deceased donor. Though I think $100k is excessive, rather I just gave it as an example, and something like $25,000 would be more realistic.
As being on the organ transplant list myself, I'm all too familiar with the reality of receiving an organ, and it's not exactly what pop culture makes it out to be. Transplanted organs typically don't last as long as the rest of your body and are actually a somewhat crappy form of treatment to an even crappier disease. It varies by organ, but you can expect around a 10 year half life for most transplants (meaning if you took 100 patients that received an organ, after 10 years check back with them, only 50 of them will still have that organ.)
And then of course, being on anti-rejection drugs is high maintenance and it just plain sucks.
But this isn't the worst part of it: If you live in the US, often times your wait can exceed 7 years due to the way individual transplant networks are segmented. If you happen to live near two hospitals that cover two different transplant networks (and thus can list twice) your odds are better. If you're like Steve Jobs and you have your own private jet and can fly anywhere in the country within an hour, then you can list everywhere and have an organ in no time.
Still though, it's better than nothing. I personally do like the idea of people being able to sell their organs, which would definitely level the playing field, just so long as it's done as a single buyer system with a fixed price. Countries that do it this way have practically zero organ shortage, and even if you were to pay $100,000 per patient, you'd still save a crapload money over what medicare pays for treatments like dialysis (the average dialysis patient costs medicare roughly $100,000 per year, whereas with a transplant it's a low, low price of $5,000 a year for the maintenance medication.)
The problem is those tiles are basically windows phone's crowning feature, and yet they are total non-functional crap compared to what Android widgets can do.
Windows tiles just flip at an uncontrollable interval, which means if you aren't looking at relevant information when it's up then who knows how long it will be till you actually see it again, and tapping it just launches the app. Also contrary to their namesake, they aren't actually live, rather they only update about once every 15 minutes. And then of course, they only have one of three possible layouts.
Android widgets are real-time, virtually unlimited dimensions, are interactive (I.e. you can scroll through your emails or calendar events rather than waiting for it to flip) and you can tap individual objects in the widget (for example, tapping an email opens that email, not just the app.)
And in fact, Android is so versatile that you can make it fully imitate the windows phone UI. And indeed, there are launchers on the play store that do exactly that.
Android's flexibility is exactly why it dominates the market, and windows phone's limited feature set "with a shiny UI!" is why it flopped.
Well on the plus side, for once Apple has run into a publication that it can't simply "press blacklist" for the crime of not giving one of their products a glowing review, like it has done to so many others.
Then again, maybe they will, because fuck it, they're Apple.
I don't think the "wealth gap" as you put it is really that big in most of the US. It's mostly just big in densely populated and high priced regions. Likewise, I think that problem feeds into itself. Think about it for a minute: Suppose you're homeless, where would you rather hop aboard the next freight train to? Phoenix, or LA? In Phoenix, people have less money and are less likely to toss money at homeless people, so its kind of obvious.
And then of course, when properties have high prices, it makes it more costly to survive, which means that if you are merely middle class, you're kind of screwed when it comes to housing.
And in spite of this (or perhaps because of this) these areas tend to be more left leaning, hence the left are probably more likely to complain about there being gaps between wealthy and poor, because where they live there's quite a difference, and for people outside of these areas there's much less of a difference between wealthy and poor. In fact, in my apartment complex here in Phoenix, I know of two neighbors who make over $200,000 per year, whereas I make about $80,000 per year.
It supposedly has a two level demo that you can play before you buy, but people who didn't buy thought the demo was lame. And to be honest, the game's controls sound like an easier version of flappy bird, hence I'm not interested in even trying it myself.
You might be on to something there; Barbara Hudson threatened to ruin my life if I ever went to Canada and subsequently urged me to go there, even though I've never had any interest in going there. Barbara is of course welcome to Arizona where nobody will attempt the same thing, but it's ill advised to go to any singles bars without full disclosure in advance.
I pay $140 per month to ride the express bus to Palo Alto (one hour each way) to avoid taking the local buses (two hours each way) and driving on the freeway (20 minutes in the morning, 45 to 90 minutes in the evening). I'm sure my fellow passengers who work at Tesla, SAP, vmWare, Google, HP, Lockheed and Stanford will get a kick out of being considered a "poor demographic" in Silicon Valley.
Even if you weasel out of that, you still stated that you're the only white guy in your area and who rides your bus. So while the poor comment may be off (I really don't know if you're lying or not) that still means that the crowd isn't diverse, especially given the racial makeup of this country. This means that, like the GGP stated, minorities are segregated or otherwise concentrated.
Except for the folks in the leasing office, I'm the only white person in this complex. When I get on the bus, I'm usually the only white person on board and a half-dozen languages other than English is being spoken at any time. When I go to work in Palo Alto, I'm the only white person in the IT department.
I think you just confirmed what everybody else is saying, only you don't quite realize it. If you ride the bus, you probably don't make as much as those who drive their car to work, which means you live with the poorer demographic. And as you noted, you're the only white guy. I suspect that the people in your leasing office may not live at the apartment complex that they manage, and if they do, they may be the few of the people there that are gainfully employed.
How many people that live in actual houses there are non-white or non-asian?
For what it's worth, in my state of Arizona, which neighbors yours, (and supplies yours with a LOT of energy for its power grid) blacks and latinos roughly represent their actual percentage of the overall population in virtually any given area, except for a few places where latinos predominate (like the city of Guadalupe for example, but that probably has more to do with the fact that the official language of that place seems to be Spanish, and indeed all of the street names and signs are in Spanish.)
Though there is the general trend in the US that poor white people tend to like trailers, and poor black people tend to like run-down apartments, (I honestly have no idea why this is, or why it's not the opposite, but leaving the why's aside...) so if you go to outlying areas like this town called Apache-Junction, you'll find the white population slightly increases, and in the center of the Phoenix valley you'll find the black population slightly increases. Other than that; latinos, asians, etc, tend to be pretty evenly spread out.
Riiiight. Well, since you bring up trans issues all the time, how about that time I corrected you on the fact that FTM trans people get male pattern baldness, then you denied it, then I showed you proof, and then you just pretended like I never said it in every post afterwards, even when I brought it up again? Or how about when I corrected you with your false statement that trans people have a brain of the opposite gender?
As for your below comments, I was referring to the GPs know-it-all comment, not the de-emphasized portion. By English convention, parenthesis means you're de-emphasizing a specific portion of text (as opposed to double-hyphen, which is to emphasize it.)
Slashdot Mirror
Some companies still make physical keyboard Android phones, they're just unpopular.
Two years ago my mom begged me for a phone that had a keyboard, and after I bought it for her she had it for all of about 10 days before she wanted one without a keyboard.
controlling company that will cook elections
Curious, which elections did they cook? I remember them propping up Hillary, but that obviously didn't work.
the soviets were also not communist.
They were a pure command economy tied to a totalitarian leadership.
NONE of those things are communists. In POF, I doubt that we will ever see a communist nation ever on this planet. Probably the closest things are the farms in Israel.
We actually have seen it, just it doesn't last long at all. The USSR even began that way, but it declined so quickly that they had to replace the economic system with socialism.
For an excellent case study on this, read about the Icarians. They had plenty of resources, including a few cities already built whose prior residents just left, (i.e. Navoo Illinois, when the Mormons who built it were forced to leave by the state government) and even got to pick and choose who joined the commune, selecting those with a higher work ethic and rejecting those who didn't. In fact most who came were wealthy and gave up all of their possessions to the community, doing the whole "to each, from each" thing. The problem is, the GDP gradually declined and what happened to them is the same thing that happened to every communist country that came after them; they had to gradually establish a command economy, and the more they did this the more tired of it that people became until enough of them left that the whole thing just fell apart.
Russia tried to solve this by erecting a wall to keep people in and enacting "work truancy" laws (i.e. the police would make sure that you were at your designated place of work,) and that lasted them all of about 25 years, but they were still dirt poor the whole time. The Icarians weren't an official government though, and they had no ability to do this. They could have lasted longer if they did, but to what end? Communism is a really crappy idea no matter how you look at it.
Who needs future proofing when the cable only costs $4? At the rate new cables come out, it would take monster cable basically 50 years to break even with monoprice.
Cables made by monoprice also carry a lifetime warranty, plus free shipping when you make a claim.
I thought the whole thing with 4k was that Netflix only supports playready 3 on PCs, which Microsoft only implements in edge, while edge can't decode HEVC without hardware support in the CPU, and kaby lake is the only CPU that does so.
It's a really stupid set of dependencies.
That is basically what the numbers say. The 15% increase means these are mostly replacement PCs and laptops, and people likely cannot get Windows 7 for them easily or transfer it form their old machine.
I think it's more likely that 15% was gained during the most egregious cases of Microsoft pushing it really hard on windows 7 users (i.e., clicking the red X doesn't cancel the upgrade, or outright removing the red X) and doing other dirty tricks that are quite mean to their customers, like upgrading without any prompt at all and then you can't cancel until 10 is already installed and running where it shows you an EULA, then after you refuse the EULA it downgrades back to 7. Each operation is quite dangerous for the typical PC user because when things go wrong, (and they do) they usually can't fix it, or even be able to google a fix. But, Microsoft doesn't see a problem with that, as it went on all throughout the first half of the year. After that was over, the quarterly gains Windows 10 saw were very tiny, usually 0.5% +/- 0.15%
It will probably take two years or so before 10 sees a 30% market share, it will likely be until 2020 that it sees 7s current market share.
The problem I see with this is that white collar jobs have been replaced by technology for centuries, and at the same time, technology has enabled even more white collar jobs to exist than those that it replaced.
For example, the word "computer" used to be universally referred to as a job title, whereas today it's universally referred to as a machine.
Well, that would depend on how it was done. In the 80's, there was a situation that made it so that you had to be wealthy for even a chance of receiving a transplant because nobody wanted to donate organs without selling to the highest bidder.
However if it was a single buyer system (i.e. it's illegal for anybody to buy organs except for one designated entity) with the organ recipient not being expected (or even allowed) to personally compensate the donor, then you could eliminate that problem because there'd effectively be a fixed price.
And while price fixing does reduce supply in some markets, namely markets where it costs so much to provide the goods that some people just determine that it's not worth it to try to sell those goods (long lines at the gas pump in the 70's is a good example) in this case you're very much creating the opposite situation. Namely, people will want to do it because there's a decent financial reward, even if the price is fixed.
Here's an NIH paper on how Iran does it, and their model seems to work particularly well:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...
This will probably never happen in the US though. Too many people have this idea that it will lead to widespread organ theft, thanks to an old urban legend promoted by an episode of Law and Order where a dude woke up with a missing kidney. So far, there haven't been any actual confirmed cases of organ theft anywhere in the world, only unproven rumors.
The truth is, harvesting organs is not at all simple and it takes a lot of effort (and knowledge) to keep them alive outside of a body. Contrary to popular belief, you can't freeze organs, they can't come from a person who is dead on arrival, (only about 3% of all deaths are viable for organ harvesting) and you actually need a whole team of doctors just to harvest them, never mind implanting them.
And by the way, if you search Google for 'organ theft', the first two links are crap.
The first is a wikipedia page that mentions people selling their own organs on the black market, which does happen but it's by definition not theft, and the rest of the sources talk about a Kosovo incident that hasn't been confirmed; even Wikipedia's own dedicated page about the topic says so.
The second Google link is this:
https://www.psychologytoday.co...
Note that ALL THREE of the examples cited are either false or didn't result in actual organ theft.
- The Chinese kid's eyes were gouged out by his aunt.
- The African girl had nothing happen to her, and they wouldn't have done anything without her positive consent at any rate (it was a UK hospital, after all, and the donor has to agree multiple times over the span of a few weeks.)
- As for Kendrick Johnson, the fact that the brain was missing should immediately raise a red flag, and indeed it turns out that the doctor who performed the autopsy removed them, and the funeral home inserted newspaper to fill in the body cavity (which is legal; same with other common materials like cotton and sawdust.) After Kendrick Johnson's family lost the lawsuit, they're now being sued for defamation by multiple parties, and will probably lose.
Similar to the law against "sexual tourism", where it's illegal to travel to another country for the purposes of sexual acts that are illegal in the USA, but legal in the visited country.
I'm curious how that works, because those laws aren't at all uniform in the US. Most states have the legal age of consent at 16, some at 17, and some at 18.
However, even if people were permitted to sell organs, as part of their estate, then the money would be part of the estate. It would then be attached by the hospital that created the availability in the first place, as compensation for the medical expenses.
If it's done as single buyer, then hospital wouldn't be the buyer and wouldn't be involved financially, other than charging the recipient for the cost of the harvesting, which is something they already do.
This idea would also be for living donors, as what is currently done in Iran, so it wouldn't necessarily be for a deceased donor. Though I think $100k is excessive, rather I just gave it as an example, and something like $25,000 would be more realistic.
As being on the organ transplant list myself, I'm all too familiar with the reality of receiving an organ, and it's not exactly what pop culture makes it out to be. Transplanted organs typically don't last as long as the rest of your body and are actually a somewhat crappy form of treatment to an even crappier disease. It varies by organ, but you can expect around a 10 year half life for most transplants (meaning if you took 100 patients that received an organ, after 10 years check back with them, only 50 of them will still have that organ.)
And then of course, being on anti-rejection drugs is high maintenance and it just plain sucks.
But this isn't the worst part of it: If you live in the US, often times your wait can exceed 7 years due to the way individual transplant networks are segmented. If you happen to live near two hospitals that cover two different transplant networks (and thus can list twice) your odds are better. If you're like Steve Jobs and you have your own private jet and can fly anywhere in the country within an hour, then you can list everywhere and have an organ in no time.
Still though, it's better than nothing. I personally do like the idea of people being able to sell their organs, which would definitely level the playing field, just so long as it's done as a single buyer system with a fixed price. Countries that do it this way have practically zero organ shortage, and even if you were to pay $100,000 per patient, you'd still save a crapload money over what medicare pays for treatments like dialysis (the average dialysis patient costs medicare roughly $100,000 per year, whereas with a transplant it's a low, low price of $5,000 a year for the maintenance medication.)
The problem is those tiles are basically windows phone's crowning feature, and yet they are total non-functional crap compared to what Android widgets can do.
Windows tiles just flip at an uncontrollable interval, which means if you aren't looking at relevant information when it's up then who knows how long it will be till you actually see it again, and tapping it just launches the app. Also contrary to their namesake, they aren't actually live, rather they only update about once every 15 minutes. And then of course, they only have one of three possible layouts.
Android widgets are real-time, virtually unlimited dimensions, are interactive (I.e. you can scroll through your emails or calendar events rather than waiting for it to flip) and you can tap individual objects in the widget (for example, tapping an email opens that email, not just the app.)
And in fact, Android is so versatile that you can make it fully imitate the windows phone UI. And indeed, there are launchers on the play store that do exactly that.
Android's flexibility is exactly why it dominates the market, and windows phone's limited feature set "with a shiny UI!" is why it flopped.
Well on the plus side, for once Apple has run into a publication that it can't simply "press blacklist" for the crime of not giving one of their products a glowing review, like it has done to so many others.
Then again, maybe they will, because fuck it, they're Apple.
I don't think the "wealth gap" as you put it is really that big in most of the US. It's mostly just big in densely populated and high priced regions. Likewise, I think that problem feeds into itself. Think about it for a minute: Suppose you're homeless, where would you rather hop aboard the next freight train to? Phoenix, or LA? In Phoenix, people have less money and are less likely to toss money at homeless people, so its kind of obvious.
And then of course, when properties have high prices, it makes it more costly to survive, which means that if you are merely middle class, you're kind of screwed when it comes to housing.
And in spite of this (or perhaps because of this) these areas tend to be more left leaning, hence the left are probably more likely to complain about there being gaps between wealthy and poor, because where they live there's quite a difference, and for people outside of these areas there's much less of a difference between wealthy and poor. In fact, in my apartment complex here in Phoenix, I know of two neighbors who make over $200,000 per year, whereas I make about $80,000 per year.
According to TFS, she had both a heart attack AND a cardiac arrest, so indeed it sounds pretty horrible.
Robosexual.
It supposedly has a two level demo that you can play before you buy, but people who didn't buy thought the demo was lame. And to be honest, the game's controls sound like an easier version of flappy bird, hence I'm not interested in even trying it myself.
From what I understand, few people who downloaded it actually paid for it.
A lot of people keep saying that harassment has risen, but so far all I've seen is a big load of shit:
http://pix11.com/2016/12/14/mu...
http://www.bostonherald.com/ne...
http://www.nbcchicago.com/news...
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
You might be on to something there; Barbara Hudson threatened to ruin my life if I ever went to Canada and subsequently urged me to go there, even though I've never had any interest in going there. Barbara is of course welcome to Arizona where nobody will attempt the same thing, but it's ill advised to go to any singles bars without full disclosure in advance.
I pay $140 per month to ride the express bus to Palo Alto (one hour each way) to avoid taking the local buses (two hours each way) and driving on the freeway (20 minutes in the morning, 45 to 90 minutes in the evening). I'm sure my fellow passengers who work at Tesla, SAP, vmWare, Google, HP, Lockheed and Stanford will get a kick out of being considered a "poor demographic" in Silicon Valley.
Even if you weasel out of that, you still stated that you're the only white guy in your area and who rides your bus. So while the poor comment may be off (I really don't know if you're lying or not) that still means that the crowd isn't diverse, especially given the racial makeup of this country. This means that, like the GGP stated, minorities are segregated or otherwise concentrated.
Except for the folks in the leasing office, I'm the only white person in this complex. When I get on the bus, I'm usually the only white person on board and a half-dozen languages other than English is being spoken at any time. When I go to work in Palo Alto, I'm the only white person in the IT department.
I think you just confirmed what everybody else is saying, only you don't quite realize it. If you ride the bus, you probably don't make as much as those who drive their car to work, which means you live with the poorer demographic. And as you noted, you're the only white guy. I suspect that the people in your leasing office may not live at the apartment complex that they manage, and if they do, they may be the few of the people there that are gainfully employed.
How many people that live in actual houses there are non-white or non-asian?
For what it's worth, in my state of Arizona, which neighbors yours, (and supplies yours with a LOT of energy for its power grid) blacks and latinos roughly represent their actual percentage of the overall population in virtually any given area, except for a few places where latinos predominate (like the city of Guadalupe for example, but that probably has more to do with the fact that the official language of that place seems to be Spanish, and indeed all of the street names and signs are in Spanish.)
Though there is the general trend in the US that poor white people tend to like trailers, and poor black people tend to like run-down apartments, (I honestly have no idea why this is, or why it's not the opposite, but leaving the why's aside...) so if you go to outlying areas like this town called Apache-Junction, you'll find the white population slightly increases, and in the center of the Phoenix valley you'll find the black population slightly increases. Other than that; latinos, asians, etc, tend to be pretty evenly spread out.
Projecting yet again, I see.
Riiiight. Well, since you bring up trans issues all the time, how about that time I corrected you on the fact that FTM trans people get male pattern baldness, then you denied it, then I showed you proof, and then you just pretended like I never said it in every post afterwards, even when I brought it up again? Or how about when I corrected you with your false statement that trans people have a brain of the opposite gender?
As for your below comments, I was referring to the GPs know-it-all comment, not the de-emphasized portion. By English convention, parenthesis means you're de-emphasizing a specific portion of text (as opposed to double-hyphen, which is to emphasize it.)