Of course there are people and things forcing it. One such thing is called "starvation risk". Another is called "foreclosure risk". And then there are the big users of those two things, called "politicians" and "capitalists", who then employ a third thing called "buying laws" so as to make it all work pretty well in their own favor. But they're nice, and let you take home the breadcrumbs.
That depends. If a private media organization is in a monopolistic or quasi-monopolistic position, and the government has extensive influence over that organization, then the government may get it to act as unofficial censor without breaking any anti-censorship law that prevents the government itself from censoring.
That also works with a few layer of indirection added, so that it doesn't look so obvious. For instance, the government may have influence over private companies, who in turn have huge ad budgets and thus have influence over private media organizations, and then approve laws preventing ads from companies it doesn't have influence over, so that these lose the influence they had over the same private media organizations.
19th century laws aren't meant to deal with this kind of scenario.
When the whole purpose of an OS is to provide a persistent application environment and manage services...
Oh? Who said that's the "whole" purpose of an OS? It'd seem to me that for major players it's most definitely not the case.
Forgive me, but firing up full stacks based on demand is just stupid. It represents a failure of imagination on the part of server devs.
It saves tons of money for data center customers, and it generates tons of savings for data center managers, so even if it involves a failure of imagination it most definitely results in a success of economics for all the parties involved.
Also, it forces good IT practices not because they're nice to have or because they're demanded by upper management, but because they're necessary. When a guest system must be created, recreated and updated in a strictly predictable manner so that all virtual machines run exactly the same, exactly as expected, with the required settings perfectly set, and all of this traceable, there's no space for quick fixes. The source-controlled scripts responsible for doing that provide an extremely useful, and strictly reproducible, overview of what's going on at any point in time.
Oh, of course, I know what your issue is! We do not do "toy" computing.
It's called "cloud computing", maybe you heard about it? You know, firing up and shutting down guest OS instances as demand increases and decreases? At very slow times you may be running five or ten instances. At peak activity times you may be firing up a new full stack guest OS once per second at several data centers at once. And those guest OS boot ups and shutdowns must be FAST.
If your application requires a set of servers running non-stop, good for you. Different use cases, different optimizations, different distros.
Modern uptime for data centers is measured in hours. Sure, the background host OS holding the dozens to thousands of guests may have an uptime of years, but guests that come up and go down all the time are by far the most common use case nowadays. As such, extremely fast boot times should be the modern priority for any distro targeting a dada center, unless it's specifically targeted at the much smaller segment of bate metal machines.
Here in Brazil this is so common that all financial departments of all companies are trained to spot fake billings. Ours always calls our department to check whether a bill that seems related to what we do is legit. And there must be a paper trail showing the goods or services the bill refers to was in fact originally approved by someone with the authority to approve them.
By the way, Brazilian law doesn't consider it a crime to send random bills. Anyone can bill anyone anything as long as they use the proper, standardized, bank-approved method, called "boleto". This makes fake billings even more difficult to distinguish from real ones...
It's not a single study. There have been several since the first was published, all corroborating the original findings while providing even more precise measurements as technology advanced.
they didn't control for hormones the subjects were taking.
I find it unlikely that hormone usage after the brain mostly finished its plasticity phase, and even after it finished it, would be able to change the physiology that radically. We're taking differences in the volumes, neuronal density and synaptic density of different areas, as well as absolute and relative amounts of connectivity. But it's possible hormones an some effect, yes, including in the womb. That's left for future studies focused on figuring out causalities, as these are still more about correlations than causes.
Indeed. The Wikipedia article on the subject link to the most relevant peer reviewed articles on the physiological differences between brains of transsexuals and those of non-transsexuals, which in turn highlight the physiological differences between male and female human brains. Focus on the huge "Biological factors" section and its links and you're good to go.
PS: There's also a small section with psychological speculations, but those are fluff you can ignore without problems.
either there are differences or there aren't, you can't flip flop
I'm not a SJW. There are differences, they're biological, they're measurable, they've been measured, this has been published in peer reviewed medical literature, and it's been corroborated in multiple further medical studies also published in peer reviewed medical literature.
Wikipedia already has a set of rules for paid content: WP:Paid. TL;DR version: It is allowed provided there's disclosure and all the other rules are strictly followed.
any subject with sources can be covered and that multiple versions are allowed so you can't revert because there will always be an alternative version available
I think viXra provides most of what you're looking for.
I recall a famous author being unable to remove a false statement in his own bio because he couldn't edit it, and other editors refused to do it because he couldn't cite a third party.
But here's the gist of that rule: how do you know it was a false statement? Because he said so? Okay, but what of the Notable source that provided that statement? Was that one in the wrong then? Isn't it at least reasonable that editors should put more credibility on a 3rd party notable source that presumably did research on the topic, compared to the word of someone who is hurt by that research and would prefer it to be vaporized?
See, if the statement is truly false, the author could have asked the cited source to remove it, and once it was removed, tell editors that the incorrect source issued a correction. Then editors would see the citation is invalid, and then remove it.
It isn't the job of a summary of the available sources, which is what Wikipedia is, to make judgments on their accuracy. Once the sources changes, so does the summary, but not the other way around.
20 years of physiological studies have shown brains of people with gender dysphoria are physiologically similar to the average brain of people of the other sex. Even the rate at which this happens is known: about one in every 20 thousand newborns have the condition.
So, no, they did no bullying. They demanded medical studies, those studies were made, and they confirmed the condition is real.
Now the challenge is in figuring out what causes brains of fetuses to develop in this way and whether there's a way to prevent this, or somehow help them, before the misalignment between their body and the neurological mapping their brain have of their body causes the onset of the very real disease that is gender dysphoria. Otherwise, sex reassignment surgery will remain, for the foreseeable future, the only available, partial solution, for reducing the disease symptoms.
Sure the content doesn’t bother them, but because it doesn’t bother them they probably don’t see the need to moderate it.
Actually, psychopaths are quite skilled at knowing what will bother others, even if it doesn't bother them personally, so they wouldn't really have difficulty moderating this kind of content.
This is the kind of job best suited for psychopaths. I don't mean that in jest. A psychopath doesn't become ill by seeing any of this, their mind is wired such that it doesn't affect them. And there are highly functioning, non-murderous psychopaths that'd do this job if the pay was high enough.
Alas, no company would want that cost, so psychologically damaging sane individuals in exchange for saving money it'll be, at least until laws protecting workers from psychological harm are enacted and enforced with the same rigor of laws protecting workers from bodily harm.
In other words, all the involved will receive huge quarter bonuses for a few years, then once it badly backfires they will have departed with golden parachutes, while PepsiCo fills for bankruptcy, right?
Alas, that doesn't do much good when you do it on a rooted phone. On older Android versions the undeletable embedded version comes in the system partition, so deleting it doesn't provide you any usable storage space. On newer Android version the system-installed one is just a stub, so it already doesn't use much of that unusable space to begin with.
The main advantages in removing those apps are their icons disappearing, and no background process of theirs starting to use your processor and battery.
I wonder why more people don't put out claims against media from the larger companies through these forms
I guess lots of people do. And YouTube probably has set their system up so those are ignored, after all, it'd be bad for business to have random people taking down profitable "too big to fail" partners' videos and channels, so they most certainly get special exemptions.
There's an additional penalty: YouTube's automated system doesn't require a DMCA claim to be submitted, it's an entirely internal system. If you fight back a false claim that went through that method, and then the claimant sends a DMCA complain, whatever minimal remedies it provides are in theory applicable. But it rarely gets to that point. Most stuff gets taken down in a DMCA-less manner, bound only to YouTube's terms of use and contracts with its major media partners, and that's it.
So let's hear those alternatives solutions, I'm all ears.
In China and other Asian countries people are obsessive about saving. I remember reading it's common for people to save 50% of their income. Besides, healthcare costs in the US are much higher than basically everywhere else due to the insane way American laws on this area are structured. Combine both things and you get a much more reasonable outcome.
So, googling a little I found that in China a surgery as the one you had costs about 7.5 times less than you paid, ~$21k (no idea whether that's up to date though). Beijing's average salary is ~$1.3k/month. Supposing one saves half that per month, that's ~33 months (~3 years) of savings to pay for the surgery. Twice that much if one saves 25%, or a little bit more (~7 years) if one saves 20%. Expensive for sure, but not backbreaking.
Now let's look at the $160k you paid. The average US salary is ~$3,7k/month. Supposing it's an average person who follows the soundest advice for saving 20% of their income, that's ~$740/month, or ~216 months (~18 years) of savings to pay for the surgery. So the US "typical best case" scenario is still 2.5 times worse than the Chinese worst case scenario. And few do even that much, so getting into debt it is.
And for a third point, here in Brazil an excellent health care plan, as the one I have, costs about $180/month, and covers surgeries such as yours plus hospitalization plus all related costs, including 365/days of UCI per years if needed. That's the full price if I were to pay for it out of pocket, but given my job pays most of it, it actually costs me $65/month.
A mix of minimally sane laws plus a culture of saving, as done in China, is therefore one alternative. Another is sane health care prices prices with continuous oversight of the government and competition from free (even if bad) free public hospitals, as done in Brazil, which combined force private health care prices down. And then there's the actual best alternative, which is European-style good free health care.
Why you Americans opt to suffer the way you do when it comes to health care, that's what I absolutely don't understand. You have the hugest GDP in the world. It'd be orders of magnitude more than what's required to fix this nonsense. Why you don't do that is, for me, a mystery.
True. Depending on the case that may be stages 2, 3 or 4.
In stage 2 the person moves up from reward vs. punishment into an easier to understand mode of pure self-interest. It's typical of older children who haven't entered puberty yet. They understand they need to offer some benefit to others and take them into consideration so as to get benefits for themselves, but as soon as the other person ceases to be useful they leave her behind and, if needed, have no qualms about stepping on them. I think most big-shot CEOs and politicians are stuck here.
In stage 3 the person begins to feel they're part of a group and tries to fit the mold. It's typical of tweens and teenagers. The person identifies with a group and from then on "right" is whatever the group (and group leader, if it has one) thinks is right, and "wrong" is whatever the group thinks is wrong. If the group happens to be a charitable organization that provides soup to the needy, excellent. If it's a murderous rapist gang, or a Wall Street firm specialized on finding the cheapest sweat shops with the highest level of unpaid child labor so as to reduce clients' production costs by $0.002 per unit, well...
In stage 4 the person begins to feel inter-group relations are important so as to form a stable society, so they switch into thinking in terms of law, order and general rules as one's well-being, as well as the well-being of others one cares for, are perceived as depending on a mostly peaceful public sphere. This is typical of young adults who managed to not get stuck in any of the first three stages. The problem is that for most any social order that provides that is fine, while others dispute about how to best organize society as a whole and that leads to conflicts. Many at this stage would be quite fine with what you described in your second paragraph as long as it didn't break the social fabric and didn't directly impact themselves and theirs.
These four stages provide means to justify that state of affairs, without necessarily involving cognitive dissonance. The justification becomes increasingly complex with the stage level, but it's easy to come to anyway...
Slashdot Mirror
No one is forcing you to give away anything.
Of course there are people and things forcing it. One such thing is called "starvation risk". Another is called "foreclosure risk". And then there are the big users of those two things, called "politicians" and "capitalists", who then employ a third thing called "buying laws" so as to make it all work pretty well in their own favor. But they're nice, and let you take home the breadcrumbs.
It comes from the fact that it is true.
That depends. If a private media organization is in a monopolistic or quasi-monopolistic position, and the government has extensive influence over that organization, then the government may get it to act as unofficial censor without breaking any anti-censorship law that prevents the government itself from censoring.
That also works with a few layer of indirection added, so that it doesn't look so obvious. For instance, the government may have influence over private companies, who in turn have huge ad budgets and thus have influence over private media organizations, and then approve laws preventing ads from companies it doesn't have influence over, so that these lose the influence they had over the same private media organizations.
19th century laws aren't meant to deal with this kind of scenario.
When the whole purpose of an OS is to provide a persistent application environment and manage services...
Oh? Who said that's the "whole" purpose of an OS? It'd seem to me that for major players it's most definitely not the case.
Forgive me, but firing up full stacks based on demand is just stupid. It represents a failure of imagination on the part of server devs.
It saves tons of money for data center customers, and it generates tons of savings for data center managers, so even if it involves a failure of imagination it most definitely results in a success of economics for all the parties involved.
Also, it forces good IT practices not because they're nice to have or because they're demanded by upper management, but because they're necessary. When a guest system must be created, recreated and updated in a strictly predictable manner so that all virtual machines run exactly the same, exactly as expected, with the required settings perfectly set, and all of this traceable, there's no space for quick fixes. The source-controlled scripts responsible for doing that provide an extremely useful, and strictly reproducible, overview of what's going on at any point in time.
Oh, of course, I know what your issue is! We do not do "toy" computing.
It's called "cloud computing", maybe you heard about it? You know, firing up and shutting down guest OS instances as demand increases and decreases? At very slow times you may be running five or ten instances. At peak activity times you may be firing up a new full stack guest OS once per second at several data centers at once. And those guest OS boot ups and shutdowns must be FAST.
If your application requires a set of servers running non-stop, good for you. Different use cases, different optimizations, different distros.
Modern uptime for data centers is measured in hours. Sure, the background host OS holding the dozens to thousands of guests may have an uptime of years, but guests that come up and go down all the time are by far the most common use case nowadays. As such, extremely fast boot times should be the modern priority for any distro targeting a dada center, unless it's specifically targeted at the much smaller segment of bate metal machines.
Nobody cares about Brazil.
Good! (y)
Here in Brazil this is so common that all financial departments of all companies are trained to spot fake billings. Ours always calls our department to check whether a bill that seems related to what we do is legit. And there must be a paper trail showing the goods or services the bill refers to was in fact originally approved by someone with the authority to approve them.
By the way, Brazilian law doesn't consider it a crime to send random bills. Anyone can bill anyone anything as long as they use the proper, standardized, bank-approved method, called "boleto". This makes fake billings even more difficult to distinguish from real ones...
If that's the study I think you are referencing,
It's not a single study. There have been several since the first was published, all corroborating the original findings while providing even more precise measurements as technology advanced.
they didn't control for hormones the subjects were taking.
I find it unlikely that hormone usage after the brain mostly finished its plasticity phase, and even after it finished it, would be able to change the physiology that radically. We're taking differences in the volumes, neuronal density and synaptic density of different areas, as well as absolute and relative amounts of connectivity. But it's possible hormones an some effect, yes, including in the womb. That's left for future studies focused on figuring out causalities, as these are still more about correlations than causes.
you are an idiot
And proudly so! :-D :-D :-D
it means you can provide links.
Indeed. The Wikipedia article on the subject link to the most relevant peer reviewed articles on the physiological differences between brains of transsexuals and those of non-transsexuals, which in turn highlight the physiological differences between male and female human brains. Focus on the huge "Biological factors" section and its links and you're good to go.
PS: There's also a small section with psychological speculations, but those are fluff you can ignore without problems.
either there are differences or there aren't, you can't flip flop
I'm not a SJW. There are differences, they're biological, they're measurable, they've been measured, this has been published in peer reviewed medical literature, and it's been corroborated in multiple further medical studies also published in peer reviewed medical literature.
Wikipedia already has a set of rules for paid content: WP:Paid. TL;DR version: It is allowed provided there's disclosure and all the other rules are strictly followed.
any subject with sources can be covered and that multiple versions are allowed so you can't revert because there will always be an alternative version available
I think viXra provides most of what you're looking for.
I recall a famous author being unable to remove a false statement in his own bio because he couldn't edit it, and other editors refused to do it because he couldn't cite a third party.
But here's the gist of that rule: how do you know it was a false statement? Because he said so? Okay, but what of the Notable source that provided that statement? Was that one in the wrong then? Isn't it at least reasonable that editors should put more credibility on a 3rd party notable source that presumably did research on the topic, compared to the word of someone who is hurt by that research and would prefer it to be vaporized?
See, if the statement is truly false, the author could have asked the cited source to remove it, and once it was removed, tell editors that the incorrect source issued a correction. Then editors would see the citation is invalid, and then remove it.
It isn't the job of a summary of the available sources, which is what Wikipedia is, to make judgments on their accuracy. Once the sources changes, so does the summary, but not the other way around.
20 years of physiological studies have shown brains of people with gender dysphoria are physiologically similar to the average brain of people of the other sex. Even the rate at which this happens is known: about one in every 20 thousand newborns have the condition.
So, no, they did no bullying. They demanded medical studies, those studies were made, and they confirmed the condition is real.
Now the challenge is in figuring out what causes brains of fetuses to develop in this way and whether there's a way to prevent this, or somehow help them, before the misalignment between their body and the neurological mapping their brain have of their body causes the onset of the very real disease that is gender dysphoria. Otherwise, sex reassignment surgery will remain, for the foreseeable future, the only available, partial solution, for reducing the disease symptoms.
Sure the content doesn’t bother them, but because it doesn’t bother them they probably don’t see the need to moderate it.
Actually, psychopaths are quite skilled at knowing what will bother others, even if it doesn't bother them personally, so they wouldn't really have difficulty moderating this kind of content.
Such anger at psychology and psychiatry... are you perchance a scientologist?
Well paid, highly functional psychopaths.
This is the kind of job best suited for psychopaths. I don't mean that in jest. A psychopath doesn't become ill by seeing any of this, their mind is wired such that it doesn't affect them. And there are highly functioning, non-murderous psychopaths that'd do this job if the pay was high enough.
Alas, no company would want that cost, so psychologically damaging sane individuals in exchange for saving money it'll be, at least until laws protecting workers from psychological harm are enacted and enforced with the same rigor of laws protecting workers from bodily harm.
In other words, all the involved will receive huge quarter bonuses for a few years, then once it badly backfires they will have departed with golden parachutes, while PepsiCo fills for bankruptcy, right?
Alas, that doesn't do much good when you do it on a rooted phone. On older Android versions the undeletable embedded version comes in the system partition, so deleting it doesn't provide you any usable storage space. On newer Android version the system-installed one is just a stub, so it already doesn't use much of that unusable space to begin with.
The main advantages in removing those apps are their icons disappearing, and no background process of theirs starting to use your processor and battery.
I wonder why more people don't put out claims against media from the larger companies through these forms
I guess lots of people do. And YouTube probably has set their system up so those are ignored, after all, it'd be bad for business to have random people taking down profitable "too big to fail" partners' videos and channels, so they most certainly get special exemptions.
There's an additional penalty: YouTube's automated system doesn't require a DMCA claim to be submitted, it's an entirely internal system. If you fight back a false claim that went through that method, and then the claimant sends a DMCA complain, whatever minimal remedies it provides are in theory applicable. But it rarely gets to that point. Most stuff gets taken down in a DMCA-less manner, bound only to YouTube's terms of use and contracts with its major media partners, and that's it.
So let's hear those alternatives solutions, I'm all ears.
In China and other Asian countries people are obsessive about saving. I remember reading it's common for people to save 50% of their income. Besides, healthcare costs in the US are much higher than basically everywhere else due to the insane way American laws on this area are structured. Combine both things and you get a much more reasonable outcome.
So, googling a little I found that in China a surgery as the one you had costs about 7.5 times less than you paid, ~$21k (no idea whether that's up to date though). Beijing's average salary is ~$1.3k/month. Supposing one saves half that per month, that's ~33 months (~3 years) of savings to pay for the surgery. Twice that much if one saves 25%, or a little bit more (~7 years) if one saves 20%. Expensive for sure, but not backbreaking.
Now let's look at the $160k you paid. The average US salary is ~$3,7k/month. Supposing it's an average person who follows the soundest advice for saving 20% of their income, that's ~$740/month, or ~216 months (~18 years) of savings to pay for the surgery. So the US "typical best case" scenario is still 2.5 times worse than the Chinese worst case scenario. And few do even that much, so getting into debt it is.
And for a third point, here in Brazil an excellent health care plan, as the one I have, costs about $180/month, and covers surgeries such as yours plus hospitalization plus all related costs, including 365/days of UCI per years if needed. That's the full price if I were to pay for it out of pocket, but given my job pays most of it, it actually costs me $65/month.
A mix of minimally sane laws plus a culture of saving, as done in China, is therefore one alternative. Another is sane health care prices prices with continuous oversight of the government and competition from free (even if bad) free public hospitals, as done in Brazil, which combined force private health care prices down. And then there's the actual best alternative, which is European-style good free health care.
Why you Americans opt to suffer the way you do when it comes to health care, that's what I absolutely don't understand. You have the hugest GDP in the world. It'd be orders of magnitude more than what's required to fix this nonsense. Why you don't do that is, for me, a mystery.
True. Depending on the case that may be stages 2, 3 or 4.
In stage 2 the person moves up from reward vs. punishment into an easier to understand mode of pure self-interest. It's typical of older children who haven't entered puberty yet. They understand they need to offer some benefit to others and take them into consideration so as to get benefits for themselves, but as soon as the other person ceases to be useful they leave her behind and, if needed, have no qualms about stepping on them. I think most big-shot CEOs and politicians are stuck here.
In stage 3 the person begins to feel they're part of a group and tries to fit the mold. It's typical of tweens and teenagers. The person identifies with a group and from then on "right" is whatever the group (and group leader, if it has one) thinks is right, and "wrong" is whatever the group thinks is wrong. If the group happens to be a charitable organization that provides soup to the needy, excellent. If it's a murderous rapist gang, or a Wall Street firm specialized on finding the cheapest sweat shops with the highest level of unpaid child labor so as to reduce clients' production costs by $0.002 per unit, well...
In stage 4 the person begins to feel inter-group relations are important so as to form a stable society, so they switch into thinking in terms of law, order and general rules as one's well-being, as well as the well-being of others one cares for, are perceived as depending on a mostly peaceful public sphere. This is typical of young adults who managed to not get stuck in any of the first three stages. The problem is that for most any social order that provides that is fine, while others dispute about how to best organize society as a whole and that leads to conflicts. Many at this stage would be quite fine with what you described in your second paragraph as long as it didn't break the social fabric and didn't directly impact themselves and theirs.
These four stages provide means to justify that state of affairs, without necessarily involving cognitive dissonance. The justification becomes increasingly complex with the stage level, but it's easy to come to anyway...