![](/static/253f0d9b/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
![](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/8286e071-7449-4413-a084-1eb5242e2cf4.png)
Depends on how you define ‘cost’ I suppose, but seems like the trade off isn’t worth it for you, which is fair.
Some might value the perceived benefits much higher than you do.
Depends on how you define ‘cost’ I suppose, but seems like the trade off isn’t worth it for you, which is fair.
Some might value the perceived benefits much higher than you do.
What if the life I’m imagining I’m protecting is one where I have the option of choosing a platform/application that isn’t scraping the absolute dregs of the barrel to squeeze out that last bit of profit margin.
That’s a win win right?
The way that sentence is structured implies otherwise, but that could be a misinterpretation on my part, I suppose.
Interesting, thank you for taking the time to write all of that up.
Do you have any information on how easy the resumption of puberty is after that sort of delay?
It never occurred to me that this was possible and I’m interested in how it might work.
Labels aside, the only thing that post contains is a personal opinion, a personal anecdote and then an unspecific reference to something that may or may not exist.
Calling that an argument is a very generous interpretation.
The overview had no mention of a lack of support for “not transitioning” it’s certainly possible I’m missing it or it’s in the full report (which I’ll read when I get a few minutes).
One mention of the need for corresponding levels of support for de-transitioning and some mentions of increased support for other issues alongside the gender based ones.
It sounds like OP had a specific section/sections in mind, if this is indeed the report they were referencing I’d appreciate some indication to which part they were referencing specifically.
“The overview didn’t mention it, but its somewhere in this 232 page report” isn’t the most useful when trying to understand where someone is coming from.
The UK has recently done research on the matter and realised that children were not getting the support required for not transitioning.
Citation?
I mean, yes? That’s a good summation.
The part where you get to call something “open source” by OSI standards (which I’m pretty sure is the accepted standard set) but only if you adhere to those standards.
Don’t want to adhere, no problem, but nobody who does accept that standard will agree with you if you try and assign that label to something that doesn’t adhere, because that’s how commonly accepted standards work, socially.
Want to make an “open source 2 : electric boogaloo” licence , still no problem.
Want to try and get the existing open source standards changed, still good, difficult, but doable.
Relevant to this discussion, trying to convince people that someone claiming something doesn’t adhere to the current, socially accepted open source standards, when anybody can go look those standards up and check, is the longest of shots.
To address the bible example, plenty of variations exist, with smaller or larger deviations from each other, and they each have their own set of believers, some are even compatible with each other.
Much like the “true” 1 open source licences and the other, “closely related, but not quite legit” 2 variations.
1 As defined by the existing, community accepted standards set forth by the OSI
2 Any other set of standards that isn’t compatible with 1
edit: clarified that last sentence, it was borderline unparseable
“It’s not libre / free as in freedom so it’s wrong”.
I think it’s more “It’s not libre / free as in freedom so it’s not open source, don’t pretend it is”.
The “wrong” part would be derived from claiming its something that it isn’t to gain some advantage. I’m this case community contributions.
There’s not a handwaving distinction between open source and not, there are pretty clear guidelines.
That’s reasonable
I don’t know about the fairness of this particular company but by that rationale nothing can ever be fair, just by existing we increase the suffering. Its how the world is.
Think headphones jacks don’t cause suffering at some point in the chain?
Not that I’m disagreeing, just not sure how things would get named under this specific scheme.
Does it assume that it’s generally understood that everything is a little harmful in some way, so as long as you don’t claim otherwise, it’s cool or would everything need to be measured on some sort of average harmfulness scale and then include the rating in the title.
Like “Horrendously harmful Apple” or “Mildly harmful Colgate”
A bit hyperbolic perhaps.
Genuinely not trying to start a fight, actually interested in what you think would be a good way of doing this, as I’ve occasionally pondered it myself and never come up with a good answer.
Incidentally, this is one of the core plotlines to later seasons of “The good place”
if someone pointing out that you are saying “fact” but aren’t meeting any of the definitions of a fact seems like an attack to you i suspect you’re probably having a bad time on the internet. Again you dodge most of the actual points of the conversation, probably intentionally.
Also i’m pretty sure “Fucking lmfao.” has a redundant “Fucking” in it , but I’m not holding my breath on you caring about that given how this has gone so far.
Doesn’t seem like this is going to go anywhere interesting, so I’ll just add you to the blocklist and be happy nothing of value(to me) was lost.
Here is one example
The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, adopted during the French Revolution in 1789, specifically affirmed freedom of speech as an inalienable right.[6] Adopted in 1791, freedom of speech is a feature of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
I mean you can just find in page for “United States”
Also , not american (a good example of an actual fact) and i very specifically ruled out the typical american interpretation of freedom of speech.
The fact that i was asking you what interpretation you were using implies i recognise more than just one, so even if i were american (again, not american) the question would still stand.
I also , very specifically asked what interpretation you were using for your argument, but it seems we’ve skipped over the questions entirely and gone straight to factually incorrect personal attacks.
I’ll just assume you don’t have an answer to the actual question given no attempt was made to actually answer it, or perhaps you think your position is unassailable and an answer is beneath you.
Regardless, good luck with fact pointing i suppose.
edit: added answer to your question
Did you mean to reply to me? Or the person above?
Describe what you mean by “freedom of speech” here, I’m assuming you don’t mean the first amendment because that only applies in the US and only for protection against congress ( the US congress ofc ).
Given the above I’m not sure what line you mean here, libel/slander?
You can only point out facts that exist, well, you can technically point out whatever you like and call it “fact” i suppose, but it’s not really accurate unless it’s an actual fact.
Unless accuracy isn’t what you were going for ?
In case you were wondering : https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/fact
Unless you’re a big corp, then fuck with impunity but make sure to pay the “cost of doing business” tax.
If the tax is too high, just buy some lobbyists or political system equivalent.
Second, at least here in Germany Telegram has become the main platform for conspiracy nuts and antidemocratic organizations. Someone who is “very active” on Telegram is most certainly an idiot.
Bet the majority of them drive cars as well.
For me specifically, the setup and config oftentimes is what I’m doing with the computer, the learning and knowledge gained from the practice is what I’m after, which is good because it’s significantly less fun than it used to be.
Admittedly mine is probably a non-standard case and it ties in with other things in my life.
Condolences on your loss.