If you’re dealing with relationship advice, the differences from one person to another are substantially greater than those which separate men and women. Even if we ignore transgender and same-gender relationships, or how a huge portion of western society’s gender differences are just toxic sexism.

“How can I (M) suggest $FETISH to partner (F)” is essentially the same question if you swap the genders, make them both F, or make them both M. And to the extent that they aren’t, many of the answers and clarifying questions will be.

Who I am and who did the study should be irrelevant. An idea should stand on its own or not.

Or do you really want to be the sort of person who dismissed Einstein as “Jewish science” or who told the Wright brothers that heavier than air flight is impossible? (Or, worse, the sort of person who pays for a scam “bomb sniffer” after a terrorist attack, or assumes Donald must be smart because he’s rich?)

It’s perfectly fine to answer a question with “I don’t know,” especially when your other option is “no, the emperor must have clothes on.”

Since you read it, and don’t reference them addressing the fact pattern I mentioned, I’m not sure reading it would be worth my time. I’d love to be convinced, however, if you can answer one question.

How did she categorize a movement as “non-violent” or not?

It shouldn’t be. Asserting that “no non-violent protests have failed” ignores an obvious null hypothesis.

Tyrannical regimes attack non-violent protests that get large enough, and then call said movements “violent” to justify what the state did to them.

There are no such things as unreconcilable contradictions.

*: and by “common” I mean “as I believe most Christians understand it.”. I’m sure some don’t, and that there’s at least one sect that would call me funny names for saying anything.

Common* christian theology posits that God is a perfect judge of law and fact, seeing as she has both infinite patience, infinite subjective time, and accurate knowledge of everyone’s points of view.

“Why does evil persist on Earth then” comes down to either said evil being necessary for some unseen purpose, said evil being irrelevant to God’s plans, or said evil being the consequence of some mortal privilege. Or some combination thereof.

There has been a lot of christian thought about why evil persists, and settling on an answer to it is essentially the base of all persistent ecumenical schisms. Other religions add even greater complexity, because once you examine perspectives off the abeahamic tree you quickly find that not even “Good” is consistently defined.

The moral and philosophical questions don’t get much easier if you remove God from the equation, or even if you adopt a nihilistic “only the momentary physical now matters” perspective.

If you don’t believe me, try coming up with an answer to “why is killing bad” that you can get agreement on. (Not just “is killing bad,” but an actual casual why.)

According to snopes, it looks like you need either fraud, professional misconduct, or an interaction beyond an anonymous donation.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/woman-sued-sperm-donor-for-child-support/

'course, it’s easy to imagine a woman telling some guy she wants a “sperm donor” and then being awarded child support. Which, in fairness, is also usually a strong argument from the guy to have partial custody.

And “dance”, “on”, “the head of”, and “pin”.

“Can” weirdly enough doesn’t have sufficient variation to introduce uncertainty here.

The customer for anyone selling PC components or accessories is whomever owns the PC. And if you dont have admin rights, you essentially don’t own the PC.

Would you let your teenage kid approve a mechanic you don’t know making changes to your car?

Graceful degredation is a choice, made in the negative by survivors of the dot-com bubbles that fiercely want to extract a level of customer loyalty that mere “actual companies” could never dream of.

Business software is a weird world. Made weirder than there absolutely are people paid by Intuit (not OP) whose job is to convince people who don’t currently pay for QuickBooks that paying for QuickBooks will solve whatever quickbooks-esque problem they have.

It’s worse in the IT side. I’m modestly sure that COBOL and Java are only still around because of IBM and Oracle sales staff.

(Maybe less so for Java than COBOL. Or maybe Oracle’s sales team is just better.)

Starts reading.

“Hmm, I wonder where the presumption that pre-colonial values were entirely different than colonial ones comes from.”

Get to the part about all the speakers at the conference being white

“Oh, there it is.”

Racists and regressives do come in every color, but looking like the khlam or a meeting or the “my great grandpappy helped conquer Africa for Europe” club is something else altogether.

Honestly, at this point I’d settle for just “AI cannot be bundled with anything else.”

Neither my cell phone nor TV nor thermostat should ever have a built-in LLM “feature” that sends data to an unknown black box on somebody else’s server.

(I’m all down for killing with fire and debt any model built on stolen inputs,.too. OpenAI should be put in a hole so deep that they’re neighbors with Napster.)

Clear reporting should include not just the incremental environmental cost of each query, but also a statement of the invested cost in the underlying training.

deleted by creator

That’s like asserting that a self-defense claim is an argument that you didn’t hit the other guy. You really did hit him (copyright infringement / assault), but you have a defense that admits the literal facts but absolves you of liability (fair use / self-defense.)

You don’t need to argue self-defense if you can convince the court that you didn’t actually hit the other guy.

Fair use doesn’t even enter the picture unless it’s a copyright violation.

When you use someone else’s copyright work in a way that they could take you to court to stop you, you can in some situations argue that the way you infringed on their copyright should be allowed: that is, that your use of the thing was fair.

OP’s question smells like a software development question. Which would be well served by a straightforward answer of “if the parts you cut out are still protected by copyright, then your assembly and trace would be a derivative work”.

If you think either Apple or Microsoft wouldn’t do that,.you’ve likely too young to know about “hackingtosh” computers or too nerdy to have read the windows 11 coverage.

That neither company would do it without a profit motive is a good argument to ban both from running “app stores”.

TY and YM.

Worth noting is that “transgender” is not a shortened form of “transitioning gender”, but instead itself derives from the same latin root as “transition”, as do “transfigure” or “transform”.

So, “transgender” is closer to “changed gender” than “gender in flux.”

(Which is similar to how “transphobe” or “homophobe” mean exclusion, as in “hydrophobic”, and not fear as in “arachnophobia”)

FWIW.