Primarily0617

My abiliry to read?

women are socialised to read more, so unironically yes

it’s kind of telling that in the two examples you gave one of them actually was gender-linked

the concept of gender is very interwoven in society. changing it is not easy.

so if trans people have no power within society, how can they perpetuate gender norms within it?

Because the meaningful difference is socially created.

and how much bargaining power do you think that the trans community collectively has in society?

and before you answer, i don’t mean “on twitter”. e.g., dave chappelle has been cancelled on twitter, but still gets his own netflix specials and is seemingly friends with the richest person on the planet. jk rowling is still a billionaire that lives in a literal castle.

why do i fall for “i just have a few questions” every time ;(

ideally no, in practice yes

if assumed gender isn’t meaningful, why are you a self-described feminist? if there’s already no meaningful difference between genders, surely your work is done and you can go home?

saying people shouldn’t be put into boxes is one thing

saying people shouldn’t put themselves into boxes is another

like it or not, the gender boxes are going to keep existing for our lifetimes, and railing against them isn’t a task to be undertaken lightly given how thoroughly delighted terfs are to weaponise any such instance against the trans community

if you take comfort in boxing themselves up, you do you

deleting the concept of gender would be nice but isn’t practical as solution any time soon

see the ~2 minute section from 10:22

you can e2e encrypt emails though?

if you’re just going to take us back in circles again this discussion is a bit pointless, isn’t it?

if you aren’t refusing to acknowledge they’re ux problems, you’re saying it’s unhelpful to call them what they are, which is obviously nonsense

and again, sane defaults are ux

or i could argue that an issue 90% of people will run into is a higher priority than one 2% of people will run into

or i could argue than the risk of accidentally opening something you didn’t want to is higher than the risk of losing unsaved work

the reason foss sucks when it comes to ux is this attitude of insisting that ux problems are somehow some “other” category of problem, rather than an engineering constraint that needs to be designed around like every other one

case in point, for some reason you’re still refusing to acknowledge that they’re both ux problems. and if you do, your original reply ceases to even make sense.

yet very different

which is why my first words to you were “it is and it isn’t”

binning them into the same category is not helpful

both are caused by people in the foss space not paying enough attention to ux

increased attention to ux could solve both

personally i think categorising all work solely through the lens of severity is unhelpful

Single/double click behavior is a matter of preference.

And defaulting to the preference that most people prefer or are used to is a matter of UX.

Which is why I say they’re both UX decisions.

it is and it isn’t

they’re both bad UX, which FOSS is generally pretty bad at, probably because there’s not as much overlap between people who who are really into FOSS and people who are really into UX

linux-centric communities also tend to be plagued by elitism, which i expect stifles a lot of this kind of thing before proper conversations can take root

no, but lots of things about the employee-employer relationship are fucked up, but refusing to act around that information on principle is likely to affect your career somewhat

we all must toil under society—like it or not, even if the system is bad—while the current system remains in place

Honestly if you work for a large employer, I’d assume that

• they were always monitoring internal chats, just with more primitive keyword-based filters
• they have now upgraded to llm-based filters

powerful isn’t the same as well-structured

it was written to be a language that anybody could read or write as well as english, which just like every other time that’s been tried, results in a language that’s exactly as anal about grammar as C or Python except now it’s impossible to remember what that structure is because adding anything to the language to make that easier is forbidden

when you write a language where its designers were so keen for it to remain human readable that they made deleting all rows in a table the default action, i don’t think “well structured” can be used to describe it

sql syntax doesn’t support even itself correctly i fail to see your point

if you don’t believe that adding more structure to the absolute maniacal catastrophe that is sql is a good thing then i’m going to start to have doubts about your authenticity as a human being

why are you the way that you are?