![](https://pawb.social/pictrs/image/304395c4-489a-4eab-9069-0e82790113ab.png)
![](https://fry.gs/pictrs/image/c6832070-8625-4688-b9e5-5d519541e092.png)
Now?
I recall a project that had rat brain cells controlling a turtlebot years ago.
Now?
I recall a project that had rat brain cells controlling a turtlebot years ago.
Don’t bother.
Instead, start preparing for the inevitable:
Poe’s Law and its corrolaries are the bane of my existence. XD
It’s hard to laugh at absurdity when a not-insignificant percentage of the population genuinely believes it to be truth.
Where’s the /s?
I’m not kidding, I can’t tell if you’re being sincere or sarcastic. XD
Prolactin and oxytocin, mostly.
Those aren’t lasers, they’re millimeter-wave radio beams.
Yes, they can be deflected pretty easily, but you’ll need metal shield that’s big enough to entirely hide behind.
Downvote all the live services!
In the tech industry, when a system doesn’t work and can’t be fixed we throw it out and start over.
It really isn’t a different debate when you’re talking about putting them on the blockchain, and all that other engineering has already been done by other distributed social networks.
Trust, consensus, and access control are session-layer issues that don’t need to be solved by a transport-layer protocol. Social networks deserve to be able to forget things.
We already have that, it’s called a Distributed Hash Table, no blockchain required.
knockoffs like Brave
No worries, I’m merely confident that the tradeoffs necessary to employ a blockchain aren’t worth the supposed benefits thereof.
I plan to, which pisses off Doctor Evil’s Democrats.
What if we don’t want global usernames? What if we’re entirely satisfied with global user IDs in a DHT?
Seems inefficient, couldn’t the same thing be accomplished using local DBs rather than the world’s most inefficient ledger?
Well, for starters, I’m not contradicting their point, I’m confirming it. The use of “cis” or “trans” in terms of gender and the knowledge of chromosomes are recent social constructions. The confusion seems to be in what is actually meant by “social construction”.
For example, you keep saying “biological differences” without prepending the word “stereotypical” in such a way that leads me to believe that you still think of sex as a pair of essential categories.
Gender is a social construct, yes, but Sex is a set of simplified generalizations about multiple highly complex and frequently interrelated phenomena that cannot be reduced to anatomy or chromosomes alone.
Ignoring the fact that these generalizations about sex are mere stereotypes to which many people do not conform is much more irresponsible than insufficiently explaining the social construction of gender.
Gender existed long before chromosomes were discovered.
That map is out of date
One doesn’t have to go looking, there’s lots of assholes who think it’s “apolitical” to assume that everyone working in software is a dude.