darq

Even if the western nations pollute less, developing nations will still pollute a lot more and will get us to tipping points anyway, albeit perhaps slightly slower.

Ehh, it’s worth noting that developing nations tend to pollute a lot less per capita. And as they develop they can transition to cleaner forms of energy, as they gain the economic ability to do so.

Pointing at developing nations is a convenient excuse for developed nations to avoid taking the actions we need to take.

Honestly the protesters that everyone hates kinda have the right idea.

The problem with that being that the “minor solutions” aren’t really solving the problem. We’ve been doing “minor solutions” for many years now, and we have only accelerated in our destruction of the environment.

We need drastic change. Failing some deus-ex-machina-esque invention that quickly and cheaply solves the issue with no sacrifice needed, then we have to be demanding radical change. If that isn’t possible, our other option is to just fail and die.

Because the truth has limits on how hopeful and how simple it can be. Whereas the lies of billionaires have no such limitations.

I agree with your point that the messaging isn’t working. But pushing hope without radical reform of our current systems is basically just trying to diffuse the reaction to the facts without actually changing the facts leading to the reaction.

Nobody at Google has heard of the concept that controls at the edge of the screen are harder to aim accurately at.

Interestingly, that’s the exact opposite of how it works on non-touch interfaces. The edges are prime control areas for pointer-driven interfaces.

Slight challenge to optimise a UX for both.

Except if you have enough money, it’s not even gambling anymore. The only way you’d lose is if everybody loses.

And that’s completely ignoring the fact that enough money lets you influence the rules of the game to tilt the odds in your favour.

Yes, they have two date systems in common use. It’s only the year that changes though. And there’s no way to confuse the two, usually. If you write “2023” instead of “令5” it’s pretty obvious. I suppose there is a potential for confusion if one just writes a two-digit year though.

It’s not radical at all. It’s just ineffectual, unfortunately.

Yup, it’s a single character from the name of the era, and the era changes every time the emperor does.

Yeah but half the time is actually: EYY/MM/DD. Like this year is 令5/MM/DD.

And some years have two values, 2019 was both 平31, from 01/01 until 04/30, then 令1 from 05/01 onwards.

Those are not the trans people being spoken about I’m sports discussions though. Pretty much every sport that allows, or has previously allowed, trans people to compete in the division fitting their gender has had regulations around HRT and maintaining target hormone levels for a period of time before being allowed to compete.

It’s literally a Latin prefix. Exactly the same as “trans”, being the antonym thereof.

Simply because there is a huge difference, biologically, between a cisgender man and a transgender women who is on HRT.

You can argue that there is still residual advantages remaining after transition, that’s fine. But to call them men is both plainly incorrect, and also offensive.

I mean both chess and pool have recently banned transgender women from competition.

So the push is not purely an evidence-driven one. In fact there is a very loud political faction trying to remove transgender women from all events, from the highest levels all the way down to park fun-runs.

Brainworms.

… capitalism is the ideology that lets the 1% be the 1%.

This is like the one fight that isn’t part of the culture war.

Except we aren’t talking about two people, are we? We’re talking about entire populations of people.

And when people have their needs met, they are more able to be productive. And they are more likely to believe in the good of the system that supports them, as they can see the tangible results of that system in their daily life. They can see how their contribution to the system benefits them. Making them more likely to be happy to contribute.

Will some percentage of people under-contribute because of laziness? Sure. But who cares? That percentage is small. And we have the technology to compensate many times over now.

Why the hell do we make society more miserable for everyone, forcing everyone to live under the threat of poverty if they don’t work, just to force this small percentage to work against their will? Not to mention completely screw over anyone who cannot work for reasons beyond their control, because we subject them to this insane level of scrutiny because we’re paranoid that they might just be lazy.

We can choose a cooperative system, or the antagonistic one we currently have, where we are all at each others’ throats because of suspicion that someone might be getting something that they “don’t deserve”.

And yet they still would affect the rate of homelessness.

There is a difference between simple prejudice, and prejudice that is backed by systemic power.

Both are bad of course. But one has the ability to ruin your day, while the other has the ability to ruin your life.

In most progressive theory, racism is explicitly about power, not merely individual prejudice. That isn’t a new definition of racism, but it is a different definition than most of us learn when we are younger.

Sounds like they need to update their system.

Oh definitely. Desperately.

Maybe it’s just me, but in the digital age I don’t think there’s an excuse for systems like this to be too difficult to change. Heck, if you designed it like an idiot, then you deserve to pay the costs to fix it.

Thing is. I don’t even think it would be that difficult to change. It’s not like it’s the first time we’ve ever had newer versions of forms. And the change isn’t even drastic, just de-gender the terms. Partner 1 and Partner 2, Parent 1 and Parent 2.

One of the simple benefits of the paper-based way Japan tends to favour is that it can be updated and overriden by the person performing the process.