emilamlom

It's like people took the idiom "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" as a thing to aspire to.

Just wondering, why does that not worry you? Requiring people to play the favoritism game seems like a terrible way to govern. Unless I just misunderstood, in which case I apologize.

It's much easier to convince a family member not to share DNA with a data broker than it is to stop government corruption. Is it ideal, no, but it's realistic.

Just offering alternatives seems to solve most of that issue. I've got some friends who are vegetarian, so whenever they come over, I just grab some vegan sausages or some vegetarian alternative to what I'm making. It's not a ton more work, and everyone gets to participate.

Sure, but there's a clear difference between a man who dresses feminine sometimes but otherwise still prefers being referred to as a man and Marsha Johnson. She moved to a new town, changed her name, went by feminine pronouns, and pretty much exclusively dressed as a woman. That's what I meant by my comment, but thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt.

In that case, yes there were. They were generally worded as anti-crossdressing laws, but that is what they were. Here's a quick excerpt from the wikipedia article on cross-dressing that sums it up well:

> The birth of anti-cross-dressing laws (also known as masquerade laws and the three-article rule)[31] stemmed from the increase in non-traditional gender expression during the spread of America's frontier, and the will to reinforce the two-gender system which was threatened by those who deviated from it.[32] Some of the earlier cases of US arrests made due to cross-dressing are seen in 19th century Ohio. In 1848, Ohio passed a law which prohibited its citizens from publicly presenting themselves "in a dress not belonging to his or her sex," and during the 1850s, over 40 cities in the US went on to pass anti-cross-dressing laws.[33] By the time the US entered WWI, over 150 cities had passed anti-cross-dressing ordinances.

Alright, sure, some of the flag designs are not well done, but I doubt you're talking about vexillology.

Queer just refers to "not straight". It's a general term. Bisexual people have made up their minds, they like more than one gender. Asexual people face stigma just the same as gay and lesbian people do. They're all just different sexualities that differ from the norm, so why not include them together? It really doesn't erase any individual community in my experience.

As far as intersex and trans people are concerned, maybe you just haven't thought it out that much. Of course intersex people would feel differently about surgeries performed on them than trans people would. The former had a surgery forced on them without consent. The latter choses (or not) to have something done. Incels very clearly have nothing to do with "cis-het" discourse.

Even if I was to disregard all of that, trans people still belong in the community for the simple reason that they're a large part of how the modern queer community has formed. They've faced the same stigmas as lesbian and gay folks. Even within lesbian and gay communities, there's been quite a lot of gender-nonconformity (look into lesbian movements in the 70's for example).

Trans people exist and have for much longer than you probably realize. Maybe you need to go back to your roots and actually talk to some trans people. You might realize that the popular caricature isn't as accurate as you seem to think.

Wording has changed throughout history as has our understanding of gender and sexuality. While the specific word "transgender" may not have existed, it's still true that she lived as a woman at the time. At the very least, you can't argue that there's gender-nonconformity going on there. The fact that the Stonewall monument was targeted for removing references of "trans" should hint at why the author of the extension named it this way.

There were laws in many places in the states that banned "crossdressing" which was applied to trans and gay people alike. While the specific term "transgender" hasn't been around very long, the gay community has always included a lot of gender-nonconformity. It's part of the reason gender is lumped in with sexuality in the first place. Anti-homosexuality laws would've applied to trans people as well. I still remember how in the 90's trans women were considered feminine gay men by people outside the community. I can look up the sources if you like, but that's my understanding.

> Maybe very small local cells to improve connectivity in difficult landscapes (mountains, skyscrapers, underground)

Something like this would've been useful in a couple remote networks that I worked on. Internet was easy to get with some ubiquiti wifi routers and antennae. Getting cell reception was a pain in the ass that involved setting up a repeater in the one spot of the valley where reception was kinda okay. I haven't looked into the project too much, but I imagine I could set it up to connect to a telcom tower and handle the wireless backhaul similarly to how I did the wifi.

Edit: An open implementation like this could lead to cheaper cells for large, concrete/metal buildings that typically have terrible reception.

Looks cool. It might be helpful to mention somewhere that it's for Emacs. I have never used Emacs before and had no idea what note-taking app this was for till I googled "org mode".

I'm not an ecologist, so no, I don't have a particular technical solution in mind. I'm going off of memory from living there at the time. That said, I would expect any oil company operating so close to shore to have a proper disaster preparedness plan. As I remember it, BP drug their feet fighting over who was responsible for the cleanup which made it end up being worse than it potentially could have been.

I don't know the actual statistics, so I can't say for sure. From what I remember, it did hurt tourism but people quickly forgot about it. The fishing/shrimping industry locally took a major hit though as far as I know. Even not considering the moral/ethical responsibility to take care of the environment, it seems incredibly risky to the state's main form of income to not take it seriously.

Florida is such a weird state. Their main income is tourism by a lot, yet the government keeps hurting their main money-maker by not taking care of their beaches and environment and, I guess, trying to be more like Texas. When the deepwater horizon oil spill happened, they didn't really clean the beaches or water that well and just dumped more sand on top of the oily film to hide it before the summer tourist season. For years afterwards, you'd always find tarballs and oil spots in the sand just a few inches down.

DMCA is for user generated content on platforms, so microsoft wouldn't have a lot of surface-area to target. That said, youtube gives preferential treatment to the largest creators and companies. Apple and Disney could easily call up their manager Jerry at Youtube and deal with frivolous takedowns. Small creators often have no direct contact with a human at youtube and have X as their best option for contact. Unless they know the process and have enough money for a lawyer, they're shit out of luck.