miopa

We managed since usenet times to quite successfully communicate with knowing only the handles of the other persons involved in the discussion.

Well, since I generally don't care about your gender identity, I would be quite satisfied if I use the grammatical gender that corresponds with your gendered name. BTW in my native language all nouns are gendered, even the surnames, and it would be grammatically incorrect to refer to a feminine or masculine name with pronouns from different gender.

I disagree that personal gender is often relevant in that kind of discussions (SO, or similar general topic forums), and when it is, then it's perfectly normal to share it. The same goes for dick size. But why to mention it if not necessary?

I don't get offended when someone is rude, it just makes that person an asshole in my mind.

But of-course I don't think sharing the name is rude, it's a basic personal reference. It would be rude if it's followed by "I'm straight" or "I'm a woman". As for pronouns, in most languages, you can know the [grammatically] correct gender automatically from the name. And if you don't, most grammars have middle or neutral gender, so that can be used. The issue here is that we shouldn't bother other people with our gender identity.

This is getting quite ridiculous.

I don't want to know your gender. I don't care. It's your thing. It's non of my business, and it makes no difference to me whatsoever.

If I do want to know your gender, then things between us are starting to become intimate.

To sum things up: I would say it's rude if someone shares his gender identity with me without being asked. On the same level as if someone shares his/her dick size without being asked.

That last sentence is what caused the outrage in the wider public. It was amplified by the manipulative post of Selam Jie Gano and the media that parroted it, but his original claim did hit the nerve (that it shouldn't be called sexual assault if no physical force was used in the sexual act).

I'm totally expecting from Google to discontinue, restrict or change the API for Google Sheets at one point. It will likely be in the moment when it's hardest for you to timely update your app.

By not knowing which peers have verified numbers, the risk of getting caught that you're in the middle is very high, so that big cost for getting there will be for nothing (and actually get way more costly because you alerted the subjects).

I'm wondering why the article fails to mention that there is a sufficiently good and easy mechanism to compare and verify the new safety numbers. You just talk to your peer and read the numbers - and the peer can verify them.

This will fail when AI software gets really good at imitating voice in real-time during casual talk, but we're not there yet (or - if that is my threat model, I'll find an out of band way to verify)

> "Symmetry of time means that the outcomes of experiments should not depend on when the experiment took place."

I don't think that this is correct.

No, Slav Macedonia was acceptable to us. But not to the Albanians, and we changed our constitution in 2001 to allow them to veto this kind of things (under strong US/NATO pressure).

Modern Greeks have as much in common with Alexander as anybody else here. There are many historic clues that the ancient Greeks didn't understand the ancient Macedonian language, and that the Macedonians coudn't figure out how to write their language with the Greek alphabet, so they gradually (but not fully) adopted the Greek.

>Signal actually doesn't know all your contacts - you can check the source code to confirm that it doesn't know about any contacts that you don't message using Signal, for example.

I get a message in the app when a contact starts using Signal, so it has to know them server-side.

The other part of the comment was reffering to what the server could know (in the gov. case - will know), and that IS quite a lot (assuming Signal style service).

And I do trust Moxie nominally, but I also believe that he will obey US courts.