I have a user agent switcher add-on and many times I just have it spoof my user agent to be Google bot. the internet suddenly works as it is supposed to
it's a shame that there is not a transcript. with regard to her questions about if Facebook would remove false ads from politicians, I wonder why she has no problem with phone companies letting people say illegal things on the phone line.
This was a hearing with Zuckerberg. What evidence do you have that suggests she has no problem with phone companies? You hastily generalize a conclusion with little to no data to support it.
> I wonder why she has no problem with phone companies letting people say illegal things on the phone line.
wait, are you claiming that phone companies are recording all your calls (and content you create) to make psychological profiles of people, and then sell access to those profiles to other companies? Have you ever got any news feed filled with ads based on what you talked over the phone?
Yes, by allowing political spam calls to be made, almost certainly. I've gotten well over 50 calls in the last few months trying to influence my opinion for the upcoming November election in San Francisco.
One issue that a lot of trans supporters don't realize is that similarly to how trans people could be offended when they are referred to by a gender not of their choice, so to could some speakers be offended if they are forced to refer to a person as a gender not of their (the speaker) choice.
This may be easier to understand by using a comparison. When I talk about the Muslim prophet I say Muhammad. However, many Muslims would say Muhammad pbuh (peace be upon him). This isn't that problematic, but let's say they the term was Muhammad ttp (the true prophet). Now I as a non Muslim believer would never use ttp because that would be insulting for whoever I believe in. If SE required that whenever I mention Muhammad that I append ttp, I would refuse as it would be extremely offensive to me.
Similarly by referring to a person with XX chromosomes [1] as she, is offensive to people who believe that genders cannot change. A reasonable compromise would be to let whoever is righting chose what they want, or even allow gender neutral pronouns. But what SE chose to do was to say that people who believe that XY is a guy are wrong and deserve no respect for their beliefs.
[1] someone corrected me and pointed out that there is a rare genetic condition where someone could have XX chromosomes but have many other male characteristics. So I would like to correct myself and say that for certain rare genetic conditions, I wouldn't mind being corrected. But for the vast majority of transgenders who are genetically similar to either males or females the above holds.
Forgive me, but this is a load of absolute horseshit. There's a gulf of difference between choosing given terminology based on religious belief and choosing terminology based on personal interpretation of scientific text.
Sex and gender aren't the same thing. It boggles my mind how seemingly complicated this is for some people to grasp. There's a substantial corpus of established science and historical research that more or less proves that physiological sex and social gender are not and never have been mutually causal; your argument here is predicated upon the notion that a person's chromosomes are inextricably linked to their gender, which simply isn't true.
In [1], you're literally making the exception that proves the rule here. What do you define as "male characteristics"? Doesn't it seem like that might not be the most rigorous qualifier for determining whether or not somebody falls on one side or another of whatever arbitrary boundary you seem to be defining?
Does it not strike you as a little cruel to suggest that treating a person with a modicum of respect over a social issue that barely (if at all) affects you is as offensive as disrespecting an entire religious viewpoint?
Is it really that hard to understand that in pursuit of whatever maladaptive compromise makes you feel more comfortable in your belief, you're actively harming people who have to constantly struggle to be understood or even recognized in modern society?
Doesn't that feel a little selfish? Like you're missing the point a little?
Greta is fine at preaching to the choir. I highly doubt that there were people who did not agree with her, but then after listening to her speech, agreed with her.
MLK was preaching to the choir, for that matter. Many of his white listeners had a general belief that segregation was bad, but didn’t think they could change anything by themselves. When you get enough such people together, they start to act. Climate may be the same story, 50 years later.
I tried to subscribe for updates but it required me to "prove that I am a human". I could not see any captcha or any other similar thing and it would not allow me to submit the form. I'm using Firefox focus on Android
BTW, there is nothing wrong with intending to advertise. Op (and I) are looking for a call recording app, and you know if one that you can (hopefully) recommend. The fact that you profit if we use it doesn't make your suggestion that much worse
many times CEOs cannot sell stock because doing so might signal to others that something bad is going to happen at that company. I recall a story of a company that was doing well, had customers, and good stock. then suddenly overnight the stock tanked. after researching for a while they found out what the cause was. one of the c-level employees / founder wanted to pay for his daughters wedding so he sold some stock. due to that some algo traders had programmed to sell stock if the founder sells. other algo traders programmed only to sell if both the founder and some other traders sell. well, this spiraled out of control until the market closed for the night.
