You can with a sub-wavelength antenna like a nintendo joycon has, it’s less than 10mm in X and Y axes. It will just have terrible reception, like a nintendo joycon has.

Also it could be a higher frequency which would allow a smaller antenna.

Her eyes and mouth are slightly wider than a relaxed expression, so there’s visible tension. In video it could be cute, like she might just be happy, but if you freeze just that one moment then her expression is ambiguous. Either she’s talking and smiling enthusiastically, or she’s about to eat you enthusiastically, or more realistically she’s afraid and trying to hide it. Add the creepy text and you’re primed to interpret the expression negatively.

Right, but nobody except grammar nazis and the sith deal in absolutes like that.

Obviously the signifiers have a level of stability otherwise nobody would understand any of it.

This is yet another way in which language and gender are analogous.

Words are objects in a sense, although they are abstract, but there is no singular objective language in the same way that there is no objective gender. Both are intersubjective, they are interactions negotiated between subjects. There is no fixed object that you can point to and call “language” independent of a subjective experience of that language.

And your argument could be applied to expressions of gender. A feminine dress is an object, and a beard is an object. These are gender signifiers, but that doesn’t make gender itself objective in any way. The analogy to language is very close. They are both sets of signifiers.

It does change all the time, and dictionaries don’t ensure any kind of standard. The linguists who write dictionaries will tell you that their only function is to describe the most popular parts of the language, not to prescribe any particular rules. Telling people how they should speak doesn’t actually work.

I could say the phrase “abso-fucking-lutely” and you understand it, even though it’s not in the dictionary. That’s still language, it’s still English.

And I don’t know what you mean by a “‘hard’ contradiction” or why that matters. My point is that both language and gender are forms of communication that rely on socially constructed signifiers and they are both fluid to a similar degree, so the analogy is good. If you want to argue with me, that’s the point you should be dealing with.

Language isn’t objective though. It wasn’t handed down from some deity.

Language is a constantly evolving negotiation of new and remixed communications, performed through billions of interactions every single day. It’s collaborative and unpredictable and sometimes someone comes up with something cool and the next day everybody is copying them.

In short, language is socially constructed.

I think it’s a great analogy for gender in that respect.

It’s Buddy the Christ.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/93/Buddy_christ.jpg

Men can lactate, specifically when they are severely malnourished, but I have heard it’s possible to induce it in various ways. This would aid the survival of a tribe when food was scarce by keeping the babies alive for longer, but some mammals can do it under normal circumstances as well.

This is all potentially true.

I would be very happy to provide an alternative face.

women are not your enemy and are not even theoretically automatable

This example shows how arbitrary beauty standards are.

Like yeah, your observation is correct, studies have been done on this, but it doesn’t mean that the beauty standard is good or natural or correct. If anything it means it’s wrong.

Also, today’s relative abundance doesn’t mean that size is entirely a matter of personal responsibility. Fast food and cheap processed food are often people’s only options when they can’t afford the time or money to cook meals properly. That food is worse in nutrition so they have to eat more of it, and it’s full of junk that capitalists have figured out will be useful in addicting people at the expense of their health, usually a mix of excessive salt and sugar.

There are literal scientific studies about how to make the ideal food that is moreish but doesn’t sate hunger, so people will eat lots of it. It takes willpower and resources to fight against that. No wonder there is an obesity epidemic.

So ultimately the beauty standard is still about classism, about wanting someone who is wealthy instead of poor.

If it only exists due to structural inequality where you can have a clear distinction between rich and poor, then it stands to reason that in a world where people generally could expect to thrive and not struggle to make ends meet, so that anxiety about it wasn’t commonplace, then a wider array of body types would be generally accepted.

Edit: I hope this comment doesn’t read too argumentative. Nothing you said was wrong, I’m just adding to it, and I’m aware that people reading your comment could use it to justify or attack beauty standards, and I’m using it to attack.

My dreams have been crushed. I may never recover. I DON’T KNOW HOW ELSE TO GET TO SPACE

Wait, are you saying he didn’t just pulverise a bloody trail through the university and NASA, stealing a PhD certificate and then a Rocket?

I mean, this is still a cool story, but I’m also kinda disappointed.

I think a lot of the people currently freaking out about it have been, either individually or collectively, throwing red flags their entire life that say, “I am dangerous to anyone who does not conform to cis-hetero-normative culture,” and trans people have wisely avoided them where possible and stayed in the closet where not.

One of my close friends’ parents don’t know they’re trans because they know for a fact how badly they would react. They’re conservatives and they’re transphobic. It’s stopping my friend from transitioning.

Now trans people are in the news and those same transphobic people are wondering where they’ve all come from and they’re reacting in exactly the hostile way that the trans people who avoided them had predicted.

Was this inspired by misspunnypennie’s post?

I cannot describe how good it was when I first launched Stremio and discovered you could find virtually anything, from the extremely recent, still in cinemas, to old historical stuff. I just watched Furiosa, then rolled that into Fury Road, then went back and watched the original Mad Max franchise, all from the same interface. It was almost as easy as it would have been on a regular streaming service, and I never had any question in my mind that it would all be available.

No absolutely not, I agree, and I made the point elsewhere in this thread that anyone who knows “entrepreneurial” types will know that they relish in this kind of machiavellian thinking. They think it makes them so smart and so good at business that they know how to manipulate people into spending money.

The short name for what you’ve just described is POSIWID - the Purpose Of a System Is What It Does. There is no meaning in ascribing intent to a system beyond its function, because intentions don’t matter. Systems act regardless. If an outcome occurs - our emiseration - and those in charge do nothing to correct it, then they are implicitly approving of it, so it becomes part of the system’s purpose by evolution.

Sort of. I think if you follow the evolution of it, it starts with, “We have to control women, therefore everything they do has to be wrong somehow, therefore when men are horny for women that’s bad and the women’s fault.” That’s also why it’s never the man’s fault in their eyes. This trick doesn’t work if you also blame the men.

Abdullah Ocalan has written about how the domination of women is a founding kind of domination which enabled all subsequent kinds of domination in society, so if we were to stop allowing it, it would have flow on effects that contribute to the dismantling of those other hierarchies.

That’s why reactionaries are so desperate to put women back in their box and keep them there. They don’t want to lose their dominant positions. They will even talk about the “slippery slope” where allowing minorities to have power will destroy society. It won’t of course, but it will weaken their stranglehold over society, which to them is the same thing.