…does she think that no man ever gets his eyebrows trimmed? It’s pretty far from being a meaningful concern of mine, but it’s something I’ve absolutely been offered (and occasionally accepted) when getting a hair cut.
I guess it’s also possible I have the scenario reversed and she thinks no woman gets this done, but I feel like that doesn’t line up as well with the assumed stereotypes here.
Or I guess another option is she thinks every single (insert transitioned gender) must do so.
Exactly my thinking. For $30 billion I don’t care if I come out the other side a mindless husk. I’m leaving instructions before I go in about what to do with the money and improving as many lives as I can.
If I make it out with enough of my mind to enjoy some of it myself then that’s just gravy.
The “something” in question is elements. Barring the very inadvisable edge case where you’re ingesting some kind of pure metal or degenerate matter there is not anything you can eat that does not contain chemicals.
Complaining about a food containing “chemicals” makes about as much sense as calling out the software you use for being compiled from “code”.
Agreed. Even if everyone is on the same page that wouldn’t happen overnight, but it really seems like we’ve just been further entrenching it rather than trying to move away from it.
I’m a much less imposing but also hetero male but this also more or less lines up with me as well.
I’ve been of the opinion for a while that when faced with the idea that gender, as distinct from sexuality, is just a collection of social trappings, we’ve kind of gone in the wrong direction. Maybe I’ll get flak for this, but I largely agree with RuPaul’s take that gender and other identity stereotypes are absurd, and that it would be better to tear them down rather than affirm them or create increasingly specific labels to attach to people. A person’s gender doesn’t matter in the slightest to me with regard to my interactions with them, beyond the grammatical concern of using whatever their preferred pronoun is.
Whether you’re male, or non-binary, or agender, or whatever else you might identify as, I couldn’t possibly give less of a shit, and I want to stress that I mean that in the most accepting possible way rather than in a dismissive one. What matters far more to me is that you are Eric, or Rebecca, or Alphonse, or elucubra. I care about who you are, not what you are.
And maybe, maybe, if everyone was more accepting about a person’s individual identity and didn’t make a fuss about how they choose to present themselves we never would’ve seen all this importance attached to labelling people in the first place.
Yes, there are furry-trained stable diffusion checkpoints available, as well as at least one paid service that offers furry generation as a specific feature.
This is really what blows my mind the most. With all this talk about how much power LLMs and diffusion models use companies are still constantly cramming it into places where it’s just running all the time passively doing things no one asked for.
Overall power use by these things would probably be cut down by an order of magnitude by just limiting it to directed, intentional use only.
I feel this. Working from home now but even when in the office spent a staggering amount of time just… doing nothing. Spent multiple days in the office just watching old episodes of The Computer Chronicles on youtube.
Recently praised as one of the most productive/useful members of my team and also thanked for taking so much of my time to help other teams.
Not a furry though.
I add carbon dioxide. Fizzy water best water.
I’m in the zero to ten camp for most foods, but right there with you at 47 for fatty meat of any kind. It feels disgusting in my mouth and to swallow it without gagging I need to basically cut it up with my incisors into smaller and smaller pieces until the texture disappears.
They’re absolutely being disingenuous, but I think it’s important to keep in mind that the purpose of debate is not generally to change the mind of the person you’re debating with. It’s intended to be done with an audience (or judges in a formal competitive debate), and it’s the audience that you’re trying to sway to your side.
Honestly it’s an easy trap to fall into if you enter the space without prior knowledge and taking everyone at their word. I almost fell into it years back when gamergate was just getting rolling. I don’t think anyone can reasonably deny that nepotism, preferential treatment, and paid shills are a major part of modern game marketing. But they’ll get an initial hook in based on that idea and then slow-boil you on the idea that diversity and inclusion are also part of the problem. Soon that becomes the focus and people find themselves arguing that Aloy having visible peach fuzz if you zoom the camera a quarter inch from her face in photo mode is evidence that they’re trying to erase “real women” from games.
It’s crazy.
usually, by “woke” movies people mean movies only made for the sake of being “woke”, no?
This is what people using the term really want you to think. That they’re fine with incidental/statistically correct/non-performative diversity and inclusion and are just pointing out when it happens for the sake of itself to the detriment of the quality of media.
The reality though is quite different, and people will call “woke” at almost any non-white, non-straight, or non-male character in a major role, or a non-cis character in even a passing role.
I’m sure there are many foods for which eating select raw ingredients on their own would be unappealing.
Oh. I think I get it. You put the diverging diamond on the route with less traffic where most is expected to be exiting onto the main highway or whatever. You wouldn’t put one at a place where two equally busy highways intersected.
That makes more sense.
I’ve read descriptions of how they work numerous times and cannot wrap my head around how having traffic going opposite directions cross paths does anything helpful.
Great, you’re now on the appropriate side to make the turn at the far side of the interchange, so the people making the turn don’t have to cross traffic to do so, at the cost of every car that crosses the interchange now having to cross traffic twice.
What?
How are “this person” and “a BMW driver” likely male coded while “person” and “driver” are fine? It sounds to me like you’re just assuming negative intent in others, while your own use of the same words is fine because you know what you mean.
with “this person” or “a BMW driver” as a maybe-neutral-but-also-likely-male coded qualifier.
If this is “likely male coded” how exactly do you suggest referring to other drivers in a neutral way?
The irony of the etymology for “hysterical” in this context is not lost on me.