JustSomeGuy1

MplsP said:

JustSomeGuy1 said:

If you look beyond the obvious "they're cheating" response, this opens up some fascinating questions.

*Why* are they doing this? The answer is a lot less obvious than you'd think. Benchmarking apps will use as much CPU as they can get their hands on, and so will obviously be affected by being on the list, but most of those 10,000 apps should not be. After all, MS Office, Netflix, Tiktok - generally speaking, none of them require full CPU utilization. They're just not doing that much work.

anyone who's used any microsoft app knows how they unnecessarily suck resources. 

darkvader said:

Seriously?

Come on.  This is stupid.

Let's say you actually buy into the concept of 'warmer analog audio and more faithful reproduction from vinyl' (which is bullshit, but let's play along for a minute).

This is a crappy record player, with a crappy cartridge, and a crappy analog to digital converter that then sends audio over Bluetooth.  It's also got a crappy built in Bluetooth speaker.

NO!  JUST STOP!

This is the worst of all worlds.  Either get a good record player (vintage or current high end) and hook it up to a good analog amplifier and good analog speakers, or don't bother and use the (demonstrably better anyway) full digital path with FLAC or Apple Lossless encoded music, or if you're feeling old school a CD, again with a good amplifier and good speakers.

GeorgeBMac said:

JustSomeGuy1 said:

GeorgeBMac said:

JustSomeGuy1 said:

GeorgeBMac said:

JustSomeGuy1 said:

GeorgeBMac said:

waveparticle said:

StrangeDays said:

waveparticle said:

darkvader said:

"Pregnant man" and "pregnant nonbinary person" are actual real-world things that happen.  They exist.  Sure, they're uncommon, but they are absolutely 100% real world people.

To not intentionally not include them would be incredibly bigoted.

Trans women are women.  Trans men are men.  Right wing nutjobs are easily offended snowflakes.

Can trans man become pregnant? 

Absolutely.

Not just in principle. Any successful case? 

You are conflating gender with sexual characteristics.

And, saying a 'trans man' typically would mean a female who transitioned to living as a male.   So yeh, unless the person had sex reassignment surgery or the hormonal therapy disrupted her cycles, then he could become pregnant.

But all of that, I think is separate from this emoji question which suggests a biologic male becoming pregnant -- which is ridiculous.

There is no reason to assume that the Emoji suggests "a biologic male becoming pregnant". ...

I would think there is far less reason to think it is related to transsexualism. 

Typically, when people see "guy" they think "guy".

But yeh, put the emoji in the right context, and it could point to trans.  But even then it would be shaky -- even an insult -- because the only way it could happen would be if a biologic female who went through all the steps of transitioning to a male became pregnant -- thus undoing everything he worked for and hoped for.   It would far worse than they typical insult of using the wrong gender when addressing the person.

You are simply mistaken about that. Some trans men have made that choice and have become pregnant, on purpose (use google, it's not hard to find). I think they're better equipped than you to decide what is an insult to them.

I will admit that this seemed a bit strange to me too. But then I grew up in a culture that was extremely binary. When you absorb on a deeper level what it means to be nonbinary, it makes more sense. I'm sure some trans men feel entirely male, in every sense, and would be upset at the notion of getting pregnant. But there are, obviously, some who are comfortable with an in-between state, that is more male in appearance and behavior in general, but still capable of being pregnant and bearing a child. It seems weird to me, but why should anyone else give a crap about what seems weird to me? (Why, even, should I?) It's a big world and there's room in it for everyone... as long as they don't try to run other peoples' lives.

Ahh!  Good point!   I was talking of transsexualism.  You are speaking of non-binary.  They are related, but not the same.   The analogy would be:  Heterosexual, homosexual and bisexual.

As for "running other people's lives":

Society always has and always will try to run other people's lives.  That is a core element of it being a society -- having rules, expectations and so on.

And that is why it is important to have discussions such as these.  Sometimes the rules and expectations go too far and sometimes they don't go far enough.  It's the core strength of any democracy -- which is not the absence of rules but the ability to develop good ones through open and honest discussion.

An example is a related issue in medicine that deserves discussion (what you might call running other people's lives):  puberty blockers (should an adolescent or pre-adoslescent make permanent, irreversible changes in their gender and physical characteristics through hormonal modification?)  .  While 99.9% of those having the discussion know very little about the issue, they still have to have it -- because they are the ones running people's lives.

You can't separate out "trans" and "nonbinary" as two entirely separate things. They are different concepts but not exclusive concepts. So when I mentioned nonbinary, it was in the context of trans people. You were ignoring that overlap in your previous discussion.

About running other people's lives: I don't agree with your characterization. It's not universally accepted that society should dictate how people live. There is a strong current on both the right and left in the USA (and, I think, many other places) of "leave me alone" or, as often stated, "don't tread on me". This current has muddied political waters rather severely in recent years, but it is still a classic liberal position to say "society should place no restriction on anyone, except to the extent necessary to protect others". And of course that sets up classic fights over topics such as abortion, where anti-abortionists claim the same position, but applying it to "the unborn" (that is, they are the "others" that need to be protected).

More recently conservatives have claimed this position (along with some related flags, etc.). I have only bad things to say about this so I'll refrain from saying anything, so as not to shift the topic of discussion.

My point is that you can not accept as a baseline that society will mandate how we live our lives. Many of us are unwilling to allow that, except to the extent necessary to keep the peace.

As for your choice of example, puberty blockers: It's very similar to the abortion debate, because where justice lies depends on whether you are willing to arrogate to yourself the right to speak for others who can't speak for themselves - or, in this case, who are not yet allowed to speak for themselves. I would agree that it's a very thorny issue, and again say no more as our current topic is messy enough.

We disagree on that:  while trans and non-binary are part of the same community, I do not think they are the same. [...]

addison huy said:

Males can’t get pregnant so I don’t know why such an emoji would exist. It seems pointless. If your sex is male then you can’t have children this can’t be pregnant. All these gender and sex methods that are used to describe people now are so confusing. I remember when non of this really existed before and there were only men and women.