Pronouns: They/Them
It looks like the synthesis of those two seemingly contradictory things is: If Congress is still in session after the 10 day grace period for the president to sign it has passed, the bill is treated as signed and becomes law. However if the 10 day grace period goes by and Congress is no longer in session at the end of that period, the bill is treated as vetoed.
Another approach: Does nibbling on it count as a signature?
I get where you are coming from, but this event is pretty much entirely the fault of Crowdstrike and the countless organizations that trusted them. It’s definitely a show of how massive outages are more likely when things are overly centralized and proprietary, and managed by big, shitty, profit driven organizations. Since crowdstrike operates in kernel space, it doesn’t matter which operating system it’s on, it can break it if it does something stupid. In fact they managed to break some redhat machines not too long ago, and some Debian machines not long before that. It’s just the impact wasn’t as far reaching as this recent utter fuckup, just because fewer critical machines were affected, so we didn’t hear about those smaller fuckups in the news.
I think that the Democratic Party is hated both from the left and the right, and calling them the Democrat Party makes some sense if you don’t view them as aligning with real democracy. Kind of like when one calls pro-life people “pro-forced-pregnancy” or “anti-abortion”.
Like there’s probably plenty of astroturfing out there, but I don’t think this is a strong sign a particular account is astroturf. Since we are all exposed to everyone’s discourse, that way of referring to Democrats could fairly easily hop between different groups that don’t like Democrats. Like I wouldn’t be surprised if “scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds” makes its way to the right somehow just because it’s anti-liberal, even though it originates from the left.
Despite its origin on the right, I think that type of phrasing makes a bit more sense coming from the left than the right, because the right does not actually care at all about democracy, except when they equate it with capitalism, and democracy is like the left’s whole deal.
I was gonna answer that most animals don’t live as long and reproduce faster than humans (so populations survive despite increased cancer risk), but when I looked into it I found a deep rabbit hole. In the case of wolves, I’m sure plenty died early on, because the populations present appear to have some genetic immune adaptations that protect them from cancer. I know other species (like frogs) have dark skin because the melenin increased the survival rate of the darker frogs at the time of the accident. So that is to say probably a lot of wildlife died, and that natural selection lead to some critters that are pretty resistant to radiation.
I don’t think that’s the actual etymology. From what I can find it was an onomonpia about the sounds turkeys make, and a word for gunk. The second part of it is pronounced differently from the racial epiphet (with a more middle vowel like book rather than a forward vowel like boot), and which I understand to be a separate word with a separate origin. I avoid that one due to its spelling and nearness to the slur, but in a compound word it’s less likely to be misunderstood. The original use case of the word by the person who supposedly coined it was for needless verbosity. I could see some English speakers retroactively egg corning it and using it as a pun, or maybe it has an older origin than is recorded or the coiner was dishonest, but I can’t find an example or evidence of that having happened. If you have an example or personal experience it being used like you describe I’d definitely be interested. It’s also possible that I am misconstruing your claim to be one of etymology when it isn’t.
Interesting! Most I know were either born in the US or have been in the US since they were kids, primarily communicate in english, and discovered their transness while here. You might be right with the cultural/language translation being a factor. But I’ve also seen “Transexual”, “Transgénero”, “mujer/hombre trans” used by Spanish speakers which tracks not that far from common English usage. I wonder if there’s a different distinction being made or if it’s intertwined with the particular individuals’ conservative ideology in some way.
It’s interesting to me that your experience is so vastly different from mine given we live in the same area (SF bay area). Most trans people I know, including myself, fall on the far left, and at significantly higher rates than the cis people I know (Queer or not). I’ve also never heard the term “t-female-presenting” before, it is completely foreign to me. I mostly hear and use “trans women” or “transfeminine”.
I wonder if there’s another demographic factor, or you are in a unique community of trans people. The people in my circle are generally 20-35, nonreligious, working class, often living paycheck to paycheck, and are actively and primarily in community with other trans people, as a support structure. How would you describe your circle?
If its and it’s are used “incorrectly” long enough, it’s possible the conjunction will lose the ’ through use. Descriptive vs prescriptive etc.
Also, in response to the person you are responding too, there are advantages for our writing system not being entirely phonetic, namely that different dialects of English that may not be easily interintelligible via spoken word are interintelligible via writing. Like a weaker form of the same benefit of the Chinese writing system.
I’ve encountered IT departments with an unencrypted passwords.xlsx file that they store on the network. Not always super small companies too.
I think it also just took on a bunch of technical debt and was poorly managed, so I don’t know if they could have pulled it off with more time. Like they were forced by management to use KSP1 code, and were not allowed to talk to the KSP1 devs, and repeatedly hemorrhaged workers meaning even less of the code base has experts. I think they maybe would be better off starting from scratch (reusing assets) at this point if they wanted to deliver their more difficult goals like multiplayer.
It seems to me that all of the reasons they provides are all reasons to get married. Especially raising a child, given the privileges that are afforded to married parents in a lot of places (especially in the case of adoption, or IVF using a stranger’s genetic material). Something doesn’t have to require marriage for the benefits of it to outweigh the cons for a specific situation.
The question seems to me to be kind of confusing. What alternative are you comparing it to? Some sort of local structure like domestic partnership?
They are talking corporate death penalty (as evidenced by the rest of the comment), not literal killing of people. And they are correct.
Job elimination is a problem in capitalism because workers need jobs to survive. In a socialist society, job elimination can be a good thing, as it allows us to either increase access to resources or reduce how much time people need to work without dispossessing the people whose jobs were eliminated.
The difference is that, in capitalism, workers only survive by proving their usefulness to capitalists making money. Automation is thus a threat to worker bargaining power. If the means of production were socially owned (through for example government run utilities or worker coops), worker bargaining power is then through a vote or through ownership. It is possible to by default distribute the spoils of automation rather than concentrate them in the hands of capitalists.
I only read the green graph, because the rest was overwhelming
I mean, plenty of Gen Z end up on the streets too, just like any generation, because housing availability and income is just getting worse for poor people. Anxiety issues are fairly associated with poverty.
Most the young people I know (California, USA, I’m a young millennial) are precarious, and most feel precarious. They are also watching baby boomers (sometimes their parents and grandparents) end up on the streets in high numbers, but also don’t have the extra income to put into retirement or get a healthy savings to secure a future for themselves, much less help their ailing family members. Their health issue incidence is high, and the availability of care for those health issues is low and very expensive. People living off of Gig apps and part time jobs (because jobs with benefits are unavailable without a college education, and sometimes even with). If they live separate from their family most of their income goes to rent.
And climate change isn’t something that affects people 100 years from now, it affects us right now in certain zones. The number of homes destroyed/damaged in various disasters each year where I live has gone way up, and a lot of the people who are displaced end up on the streets or in ever growing slums/camps. There’s a general sense that the future will be worse than the present, which makes present struggles feel worse. People turn to drug use, sometimes to self medicate for physical and emotional issues. People don’t want to have kids, because they don’t see a future for those children, and don’t have the resources to provide for them.
I agree there needs to be more solidarity, especially with the most impoverished. Part of the struggle is worsened by atomization and individualism, and propaganda deriding the impoverished.
It’s an interesting grammatical thing. In English, proper nouns are generally capitalized. Where proper nouns are names of specific things, not generalizable ideas. Like Bob, England, The Tribune, Christianity etc are proper nouns, while cat or guitar or car are not. This is extended to proper adjectives, which are generally derived from proper nouns but not always. So like “the man was English”. We capitalize English because it isn’t just a descriptor of a trait, like fat or green, but because it is describing membership to a nation, and nations are proper nouns. Blackness describes a nation type relationship, and when you say someone is Black, you are not saying that the are literally the color black, but rather belong to a Black identity or nationality. In the same sense that you say someone is Jewish or Protestant or Welsh, not jewish or protestant or welsh. Idk English is weird.
Oh neat! Thanks for pointing me toward that. Will definitely check that out:)
I started using y’all years ago due to its ungenderedness, in part from being in queer spaces. Walking into a room of trans women and enbies and saying “you guys” felt weird.
A lot of the eggs I get are fertilized (US, California), but maybe that’s because I tend to get “free range”. Can see the tiny embryo (~1mm) in a lot of them.