TrudeauCastroson

The induced coma was due to wanting to avoid benzo withdrawal.

Instead of going to rehab and tapering off like he can definitely afford to do, he decided to ignore all medical advice, go cold turkey off benzos, and get into an induced coma in Russia to not have to go through withdrawal.

He's been on carnivore diet pre-benzos, and idk how much you can specifically attribute to that and the covid. Those are both sprinkles on top rather than being clear causes like the coma.

It's the picture for the onion article headline "heartbreaking: worst person you know makes a good point'

I'm guessing this is due to ARM architecture and AMD competing on x86?

Crazy how far behind on AI they are, and their dominant data-centre position wasn't going to last forever.

Respecting IP is when you become a paypig for adobe, Microsoft, and media companies.

Disrespecting IP is when those large companies steal from smaller fish who can't do shit about it.

In capitalism there's no winning either way with IP law. AI is allowed to pirate every book/newspaper in existence for training data, but you as a human have to pay hundreds of dollars to read academic papers and gain real knowledge. Or you can freely use an underpriced AI in it's "capture the market" stage of pricing/use to give me the simulacrum of knowledge.

If I wrote open source code on github, I wouldn't want Microsoft to use it to train anything, even if I'm okay with other people taking it to make useful open projects.

I don't trust anyone else enough to drive a motorcycle. Too many car drivers are stupid, rash, and angry.

People here don't even understand zipper merging. I had a debate with a friend about it who gets mad at people 'skipping the line'. So 500m long lane reductions turn into 2km lane reductions because people don't understand this.

They were right, they are an untrustworthy seller.

Reminds me of when all their customer data leaked, and obviously the people who pirated didn't have that issue.

If you're injecting T I don't think pro sports leagues let you compete in the women's division.

You're also putting words in my mouth and creating ridiculous comparisons, I'm not arguing untrained cis man with testosterone vs trained woman with IOC defined woman levels of testosterone. You also didn't address the soccer example.

I don't think I'd beat Serena Williams at tennis. But if there's no gender in sport, the top 200 tennis players in the world who actually make a living off of tennis would be 99% men. I think even Serena Williams said something like that. The battle of the sexes in tennis was an old alcoholic vs a pro woman, and even that was pretty close. I think it's sexist to say "women, you can do sport for fun at the low levels, but men you can actually go pro and take it more seriously".

If you don't believe this then you don't believe in sexual dimorphism and we're not having a serious discussion. At that point there's no point of trans women lowering their T levels, or transmen going on T because clearly it has no effect. Why do you think baseball players roided up? It's not to have smaller testicals, it's to make ball go farther with the extra T.

Professional men and professional women both train at their sport for their job. Pro women soccer teams lose to U18 boys teams because of the testosterone, and those U18 have less training and experience.

In weightlifting the male and female records at every weight class differ by a lot. In athletics the records are all pretty different. The only completely equal events women can win at high levels are shooting and ultra-marathons. And idk maybe curling or breakdancing and not-as-directly-physical stuff like that.

I'm arguing currently professional equally fully trained pro men vs women. Or equally trained men and women at any level really. Abolishing gender in every league tomorrow would mean women wouldn't really have opportunity to compete. Every coed league has the quota rule because otherwise there's be a group of cis guys plus one woman taking games too seriously and crushing everyone, and that wouldn't be fun really.

You don't sound like you follow any professional sport or know much about performance.

What sports do you think dividing only on weight-class would 'work'? (And I guess what is your idea of that "working"?)

I agree with trans women in women's sport, but I don't agree with abolishing all gender in sport. Dividing team sports only on weight class would mean there'd be no professional women in sports, cis or trans. Testosterone is a performance enhancing drug for a reason.

In recreational sport it does and doesn't matter, since most recreational co-ed leagues have a minimum amount of women you have to have on the field at once to keep things balanced. Idk if a quota rule would make sense at the pro level, and that would still be using the western european rendering of gender.

In soccer, the testosterone that a cis man makes is a huge advantage that can't really be overcome only on weight class. Professional women's teams play male high-school teams and lose. And that's soccer, a sport where the best player in the world is a small Argentinian man.

I hope someone adds to my comment, because I looked into the science part of this a while back and got no clearcut answer, and I'll explain why.

The key question is what is the point of anything. What is the point of a woman's division, and why do trans women threaten that point. Does it matter if trans women would do slightly better than if they competed as untransitioned men, even though trans women are less than 2% of women?

You can't really win with science against the pseudo-science, because it all depends on bigger societal questions for which there aren't objective metrics.

The main arguments they usually use is around trans athletes crowding out cis woman athletes. If an unremarkable male-presenting athlete can become the best woman in the world at a sport, then trans women would crowd out cis women from sport and maybe discourage cis women's participation in sport.

A common point is to imagine an epidemic of mediocre male athletes transitioning to women, where they then steal sponsorship money from cis women. This framing already presupposes a lot of things that are hard to dissect. Like why is it less legitimate for a trans woman to win, why is it stealing? If this is an issue, are there even enough trans women athletes to skew results that much? If it is okay, would it still be okay if every sport's record was held by a trans woman?

The IOC always had arbitrarily decided hormone ranges you needed to be within for at least a few years in order to compete. There hasn't been a transwoman who dominated in anything enough for anyone to have an undeniable argument around adjusting the IOC rules, but they'll pull up random trans people in random sports because there aren't that many trans people in sport.

In some measurements, trans woman lose basically all physical advantages, in others, they retain some advantage even if they aren't anywhere close to the ability they had while male-presenting. The main hypothesis they use is that male puberty is too big of an advantage in most sports even after transitioning later.

To make a definitive statement either way, you'd need to find enough athletes who transition as adults and compare performance percentiles, and maybe how far off the man vs woman records they are after transition. Or have a clearer case of an unremarkable male athlete becoming a remarkable woman athlete.

The most controversial case was that New Zealand weightlifter who used to weightlift as a male junior, quit for a few years, then came back competing as a woman at a pretty old age for weightlifting.

You can't really argue science because on the one hand she didn't win and dominate, and on the other she seems to have placed better as an old woman than as a man in the junior competition (I couldn't find exact records, but she only held the Jr Male New Zealand record, not the Commonwealth games overall Jr Male record).

It all comes down to values and judgment instead of "objectively all world records would be held by trans women" or "objectively every trans woman athlete would place the exact same on hormones that they did as a man".

To me it implies it's from the boneless part of the chicken, not that it's deboned dark meat which is different and fair to expect a bone in since deboning is difficult to do perfectly en masse.

This is using the logic around fish, where they take out the majority of bones but you can always still expect a small bone. But that doesn't make sense for white meat in chicken.

Couldn't disagree more with the the ruling, the dissenting opinion is right.

You don't expect a bone fragment in breast meat, which is what boneless wings typically are. Even the argument that "boneless" is a style of preparation, it doesn't make sense to expect bones.

The court probably doesn't want to imply it should be made from a specific (more expensive) cut of meat, but even in the pink-sludge-style nuggets you shouldn't get a bone either.

I feel bad for the guy who has to pay for his own healthcare now.

Maybe I'm in denial, but depending on how many you drink it's probably fine?

One energy drink has around the same caffeine as a cup of coffee. One time I did drink so much knock-off redbull that my pee was fluorescent (It's never been that colour before or since), but other than that it's probably fine.