I only use work hardware for work. I only use work networks for work. I have a cell phone off wifi for everything else

And ultimately if you are trying to macgyver together anti drone tech you are beyond fucked and should have spent that energy pursuing other means of privacy.

19/f/Cali always

The stand is an awesome book with a few dated tropes/language. With that in mind, I recommend it. Some of the characters live rent free in my head.

Edit I’m big dumb and misread your comment

You think a person’s worth is tied to their genes. Pretty yuck. I disagreed and explained how.

For the record I was calling YOU out for linking a person to their genes, just not directly, trying to be courteous to the conversation.

Keep replying now, and you’re just slapfighting. Not worth it. I said in the last comment our positions are well known and the conversation is functionally concluded.

It’s a bad gene. It’s literally the contextually appropriate description of a factor involved in a situation.

Sorry it hurts your feelings

We’ve both made our points and opinions known here.

I mean if it’s a damaged or failed it’s a bad gene. It caused ms!

It’s not shitting on a person, it’s discussing a condition.

I can understand that discussion can lead to eugenics style thoughts.

“Oh that person has tons of bad genes, they therefore are bad”. That’s wrong though, a person can have a super fucked up body but it doesn’t change their value or goodness.

When discussing a condition, the genes that improve or cause that condition can be described as good or bad.

Context matters.

It’s an article about curing baldness, all context is pre determined.

Like sure, if we’re just bringing anything up, why care about baldness when I can’t breathe underwater, or if I can’t raise the dead?

Tru she do like that

If the topic is undesired head hair loss, “bad” appropriately describes the genes that may contribute to that. The discussion is limited by the context to avoiding hair loss, it isn’t a universal conversation on cosmetics

Depends, do you want it to work?

Unfortunately, looks like buying Twitter was a very effective choice if you take profit off the priority list

Dial it up. Hater can block you and the panel made me happy

My God my general but shallow knowledge of many things will grow more powerful

I get it. But that’s not conclusive.

If you’re doing a test and asking people to take vanilla or chocolate ice cream, or none, you cannot know the preference of the none’s.

You can guess, based on looking at their past dessert choices, but you cannot know.

Edit if you extended the experiment to say everyone will be served, and if you don’t pick you get vanilla, the most you can possibly say about the none’s is that they aren’t offended by having vanilla picked for them. (Assume everyone will eat the food. It’s the only possible food before starvation or something)

Correlation/causation.

Without hard stats you can’t define their reasoning. You can only determine what they are accepting of by not participating.

That said, I certainly won’t argue against that group being quite misogynic

I didn’t you silly goose.

And I’d call it less “chastisement” and more identifying my enemy: those comfortable with trump

Are they allies? They ushered in trump on a red carpet

Many stayed home, how can you quantity their reasoning? They’re absent, but what you can say is for those that are capable of voting, didn’t care much they trump could win.

Limit risk, airgap when needed.