iNow

It’s not clear what problem you think you’re trying to solve here. Likely unintentionally, you’re comments reek of biased thinking. You said look at the 100m sprint times, for example. Okay. And? So some folks are going to voluntarily and of their own volition occasionally enter races that are statistically harder for them to win. So what? Who cares? They will probably lose, and that’s part of competing. ‘The question is: Why do you think they need you to paternalistically rewrite the rules to prevent those potential losses? Or what about the other side of that coin? Some athletes will enter races they’re statistically more likely to win. Again, who cares? So long as they’re doing so within the rules of the governing body of that sport and adhering to the same guidelines as the other competitors, then that’s totally fine. The fact that you’re even asking these questions or considering a rewrite of the rules proves that you see these transgendered athletes as separate, as different, as needing “special” and “unequal” rules and treatment. They’re just humans, and male/female sports is just an old status quo that’s dying as we continue waking up to the realities of human sexuality amd abilities. This transgendered sports topic is just a modern day version of women not being allowed to drive cars or open their own bank accounts. It’s rooted in misunderstanding, regardless of how noble or sincere the desire is to help.

What “tweaks” do you recommend? So no?

And even if I stipulate this point that your wiki link about this sub population of notable transgendered athletes makes it SEEM like there are more male to female transgendered athletes entering sports than female to male transgendered athletes entering sports, we’re still left with the question of relevance. In what way are you suggesting this assertion is relevant? Is it possible for you to answer in a manner that doesn’t rely on preexisting misogynistic assumptions and gender biases? I don’t believe you can. I’m ready to be proven wrong, but doubt your ability to demonstrate that I am. In fairness, by posting this, you already have.

Your link doesn’t support your claim. Your link mentions “notable” athletes, but you claimed that there are “a lot more male to female athletes entering sports than female to male athletes.” The notable entries are highlights, not exhaustive indices. Would you like to try again, or take the smarter and simpler path of just acknowledge that I had a valid criticism of your point? Those are your options. What if my horse truly is larger than yours and I enjoy riding it?

Perhaps you’re wrong. Perhaps you’re correct. These claims can be verified. Do you know how to count? Then count. Return when done. It’s a simple count based on what’s actually happening in actual reality. You haven’t done that, though. You’ve not cited someone else who’s done that, either. You’re literally extracting assertions from your colon, arriving at conclusions based on those deposits, and expecting all of us to accept them as valid. In a word, No. In another word, Stop.

I gave examples of it being surmounted. Just because you found one specific example where it wasn’t doesn’t magically render my rebuttal invalid. Either way, you’re boring and I’m done.

Insurmountable? Lol. I don’t think that word means what you think it means. Your generalizations are... let’s just call them... misguided and misogynistic.

Elaborate You appear to be suggesting you didn’t intend to suggest binary genders with your “can’t fool nature” comment. If that’s inaccurate, surely you can clarify your meaning. Said another way, what’s your point?

Did I stutter?

That’s right, but only partially. There are a few techniques to managing dust on the lenses. https://www.techbriefs.com/component/content/article/tb/stories/blog/37300 It’s fabulous engineering across the board! The link below is a good overview: https://mars.nasa.gov/mars2020/spacecraft/rover/cameras/

The point is that your assertion of binary only genders is unsupportable nonsense, not based on science, and is most commonly rooted in ignorance and bigotry.

I found this graphic simple to digest, but also informative: SOURCE: https://geofred.stlouisfed.org/map/?th=pubugn&cc=5&rc=false&im=fractile&sb&lng=-95.317&lat=38.686&zm=5&sl&sv&am=Average&at=Not Seasonally Adjusted, Annual, Dollars per Hour, no_period_desc&dt=2021-01-01&fq=Annual&rt=state&sti=116667&un=lin And here's another interesting view, this time from the Wall Street Journal. How Much Does the Federal Minimum Wage Buy You? Now vs. Then:

Yes, but that of course depends on what you mean by "something." New thoughts are "something," and will not occur in the body of a person dead for 3 years, for example. The same for feelings of affection, or fear, or fatigue. You might argue that the body is transformed, decomposed, added to the surrounding earth upon death, or that hair and fingernails may continue growing and individual cells keep functioning for some time, etc... but I wasn't referring to the body or its parts, so that's all moot. I was referring to the generation of new ideas and new thoughts... something which ceased to exist at some point shortly after the autonomic functions of that body ended... after it died. Another approach is to look at things like physical abuse from a husband toward his wife. Throw the husband in jail and transfer the wife to a safe environment and the physical abuse has ceased to exist. Examples such as this are numerous. So, it depends on what you mean by "something," but yes. In the current framing of your question, something can indeed cease to exist.

Even so... a reply of "put it in a box with extra shielding from aluminum foil if you're super uptight about it and so inclined" should've sufficed to answer the question.

That would definitely explain the seemingly unchanging viewing angle / perspective. Thanks, mate! A totally fair and valid point, one with which I agree entirely. We learn and improve more every attempt... kaizen. I should've said something closer to "not 100% successful," or "successful in everything but surviving the landing," etc. Thanks for the good callout here.

Different laws and oversight mechanisms apply. Not a perfect system, but the bank teller really is a more secure individual with whom to interact on these topics. On another note, how are we now 3 pages into a thread talking about protecting the future equivalent of a VHS or Betamax tape?

Oh damn! I know the first 2 attempts failed. This 3rd one was a close but no cigar situation too, I see. Edit: Just watched the successful one before seeing your comment with my daughter before putting her to bed and celebrated how amazing it is that we can now land rockets and reuse them. Unsure whether to update her tomorrow or let the magic live on a bit longer. Lol Me, as well. I also suspect the clouds I saw were behind the craft, not between it and the lens

SpaceX had another successful test launch and landing today, this time of the Starship SN10. What I’m not clear about is how do we get such clear video of the entire flight even as it passes through the clouds? It appears like there’s another ship flying along beside it, but I’m sure that’s not the case, so what is this optical black magic? ??? I don’t understand why the viewing angle / perspective never seems to shift

Lol I’m reminded of this

Comments like these suggest you haven’t been paying attention to the dysfunction of the US Congress these last several years It’s more than covid relief. It’s economic stimulus. If equity were the benchmark, we’d be talking about far more than the minimum wage. Inequality has become far worse this last year. Last year alone, people who were already billionaires added a total of a trillion more dollars to their net worths

Add, not replace. Either way, fixed now

No. About 60% of them it seems

Put the word “is” before the word “if”

Not all Americans support what’s happening. It’s a hasty generalization to suggest otherwise

Yes, but likely separate from covid relief No, there is great strength in him, but he’s neither emperor nor magician. Yes, and many are, but several come from states that are extremely red