As a thin veil of excuse, the DCRI incident involved what they considered military secrets rather than defamation charges. Still dumb to do that extrajudicially, of course.

The article on the lawsuit is blocked, which is standard procedure for participants of an ongoing lawsuit: Talk to your lawyer about it, and nobody else, because anything you say without your lawyer’s counsel might jeopardise your legal position. Even if it’s just people editing that article, the foundation will want to protect itself until the matter is settled.

Don’t forget that non-profits, too, are beholden to laws. If they want to continue offering their services in India, they don’t really want to be charged for contempt on top of the other case.

People here prefer the federation of Mastodon

I browse all a lot to look for interesting new communities. Every now and then I come across a new community from ani.social, the NSFW instance or something, and on Voyager I can’t seem to block entire instances. I also don’t know if there’s a way to filter only the communities without blocking the users too, but as it stands, I may have to look for another app to block the instances entirely.

Shouldn’t, definitely. But for a while, it will keep running, because that’s how a lot of speculative investment works.

It can! For a while. Isn’t that the nature of speculation and speculative bubbles? Sure, they may pop some day, because we don’t know for sure what’s a bubble and what is a promising market disruption. But a bunch of people make a bunch of money until then, and that’s all that matters.

Oh believe me, I would change some things about that database if I could. Alas, I’m just the analyst building data models from it.

(To be fair, it’s otherwise easy to work with and for most use-cases, it doesn’t matter since they’re aggregated per month anyway, so I just load the last month’s data on the 2nd of each month. I definitely have worse patients to operate on.)

Unrelated to the topic, but I deal with a database storing timestamps.

In local time.

For systems all around the world.

You’ll see current entries timestamped 12:28 from eastern Europe followed by ones 6:28 from America and then another 11:28 from central Europe.

Without offset.

You can, but why would you? Reality has enough examples to make fantasy obsolete

In my classes on analytics, we were taught to prefer using normalised axes starting at 0 to more accurately put changes into perspective.

But if I have nothing of substance to add to the point? “This. Also…”? I don’t have a Cybertruck or know anyone that does; I can’t comment on their quality.

Besides, it wasn’t even particularly important to me, just a quick aside. If I care deeply about making people use “they” for inclusion reasons, I’d have written more than a sentence.

I’m not sure they ever doubled down on it.

They didn’t. Hence my insistence: the original comment probably wasn’t intentional as such, nor do I ascribe any malice.

Plenty other people felt the need to ascribe intent, however. That’s what I don’t understand - why are people so eager to defend a phrasing and potential intent without ever consulting the original commenter?

I just don’t want to limit how people express themselves

I made a suggestion and argument why I find “they” better, without ideological insistence or being forceful about it. There’s no limiting going on.

Its more important to me that someone express themselves honestly rather than they are politically correct.

The above note and specific context aside, I don’t categorically agree. While reasonable argument should be the first resort, there are honest sentiments rejecting reasonable argument that deserve no expression, no space and no opportunity to spread hateful rhetoric. I think it’s more important to foster a tolerant environment, suppressing intolerance if necessary to preserve that environment, than to grant universal freedom even to enemies of freedom.

Again, this probably doesn’t apply here - I doubt the original comment made a point of exclusion. We’re getting way off topic here when all I wanted was to offer an alternative argument for inclusive phrasing.

I wasn’t strictly meaning to correct so much as point out a reason why it’s more concise. I value the inclusive motivation too, if that was hard to tell; I just think there is another reason even if you don’t care about inclusion.

It seems a lot of people are actively opposed to it though, not sure why. I’m just asking questions, you know?

😉

I wanted to offer a suggestion I felt is better for two independent reasons. I didn’t say “you should have said”, simply wrote why I consider the more inclusive they more convenient too.

I don’t think there was any active “want” behind that way of writing so much as habit (“how the person talks”). Somehow a lot of people seem bent on opposing that suggestion though, and while I don’t want to make assumptions, I’m starting to think it isn’t out of some deep disdain for convenience.

Not an intentional expression, no. If I say something out of habit without thinking, that’s out of affect, not intent. If I then double down on that habit when asked about it, it’s an intentional expression.

Maybe I came across too strongly in my first comment, but it was really just meant to be a comment on how “they” is more convenient on top of being more inclusive as a suggestion, not as an attack. I think it’s better to use it for two otherwise unrelated reasons, and put forth the one not hinging on ideology.

I am confused, yes. You’d either have to be stubborn about not changing habits or so opposed to inclusiveness that you’d rather write something longer to intentionally exclude. I didn’t want to assume either and just chalked it up to habit and wanted to suggest an alternative.

That’s a habit, not an intent. You implied that there were some deeper intent behind using “he or she” over the shorter and more inclusive “they”. Of course people are allowed to write however they want to, and they’re free to ignore my suggestion. I’m wondering why people are so bent on pushing back against it - what is it about my remark that turned this whole thing into such an involved discussion?

Yes, of course, nothing wrong there. I’m asking what’s wrong with using “they” instead, given that there seems to be some pushback

Nice ditty.

Thank you :)

Regional dialect, fluidity of language, variety - even habit.

Those explain why it might be the first thing people reach to, but I wasn’t trying to demonise that. I was trying to offer an argument for the alternative that I consider both more convenient to write and read and more inclusive. Habits can be changed.

Oh, I do respectfully disagree with that, especially when you cite medieval English but reference an American language dictionary as your source.

Does the nature of the source invalidate the content and points it makes? English is still English, and I was looking for a source that wasn’t Wikipedia, but also was publically accessible. I could have just copied all of Wikipedia’s references, but most of them are books or journals that I don’t expect people to have access to and didn’t individually check. We could debate here what burden of proof is to be expected in an online debate, but I didn’t think the matter to be worth serious discussion.

The point is the same: there are plenty of historical examples of it being used. To be clear, this is a pre-emptive counterargument to a point I’ve occasionally seen made: That the singular they was a new invention and should be rejected on that ground. If past usage has no bearing on your current decision, that argument obviously holds no weight.

In the latter case, I contend that the increasing spread, particularly in the context of that spread, legitimises its use for that purpose. I fall in with the descriptivists: Rules should describe contemporary usage, not prescribe it.

Ultimately, I believe using “they” for gender neutrality is more inclusive for identities outside the binary. I consider the difference in usage trivial enough that the difference in respect justifies it.

And which intent would warrant using “he or she” rather than “they”?

Then the original comment would read

hose hings are very poorly made and all he most imporan pars are made of cheap plasic ha an average person can lierally rip off wih his or her bare hands