>As an aside, it's good to see another example that the FBI does actually investigate cases of cyberharrasment and takes doxing seriously, contrary to popular opinion.
Probably cos they investigated certain cases and found nothing, to the great dismay of certain people who wanted to be seen as victims and others who wanted to be seen defending them.
What I want to know is why years into its existence, Android still can't stop waking up the screen for no reason, with no notification displaying. Whatever app(s) is doing this can still keep doing it to this day, on my #2 poop OnePlus. So clearly it can't be that bad.
Lock em down. App developers are terrible and have no taste. Y'all had years to make these devices useful and failed. Instead it's all cloud idiocy.
You seem to be either unaware of the details of the Grievance Studies project or are deliberately minimizing it.
They didn't target one journal, they targeted multiple. 7 papers were published and 5 others were in the process of being iterated on, all taken seriously. They cited numerous existing papers to jump off of and build their ridiculous premises. Such as the idea that white students should be chained up in class to understand privilege or that obesity is great. These papers were lauded as exciting contributions and one was singled out with an award.
This work is nearly indistinguishable from real papers in the field, and was constructed to justify ridiculous conclusions, working backwards to find precedent in the fields in question. That's what makes them qualify as Grievance Studies. There are no real hypotheses being tested, it's just the academic laundering of ideology.
Do you seriously think someone could spend a year just learning the lingo of a real STEM discipline and get similarly farcical work published? With no real results required? This isn't about real sociology, linguistics, literature or psychology.
The fact that these disciplines are actively trying to break into STEM by claiming a necessity for feminist geography or astronomy really says enough. They're not happy to just sit in their own departments, doing "research" and producing an inbred body of work, they want to compel the hard sciences to take them seriously.
Remember the C+equality parody that went around a few years ago and which ticked off enough gender activists to get it banned from github? Well, they were just lampooning a real thesis someone had written, about how feminism could enrich logic and coding, because masculinity focused too much on rigid categories. This empress already has no clothes.
Funny how they inject that heading about groping geniuses when there's no mention of him doing so. Excellent dirtbagging Ms. "Journalist".
If describing how the dance of seduction actually works, with sperg-like bluntness, is creepy, then maybe the author should take that up with the women who generally control the rules of the game.
The whole "private companies can do what they want" and "nobody has to listen" argument is a red herring. The choice to financially support who you want is being denied, by capricious and orwellian "safety" boards, who openly talk about having no objective standards for it.
If that doesn't set off your bullshit alarms, you don't value the mindset that gave us all the ability to listen in the first place, and let people live such bubbled, comfortable lives that a wrong word feels like an attack.
No, it's a failure mode of first past the post election systems. Politicians are incentivized to join one of the first two parties, and voters are incentivized to vote for them.
This is not a failure of democracy. It's a failure to teach people about voting systems and game theory.
Proportional representation is the solution to this, so that new ideas can enter government incrementally instead of only when they get the majority vote, by which time it's probably too late.
But this is really hard to get through people's heads, because it is very hard to get someone to understand something, when their influence and power depends on not understanding it.
In my experience there are two kinds of people. Those who focus on tone and delivery, and those who focus on content and consistency.
The former will remain exceedingly polite, up to and including the part where they tell you to go f yourself.
The latter are the ones you can actually depend on in a crisis, because they won't be busy playing social games to cover their own behind.
I'd argue that if someone is seen as a giant douche because they won't automatically cater to someone's sensibilities, that's a sign of a real douche, who is so used to being marketed to and "handled", that fair, reciprocal treatment is experienced as rudeness.
That is the gap between the kind of culture open source used to have, and what some want to turn it into today, and which is often incorrectly dismissed as a lack of civility.
Civility is that which allowed civilization to form, not what passes for it once others have already done the work. If that is a problem, it's because it's been manufactured into one on purpose.
Probably cos they investigated certain cases and found nothing, to the great dismay of certain people who wanted to be seen as victims and others who wanted to be seen defending them.