There is a good amount of evidence, much of it studied, (and much from the transgender community, but not just there) that there is -something- inherent in gender psychology besides hormones. What it is no one knows, but there are clear examples of people who grow up their whole lives with say testosterone but their "intrinsic sex" is female.
I didn't read the actual study, but from the article they are basing this on the amygdala size being bigger but the male brain also just overall being bigger.
My question is: What rules out the bigger size itself (irregardless of overall brain size) causing differences? Perhaps, the ratio of amygdala size to brain size does not matter but rather just the absolute size.
Everywhere i've worked that has actually cared about hours meant 8 when they said 8. My current job (as stupid as I think it is) requires me to be at work and not on lunch for 8 hours a day.
> The whole point of fact checking is that the fact check / rebuttal is put side by side or preceding the original claim, with evidence and its own citations.
I'm not well read on this topic but I would like to be. I've never heard this solution presented, likely due to my lack of research. Can you provide citations of this solution being suggested and/or implemented?
Besides that, while I agree it is better than pure blocking I still feel it would be a government over-reach. I wouldn't like a company doing it either.
And truthfully, it is going to depend on the person to at least some extent as well.
IMO, anything that doesn't include being at work as part of your actual job duties should have no number of required work hours. You either get enough work done or you don't. If you aren't getting the expected amount of work done, then you'll eventually get fired. If you can out perform everyone else on the team and work 8 hours a week, so be it(just don't expect to get any brownie points when it comes raise time unless you put in more time).
Things like retail/food service are obviously things that require being at work certain hours so talking about shortening hours for that time of work is productive. For creative work/management/executive work though, I think we should move to a more flexible approach.
I was under the impression it was usually lower taxes (partially selection bias due to it being lower for myself). As the other commenter points it, it is complicated and sometimes lower/sometimes higher to file jointly.
Interestingly, the current tax structure somewhat encourages single income families.
You may take the stance that we need less children due to overpopulation problems. Either way though, people having kids is what continues America's and humanity's existence.
This is the whole idea behind lower tax brackets for married couples and similar things. Making sure our population is at least being maintained and preferably growing.
In addition, if you dislike the large amount of kids that grow up in orphanages/bad homes things like this should allow people to have more time to take care of their kids during their first several weeks of life as well as potentially encourage more people to keep their kids instead of putting them up for adoption.
GNUs is notoriously hard to figure out how to config (though once I got it configured I've never had to mess it up again) but is the primary email client for people who want to directly grab their email in emacs instead of using a third party email sync and then reading it in emacs.
ERC is built in, pretty good for IRC, very easy to use, and very configurable. There are other IRC clients as well.
There are RSS readers in emacs as well but I don't currently use them. I think elfeed is the cool one to use nowadays.
> No. You're free to form your own major place of discourse.
No. For a place of discourse to become major requires a large amount of people to be actively involved. I can't just "form my own" because for it to be major other people have to get involved. If I were to form a new place of discourse due to being banned, it would most likely become an echo chamber of other people that have been banned not a major place of discourse.
Unless they are literally calling for people to take action and kill/harass/otherwise harm people I see no reason to "censor" them. From what I've seen, most of that subreddit is hating on other races(which definitely is hate speech) but not calling any real action. I also don't consider calling for legitimate political action to be worthy of "censorship" either, only going outside the political system to directly harm.
One of the big problems here though is thing like twitter's recent behavior(I'm using twitter as an example but other sites do it too).
You can say something hateful, disrespectful, and even threatening to/about a white person(or people) and twitter doesn't care even if you are reported.
However if you say the same thing about/to a black person (or people) [literally the same sentence with only those words switched out] then when reported you will be banned.
If twitter(and others) would actually apply their rules fairly, a lot of people would be a lot less upset.
Technically you are 100% correct. They are definitely within their rights, as are twitter and facebook. The problem is that we've got a de facto (as opposed to de jure) "censorship" system going on where people with undesired opinions are being forced (whether they wanted it or not) into echo chambers.
"Censorship" just forces people underground to talk amongst other people with the same opinions. While it has some kind of measurable effect on preventing impressionable people from being exposed to their opinions, it also prevents people from discussing alternative views with the ones who were "censored". This is a large part of the reason why everyone was blindsided by Trump, the trump supporters were largely either not speaking up due to social penalties for doing so or only talking on-line in forums where other people agreed with them.
If the goal is to "defeat" the alt-right movement, then I don't think it is necessarily obvious that banning them is the right move. As I said though, maybe it is since it does limit exposure to their views which in theory limits their membership.
Note: Scare quoted censorship due to it not being government run which is what people usually mean when they say censorship.
Mine certainly doesn't. I use an official CM build for my phone and I still had to root it if I wanted that (which I did). Then, barring exploits of which I'm sure there are many, I have to approve each app that wants root access. No "default root".