Innovation and change are not worth as much as providing a living wage to those who work for you. If you value nebulous innovation over the quality of life of real people, I don't know what to tell you.
A notable effect that skews those numbers a bit is that the test for literacy is often given in English only, meaning any people in the US who can read and write Spanish but not English are counted as illiterate. (It's slightly more complex than this, some states let you take it in Spanish, some have the option but still usually give it in English most of the time, but the effect is the same)
Did the comment you replied to actually accuse them of any of those things? I don't see them doing that. They juxtaposed the two situations, but they made no accusations nor casted any blame. There isn't even any prejudice I can see. Was the comment edited or something? I don't see how your comment makes sense as a reply to its parent.
Yes. They are fuzzy around the edges, and those people on those edges should not be lumped into the binary categories because they don't really apply to them. For example, if an intersex person has both sets of genitalia, both underdeveloped, what are they? Usually, the answer is one is removed, and that's that, but what if they don't? They don't fit into either the male or female category. I'm not saying the sexual binary is useless, but saying "there are only two sexes" is entirely disingenuous when you know it not to be true.
Additionally, men don't need to protect women anymore, not really. We're not out here hunting bears, we're commuting to the office. A woman with a gun or pepper spray could incapacitate the strongest man in the world, we don't really need to hold onto these ideas in the same way, they don't map onto our lives that way anymore. The instinct still exists, and that's fine, but we don't need to emulate our forefathers' social structure in societies that don't reflect that.
Take this question a step further and ask _why_ those activities disappeared. What are those people who would previously have been doing that, now doing instead? Usually, the answer is working. For the unions, decades of policy have systematically eliminated them, but for the other points, it's more of a "between the lines" thing.
That is not an accurate description of how the human sex hormones' traits are embodied, intersex people exist, sex chromosome disorders exist, and conveniently ignoring those people makes the model simpler but denies a more complex underlying truth.
Honestly, I'm from NJ and I'm still shocked they actually charged Gold Bar Bob for what he did. He's so influential in NJ politics, I thought they'd let him get away with it like he did all the other bribes he's taken over the years. I guess literal gold bars from Egypt with obvious provenance was just too on the nose.
Collabora is the blessed one currently, but you can use either, it supports either one, and you can easily swap them. The EuroOffice image will likely default to OnlyOffice, but NC has not announced any plans of switching that to the default. It could change in the future, but I don't foresee them discontinuing support for either if they have any say in it.
They're referencing Trump's constant insistence that we won or are currently winning. He never, ever admits defeat or concedes any ground, everything is a victory, nothing is a loss. Trump also famously said (paraphrasing) "We're gonna win so much, we'll be tired of winning".
Sure, you can argue that despite being allowed to, most police departments do not discriminate in that way, but the legal precedent provides credence and legitimacy to the stereotype, regardless of its truthfulness, which is what I pointed out. I don't think any real data on this would be available, though, so I think most people (you and I included) just go by vibe, so in the absence of evidence one way or the other, the stereotypes will prevail, regardless of accuracy.
Best bet is an adversarial image, which is essentially reversing what a classification algo is looking for to get out the "Most banana-looking image", for example, and then using that. It, to the AI, looks so much like the category it's designed to look like, that all the weights of everything else in the image are too low in comparison and nothing else gets recognized.
You're really playing fast and loose with your definition of war here, you change it depending on the country, but aren't clearly delineating which you're using. So let me ask a question to try to clear this up:
By the US's standard of what is considered a war, is China at war, and have they been at war in the last 10 years? If so, where and when?
Russia obviously has been at war with Ukraine, no question there.