Curious why you phrased Apple listening to their customers in such a negative way. Maybe from pessimism bias?
I observe a lot of HN commenters don't vibe with how Apple controls & develops their ecosystem. Yet, instead of go elsewhere, complaining and acting like being oh so very special enough to know how things should be done is preferred; while expecting a major company to just cater to their personal whims.
I'm unsure if it's entitlement I'm witnessing or just people that feel like they have no faith in Apple's competition at making anything better than Apple currently has.
To be honest I think having a pessimism bias towards large corporations is healthy. Sure, they might in the end do a good thing (or a less harmful thing than they could have), but they have a huge amount of power and very little oversight.
I like Apple products, but I try to avoid any illusion that they’re good guys on a corporate scale. They’ve proven they’re not in a lot of ways (see many recent articles about their labor practices). That doesn’t mean every thing they do should be equally scrutinized with a pessimistic predisposition. But I really don’t fault anyone for assuming a large for profit organization will prioritize their own priorities over everything else.
The thing I try to moderate that with is understanding their actual priorities and not just falling into blind cynicism.
Well, I've had a Mac continuously since the original 128k Mac, so I'm pretty well situated as an observer of all things Apple and more knowledgeable about their history and their machines/software then the vast majority of their employees, some of whom are close friends.
I want them to listen, since the decisions they make affect the ecosystem I've adopted for my extended family (for whom I'm the main technical point of contact,) and poor ones will affect me and them disproportionately.
So to me, it doesn't feel at all like entitlement, rather, the wishes of a longtime, loyal customer hoping they continue down the path of listening to those of us who have promoted their products and helped make them successful.
You could attempt contacting steam and ask if they know how many attempts have been made from different IP addresses in total for login to your account. I feel like that's really the only way to verify what you're proposing. Steam likely has logs of all the IP addresses that attempt login to whatever account.
I'm skeptical of what you're proposing because it's not hard to design a system that freezes mass random IP login attempts to an account after 'x' low number of random attempts and then only allow the past successful IP addresses to continue with a successful login. As well, as do an email verification if the password is successful but being used from a new IP address.
I have sent tickets to Steam asking for such corroboration. I've never gotten beyond a "don't worry Steam Guard seems to be working as intended" and general Tier 1 copy-paste responses.
The article mentions, nature versus nurture debate and that's complete nonsense. Any scientist should know by now, all forces factor into an equation for whatever outcome. So the phrase "nature versus nurture debate" is annoying to read and I assume it generally confuses the public. Similar to how doctors used to say someone has a chemical imbalance in their brain for the cause of whatever illness the person is suffering from. I feel like until people understand "cause & effect" an ignorance is going to continue existing and that really misleads the general populace towards incorrect assumptions or even magical thinking.
You can see this in studies that try to determine how much some traits are inherited .
Complex traits usually converge towards 50/50 because that's what you expect when the question is framed wrong. Different genes activate based on input from the environment.
> Different genes activate based on input from the environment.
Precisely. Traits feed back and feed forward, etc. You cannot simply say 30% genes and 70% environment because you cannot ignore how they interact with each other.
You can use the ARIA role="button" attribute [1]. You also should make it focusable using tabindex="0" and allow keyboard input, although some screen readers might be able to get around those limitations...
But like another reply mentioned, you can get it all from free using a normal <button>, which isn't really hard to style even compared to a <div>, and provides it all for free...
I'm sorry if I made you feel that you should be ashamed of your lack of knowledge in this particular area. That wasn't my point at all. I'm just sad that we accessibility advocates have somehow not yet been able to reach you and other developers. I'm sorry you felt the need to retract your comment.
I tried to get rid of my US citizenship while residing in Canada. I found out about the $2.5k and cannot pay that while I’m not in a great financial situation to afford giving away that much. Also I suffered conversion therapy in Michigan against my will. So I greatly despise the idea of the US ever getting a dime from me. Luckily my name is different between citizenships and I’ve not disclosed being a US citizen to banks. Anyway I’ll be dead by cancer in the near future so I’m not that concerned but I wanted to share my experience. I contacted the US embassy by email about not being able to pay but greatly wanting to drop US citizenship because of past trauma that effects my health. The agent just sent an email that looks like a template explaining all must pay 2.5k and he didn’t respond to any following responses I sent. It feels like extortion and really should be considered unconstitutional. I’m writing from a hospital bed on my phone so I apologize for the bad grammar mistakes
As a fellow expat who would very much like to get rid of my US citizenship too, I can tell you my experience with Americans is that they are not happy that anyone gets out and doesn't have to deal with the same crap they deal with. Tell them you like the life/people/culture in country X better and they get upset, defensive, angry even, like you wronged them by calling attention to the reality that its not actually a very nice place to live, and they know it, and they know they are stuck there. More than anything, I believe this essential truth about American character explains things like this $2.5K "fee" and the spineless response from the embassy you got. It's all just to fuck with you, cause you got away and don't have to live around those people and their crazy anymore.
Yes, I have no way of knowing if that’s the reason why I haven’t been contacted by banks or the US but I assume it’s a good possibility. They probably just scan a list of names with birthdates. Unless you’ve already reported being a US citizen then they probably have an easy way of contacting you.
Depends on what profession in question but for programming I would rather do 5 hours per day for 4 days of the week. Three day weekends are healthier for me and I know from my mood being better when it occurs during the summer where I work.
Yah that part of how the FBI handles these situations has always made me really upset. The FBI's main task should be isolating an unstable kid from interacting with disturbing chat rooms and first see if the kid's mentality will fizzles out after some time away from it. Instead they basically nurture the messed up mentality of the kid and until they can go ahead with charging the kid while it likely could've been prevented if the messed up mentality wasn't nurtured.
As a transgender person I find HN members to be somewhat transphobic in previous discussions unrelated to this article about transgender issues. So unsure if it's a good place for discussion here. It would be nice if articles like the submitted one were moderated better. Feels like HN takes a stance of ignoring these gender topics or flagging them and while being more defensive of other non-gender topics that are controversial.
Puberty blockers are used for other medical issues and aren't considered dangerous or life damaging. Anyway this topic is somewhat meaningful to me because I really don't think people know how truly valuable it can be for someone to stall puberty when they desire to.
I find it appalling that cis society is quick to make sure no confused cis kid is harmed while ignoring trans kids that end up permanently disfigured by their voice & appearance from the wrong puberty. It's basically comparable to a cis kid having the wrong hormones damaging their body through puberty like a boy growing breasts and people just shrug their shoulders when it's a trans kid.
For context I went through the wrong puberty (I'm only 30 years old) and recently have been diagnosed with cancer. I'm choosing not to get treatment for the cancer and so I can get Medical Assistance in Dying because Gender Dysphoria sucks while all surgeries to possibly fix voice or appearance is like putting a downpayment for a house. Also was disowned by parents and struggled through university years because of constant bullying. Anyway I really hope people can take the time to consider that some kids truly know they're trans and it's not a fad to them.
I truly feel bad for you. At the same time I look at my own kids and find that the “want” is often temporary but the result is permanent. Of course they want a puppy but are very unlikely to be able to take care of it properly for 15 years. And the “want” is very much real, they firmly believe it to be their utmost desire. So how do I, as a parent, tell the difference between something they can and cannot take responsibility for, they can or cannot learn to live without?
I knew when I was around ~7 and that never went away. I don't really think of it like a "want" of a puppy because I had wants like a puppy too and those go away after a few weeks or months in childhood. It's not something like years and years of never going away.
Btw, most people don't consider that being denied something like I was and that has life long consequences as way more hurtful while knowing you were right; and others prevented you. Thinking about things in my life I've been wrong about, such events are way less painful because it felt like my fault when people weren't involved by stoping me from what was right. The painful events are when people involved prevent what was right for you. Basically, it's way more awful when you undergo the wrong circumstances because of someone else that prevented what you knew was right instead of undergoing what was wrong by your own mistake. I tried my best to make that not confusing before I go to sleep.
You see if that desire has been a fixed and constant part of their life since a young age. You check whether they can relieve their distress using any other methods. You check the severity of their distress.
Just adopt a puppy from a shelter and give it back when/if the kids get bored of it (maybe even donate them so that they have money to keep the dog). I also wanted a dog when I was a child, my parents didn't let me have it, but now I have living conditions when I wouldn't be able to, so it's too late to have one.
Is your life really not worth saving if you cannot receive the surgeries? I cannot know how you feel about your life and its impossible for me to decide how you ought to feel but I also can't help but feel like there is always some degree of hope.
Could a case be made that they failed to get you the help you needed earlier and thus ought to foot the bill now?
Is it reasonably possible that you might earn enough to pay for it?
Could you raise money from others to do so?
Why not all 3 raise and earn money for it while trying to recoup expenses in court?
Thanks but I've never been a person to accept charity. Basically, I grew up in USA as a Canadian Citizen cause parents moved to USA when I was young. Lived in a really bad area of Michigan from childhood to adulthood. I now finally live in Quebec away from that dreaded past. Yah life isn't worth living as my other comments somewhat explain.
In Canada I haven't had success getting surgeries coverage for fixing either my voice or face from what characteristics people gender me. I tried for a few years to get coverage and even appealed my insurance's decision against my psychiatrist's letter saying the surgeries are medically necessary. I went to a surgeon that's the head surgeon for the surgeries transwomen get and he said none of his colleagues understand Gender Dysphoria to know why the surgeries should be medically necessary. The public insurance only cares about the surgeon's opinion.
So I've basically given up on coverage. I find it even more irritating nowadays since I've read about the common cancers when I was diagnosed. Women that get breast cancer have no problems getting full coverage for breast reconstruction under the public insurance. I think that obviously should be a thing but it feels like added sting to my situation since I've not even had success with breasts from HRT by starting after puberty.
Anyway I tried enough I think and worked hard, but life just never wanted things to work out. I think I'm just cursed in life so MAiD makes sense. The judgement is found here for the coverage request if you're interested: http://citoyens.soquij.qc.ca/php/decision.php?ID=C97168147E6...
I've been told by my Oncologist I only have a year left to live if I don't get treatment. That was back in October. There's really no reason to live as a disfigured person for all people. Some people can do it and I respect those individuals. I rather continue just taking morphine (otherwise I cannot walk) and get assisted dying after the snow melts. I feel like I've enjoyed enough of this life that I could. I'll email you if you don't mind my mentality, I always like to write to someone about anything. It's my favorite way to pass the time.
>It's basically comparable to a cis kid having the wrong hormones damaging their body through puberty like a boy growing breasts and people just shrug their shoulders when it's a trans kid.
I never wanted kids and would argue that sperm banking is an option if that's a fear. I don't see your argument any different than forcing one's beliefs on others to prevent a medical treatment that oneself desires as well. Lastly, majority of people I know nowadays aren't even having kids.
Of course, for some people sterility is not a problem. For some, it is a massive problem.
Parents have a right to force their beliefs onto their children if their beliefs are reasonable. Their children will often thank them for it when they've become adults.
You're dismissing sterility as a non-issue when it is a massive issue for many people, and moreover, you're obfuscating the fact that this is about children, and the potential to undergo life-altering treatment with no psychiatric evaluation and little-to-no consultation.
What's bad faith is claiming that what myself and the OP were discussing is merely PB, when in reality it's about the full hormone therapy treatment regiment involved in gender transitioning.
But way to score a point on pedantic grounds.
>This court case said that combined parental consent and child consent was not enough
I was responding to the OP's point, that claimed I was arguing for forcing my beliefs on others. I was making the point that in principle, it can be perfectly okay for parents to force their beliefs on their children.
It depends on the circumstances and the specific details of the case. I was not making an argument for or against parental privilege for any specific case.
> As much as you may disagree, it’s science, and it’s absolutely irrefutable.
Just checking that you know that any relevant healthcare professional disagrees with you. This includes WPATH, USPATH, CPATH, AusPATH, PATHA, AsiaPATH, EUPATH, WHO, CDC, ICD11
> In the philosophy of science, falsifiability or refutability is the capacity for a statement, theory or hypothesis to be contradicted by evidence. For example, the statement "All swans are white" is falsifiable because one can observe that black swans exist.
> The observation of a black swan falsifies the hypothesis "All swans are white".
> (...) Popper argued for falsifiability and opposed this to the intuitively similar concept of verifiability. Whereas verifying the claim "All swans are white" would require assessment of all swans, which is not possible, the single observation of a black swan is sufficient to falsify it.
You’ve picked a really fun example and I’m glad you asked!
You are exactly correct; the value of the speed of light is not science because it cannot be refuted. (Although this was not always true!)
You see, in 1983 the definition of the length of a meter was changed to be the distance that light travels through vacuum in 1/299,792,458 of a second, precisely. Or to put that differently, that the speed of light through vacuum is pinned at 299,792,458 meters per second, precisely. Not “by current technological standards”; that’s the exact value of the speed of light in SI units, and presumably always will be.
So light now always travels at that speed because we’ve defined it that way, and if (when) we develop better methods to more accurately measure how far light travels over a period of time, it changes the length of a meter, not the speed of light. Light would still be travelling at 299,792,458 m/s; those meters would just be a little longer or shorter to compensate for whatever errors we discovered. (And similarly, if we discovered that our measurements of certain specific vibrations of caesium-133 atoms were wrong, it doesn’t change the measured length of a second; it changes the length of a meter. The duration of a second relative to the caesium-133 atoms is fixed by fiat, the same way that the speed of light is fixed by fiat)
But if you’d asked before 1983, then I’d have said that yes, the value of the speed of light was easily refutable, simply by following the standard everyday process of science. (and in fact this happened in 1972, 1958, 1950, 1926, 1907, etc and so on all the way back to the mid-1600s)
If you wanted to ‘refute’ the currently accepted speed of light, then all you had to do was run an experiment to measure the speed of light and find out that it had a different speed than everybody thought previously.
Once you did that, you of course needed to get a bunch of other scientists to inspect your methodology and results and then repeat your experiment and do other variations of your experiment, and eventually come into agreement with your new, improved measurement. Boom! Refuted. Science, bitches. :D
The whole point of science is that every single one of its findings can be refuted if new experiments determine that our previous understanding was incorrect. If something can’t be refuted, it’s not science. By definition.
That’s the core distinguishing feature between science and dogma/opinions/whatever.
But yeah. The speed of light? Not science any more. We’ve declared a value by fiat and no experimental results can change it from here on out.
My understanding is that therapy alone is less effective at securing long term happiness compared to therapy and transitioning. Anything to do with your brain is simultaneously all in your head by definition and also real.
It's not a choice, I didn't choose the sex I was born with in this world and similar for having gender dysphoria. It's like being born without legs and using what has been developed from science to correct the problem. Have the right hormones be distributed in the body and so I could've mimic'ed a somewhat normal life like a cis woman that cannot get pregnant. Unsure why you writing it a psychiatric disorder and then arguing it's not a real thing while expressing your view as it's science. A successful transition doesn't need lifelong help and I have friends that are transgender that never have seen a therapist or a psychiatrist. They were ones that were lucky to get on puberty blockers or HRT young with good genetics to pass as their identity.
I think suicide is justified if a lifelong dream is unattainable. Specifically if the dream is what makes life worth living for the person with the dream. Basically, I don't necessarily agree with the mentality of others assuming one should be able to just let go of a lifelong dream.
I think you're giving deams a pathological importance, unless you're using the term very creatively (e.g. the wish to not live in unbearable pain or something).
The ability to be able to pursue a lifelong dream may become impossible and I wouldn't hold it against a person ending their life. Unbearable pain could be psychological pain from no longer being able to pursue a lifelong dream. I'm actually surprised I was downvoted for this opinion on here with only your response. Of course not everyone should end their life because there is a lot in life that one can do but I still wouldn't hold it against someone that did.
I wouldn't hold anything against a person wanting to end their own life as I haven't been in their shoes. Barring that caveat, coupling your life to a dream does seem pathological - I would worry that someone ending their life for something like that are throwing away a decent chance to still end up with a overall good, fully lived life.
It's important to consider that you can have rough patches in live but recover well. The largest tragedies are when people react on short term mental pain by giving up, where they would have changed their mind if just holding out for just a bit longer. The person who might feel like there's nothing to live for after having to give up their dream might just have their true love around the corner or maybe just a few session with a therapist would have given them a new perspective, finding joy in the moment, etc.
While I didn't downvote - my guess would be that your message was received as support towards the idea that suicide would be a reasonable and healthy reaction to not reaching your dreams - an idea that in itself could make someone consider the option.
The idea that someone should live a certain way is narcissistic though. Also it feels inherently about forcing one's personal belief of death upon another. True love may be the meaning of life for someone while the dream one couldn't pursue anymore for the person that committed suicide was the meaning of his/her life. Oh, I just think people are to quick to react nowadays without much thought.
I'm predicting a bit longer until laws start passing that mandate a legal requirement for all to get vaccinated for covid-19. I'm still unsure how long that will take, for it to come into law but I assume the vaccine will be pointless for stopping the virus spread and until everyone is being vaccinated. Basically, the ones that firstly get vaccinated will have to continue doing so until everyone if forced to follow. I could be wrong but I assume people not getting vaccinated will keep the virus going host to host and until the vaccination wears off; requiring another one and repeat.
I observe a lot of HN commenters don't vibe with how Apple controls & develops their ecosystem. Yet, instead of go elsewhere, complaining and acting like being oh so very special enough to know how things should be done is preferred; while expecting a major company to just cater to their personal whims.
I'm unsure if it's entitlement I'm witnessing or just people that feel like they have no faith in Apple's competition at making anything better than Apple currently has.