> Trans women have a gender identity that does not align with their male sex assignment at birth, while intersex women may have sex characteristics that do not fit typical notions of female biology.
Even if you don't believe that trans women are women, it seems inarguably correct that they identify as women in spite of having been identified as male when they were born. You could complain about the vocabulary, I guess, but there's no set of vocabulary that won't upset someone.
It's clearly a scientific issue, but also a social issue. There is a scientific definition of what a woman is, and there is a social definition (which is very close to the scientific definition, but which does depend a bit on culture and which can change over time). A lot of the debate comes from people talking past one another, without acknowledging that they're using the same word to discuss different topics.
Individuals do, clearly. I don't use Google-funded malware. I suppose the Linux kernel may qualify, but plenty of people in real industries also work on that.
I'm so glad this article made the front page, whereas my latest article upload that was actually about programming on Hacker News was shadowbanned so it wouldn't receive any votes.
The argument is clear. Bitcoin is bad because most of Hacker News missed the boat and because the environment is an easy excuse. Meanwhile, inefficient webshit such as Slack running on millions of computers or sending megabytes of traffic over the Internet for basic shit is fine, because those produce acceptable money. Also, it's much harder to estimate the energy waste from constantly surveilling people to send Turing-complete advertisements to their phones but, again, those make USD, so they're okay.
I dont think that's a correct assessment of HN. I would wager that if you polled the community you'd find a very high ratio of some of the earliest adopters here.
Many of us are very analytical and looked closely at how bitcoin works wrt energy usage and decided that it's not a good technology, and sold our stacks long ago.
Personally i got out just before the peak in 2017 or 2018 whenever that was, and this was an ethical decision based on the energy usage. My first btc purchased was probably around 2014, so I made some money, but it feels dirty and I dont want any part in the scheme.
The reason I share my anecdote is to provide a counter example to what I think you imagine. I'm quite sure there are many people like me on here. HN as a whole is pretty on top of tech and areas of high growth obviously.
Well a 400b dollar market cap disagrees with you. If the energy usage was not justified then nobody would actually mine it. Which means more people think its worth while than not.
The great thing is even though we all respect your choice not to use Bitcoin. Bitcoin will continue to work as it was intended and there is not much you can do about it.
You are better of conserving your own energy then Bitcoins.
> Bitcoin is bad because most of Hacker News missed the boat
Having a currency get worse as a medium of exchange over time isn't about being salty over "missing the boat". I cannot imagine a usecase for Bitcoin, I can imagine a usecase for DAI or RAI.
According to Bitcoin maximalist logic I should be burning or cutting down the rainforest in 2013 to make a quick buck and then retire on my Bitcoin going up in value than actually work.
Hey, fellow genius on Hacker News, do note that TLS doesn't protect against state actors, because they can very easily manipulate certificate authorities, and a malicious certificate authority completely removes most protections TLS supposedly provides.
It's enough to compromise one CA for TLS to be entirely defeated - any CA can sign a certificate for any site, and TLS implementations will accept it. The only defense is pinned certificates, but that comes with its own problems.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woman (4th paragraph)