etherus

Have a look here [1] and here [2] - I think they are good resources, but fallible in the long run. I think yes, I do, often confirmed by communication with people I know (i.e. i suspect they have used AI to make something -> I ask). This falls victim to confirmation bias, though. I suspect a nontrivial amount of writing I read is AI generated without me realising, and I'm wary also of falsely flagging AI-generated content that is actually from humans.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AAI_or_not_quiz [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3ASigns_of_AI_writin...

Can you elaborate on this stance? Feels like a judgement and an underlying assumption on a couple ends.

The material difference between people we bar and do not bar is not large enough to constitute a difference against competing with people we assign within the same sex group [1][2][3]. This might feel counterintuitive, but please consider that trans people who have medically transitioned are not as different from cis people of the same gender than you expect. Hormones do a lot. [1] https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2026/01/22/bjsports-2025-... [2]https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2024/04/10/bjsports-2023-... [3] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10641525/

Is this happening? I believe there are ~10 trans ncaa athletes. We're just hunting them. Why?

But that's a contradiction, no? We're saving women from other women and barring trans people also (ones we consider men) because of a perceived risk that I don't see evidence for (i.e. people choosing to compete as women on a malicious basis or with an 'innate advantage' that makes it dangerous - we've had a long time of running these sports without this sort of regulation, and it seems to be a political choice more than a reaction to evidence that women are being outcompeted by trans people). This is also assuming that having a y chromosome makes it fair for people with a y chromosome to compete against one another, but if you compare people's physiology these people who present as women often have low/no testosterone. Separating on the line of testosterone picks up a lot of female athletes (especially at the olympic level) that are not trans, and overall I just see this hurting women without evidence that it's actually a response to harm. In any case, trans people and gender non conforming women become the victims of this in the public sphere. It just seems very misguided.

If you were required to compete with people of a gender you do not identify with, even when event organisers recognise you as more fitting among the other group, that's a ban. There are trans masc people. Requiring them to compete with women is unfair and disrespectful. Requiring trans fem people to do so is the same. The rules around gender identification in regulated sports require proof of medical treatment yada yada to accept that people are 'trans enough', which is itself discriminatory. Trans people are a lot less distinct and separate from everyone else than you'd be led to think.

I don't think the point is that you have to be all of those things, or even any of them. Just that imagining what kinds of things people you'd like do is a good way to know what might enrich you also. You shouldn't be discouraged if that seems far off, but all of it can be broken up into as many pieces as you like. If it all feels too much

Trump was elected in 2016, the Snowden leaks are from 2013. These processes have been going on for a while, and those aren't the earliest indicators.

Becoming more politically active has been a massive source of community for me. And if community is already endangered (which isn't something I disagree with, by the way - so many people are inadequately supported), that's all the more reason we should find and build it.

The question is: will and or when will the response to this violence exceed levels which can be controlled by the same mechanisms? I believe there is a window here, where in most countries experiencing this shift, there are still many individuals who have the power to effect change if they accept the risk. This won't be the case forever - at some point it will be few, not many. Community is important; look after it.

Why would they do that? Once they have their win-condition, there's no reason to innovate. Only to reduce the costs of existing solutions. I expect that unless voice becomes a parameter which drives competition and first-choice for adoption, it will never become a focus of the frontier orgs. Which is curious to me, as almost the opposite of how I'm reading your comment.

As an aside, do you use dvorak as your keyboard layout? The ' for 1 typo is quite rare with qwerty, but I could see you meaning '1900s, though that becomes two characters in a short space. Thanks for the recommendation!

I think, unfortunately, this is something which requires the development of good taste: the ability to distinguish good abstractions and clean implementations in advance of their creation, to direct it. There is little replacement of experience in this endeavour, and most time people spend learning to do software engineering pays no attention to it. Intentional analysis of existing projects and developing your own new things is incredibly helpful for this, and the sort of development we recognise in the workplace we may recognise but fail to prioritise and reward appropriately.

Link here for those interested: http://web.archive.org/web/20181101221927/https://docs.godot...