You can with a sub-wavelength antenna like a nintendo joycon has, it’s less than 10mm in X and Y axes. It will just have terrible reception, like a nintendo joycon has.

Also it could be a higher frequency which would allow a smaller antenna.

Her eyes and mouth are slightly wider than a relaxed expression, so there’s visible tension. In video it could be cute, like she might just be happy, but if you freeze just that one moment then her expression is ambiguous. Either she’s talking and smiling enthusiastically, or she’s about to eat you enthusiastically, or more realistically she’s afraid and trying to hide it. Add the creepy text and you’re primed to interpret the expression negatively.

Right, but nobody except grammar nazis and the sith deal in absolutes like that.

Obviously the signifiers have a level of stability otherwise nobody would understand any of it.

This is yet another way in which language and gender are analogous.

Words are objects in a sense, although they are abstract, but there is no singular objective language in the same way that there is no objective gender. Both are intersubjective, they are interactions negotiated between subjects. There is no fixed object that you can point to and call “language” independent of a subjective experience of that language.

And your argument could be applied to expressions of gender. A feminine dress is an object, and a beard is an object. These are gender signifiers, but that doesn’t make gender itself objective in any way. The analogy to language is very close. They are both sets of signifiers.

It does change all the time, and dictionaries don’t ensure any kind of standard. The linguists who write dictionaries will tell you that their only function is to describe the most popular parts of the language, not to prescribe any particular rules. Telling people how they should speak doesn’t actually work.

I could say the phrase “abso-fucking-lutely” and you understand it, even though it’s not in the dictionary. That’s still language, it’s still English.

And I don’t know what you mean by a “‘hard’ contradiction” or why that matters. My point is that both language and gender are forms of communication that rely on socially constructed signifiers and they are both fluid to a similar degree, so the analogy is good. If you want to argue with me, that’s the point you should be dealing with.

Language isn’t objective though. It wasn’t handed down from some deity.

Language is a constantly evolving negotiation of new and remixed communications, performed through billions of interactions every single day. It’s collaborative and unpredictable and sometimes someone comes up with something cool and the next day everybody is copying them.

In short, language is socially constructed.

I think it’s a great analogy for gender in that respect.

It’s Buddy the Christ.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/93/Buddy_christ.jpg

I assume this is objective truth then, something that definitely exists and we can definitely know. I’m sure they have plenty of science to back it up.

They wouldn’t just hear a bunch of thinly disguised bullshit built on the back of junk science and take it at face value without checking if any of it is real, not this person with their special objective truth brain.

Oh wow, it’s Christopher Lloyd in One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest. That’s a deep cut.

Oh arrested? Wow, only guilty people are arrested by states led by their fascist political rivals. If he’s arrested, he must be guilty. That’s how justice works.

You could’ve said “convicted”, but that was annulled and a UN human rights committee found that:

The committee concluded that prosecutors and the lead judge in the investigation, Sergio Moro, showed bias in Lula’s case, violating his right to be presumed innocent.

I’m not a fan of politicians in general, but I’d take these charges more seriously if the people prosecuting them weren’t so flagrantly politically motivated and breaking the rules. Presumably the reason he was tried in the wrong court was because the state was shopping for a judge that wouldn’t give him a fair trial. If he’s that guilty, they’ve muddied the waters by not actually caring about his guilt, and it’s going to be way harder to get anything to stick anymore. Like they were in charge of the whole fucking country, how were they this bad at persecuting him?

What I do know is that when a fascist like Bolsonaro is that mad at you, you might actually be doing something right.

Where? Is this paradise oasis of helpfulness on the internet? Or is it offline somewhere?

Ah dang, well, thanks anyway.

Unironically I think it must happen to some extent, and that doesn’t mean every toxic person is an op. It wouldn’t take a lot of manpower to create a toxic environment. Just hassle the devs with annoying questions, suggestions and bad “contributions” until they’re sick of everyone’s shit and start to become toxic themselves. If they’re dealing with all the noise of bad actors, they get overzealous in moderating it, and it’s hard to tell the difference between a troll who’s trying to waste your time, and an honest newbie who doesn’t know what questions to ask or what information to share, so they all get blasted to some extent, and the devs lose any interest in catering to the newbies.

Edit: actually I remember asking a question on stackoverflow about PuTTY one time, it was answered and I moved on with my life. Then five fucking years later some dickhead shows up in the comments and says, “aw… putty… windows…” So I’m like, “Listen, I don’t care if you think I’m sad for using windows, I don’t use linux because it’s too much work” Then they start lecturing me about how linux is for experts and if I don’t know what I’m doing it’s not for me, and I’m like “Ok? Then leave me alone. This question is five years old, why are you here? Just to hassle a rando because they use windows?” Then a mod bumped the comments into a private chat and off the question page, then this person starts offering to “help” me learn Linux. I told them if I wanted help they’d be the last person I would ask, then blocked them, but the bad taste of that interaction has stayed with me for a long time and I think about it a lot whenever I want to put effort into switching myself over. Was that an op? Being a troll is easy, and it would’ve been maybe 20 minutes of work for whoever was doing it. Like, maybe that was just some kid who thought they were helping further the linux cause by going around windows-shaming people, but maybe not.

Wait wait wait… where do you get these? That sounds amazing lol.

I tried talking about how absolutely horrendous their behaviour was recently, pointing out how completely unhinged and self-defeating it is, and someone actually literally said that this was a good thing because Linux is hard work and they should keep away people that aren’t experts.

And first of all, if that’s right it’s an admission that linux will never succeed, and secondly I agree that’s the effect but I think that’s bad actually.

I honestly think there must be at least some amount of psyops in the community poisoning the discourse for everyone.

Okay, thank you for the information about econometrics, but the economics that goes from data to model tends to be heterodox, not orthodox. Occasionally orthodox economists will accidentally do real science and they usually don’t like what they see.

My question was about why you don’t see the data being presented when being taught about supply and demand, and you basically answered it by saying that the data isn’t there. Now, I see your point that the prices tend to be relatively stable and so the data doesn’t extend beyond these short line slopes, but then why are we told that supply & demand “sets prices” when there is no evidence of, for instance, a shock to the system upsetting prices which then follow a standard supply & demand curve to restabilise?

Well, because such a situation would not be “convex”, so economics has written an escape clause for this phenomenon whereby it can avoid ever making any real predictions about what the market will do in a situation that isn’t already “stabilised”.

And also, if it’s just short line segments, why is it fashionable to use a curve that implies more data than exists? Again, I would say that it is to ape the aesthetics of science without actually doing it.

And it’s very strange that you turn to your personal anecdotal experience to say that you’ve “seen supply & demand play out”. If that were true, then you should be able to gather the data and present it. The fact that data doesn’t exist should tell you that you are probably using confirmation bias to evaluate your personal experiences.

For instance, the housing market is something where ideally there would be very inflexible demand, because people don’t need more than one bed, typically. The reason the demand is flexible is because there are in reality two markets in the same space. The first market is the people who want housing to actually live in, and the second are landlords that hoard housing, speculate and leverage assets against loans and so on. The landlord market is responsible for both the short housing supply and high price, because they would often rather keep housing scarce and drive up rents, and speculate against one another than put their property back out on the market to go to a competitor. Selling a property you can’t rent out is a pretty bad financial decision, you’re better off waiting until the housing market flips and it becomes a seller’s market again. If a financialised housing market didn’t exist, housing would be much cheaper and homelessness would be much, much less.

The reality of all markets is that they are subject to boom & bust cycles which supply & demand cannot account for. Housing in particular is notorious for huge bubbles that burst spectacularly.

Here’s an example from a government consumer watchdog in Australia: https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/petrol-and-fuel/petrol-price-cycles-in-major-cities

Here’s the really damning sentence:

Petrol price cycles are the result of pricing policies of petrol retailers and not from changes in the wholesale cost of fuel.

They straight up say that it is not about supply & demand.

Here’s the heterodox explanation of this phenomenon: the Supply Chain Theory of Inflation

EDIT: Actually this is a separate phenomenon, but it does emphasise how prices are set by sellers, and not by supply and demand. Wherever a seller can get away with changing their prices, like for instance in petrol sales, they will, but then it follows boom-bust, not supply-demand.

And this is where the authors of that article talk about how orthodox economics institutions will launder heterodox theories. The point of doing this would be to maintain their prestigious position as the arbiter of all economics knowledge, as a result of which any damage such information might do to existing insitutions can be dampened by orthodox economists putting their own spin on the information. If they never acknowledge where the theory comes from, they get to rewrite it however they want. That’s distinctly unscientific.

Yup, I had this in mind as another example of the same thing when I was writing my comment.

When you try to explain that the general jankiness of linux is a big problem and a barrier, you get a lot of people very upset and defensive, but it’s just a simple, obvious fact, and only by facing that fact can anybody actually fix it.

I think the reasons for it are perfectly understandable - software is hard, and anyone able to volunteer could make serious money in so many different places. Capitalist enitities have gobbled up the vast majority of the talent for their own projects, even if they make them spin their wheels in bullshit jobs rather than make good software. The only people left to make FOSS are some combo of ideological, stubborn, and incapable of working within capitalist orgs, or just extremely tired because they already do work in those orgs. That’s not to mention the probably-non-zero number of saboteurs and psyops in the community.

Those people either don’t have the time or don’t have the inclination to spend their precious efforts making features for newbies who can’t just CTRL+ALT+T and start hammering out console commands like a 90s movie hacker.

Now that may not be the fault of honest linux devs who are doing good work, but it is linux’s problem. I don’t know what the solution is, but it’s got to be more than just pretending “linux is easy now” then pivoting to “if you’re not an expert you have no business here” the moment anybody points out how wrong they are. These exact same conversations were happening 15 years ago when I started linux, and the experience is still painfully perverse.

1984 was partly about how consent is manufactured using language. It’s a reality that the powerful systems exploit every single day very effectively to drive us towards extinction so the lines keep going up.

There’s nothing wrong with using those tools for good. Too many leftists are so concerned with the substance of the message that they forget how important the presentation is. I’m sure a lot of people think it shouldn’t be important, but because we’re social animals and not analytical engines of pure reason, it does matter.

Men can lactate, specifically when they are severely malnourished, but I have heard it’s possible to induce it in various ways. This would aid the survival of a tribe when food was scarce by keeping the babies alive for longer, but some mammals can do it under normal circumstances as well.

This is all potentially true.