jacalata

In my experience, autistic people are far less likely to offend people than charismatic "leader types", mostly because they are willing to learn and don't just blow off feedback with some bullshit about having the right to be offensive. Don't use them as a shield. And yes - people who don't agree on the value of inclusion cannot be included without destroying the inclusivity. Popper, paradox of intolerance, etc.

It's funny, I don't experience that "heightened state of alertness" at all. Maybe the onus should be on those people who have no way to know if what they say could be offensive to get a clue and learn about the world?

Any useful network uses routing. Comcast is not defying net neutrality by delivering all the packets addressed to your IP to you. Net neutrality is not breached until Comcast or your mesh network starts handling the packets differently based on who they came from and the business decisions about that source.

Pretty sure most 70-year-old American ladies would be quite surprised to be addressed or referred to as "guys". I'm not sure who you hung out with while you were here, but it may not have been a representative group. (Some people think "guys" is a universal referent, other people don't. The first group seems to skew heavily to younger males.)

People who care about the effect their words have on other people.

> Anyway I think it's impossible to talk about caffeine consumption without also considering sugar consumption because they really do go hand in hand.

Not for everyone - there are people who drink coffee black with no sugar (especially espresso drinkers).

You don't know what - if this general result could be invalidated by your personal experience not matching it?

I didn't make a statement either way about likelihood of it happening, I replied to your naive hope that the FCC would still jump in and stop Comcast from doing so after net neutrality rules are abandoned. If you think that this would still be illegal, please do explain which laws and regulatory bodies would be involved and how it would be enforced. Also, it is not at all worth noting that a group who are legally barred from a behavior engage in it less than a group that is not legally barred. Why on earth would it be?

He means that if people already know they're going to die of old age eventually, nobody will be interested in a cure for cancer.

> I'm at least confident if my ISP started blocking Netflix because they made a deal with Comcast, the hammer of the FCC or FTC would fall on them in short order, and there would be consumer outrage.

You mean "while net neutrality is the law", right? Because that's exactly what you will lose if net neutrality is no longer required.

> A mesh network by its nature most have packet-gnosticism as a first principle.

Why?

That is at best a misreading of the parent comment. Try quoting whole sentences and see if you can identify the parts of the argument that you chopped out.

It does have something to do with Gab- if net neutrality goes away then Comcast can block their site exactly the same way Apple can refuse to put their app in the App Store.

Well, your hypothetical moron is apparently unable to understand net neutrality at all, even the very simple version that "net neutrality means that the ISP can't block one company. If net neutrality goes away. Then it doesn't matter if Gab gets their site registered - Comcast will be allowed to block it. What you are arguing for is extending net neutrality principles to App Store providers and domain registrars, instead of just ISPs". And yes, the existence of so many idiots on one side of politics is exactly why this is a partisan issue.

A better title might be "hand waving around depression, sleep, productivity and some unrelated numbers"

Too mainstream?

For a single person renting out one house, they will get away with it. But for an apartment complex, they can get investigated and have secret shoppers come in and then they get in trouble for not treating the two marker customers the same.

Are you using the slippery slope fallacy to argue against the existence of federal protected classes?

A company that doesn't rely on the resources and services of society can argue that. But a company that wants to rely on any infrastructure like roads or electricity, and a landlord relying on the socially enforced theory of property, is not in that group.

Your newspaper is reporting many instances of men with their career ruined by a false accusation? Those stories don't seem to make it to the New York Times, perhaps you should diversify your sources.

This is a great example of a time when you should go home, get some sleep, and everything will work in the morning :)

I am skeptical that there is anything you could do that would never offend any men but would offend a significant percentage of women. Even more skeptical if we're restricting the scene to professional interactions.

Yes, I couldn't resist.

The occasional occurrence of an unlikely event does not make it reasonable to arrange your life around avoiding it. See: kidnapping by a stranger, plane crashes, suddenly having a photo of yourself go viral on the internet.

The amount of hysteria on display by men in this article and elsewhere is ridiculous. What happened to the skeptical "treat each person as an individual" attitude that created "Not All Men"?

So your argument is that there is no existing problem that needs dealing with.

Apparently not. Was that a serious question?

Are you saying that you know this is happening, or that you are concerned by the possibility of it happening?

I understand him to mean that adding women made it worse, but like many things, you can't simply take it away again and get back to where you were.