Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

FreeBSD Adopts A New Code of Conduct Based On The LLVM CoC

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by CochainComplex View Post
    Or is it you Hitler coming back from the Aldebaran System?
    Hah, you believe Hitler actually existed. Nazi germany was a jew hoax.

    More new-age bullshit, we don't need more and more letters to add to LGBTQ acronym, for chrissake. They are creating new minorities, that's the opposite of integration. Why people is so fucking stupid.

    My main point does not change. People in the state registry should be categorized with what they are closest to at the biological level, as that's the only thing that matters for the state.

    If for some strange reason it's not possible to neatly categorize them as "male" of "female" then they get a both "M" and a "F" in their file as they are more or less both and will be at risk for both male and female illnesses to some extent. That's all there is to it, and all a state should need to care about.
    Last edited by starshipeleven; 11 June 2020, 10:09 AM.

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by starshipeleven View Post
      Hah, you believe Hitler actually existed. Nazi germany was a jew hoax.

      More new-age bullshit, we don't need more and more letters to add to LGBTQ acronym, for chrissake. They are creating new minorities, that's the opposite of integration. Why people is so fucking stupid.

      My main point does not change. People in the state registry should be categorized with what they are closest to at the biological level, as that's the only thing that matters for the state.

      If for some strange reason it's not possible to neatly categorize them as "male" of "female" then they get a both "M" and a "F" in their file as they are more or less both and will be at risk for both male and female illnesses to some extent. That's all there is to it, and all a state should need to care about.
      +1

      As defined in fundamental, DNA-level, you can have 2 sexes. Whatever the new-age snowflakes would prefer to think or push for. Yeah, sometimes Nature will screw up and you'll get body from "wrong sex" but that may also be Nature's way to ensure all corners are covered. More variability means better adaptability as a species. This does not mean we need to artificially distinguish between 57 different sexes. 2 are enough.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by aht0 View Post
        As defined in fundamental, DNA-level, you can have 2 sexes.
        Yeah, but the usefulness of just using the genotype falls off quickly when you get into weird cases like the "intersex", as you get a subject that is genetically a male but due to various malfunctions has developed as a female and will be a de-facto female from a medical perspective, and this is entirely possible as there is enough genetic information to become both sexes in everyone, it's just a matter of triggers during body development.

        We aren't talking about garden variety transgender here where the person's sexual identity is not the body's actual sex (where the jury is still out to decide how the fuck it happens in the first place), we are talking of rare and weird cases where there is a big and somewhat obvious biological malfunction somewhere.

        Yeah, sometimes Nature will screw up and you'll get body from "wrong sex" but that may also be Nature's way to ensure all corners are covered. More variability means better adaptability as a species.
        Not really. Evolution strictly follows the "good enough" path.
        Ever heard of the saying "if failure is not an option, success becomes really expensive"? (Mythbusters, among others)

        The amount of effort needed to increase the reliability of your system is not linear, but a curve, you reach a point where to get from say 80% to 85% (a small increase) you need an order of magnitude (ten times) more effort and resources.

        So most systems in nature are far from bulletproof, because nature is a harsh mistress (= an ugly bitch) and only looks at the bigger picture. At the end of the day, it's better to not waste 10 or 100 times more resources than ensure that some 1% or 5% of your population does not have a shitty life when the other 90% is fine.

        As a general rule, if you see something that is kind of dumb in nature, it's still there because it is "good enough". Yes it will cause some death and some discomfort, but not enough to select positively or negatively. And it can be something that racks in some decent killcount, like say people choking on food (because humans don't have a separate air and food tube and sometimes food goes down the wrong tube) in the US around 5 thousald people die every year because of that https://www.statista.com/statistics/...ing-in-the-us/ Is this enough to matter? No it really isn't, so even if the design is dumb it's "good enough", and all is fine.

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by SteveOC64 View Post
          Thank you - this is very good news.

          Just noticed too that synergy (iKVM to share mouse and keyboard across multiple systems) now works great from the native FreeBSD pkg on my main FreeBSD desktop and the macbook off to the side after Catalina upgrades. This is also very good. Ultimate desktop.

          Using FreeBSD as the primary workstation so far has been an awesome experience. (Im about 8 months in now, and its been faultless). Only real negative has been trying to get Android development running natively ... but thats cool, I just jump into a linux VM under bhyve thats all setup for Android work when I really need to go there.

          So this CoC update is icing on the cake
          happy BSD camper here
          long live FreeBSD
          Check out barrier. (Fork of synergy.) Yes, it works on FreeBSD / macOS. (that is my setup too, it works great. ZFS send/receive works between both too if you turn off some pool features in the mac.)
          Last edited by k1e0x; 12 June 2020, 12:33 PM.

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by starshipeleven View Post
            Not really. Evolution strictly follows the "good enough" path.
            Ever heard of the saying "if failure is not an option, success becomes really expensive"? (Mythbusters, among others)
            That "garden variety" as you call it is useless from evolutionary POV. They often end up without leaving any offspring. Evolutionary "dead end" not "good enough".

            "intersex" sounds like new age bs. Unless you mean genetical chimeras where original zygotes were of different sexes. THAT could produce all sorts of weird outcome because same individual ends up with having two or more sets of genetic code.

            Comment

            Working...
            X