Steve

The most profitable league in all of sports...
Is being killed?

I don't think that means what they think it means.

I loged in to my account for the first time in over a year, to ask them about starting their own Fediverse instances for public communications. Specifically Mastodon and Lemmy.

Prettier, sure. But less practical, functionally.

Oh! That's better.
One of the images had a van looking one, the caption said was the electric.

I thinks it's the back one in your image.

Ugly in an iconic way.
Clearly designed for practicality.
They look great to drive with all that visibility.

On the other hand the electric version just looks like a disappointing van.

I looked at both of those.
The first is conflating Sex and Gender. As I said, sex isn't defined by chromosomes and specific genes. It is partially determined by them, and other factors, such as in you temperature dependent example. But again Male and Female are terms used throughout all sexually reproducing lifeforms. Not just Humans. The terms are defined by the reproductive role of the animals gametes; not their genes or anatomy or anything else.

The Beyond XX & XY chart you provided shows a whole host of genetic disorders that can result in a range of outcomes that mix male and female traits in humans. Then it tries to assign genders onto those mixes of traits. But gender isn't determined by genes, or anatomy. It's determined by society and social convention. Do you see what I'm saying?

The statement "She is male" is consistent with a separation of gender from sex. It does leave an open question as to the use of Man and Woman. I'm torn on that one myself. Traditionally Man and Woman are terms of sex, while Masculine and Feminine are terms of gender. My first impulse is to maintain that. But calling her a man, seems different than calling her a male. So I can see changing man and woman to terms of gender, while keeping male and female as terms of sex. I'm not sure we really need a separate word for "human male" anyway. Most of the time there's plenty of context to indicate if we're talking about humans or other animals.

I'm not trying to pick on Harris specifically here. It's just a perfect example of politicians being asked direct yes or no questions, and them giving paragraph long responses that don't actually answer the question.

Do you believe that climate change is largely driven by human activity, including the burning of fossil fuels? If not, is there a different cause you would cite?

Didn't say yes.

Do you believe climate change is making disasters such as hurricanes, wildfires and heat waves more intense?

Almost said yes.

Should climate change be addressed through government action or market forces?

Practically a yes. I award a half credit.

Do you support clean-energy tax credits such as those for electric vehicles?

Again half credit. Not an actual yes.

Biological sex isn't defined by beards or breasts.
It's defined by the reproductive roll of an animals gametes. They apply through all sexualy reproducing species on earth.

You can't in one place, say sex and gender are unrelated; Then another place use them as synonyms.

I'm all in favor of trans rights. And I believe seperating sex and gender is great! But it needs to be consistent. This inconsistent selective misuse of terms is infuriating. And I think it's a big part of the hangups otherwise liberal people have with this movement.

For a narrow definition of law that may be the case.
But it could also be thought of as a set of laws, which specifically govern law-makers.

In this case it's making certain pre-existing statutes illegal, effectively nullifying them.
Why this judge thinks those statues need to be specifically mentioned, I don't understand. As a judge you'd think that would be their job.

That is what we have now. Mostly.
The current vehicle taxes are never close to covering the costs of road maintenance.

I'm not sure I understand why they don't.

I thought bringing chiplets to GPUs, meant they'd be able just add as many CUs and cash dies as they needed to get on top. Even if it's $3.5k and 1000W, they should be able to. They could sell 100K units as some limited edition special thing, and pull mind share away from nVidia by having the undisputed top card.

But they don't. Which is why I think they undervalue having a halo product. They don't think it'll push units further down the product stack. I think they're clearly wrong about that. People buy cards that fit their budgets. But they buy brands they know to be the best.

I think they underestimate the marketing value of a halo product.
That, or it's just spin to account for the fact that they don't have one.