Hey, that’s my favorite System of a Down lyric!
All research and successful health policies show
That walking should be increased
And law enforcement decreased while abolishing
Mandatory minimum parking spots
I buy my crack, I smack my bitch
Right here in Hollywood
Google Messages app already falls back to SMS automatically if RCS fails. SMS is not going anywhere.
idk why you’re getting downvoted, I haven’t seen any scientists or doctors refute the study or claim there’s reason to believe this medicine won’t work.
This mostly. There’s also some speculation that worse results may cause users to execute more search queries (at least in the short term) and get served more ads.
on International Day Against Transphobia no less! I feel the struggle too
yes I know Apple isn’t a Telecoms company but you need a SIM from a Telecoms company to use iMessage. RCS runs over the Internet too, yet you also need a SIM card for that. Also Telecoms companies aren’t designing message protocols anymore. I don’t think you know what you’re talking about.
what do you mean Telecoms companies aren’t allowed to add E2EE? there is no such regulation I’m aware of.
besides, how would Apple have been supporting E2EE in iMessage for so long if Telecoms companies weren’t allowed?
could be a motivation issue, but not a regulation issue.
Yes, and as linear algebra teaches, to convert a vector from direction and magnitude to a list of numbers (components), follow these steps:
The vector can now be represented as a list of numbers: A = (Ax, Ay)
For example, if a vector has a magnitude of 5 units and a direction of 30° counterclockwise from the positive x-axis, its components would be:
Ax = 5 cos(30°) ≈ 4.33 units Ay = 5 sin(30°) ≈ 2.50 units
The vector can now be written as A = (4.33, 2.50)
more of these stream of consciousness style comments lol
We’re going in circles now. I already asked you what’s the point of considering such a hypothetical theory (which you admitted isn’t practical) other than to distract from the real issue?
Idk what to tell you about film other than… anyone can make a film about anything.
The only thing stopping men from writing (or approving) more film scripts, books and other art about this very topic… is simply the lack of effort.
You:
this would probably solve itself if women hit on men as much as the opposite.
Also you:
you’re the one who interpreted it as me putting the responsibility on women.
Okay dude. Whatever you say.
And yes, societal change is hard, but just because you can’t think of any solutions, doesn’t mean they don’t exist. FWIW, there are plenty of practical ways to normalize behavior at the societal scale, some of the more violent & historically successful ones having already been mentioned earlier in this conversation.
One of the most powerful (non-violent) examples that comes to mind: popular film.
I’m sorry for patronizing but IMO you should really ask yourself: what/who are you playing devil’s advocate for?
Because so far you’ve only made points that make you come off as:
… and where do you suppose those women learned that behavior?
Such judgments have been written, by men, into practically every religious, historical and news-based text for the greater part of the last thousand years, and passed down as dogma to men, women and children alike under penalty of ostricization or in some cases, death.
Brainwashing is not exclusive to one gender. And while inter-gender discrimination is not as well documented as inter-racial discrimination, both have existed as long as oppressors have made it their goal to weaken the oppressed by sewing division among them.
Please, try reading some history before you go on the internet spouting harmful opinions.
If by “society” you mean men, then sure…
…unless you’re suggesting women need to change their behavior in order to not be perceived as “sluts”?
Careful what you imply, you might come off as ignorant.
Hence the paradoxical nature I was referring to…
Putting this responsibility back onto women isn’t pragmatic. In other words, it will never happen.
You might as well have said “war would solve itself if people would just stop fighting!” Ask yourself: how does that help the reality we live in?
This is why the change in normative behavior must come from men first, or nothing will improve.
As a man, I will say the very nature of this “solution” is paradoxical. (TL;DR at the end)
As I’m sure you know, some women do hit on men, when they feel safe. For example when they’re out with their girlfriends I’ve seen women turn into absolute horndogs, doing cat-calling, questionably appropriate touching, even in some cases full-on sexual harassment, the whole 9 yards.
Your statement begs the (fair) question: why don’t women feel safe openly flirting like that all the time?
In general (i.e. when they’re alone), women tend to be afraid to hit on men for the same reason as in this comic, it’s just a little harder to grasp/explain.
Let me try: If a woman, alone, sees an attractive man, alone, and decides to “roll the dice” and hit on the man by herself, what are the possible outcomes?
he could be nice, flirt back, and she’ll end up liking him and they’ll go on a date
he could be nice, flirt back but she might still decide she’s not interested and try to say goodbye
(less likely, but still happens) he could give off weird/creepy vibes, and when she tries to walk away, he could try to hurt her or take advantage of her
What you have to understand is that for the woman, Outcome #2 is almost equally scary as Outcome #3. Because women know that regardless of whether they’re a creep or the nicest guy ever, a lot of men don’t handle rejection well.
I’m not saying you would do this, but ask yourself this: how would most men react if a woman comes up to flirt with them & she changes her mind half way through the conversation & decides to leave? Will most men be okay with it and move on? Or will they take it personally in some way and feel mistreated or get upset with the woman for “leading them on for no reason”?
I have to say, as a man who has interacted with lots of men from lots of cultures, most men, including myself at times, do not handle rejection in a healthy way (even though I’ve never lashed out at a woman for rejecting me, I’ve put women in uncomfortable situations out of the fear of rejection).
That is what more men, I feel, need to recognize in themselves, in order for any of this to get better. It’s not about normalizing women flirting with men. It’s about normalizing men responding to rejection with grace and humility. The attitude of “ah well, better luck next time!” would be so much healthier than the immediate victim mentality most men assume, which is “what did I do to deserve that rejection?”. And that is why women have such a hard time feeling safe doing any of that stuff.
TL;DR in order to normalize women flirting with men, women need to feel safe doing so, which will only happen if men can normalize handling rejection in healthy ways.
I’m sure the therapist did say something like “think about forgiveness towards Taylor” and he, being delusional, interpreted it as “I need to write my feelings in a song and send it to her so she can finally understand why she caused me pain, and only then, if she responds positively, I’ll forgive her.”
Any person practiced in forgiveness knows the act doesn’t involve the other person at all, and isn’t conditionally based on them doing anything.
It is a choice you make internally within yourself, by accepting they have hurt you and choosing not to hold on to the negative feeling of resentment.
Viola Davis is often quoted as saying, “forgiveness is giving up hope that the past could’ve been different.”
I’m no physicist but researching this topic leads me to believe the person who posted the top comment is either a physicist worried about things that don’t impact others, or someone who has discovered the elixir of life and will live a thousand generations.
According to perplexity, there are only 2 noteworthy consequences this could have, both of them relatively meaningless for most people’s existence today.
First is what the end of the universe looks like (not a problem we need to worry about for all practical purposes) - If protons decay, all baryonic matter would eventually be converted into gamma ray photons and leptons. If they don’t decay, the matter will eventually be converted into… photons and leptons… same stuff, but it’ll take longer. Big whoop.
Second is the implications on particle physics (again, not a real problem that substantially affects anyone’s life besides actual physicists) - since the stability of protons implies the conservation of the baryon number, which is a principle of the Standard Model, if protons don’t decay then… the standard model we already have is correct, and newer theoretical models attempting to unify all the forces will have a harder time doing so. That’s literally all it means, and impacts literally nobody except physicists AFAICT.
So to the top commenter: either tell us your dirty secrets or get out of here with your alarmist crap.
because Boeing or why?