i … i don’t know how i left you with the impression that i can’t tell poo from pee. … i must have done something horribly wrong. 🤣
Actually I think for pretty much all mammals it’s as easy as telling liquid the difference between liquid and solid.
Regarding my original comment, it’s mainly frustration at the hypocrisy some people have who make every excuse to avoid using someone’s preferred name or pronouns, but then have no problem switching when it’s someone else’s pet
yeah I got that message. it really shows the hypocrisy, and it makes me wanna scream.
I wonder if a far away vision of a world where the gender just slowly disappears from the language is really the best. (When i get asked about preferred pronoun, i feel i want to answer “i don’t care and no one should, let’s collectively try to really not give a f*k”.) I feel like in the ideal world all pronouns would just be gender-neutral.
But language vs. gender is yet another fascinating rabbit hole. My first language is Czech, where basically every word – even unanimous and abstract concepts like “book” have gender, and the grammar is such that effect of word “gender” spreads to other words as inflections and such. Eg. “ona spala” ~ “she slept” vs. “on spal” ~ “he slept” but “ona spal” is an obvious grammar mistake. I wonder if this makes it worse or actually better: while it makes it harder to have a gender-neutral language (the plural trick does not work: “ony spaly” ~ “they (females) slept”, “oni spali” ~ “they (males) slept” … siiigh…), I also feel it could make it less problematic in the sense that the concept of gender in language is not actually tied to identity of a person–it’s just a weird thing present in the language.
Of course, none of that applies to intentional misgendering, which is just being a huge asshole, with little to no excuse.
Edit: I missed the last–the most important—part of your post, so I was just replying casually (and nerd sniping myself on the language part).
Yeah, that’s really disgusting and alarming. I totally believe. I don’t know what to do about it but I do believe and wish nothing but failure to these hateful, cruel people.
unless you see them pee
You mean see/not see the “pebbles”?
Or do they tend to pee differently? I know dogs typically pee by raising one leg, but sometimes they just crouch by both back legs and just release. Is this what you mean?
I vaguely recall when I was a teen we had a dog (he/him, and a mutt) and he would usually do the “this lamp post is mine now” pee but when he really needed to go he would just crouch and leave a big puddle.
it’s probably misgendering to assume its gender at all and that the concept of gender applies to dogs
Is that true, though? How would we know? Just by Occam’s razor, I would find it safer assume it applies to all mammals, ie. why would humans specifically be different, or if there is a spectrum across species, where/how would we draw the line?
(As a trans person, I have more to say on how easily people pronoun switch for animals but that’s a different topic for another time)
It is different topic, although I’d love to hear more about that as well. Eg. as a cis male with no transgender friends (well, not that I know of), I find myself thinking ruminating about how impolite/distracting it is to misgender a trans person, provided one can just switch after being corrected and move on… How bad it is to make the (honest) mistake repeatedly? How is it compared to other kinds of faux-pas, like, messing up someone’s name? (Eg. repeatedly calling someone John when they are Joe, or forgetting someone’s occupation. These things do happen to my distractable mind that seems to love lossy data compression.)
But yeah, it’s a huge, fascinating topic, but a different one from my intention in the OP. :)
Is her head still empty if someone says “park”?
Lot of people will tell you something like “don’t run stuff aS rOoT” but from personal security POV root is almost irrelevant. Potential attacker can do plenty of damage without root.
root only allows crossing boundaries of the current user, but for personal use, everything you care about is probably 100% accessible under your normal user account. You don’t need root to steal your photos and passwords, you don’t need root to shimmy a daemon in your ~/.profile to start every time you log in, you don’t need root to mine shitcoins, use your machine as part of botnet or whatnot.
Good advice is to vet everything you install, or choose a third party to vet it for you. In ideal world,
In less than ideal world, maybe add flatpak to the mix but assume that the repository is a wild west. Running AppImage apps or installing third-party .deb/.rpm/etc. packages, again, if you trust the source, you trust the source.
(But for f’s sake, don’t just run curl | bash scripts (with sudo or not) from random github repos and stuff.)
The building, used by several hundred employees, had a security systems with 4-digit codes. I’ve been part of group of people who liked to work late times, and the building would lock at midnight – the box by the door would start beeping and you would need to unlock it within a minute or so, or “proper alarm” would ensue.
However, to unlock the alarm you did not need your card – all you needed to do was to enter any valid code. Guess what was the chance that, say, 1234 was someone’s valid code? Yes.
We’ve been all using some poor guy’s code 1234, and after several years, when he left the company we just guessed some other obvious code (4321) and kept using that.
By the way, after entering the code to the box by the door, it would shortly display name of the person whom the code “belonged” to. One of our colleagues took it as a personal secret project to slowly go through all 10000 possible codes and collect the names of the people, just for the kick of it.
(By the way, I don’t work for that company anymore, and more importantly, the company does not use that building anymore, so don’t get any ideas! 🙃 )
They did not say someone named Jesus did not exist.
There’s a difference between believing “Joe who had a tiger and a bear and an elephant”, and assuming that there might have been 3 different Joe’s, one with a tiger, one with a bear and one with an elephant, each of them in a different period. Saying “Joe with 3 animals did not exist” does not imply that those Joe’s did not exist.
I’m not a historian but what I’ve heard (must have been on Alex O’Connor’s podcast) is that even some of the possible historical Jesuses (or “Jesusi” :D) had things going on that were not compatible with what the biblical Jesus was all about. (Such as being cult leader proclaiming that world will end in few years.)