I can speak from experience here, because this actually happened to me!

My partner (born female) and I married in our late 20s. He was already casually gender non-confirming before we married, and I described myself as hetero-flexible. His transition was rather gradual, with no strict coming-out event, but it was something we discussed openly. After he began presenting as male on work settings, I began identifying myself as bisexual.

It worked out very well. As the person above noted, you can really call yourself whatever. If you wanted to, you could identify as straight with an exception made for a single person. Although I would advise against it, as your partner might take some offense, and it confuses people if you identify in a way that conflicts with your long term partnership. Most co-workers assume I’m gay because I’m married to a man, and I don’t bother to correct them.

Sometimes it comes up, because my husband and I have a biological son together, which isn’t a secret. Sometimes when taking about him and genetics, it leads me to explaining all of this. But as you can see, it’s unusual, but not that hard to explain.

deleted by creator

It’s a scary moment, but I’m very gently optimistic that it will set some good precedent, and that he might have a strong case to counter sue over the blatant infringement of his rights.

I don’t think so. I think that if you were blind and a screen reader have you those instructions, you’d likely ask a sighted friend to check if the screen reader glitched out message the professor for clarification.

I also wouldn’t be surprised if some blind students immediately understood what they were hearing.

I’m kind of surprised how many people in this thread don’t seem aware of this. Are these gen-Z folks who weren’t around for the 90s, or did people not know this back then?

This. They knew he was a satirist, they just didn’t expect him to bring weapons-grade jester’s privilege.

I think you’re confused. O’Reilly knew Colbert was mocking him in particular and hated Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert. My recollection is thathe occasionally interacted with them by appearing on the Daily Show or hosting either because it was good for ratings, but he never left any confusion that he hated their parody.

Do you have source for this?

Personally, I would prefer if this kind of function happened at the feed curration level instead of the posting level.

If I could adjust a “User post concentration” setting, I’d say it to down-weight posts by any user within 12 hours of their last post by 50%, and stack this for further posts within 12 hours.

Then I’d adjust the timing and weighing as necessary

I don’t want to diminish the experiences of the people who used this site, but it doesn’t sound surprising. It sounds like a marketplace for softcore, romance-based sex work.

I would imagine that if you were in a long-term serious remote relationship, at some point you’d transition off the pay-per-action dating site onto email and WhatsApp videocalls.

I’m saddened that people get exploited, though.

You’re just repeating the points in the article. Yeah: I know.

To repeat my point, I don’t need to like or trust the Chinese government to want to see the US tech sector forced to compete.

I don’t care if the whole industry collapses. I don’t like either country’s AI sector. But if the technology is going to exist, I want it to be light weight and open source, and I want heavy, closed models to be an impossible business model. Bad people can still be useful to me.

This is so stupid.

‘Guys, I gotta warn you: those sneaky Chinese are not trying to help you! They’re cut-throat businessmen intent on breaking the US’ wildly unpopular AI tech sector for personal gain! And their duplicitous plan is to do it by sneakily offering better products at a lower price! DO NOT fall for it!’

First, acting like you ‘caught’ the Chinese tech sector by revealing that they’re acting in their personal and national self-interest is braindead. Yes. That’s how business and geopolitics works. No one was confused about that.

Second, describing how their strategy to provide products with obviously superior value in order to drive marketshare does nothing to make me root against their success. Why would knowing that make me want to change my buying habits or the laws to stop that? What reason would I have to support the US tech companies in this fight?

You know who probably should change their practices? US tech companies. It sounds like competition in the marketplace should really drive them to offer a more favorable deal to consumers.

This article is hilariously out of touch.

Ditto.

Power to the people.

Yikes

I wish there were more concrete facts, but a good article nonetheless.

What’s your personal media diet? Do you like similar adventure stories that are more local, or is that just not your thing overall?

Fwiw, this was front page under the fold in today’s Sunday edition of the East Bay Times. I was pretty happy with the coverage.

Also, the above-the-fold story was about a 14 year old Gazan who was recovering well from 9 months of burn treatments in the US.

I’ve never heard that before! It’s interesting.

I think it depends a ton on environmental conditions. Could combustion on planets with different gravity and pressure take place at different scales?

What’re your recs? I used to sometimes check out the BBC but at some point they paywalled it. I like the Guardian, but I’d be glad for more suggestions.

I meant to say that Al Jazeera’s bais leans against the US, which is useful for getting alternative takes.

I thought it was implied in my comment that I was saying that it’s biased in more or less the other direction, but I realize I should’ve written that out.