That's nice! Although, you're still better off with a VPN.
I don't understand how they're going to know you use the service, unless you pay by credit card. I use PayPal for all online purchases. You can make up any "delivery" address that you like. If you use a VPN, Netflix won't know where it's going, and Comcast won't know what you're getting. Of course, few people bother with this privacy nonsense.
Oh, you needed the full pseudo to get the point? My bad. Probably would've been smarter to use a realistic-sounding pseudo, but I don't see how it makes any material difference to the story. Nevertheless, this sentence comes at the first break:
I’ve been going by the first name “Nads”—a nickname my friends, family, and colleagues all use, but does not exist on any official paperwork.
That's seven short paragraphs down. Again, what difference does it make what pseudo she used? It's not like Facebook saw that and thought, "Hmm, looks like a fake name". One of her trolls snitched her out, so it wouldn't have mattered how "realistic" her pseudo was. Yet, you make it sound as if she were being dishonest, somehow. Then you accuse her of conflating the separate issue of Native American names, as if she were trying to ride their coattails. She's simply pointing out that there are a number of reasons, all legit, that one would want to use a pseudo. Her particular issue, as she makes clear, is stalking and trolls.
Why does religion get lumped in with race and sex. Religion is a choice and does not deserve to be put next to things that you are.
First off, I don't see why that's any reason to discriminate. Why should the choices we make, as long as we're not interfering with others, be a reason to mistreat us?
The reason religion, in particular, is "lumped in there" is that because arguments over irrational beliefs cannot be settled by reason or evidence, and so, tend to lead to violence. We had to enshrine this in law because, as a nation of immigrants with various religious beliefs, we couldn't afford to have everyone killing each other all the time. Other immigrant nations adopted this idea, and eventually, other, more enlightened nations, began to see what a sensible policy this was, even if not all their citizens have.
Belief isn't subject to the will. You can't simply start and stop believing anything, religious or not, of your own volition.
Give it a try.
Really? I wonder how there are atheists, as almost every child is inculcated with their parent's religious beliefs. I certainly became one of my own volition, long before there was an internet, or even another person to influence me. Any belief is subject to change, as long as the holder is willing to examine and question it. Give it a try.
Why so much? Netflix manages it for $8 per month. Nevertheless, people are willing to pay a fair price for a good product. I wouldn't watch Hulu for free, when it was free, because of the commercials. More recently, my roommate decided to pay for Hulu Premium, (or whatever they call it), but after trying it a couple of times, neither of us would watch it, and he eventually cancelled.
Here's the deal: Commercials are suppose to equal free TV. But these people want to have their cake, and eat it, too. Unfortunately for them, people now have other choices.
Today, half of broadcast and cable's income is non-advertising based.
Right. I don't know what he's talking about here, unless he means only the handful of "premium" channels, like HBO. Last time I peeked at the tube, it was commercials galore. If they're only getting half their money from the bazillions of commercials they show, maybe there is another way?
Are We Too Quick to Act on Social Media Outrage?
Sure. Probably. But, it should have no bearing upon how institutions, (employers, law enforcement, schools, government, news media, etc...), behave. We can't have the Twitterverse making decisions for us, especially in this era where people seem to derive identity from victimhood, and derive victimhood from the mildest transgressions. And, the last thing one can expect from the internet, on any topic, is a proportionate response.
Unless you give me a more concrete reason...
The gods, (or spirits, or whatever), aren't a good enough reason?
Seriously, I'm all for respecting people's religious sensibilities, (and that's what this is about), especially native peoples who've been fucked so hard, in so many ways...up to a point. But when you want to give a burial to a five-thousand-year-old set of bones? C'mon, now. I can understand not wanting mining on "sacred" land, because that really does desecrate, by anyone's definition, any land it's done on. But a telescope?
There has to be some limit, because the religious imagination is unlimited.
But that's not how Dr. Claes sees the technique being used in a criminal investigation.
Yeah, I can see it being used in a lot of ways. A lot of unsavory ways.
I want a computer-free car.
When you strongly regulate something the effects are negative for the consumer! What an astounding shock that must be to everyone except the people who tried to warn you!
I know! Consumers were so much better off before regulation. Why does the stupid government prevent me from buying the patent medicines I want? The free market was working perfectly until whiners like Upton Sinclair came along. Rivers were intended (by God) to be the sewers of industry! Then the cry-baby unions, "waaah, eighteen hours a day is too much, waaah!"
Please, can we go back to the way it was before stupid regulations? Everything sucks now.
I can probably think of a whole lot more than you because, as a truck driver, (and general working-class dude), I've had the opportunity to see a lot of different industries, first-hand.
Some of those power tools are quite heavy. A jackhammer comes to mind. But there are many jobs, using both powered, and simple tools, that are harder for women than men. Construction comes to mind, where you may have the benefit of a powered drill, and maybe a nail gun, but you still have to do a lot of heavy lifting. You also have to have a mechanical inclination. I don't, so I don't apply for those types of jobs.
I can recall one incident from my own experience, back in the late seventies. A woman was hired for a position in a paint plant where I worked, the same position I had. The job mostly consisted of adding small amounts of liquid pigment to paint batches, per the shader's instructions. But, sometimes you had to add large amounts of talc to a batch, (to make flat paint). These bags were one-hundred pounds, and had to be lifted to shoulder height. She could not do this so, obviously, I had to do that for her. I couldn't help feeling this was a little unfair, as it wasn't that easy for me either. Is that equality?
I don't see how not getting a job you can't do equals discrimination, (in the social sense). I also don't think that "everyone is equal" means "everyone is the same". That's a ridiculous notion on the face of it, so I don't understand how it's gotten so much traction among some people. I believe that, if you can do the job, it should be open to you.
Here's the thing, though: placebos can be quite effective. As effective as certain classes of actual drugs, for certain maladies. But yes, homeopathy is ridiculous.
Perhaps they tried it, and found they didn't like it? I just watched the video that antiperimetaparalogo referenced, (and linked to, above), and they talk about how, when women have more freedom to choose, they choose what interests them. This, as opposed to poorer countries, where women will make choices based on what will get them out of poverty. I don't know why some people think "equality" means everybody is the same.
Women simply don't have all the same interests as men, and don't have the muscle mass to do certain other jobs. What needs to change is, the perception that female-dominated professions are less valuable than male-dominated professions.