After you scroll down to my listing, it really isn't all that unique. Unless you are into checkboxes.Because as I'll show you, every mission can be unique after some metric. If I went to space, I'd be the first Hungarian/Polish/Italian mix to ever go. (note among my listing, of female astronauts, they have many checked as first person or female of their country. If you see my posts on Artemis II, you will note that Christina Koch is highly qualified, and I would add, perhaps the most qualified person on the voyage. Victor Glover, the male of African descent who is the pilot, is likewise highly qualified. They are Astronauts, they are elite, females have performed every mission in space, from specialist to pilot, to commander.

Who is pretending? We definitely do not live in a color blind society. And make no mistake, if you believe in race in any form, you are by definition a racist. Don't like it? You are welcome to your opinion, I respect that, and I have mine based on Science and biology,I see DNA evidence that shows that homo sapiens sapiens is a species, with extremely small and insignificant genetic differences.

And sexism abounds as well.

Okay, I might be a little insane, and I'm going to stop after the female Astronauts - I'm on vacation, and I don't need to go into the "race" of astronauts Valentina Tereshkova - first woman in space

Svetlana Savitskaya, Sally Ride, Kathryn D. Sullivan, Anna Lee Fisher, Margaret Rhea Seddon, Shannon Lucid, Bonnie Jeanne Dunbar, Mary L. Cleave Ellen S. Baker, Kathryn C. Thornton, Marsha Ivins, Linda M. Godwin, Helen Sharman, Tamara E. Jernigan, Millie Hughes-Fulford, Roberta Bondar, Nancy Jan Davis, Mae Jemison, Susan J. Helms, Ellen Ochoa, Janice E. Voss, Nancy J. Currie, Chiaki Mukai, Yelena V. Kondakova, Eileen Collins, Wendy B. Lawrence, Mary E. Weber, Catherine Coleman, Claudie Haigneré, Susan Still Kilrain, Kalpana Chawla, Kathryn P. Hire, Janet L. Kavandi, Julie Payette, Pamela Melroy, Peggy Whitson, Sandra Magnus, Laurel B. Clark, Stephanie Wilson, Lisa Nowak, Heidemarie Stefanyshyn-Piper, Anousheh Ansari, Sunita Williams, Joan Higginbotham, Tracy Caldwell Dyson, Barbara Morgan, Yi So-yeon, Karen L. Nyberg, K. Megan McArthur, Nicole P. Stott, Dorothy Metcalf-Lindenburger, Naoko Yamazaki, Shannon Walker, Liu Yang, Wang Yaping, Yelena Serova, Samantha Cristoforetti, Kathleen Rubins, Serena Auñón-Chancellor, Anne McClain, Beth Moses, Christina Koch, Jessica Meir, Sirisha Bandla, Sian Proctor, Hayley Arceneaux, Yulia Peresild, Kayla Barron, Jessica Watkins , Nicole Aunapu Mann , Anna Kikina, Rayyanah Barnawi, Jamila Gilbert, Kelly Latimer, Keisha Schahaff, Anastatia Mayers, Jasmin Moghbeli, Loral O'Hara, Namira Salim, Ketty Maisonrouge, Lina Borozdina , Jeanette J. Epps, Marina Vasilevskaya, Sarah Gillis, Anna Menon, Wang Haoze, Nichole Ayers, Jannicke Mikkelsen, Rabea Rogge, Zena Cardman, Patricia Robertson (died before spaceflight in accident), Christa McAuliffe, Jennifer Sidey-Gibbons Backup Artemis II, Sophie Adenot, Rosemary Coogan, Meganne Christian, > Meganne Christian, Anthea Comellini, Sara García Alonso, Carmen Possnig, Amelie Schoenenwald, Nicola Winter, Katherine Bennell-Pegg, Mariam Fardous, Christina Birch, Deniz Burnham, Jessica Wittner, Lai Ka-ying,

And for the checkboxes? some of them are pretty funny, other than the young lady who was the first to fly into space wearing a prosthesis, a cancer survivor, and I wish her long life and good health. Even a crazy like me can't begrudge that.

But things like being the first to play a violin in space, or the 20th woman to do a spacewalk? If we keep doing that, will we have a big celebration fort the 10,0046th woman to walk in space?

You specifically said I hate women when you wrote

" I call BS. Do you have any evidence for this claim beyond misogyny?"

This will be important

Yes, I used the word quota, and that was incorrect. The supreme court has made a ruling that specific quotas for race would be unconstitutional Gratz vs Bollinger https://supreme.justia.com/cas... Gender was also noted, but in manner of gender "was but one of numerous factors [taken] into account in arriving at [a] decision" because "[n]o persons are automatically excluded from consideration; all are able to have their qualifications weighed against those of other applicants" in case Cf. Johnson v. Transportation Agency, Santa Clara Cty., 480 U.S. 616, 638 (1987) https://supreme.justia.com/cas...

So no, there cannot be a quota. There can be goals, as I stated in another post. s do.

If I might note, you are using rhetoric as opposed to intent, even way back when you said I hated women. You used the term misogyny. Do you disagree?

Let's do some analysis - since in the last decade, there has been an effort to attract more men as they have leaned out of University to a significant extent. Here is a report from Shayna Medley a former recruiting officer from speaks of being told to hire more men to correct that imbalance. Here is the Hechinger Report with background: https://hechingerreport.org/an... And here is her paper. https://journals.law.harvard.e...

So now that men are leaning out, and Universities are attempting to bring gender diversity, it is disfavoring women, who already hold a large gender advantage.

Okay, but now let us speak of preferential education of men to correct gender imbalances. In the educational world, men have become an underrepresented minority

If I express that gender goals in opposing a 50/50 mix makes me a misognyst, What do we say about university efforts to achieve a gender mix. And people claiming that hurts women?

She claims that "In their effort to maintain a relatively balanced gender distribution on their campuses, admissions offices are preferencing weaker male applicants over their more-qualified female counterparts. So in an educational system in which women already had a large and growing percentile advantage, Universities are allowing unqualified men into college.

Wat do you think? Is she correct? Is it within the realm of possibility that a system that as one person notes, prefers men, that other's might give a preference to women?

Because there is a problem.

I interact with other users of similar workflow. We compare notes, we share boots on the ground experiences. If I try something out it works or does not work well, I share it with them, and the other way around as well. A cohort told me "you really have to use an M series machine for Photoshop and any rendering you do like AI sharpening" Bought one with a sweet tradein on my Intel Mac, and he was so right.

I have to trust them first. The people I network with have that boots on the ground experience, every day, and We trust each other's judgement. I've seen too many people with personal prejudices to automatically trust someone who provides benchmarks.

To me, and I might be completely wrong on this, but I've seen a lot of benchmarking over the years that serves best as bragging rights. Been doing this computing thing since 1979, and seen a lot of it.

And if you tie that bread on the back of a cat, you can get perpetual motion!

I'm not certain how many of us actually care about benchmarks, whether that conspiracy is true or not.

My wants are a computer that works quickly with every program designed for it. Give me a reason to prefer benchmarks over boots on the ground performance.

Race is the ultimate social construct. If anyone judge any human on the melanin content of their skin, or their location of origin, they are textbook racist. This is not to imply that there are not a lot of racists out there who do just that. So yes, MLK was correct in that respect.

I've used Photoshop and the creative suite many year - Photoshop when it was only Photoshop No number or CS product.

So here's the skinny. I updated to a Mac Mini from an intel mac. First time I logged into the CS, it told me it was updating my sub for the M4. The results were so much faster that I was shocked. It's a guess since I don't have the intel mac, but at least 10X. So while Adobe might have been pissed at Jobs, they know where their bread is buttered.

The Dixiecrats. Very racist, and were not going to vote Republican because Abe Lincoln. Then along came the Kennedy's with that desegregation and equal rights stuff. So the Dixiecrats shifted to a political party that aligned with their beliefs on race.

Ironically, many of the people who claim that Democrats are all racist align with the Republican party's outlook on race. So seem to claim that teh modern Republican party is actually Democrats Ironically, many of the peopl

This all sounds like some political hack yelling "Fake News!

Sorry, things don' run very well on AMD or X86 in W11 either

Never been in court?

It will be brought up that Meta removed anything that was related to litigation against Meta. Even if the Judge suppresses it, jurors can remember it.

Yup, the game was made impose to play, so the only winning move was to not play.

If I might note, men have created problems, and so have women. On the face of this it should be a given. While it is illogical to say that men have created all of the problems, and women have never created problems, that is where we are.

And a lot of the more zealous women are amping it up. I've seen posts lambasting today's men for some injustice against women in Ancient Rome, and other unforgivable crimes going back many hundreds of years or more. The reason of course is the zealots have to keep the hatred flowing. The "It's all men until it is no men" movement is pure unadulterated hatred, making all men universally responsible for any crime committed against any woman. Statistically impossible, therefore an unfixable situation. And oddly enough, the converse is not true, because the modern narrative is women have no personal problems other than those caused by men. That they are for all intents and purposes perfect, even if not explicitly stated. That is illogical and irrational.

There are good men, and there are bad men, it would be naive to believe otherwise. But we have to recognize the difference between good and bad.

And here is the paradox. In a world where women believe that all men are criminals, it is considered a male loneliness epidemic when men start to think that any woman can end his career, his marriage, and his social standing, and avoid those who have a very powerful tool designed to destroy him. Wrong, simple risk/reward analysis.

Obviously there are wonderful women out there, but the only way for a man to find out is if he puts himself in a position to be destroyed. And men are mentally built to accept singlehood, especially when they hit their thirties and start to think with their brain. So risk/reward is the analysis, and remaining single and avoiding interactions are the guides. And of course most women do not like that, but it is a survival skill for men.

Is there hope? Maybe. In recent times, I've seen the scowls of women replaced with "Hello" and often flirty smiles. Now it is possible that this is just another fad, the "Older guy" thing I've heard about. I've got the gray at the temples, pretty well built, dress well, and carry myself well. And really, it is kind of nice. No one is trying to screw anyone, just human interaction.

Another illustrative thing is that I buy my wife flowers regularly every week. I used to get smirks from women, like "What did you do you have to apologize for asshole?" but today, wistful and sad looks, like "I wish someone would buy flowers for me.." especially from young ladies. But many older women as well.

Maybe, just maybe, an increasing number of women are coming to the realization that they've been following ideological zealots, who will lead them down a path of inculcated hatred, permanent singlehood. and end up alone. Women are not stupid. They don't often do risk/reward analysis, but they are generally pretty good at cause and effect analysis.

The zealots won't go away of course, but they might be relegated as a cautionary tale, a good place for them.

All very good and 100 percent accurate points. And none of this is fixable by men, other than passive avoidance, which is an unnatural situation. I've been told that I hate women just for recounting an experience.

And that's where we are. In a world where polite discussion is not permitted, where any disagreement ends up with pronouncements that you hate women, only women can fix any of this. Men are further castigated if they try.

Today, men are up against "https://everydayfeminism.com/2016/10/yes-actually-it-is-all-men/ https://holgerschueler.medium.....

Because womanism has morphed into demands that until no woman ever has any crime committed against them, then every man on the planet is guilty of all crimes against women.

And to think that disagreeing with that bit of utter, clearly stated hatred of every man on the planet will be written off as "misogyny

That is what womanism has morphed into. Pre-judgement that you are a rapist, and that you have personally committed all of the crimes ever committed against any and all women.

This attitude is red fuming nitric acid level corrosive and toxic. The ultimate expression of fear culture. And it is very damaging to young women.

They have been taught they are the designated victim, that all men want to sexually savage them, keep them from education and careers, and there are no exceptions.

Yet this is confusing. Men have stopped interacting almost altogether, are stepping away from college, and are now less educated.

In business world, men largely avoid traveling with women co-workers, and when they do, take different flights, stay in different hotels, rent different cars, and eat meals separately.

Do we even think for a minute that this is natural? Do we think women like this at all?

Do we understand why men have reluctantly accepted and adapted to the sexual apartheid state that seems to be the only possible reaction to the pre-judgement of 100 percent of us being hell bent on hurting women. That making a woman uncomfortable is a crime?

But back to the women. A women growing up with the present narrative is still sexually attracted to men, would still like a romantic partner, would still like protection against the less civilized among us.

But she lowkey hates men, as she has been taught to do, and men now largely ignore her, and stay distant. But men she sees seem to be having fun, joking around, talking about things in their lives, then go quiet when she comes near.

Welcome to the harvest of late state feminism. Which might be called Dictatorship of the designated victims. Very very confusing for her. I get Cleary act notices, a requirement that any and all "sexcrime" be reported to people like me. When it started there were notices fairly regulaly, now it is maybe one a year or less.

Allow me to ask where I ever typed quota. If you need reminded of what I actually typed, it was "The goal was at least 50/50 mix" Goals are not quotas.

I don't have any idea how I can prove what the equity policy, was from that time, only it was a university environment, and there was a strong push to have a 50/50 mix. You can either believe or not believe, in which case you can just call me a liar who hates women as well. Who enforced it? And you know that there were well-qualified men who were turned down because they were men? I call BS.

Then men avoiding women in the workplace not entering into relationships, and not having children is a very good solution to how terrible men are. If no woman is ever made uncomfortable or bothered by any male, she should be quite pleased with her success. She is free of male tyranny, and can live her best life.

Here's a homework assignment for you Watch "Snapped" on the Oxygen Channel. Actual cases of women who kill their boyfriends, husbands, parents, and children. It has been on for around 20 years now, and isn't running out of cases.

Regardless, the fertility rate dropping below replacement is a major win for feminism.

And please, consider that your defense of female DV against men by using more cases of male violence is really offensive. Sorry, but anyone doing violence against their spouse or SO is a criminal, your statement is implicitly saying you consider one worse than the other. And as a man who has never raped, assaulted, or touched a woman without consent, tells me where you stand.

If you didn't believe that you would have prefaced that no person on person violence is ever acceptable.