What information did this study provide, exactly? The selection criteria for their sample, make it not a representative population sample. There are some effects of UBI that can't be seen at a small scale. Effects like the need to actually pay for such a program. Small studies can be done with "funny money"--money provided for the purpose of research, money that is essentially considered "throw-away" money, intended for the purpose of research. Real UBI would have to be funded on a grand scale. No amount of research grants will cover that kind of expense.

I have lots of Trump supporters in my family. When confronted with logic like this, they just shrug and say they don't know about such things, there must be more to the story. If they don't hear the news on Fox News, to them it's just Fake News.

It may seem obvious to those of us who write code every day. But the mantra, mostly by educators, has long been that we need to "educate" everyone, teach kids how to code, so they can make good money and have a good life. There are a LOT of people for whom it's NOT obvious, that intelligence (or at least, a certain type of intelligence) is required.

The average person, and certainly the average politician, has no idea what "free-as-in-freedom" means. I'm not sure how sure *I* am that I know what it means, or at least, why it has this label. If the FSF wants to get traction, they'll have to get better at marketing, using terms that regular people can understand.

Trump's not trying to prove he has a plan, only that he's THE MAN.

When they say they you will have a "chance to win" a prize of some sort, no companies actually tell you what the odds are. They just keep it vague, so you don't realize there's really just ONE person who will win (if even one). People don't believe the odds. So a "guaranteed" price for each survey, is certainly going to seem like a better deal.

The technique works. If they don't incessantly ask people for reviews, only the complainers will post reviews, leading to one-star overall ratings. Just by asking, these companies are able to get enough reasonably good reviews, to make it worth the hassle--for them.

Sorry, TLDR. Except...

So you think boys (trans or not) should be allowed to play on girls' teams? How is that fair?

So it's pointless, but yet you keep replying! My original point was that the language AI uses is inherently biased, and that the very language used to state facts, can be biased. I don't know where you got off on the language-gender thing.

So you were being pedantic and needlessly injecting a technicality into the conversation. Nice move, bravo.

Title IX wasn't about practicality, it was about fairness. In women's sports, fairness means that teams don't get to call a boy a girl, so that the boy can play on the girl's team, and win games as a result of the natural strength advantage of boys compared to girls. Activists then decided that they could reinterpret "sex" to mean "gender" and allow boys who call themselves girls, to play on girls' teams. That's misunderstanding the nature and purpose of having girls' teams in the first place. If you're going to segregate teams by sex, don't obscure the rules by bringing feelings into it.

By the way, I believe trans people should be afforded fairness too. They are people and deserve justice and respect. They do not deserve to be given exceptions to biology-based rules because of their preferences.

Fine. Gender has referred to masculine and feminine nouns in some languages. You parsed my words in such a way that you could bring in grammar, that was never my point. We were talking about gender identity vs. biological sex. The word "gender" has historically never referred to a person's gender "preference."

It reinforces my point because grammatical categories have nothing to do with gender identity. So the statement reinforces that historically, people did not refer to gender as being a personal preference. That was MY original point. YOU brought in grammatical categories, which has nothing to do with the subject.

You're correct, "gender" isn't used in the actual wording of Title IX. Just "sex." The law was written correctly. The problem is that gender identity activists have reinterpreted the statute to mean "gender identity" as evidenced by the numerous cases of biological males being allowed to play on women's sports teams. This has led to numerous "records" being broken because biological males are inherently larger and stronger than biological females.

Your quote reinforces my point.

If you don't want to keep this discussion going, stop replying! That's all it takes.