It's only unethical if it 1) doesn't work or 2) is carried out involuntarily or without appropriate counseling, or without an actual diagnosis. Around here, that isn't the case (or at least it didn't use to be, things may have changed). People undergoing the procedure know full well what they are getting into, they are rigorously screened and diagnosed, and offered options (for some, counseling is enough, for others, hormone treatments without surgery). And given the low incidence of regret, and the generally improved quality of life following surgery, the conclusion must be that both the treatment and the screening work.

Other than the things I mentioned, how do you imagine that gender dysphoria is treated? It's no longer considered to be a mental disorder either, but something akin to being gay: it's all in the head, but it is innate to the person and not something that can be treated or "prayed away".

If they had better judgement they'd agree to a compromise or split instead of have a pettiness contest in public.

"It is worth noting that it is at least almost always comorbid with depression and anxiety, and transitioning does not alleviate those symptoms." Actually, it does, to varying degrees. And yes, surgical intervention for a mental disorder seems weird, but it's the best "cure" we have. People with gender dysphoria do not "grow out of it", and the incidence of regret for sex reassignment surgery is low. Very low. 0.1% or so, and to put that into perspective, that is 1/10th of the incidence of regret for knee surgery. At least it was before they started offering the surgery to people not diagnosed with gender dysphoria (and that is a condition almost impossible to accurately diagnose in children and adolescents, for instance)

The depression and anxiety often remain not because of disappointment after the transition, nor other internal issues, but by the acceptance (or lack of it) of transgenders by society. Thankfully that has improved by leaps and bounds: 30 years ago it was unheard of, 20 years ago it was awkward, 10 years ago something to be curious about. These days people hardly bat an eyelid.

"Act of God" is a legal term of art. You should be blaming lawyers and governments.

Do you really mean that if your git repo were corrupted, restoring a snapshot of the repo from backups wouldn't work? If that's true, then it sounds like your backup system is broken. The hashes after restoring ought to be identical to what they were before the backup.

If git used the files' iNode numbers for its hashes, then I could understand how a filesystem-based backup/restore might not really work; you'd have to backup at the block level instead. But git doesn't use the iNode numbers.

git isn't magical. It only knows files. It doesn't know if you moved the repo, copied the the repo, or restored the repo from a ten year old backup. I have moved git repos around plenty of times, `cp -a`ed directories with repos, tared and un-tared directories that contain repos, and the copies have always Just Worked without any hash mismatches.

mkdir ~/test. cd ~/test. git init, touch test.txt, git add test.txt and git commit. cp -a ~/test ~/test2. cd ~/test2 and check out the backup repo. The backup is valid. Then simulate a disaster with rm -rf ~/test. Then recover from the disaster with cp -a ~/test2 ~/test and you've just restored a repo from filesystem-level backup. The resulting repo works perfectly and its hashes aren't off. git has no idea you deleted and restored under its nose. Try it yourself.

What am I missing? I'm not surprised to be called idiotic, and the shoe often fits. But I'm surprised to be called that over this.

My router's hardware's parts were made in China. Its software was made as a worldwide effort but the team seems to be officially based in the Netherlands. And I'm not asking my government's permission for updating either one. Trumptards and their micromanaging far-left centralized-economic-planners can go fuck themselves. Keep your damn dirty ape hands off my computers, comrade.

MS could be far more evil than they are, given their power and market-share. At least Satya is the devil we know.

Lying to the Board and lying to the public are different things.

rivals like AMD and Intel offer competitive specs on paper, but their software stacks have struggled with bugs, compatibility issues, and weak adoption. As a result, Nvidia has built an Apple-like moat around AI computing, leaving the industry dependent on its expensive hardware.

Nvidia's competitors need to work together to improve open-source software tooling and to standardize hardware interfaces, or else go the way of Commodore and Tandy.

Cheapskate co. doesn't want to pay for retraining from one IT specialty to another.

Boeing MCAS, run!

PeopleSkillsGPT failed them

and that takes effort.

Since when did product longevity matter?

Since when did employees matter?