Genes being mis-expressed so as to result in someone being born with both or neither sets of genitals is a birth defect. We do not root science in freak exceptions. Humans have two arms and two legs. Sometimes, a person is born with the wrong number of limbs. That is a defect, not cause for redefining human anatomy.

Nor is gender dysmorphia about fashion. It is a mental illness where you don't think you have the correct body. It is worth noting that it is at least almost always comorbid with depression and anxiety, and transitioning does not alleviate those symptoms. Anxiety means you are always uncomfortable. Depression means you always hate yourself. Would it be at all a surprise that those could combine into a syndrome that leaves one hating their body and seeking a disguise? Because that's all it is - a disguise. A "trans" person is so anxious that they are not comfortable in public unless they are in disguise. Teens often deal with that. I myself went out in the disguise of a crazy punk rocker. It was more comfortable to put on a show than be myself.

Which is probably why so many people grow out of being "trans". When the care they receive isn't so monstrously unethical that they end up killing themselves.

Any surgical intervention for a psychiatric disorder is unethical. If someone thinks their foot isn't actually theirs, cutting it off is the wrong approach.

I am not a municipal water guy, but my high-level understanding from news articles and picking up little bits of information over time is that leaks representing quite a lot of water loss like 5-20 percent is pretty common.

This is why you see boil orders whenever there is a loss of pressure the assumption is that because the positive pressure went away nasty things could have come in the same leaks in the pipe that normally are letting all that water out..

That 5-20 percent is a big spread and a lot noise to signal to hide non functioning meter or even intentional water theft in.

"Hide it in the release notes"? What? No, you lost right there. That's just plain silly. This isn't a breaking change, it's a minor addition.

And I'm not defending Google, I'm criticizing stupid reactions. Like expecting novel behavior as if it were already de rigueur.

The environmental impact of the utterly ephemeral? Are you this concerned about watching Netflix or Hulu? Oh no, this download is almost as big as an hour of TV! Whatever shall we do?!!??!

Okay... that's funny. Can't deny it.

No, if they want to disable it, they look up how and find that there's a flag they can flip off. Like so many other settings and features in browsers.

See I don't think you need the education to engage. If you want to talk about that engagement with others, compare it other works not immediately present, place it in some social or historical context sure...

Just like you'll probably engage with study the wildflower differently if you have formal training in botany, than if you don't, you can still make personal observation, ask yourself questions especially subjective ones. Any normal person could look at an impressionist work and observe how the image comes together as you take a step back, or that the bright colors of the forest flower attract the birds. That is how the discoveries all the people with the fancy titles know about where made in the first place.

Certainly the heal benefit here comes from just taking the time understand and appreciate something, If arriving at some ground breaking insight or new discovery general rather than personal was required, I don't think we'd see much affect on anyone because even if you have multiple PHDs in visual arts, a lot of people have spent a lot of time looking at that Manet already, the odds of coming away with anything truly novel are low.

Well, let's generalize that a little and see if it answers the question. "How do you know Chrome isn't going to add any new features". Well, I can't know that, but I can safely assume that they will add new features in the future, and that they will not ask anyone for consent in the process, as that is never part of the process. New features are rarely opt-in. Is it a hassle for enterprise security and application teams? Yes. Is it one they aren't already used to dealing with every day? No. It's just part of the job.

Do they though? Or do they just invent ways to dismiss whatever counter evidence is provided? There's probably data on it.

What do you mean by "close enough to the house"? Collusion? Proximity?

I can't tell if you're being facetious (wouldn't hold it against you) or not. It is approximate, so maybe it does trend towards 17:83. There are also other common distributions - 70/30, 60/40, but 80/20 is the one that comes up the most often and in the most interesting places.

The point is that you want to start optimizing for contemporary-ish instructions and feature sets, which often perform a lot better. Yes you can continue to target v1 and it will work on v2 and v3, but you're leaving a lot on the table, or you make separate paths v1 and v2+ but now you have added effort to support v1.

At some point it is time to say goodbye to v1 support in the mainline branch.

Don't let any of the art or art history profs at the local college hear you say that, they'll probably turn violent!

Sitting and looking might not be an accurate characterization. I also don't think many of the voluntary attendees (Ie people that were not dragged their by parents, a spouse etc) are very likely to just 'sit and look' they are almost certainly "critiquing" and thinking about it, "do i like this", "why did the artist select this media", "what were they trying to say, what have they actually said to me", "what did I not see the last time I studied this piece", "maybe this would be better if it were green"

I drive past it all the time.

It sounds like the problem was at the Fayette water department. It's small, I know that much. Had to pay my bill in person once or twice when I lived there.

Yeah, we already knew that walking around is good for your health. Especially if you're walking in a place that has relaxing scenery. Like an art gallery. Or beach. Or mountains. Or forest.

But you're only going to find one of those things in London, which is probably why The Guardian thought this was interesting. I'm almost curious to see how they worked climate change into it, but I'd have to read that trash to find out.