While preventable child deaths are obviously terrible, I feel like this could be overextended.

Like, how many child deaths has McDonald’s caused vs guns. I’m too lazy to do the math like the other guy, but I’d presume it’s comparable. (Although I suppose by the time it catches up to them they’re no longer children.)

Idk, you see things like, “leading cause of death in children” and it makes the number seem huge, but it’s less than 100 kids a year. And it looks like around 400/yr die from drowning in swimming pools. So if we really care about the children, we should bad swimming pools? They kill 4x the number of kids than guns.

I’m not saying guns are great. But using child deaths as part of the argument just feels like a great excuse to ban literally anything you just don’t like.

Probably sriracha.

Depends on how you define AI to some degree, but yeah. Protein folding has basically been solved in the past few years with neural-network based AI systems.

Woah, that’s nuts. I feel like most missiles don’t reach target in Israel. Maybe that’s cause most are aimed at Jerusalem and the Iron Dome though?

I think at the end of the day what we are disagreeing over is the word plausible.

If we both picked a random address somewhere in North America, is it plausible that we would happen to pick the same one? It’s possible, certainly, but vanishingly unlikely. Unlikely to the point that, if we did, I would presume something other than random chance was to blame. That is what I’m contesting here.

I agree that TERFs are orders of magnitude more likely to assault someone than the average person. I agree that assault is proceeded by harassment. I agree that women have been assaulted in recent memory over this very issue.

I agree with everything you’ve said. But none of that makes it “plausible” in the sense that it happening is something I would reasonably expect to happen. The statistical odds of it happening are relevant, in that they are so remote as to make the alternative explanation that it’s satire a vastly more plausible explanation. So much so that, when I read the headline, I immediately knew it was satire, and find it concerning that people didn’t.

Sure, if I orchestrated two TERFs who might be mistaken as trans to go into the same bathroom at the same time, this might be a plausible outcome. But that orchestration is the required step. The scenario where they do go into the bathroom at the same time is the absurd part, and what makes this clearly satire.

And, as an aside, I disagree with you about the mech suits. We do have mechanical exoskeleton prototypes. They’re not very practical for 99% of use cases, so they aren’t really used. But it’s not unfathomable that I could get one and ride it to work sometime in the next decade. It’s certainly not plausible, but it’s something I could make happen if I tried really hard to force it probably. Much like the thing we’re talking about.

You keep talking about harassment, but that’s irrelevant to the point I’m making. All my statistics were about assault. And you avoided stating a number of assaults you think go unreported. Pick a number? Is it 90% of assaults go unreported? 99%? Because even at those numbers, the odds are still shockingly low that this could happen.

And we’re talking about an altercation where two women beat each other to the point that both are hospitalized. This would be newsworthy on its own, and is certainly not a daily occurrence. To add to that that the motive was “both thought the other was trans,” and that doesn’t set off your “probably ragebait” buzzer? And we’re not talking about a hypothetical here. It was ragebait.

And let’s be doubly clear, this has never happened in real life. And I’d bet you any sum of money that it won’t in the next 100yrs. Plausible doesn’t just mean that you can imagine it happening. I can imagine a world where I’m piloting a mechsuit to work every day in the next decade. Just cause I can imagine it doesn’t make it plausible.

The most liberal estimate that I could find on how often violent crimes go unreported is 60%. So, to be extra generous let’s say there are 10,000 violent crimes per day. There’s still millions of bathrooms and hundreds of millions of people.

And, while we’re making a point of it. 80% of violent crimes are committed by men. So bring that 10k back down to 2k for the actual potential sample here.

You think one out of every 2000 violent crimes committed by women are violent TERFs beating up non-trans people that they thought were trans in public bathrooms? Because that’s what it would have to be to be once a day on average.

Or, maybe you think my liberal overestimate of unreported violent crime is wrong? What percent do you think goes unreported?

The odds of this are on par with a set of identical twins being struck by lighting at the same time while on different continents. Impossible? No. Implausible? Very much yes.

Exactly.

Of those 8 billion, how many would self describe as “gender critical feminists”? I’m betting that there aren’t a lot in, say, Saudi Arabia. It’s a pretty Anglocentric term.

And I again refer back to the 3000 total violent crimes a day in the US. We can probably safely assume that the per-capita number is lower on most other countries with “gender critical feminists” as a prominent social group.

So, if we say there are 3000 violent crimes per 350million people a day, how many of those do you think are a cis woman getting physically beaten up for being mistaken as a trans person?

Yeah, but there are a lot fewer people I would describe as “gender critical feminists.” But sure, happy to extend my numbers to cover Europe too if you want. They hold up there too. Unless you think brawls in women’s bathrooms are way more common in France than the good old USofA?

“Completely plausible” you say, about an event that’s astronomically unlikely.

The percentage of people being physically assaulted in bathrooms for being mistakenly identified as trans, while certainly a thing that heppens, isn’t exactly common. Certainly occurring less than once a day. There are millions of restrooms available to the public in some capacity in the US.

(In case you want to dispute the “once a day” thing, there are about 3000 violent crimes total per day in the US. If you think that non trans people being assaulted for being presumed trans while in a bathroom is one of those 3000 every single day, I’ve got a bridge to sell you.)

The odds that two people who are both the kind of person to physically assault a presumed trans person in a bathroom both going to the same bathroom, and both mistaking the other as a trans person is comically unlikely.

Combine that with the fact that it’s the kind of comical situation that appeals to the particular brand of schadenfreude that works so well in online spaces like this, and it doesn’t even begin to tickle your, “hey this might be satire” sensors? I think that says more about your critical thinking skills than it does about the state of the nation.

The number of posts today that are clearly satire but everyone is taking this seriously is super high.

I mean, this is the second, so not that high. But it’s weird that it’s happened twice.

This is satire.

Removed by mod

Hey, it’s Service Man!

Gotta love Alito and Thomas, lol. The inanity of this descent is wild.

A emergency hold while you await further info from the government before they ship someone out of the country is pretty normative and reasonable.

And “the government hasn’t said anything about it to us yet, so we can’t rule on it,” is the most braindead take in the world. So the government can do whatever they want without injunction, so long as they don’t file a rebuttal in court? Lunacy.

But, gotta love a good 7-2 with Alito and Thomas at the bottom. Gonna have to go read the full opinion. Those ones are always good for a laugh.

Impossible Creatures was a masterpiece. I still go back to it every now and then.

You are taxed on the gains, not on the total sale volume.

So if I buy something today for $5, and sell it tomorrow for $6, I pay the 37% on the $1 of gain.

So my takeaway is $5.63, not the $3.78 it would be I was taxed on the full sale.

It’s also worth noting that capital losses can offset gains. So if I made $1000 on one trade, but lost $1000 on another, my effective tax is $0, because I didn’t make any money.

This can get squishy though, as there are a lot of accounting loopholes you can do to count things as “losses” that are more losses on paper than actual losses.

Idk man, he’s a public figure. Like, would we be this mad if Kamala accidentally leaked her phone’s contact list (names only, no numbers)?

And to be clear, it’d be another thing entirely if he had, like, secret government sources in his contact list or something. But I don’t see anyone saying that as far as I can tell. It’s just his personal friends and contacts.

Nah, Venmo contacts are often based off of your phone contacts. So that’s probably just a list of people he has saved to his phone (who also have Venmo).

And even if you did have to pay someone for them to show up, it still doesn’t seem like much of a scandal. It’s not like someone in the contact list was “drug dealer” or something. Who cares if he venmo’d a coworker $20 for lunch?

Idk man. Like, leaking your phone’s contact list probably isn’t the best thing ever, but it’s hardly a huge deal imo.