SatanicNotMessianic

The joke is that it is emphatically not deadnaming. It’s disregarding a preferred nickname, but calling into the discussion the topic of deadnaming because he and his culture are massively transphobic.

I know we’re just two strangers passing in the night, but I want to be extremely clear that I would never deadname someone, regardless of their political beliefs or their stance relative to the trans community. I completely and totally respect the rights of all trans persons and for all people to define who they are.

I will also continue to call X Twitter and refer to it as deadnaming for the same reason, but if tomorrow Elon were to come out as trans I would respect their chosen names and pronouns.

I’m a cis gendered mostly gay man who has been active in the LGBT political and civil rights community since the days of ACT UP, I know the semiotics of genderism well enough to put together a course on it, and I’ve seen every episode of Pose.

I know your comment was very well meant, and I am in no way criticizing you for it. It’s coming from the best of places. I just want to be very clear where I’m coming from as well.

I think he meant “SECDEE!”

It’s just political posturing.

1. They don’t have a military. The National Guard units would come under the command of the President of the US, and any units in rebellion would know they’re facing courts martial for crimes that would be career limiting in that the penalties could include anything from life in prison to execution. It’s literally treason by the legal definition.
2. Even if any significant number of troops were to choose to violate the law, modern war isn’t about riflemen. There’s a massive infrastructure required to keep tanks and planes running, not to mention things like carrier battle groups. Northrop and Raytheon aren’t going to be forfeiting USG contracts to sell missile systems to Ohio.
3. Only the president has the nuclear codes, so nuclear blackmail can’t work either.

There isn’t going to be another civil war. Too much has changed between then and now in terms of military and economic organization. This is just Texas whacking off yet again, as they did under Obama and Bill Clinton.

The very real risks we’re facing are the election of Donald Trump - this is the biggest threat - and far right domestic terrorism. The former is an existential threat to the United States and should be treated as such. The latter is a law enforcement issue and should be treated as such. I suspect the Proud Boys are infiltrated all to hell as are the other major organizations, but there’s the potential for a significant amount of harm being done on a larger than 9/11 scale, although it’d be drawn out.

Not only is this just about the only deadnaming I support, I think we should all use the Spanish rolled “R.”

Also it’s the only time I’d be comfortable saying “No, where are you really from?”

Maybe this.

It feels like eating a toothpick and getting a bit stuck in your teeth leads to one of those infinite loop scenarios.

That’s an interesting thought. At first I was wondering what would distinguish them from standard anti-aircraft systems, and then it clicked.

They’d have to be fast - at least with the ability to put on a burst of speed significantly higher than that of the target drone. Making it have an explosive increases the damage and potentially area of effect, but if you think about it like the kinetic kill vehicles designed to take out ICBMs, I think you can just whack the target drone hard enough to knock it out while potentially increasing speed, decreasing weight, and decreasing costs.

I completely agree. I don’t want them to buy out the NYT, and I would rather move back to the laws that prevented over-consolidation of the media. I think that Sinclair and the consolidated talk radio networks represent a very real source of danger to democracy. I think we should legally restrict the number of markets a particular broadcast company can be in, and I also believe that we can and should come up with an argument that’s the equivalent of the Fairness Doctrine that doesn’t rest on something as physical and mundane as the public airwaves.

The NYT has a market cap of about $8B. MSFT has a market cap of about $3T. MSFT could take a controlling interest in the Times for the change it finds in the couch cushions. I’m betting a good chunk of the c-suites of the interested parties have higher personal net worths than the NYT has in market cap.

I have mixed feelings about how generative models are built and used. I have mixed feelings about IP laws. I think there needs to be a distinction between academic research and for-profit applications. I don’t know how to bring the laws into alignment on all of those things.

But I do know that the interested parties who are developing generative models for commercial use, in addition to making their models available for academics and non-commercial applications, could well afford to properly compensate companies for their training data.

Wings evolve from legs though, generally speaking. This means that a four legged dragon with wings would have conceivably evolved from a six legged creature. You can get hand-wings or arm-wings, and we’re not entirely sure but think insect wings may have also evolved from legs or some other kind of similar structure.

But pretty much you can either have wings or legs/arms. You have to trade them in. That’s why the whole angel/demon thing doesn’t work either. The traditional harpies work but they’d be furry and not feathered. I haven’t worked out the wingspan for them but you could probably come up with a reasonable guess. They’d be more bat-people than bird-people, and I suspect that their chest areas would be less generously proportioned than is typically seen in the artwork. I’m not going more into the physics of that one though.

BFD.