jacalata

6 ms·

1.
by jacalata 9y ago
In my experience, autistic people are far less likely to offend people than charismatic "leader types", mostly because they are willing to learn and don't just blow off feedback with some bullshit about having the right to be
2.
by jacalata 9y ago
It's funny, I don't experience that "heightened state of alertness" at all. Maybe the onus should be on those people who have no way to know if what they say could be offensive to get a clue and learn about the world?
3.
by jacalata 9y ago
Any useful network uses routing. Comcast is not defying net neutrality by delivering all the packets addressed to your IP to you. Net neutrality is not breached until Comcast or your mesh network starts handling the packets differently base
4.
by jacalata 9y ago
Pretty sure most 70-year-old American ladies would be quite surprised to be addressed or referred to as "guys". I'm not sure who you hung out with while you were here, but it may not have been a representative group. (Some pe
5.
by jacalata 9y ago
People who care about the effect their words have on other people.
6.
by jacalata 9y ago
> Anyway I think it's impossible to talk about caffeine consumption without also considering sugar consumption because they really do go hand in hand. Not for everyone - there are people who drink coffee black with no sugar (especia
7.
by jacalata 9y ago
You don't know what - if this general result could be invalidated by your personal experience not matching it?
8.
by jacalata 9y ago
I didn't make a statement either way about likelihood of it happening, I replied to your naive hope that the FCC would still jump in and stop Comcast from doing so after net neutrality rules are abandoned. If you think that this would
9.
by jacalata 9y ago
He means that if people already know they're going to die of old age eventually, nobody will be interested in a cure for cancer.
10.
by jacalata 9y ago
> I'm at least confident if my ISP started blocking Netflix because they made a deal with Comcast, the hammer of the FCC or FTC would fall on them in short order, and there would be consumer outrage. You mean "while net neutral
11.
by jacalata 9y ago
> A mesh network by its nature most have packet-gnosticism as a first principle. Why?
12.
by jacalata 9y ago
That is at best a misreading of the parent comment. Try quoting whole sentences and see if you can identify the parts of the argument that you chopped out.
13.
by jacalata 9y ago
It does have something to do with Gab- if net neutrality goes away then Comcast can block their site exactly the same way Apple can refuse to put their app in the App Store.
14.
by jacalata 9y ago
Well, your hypothetical moron is apparently unable to understand net neutrality at all, even the very simple version that "net neutrality means that the ISP can't block one company. If net neutrality goes away. Then it doesn'
15.
by jacalata 9y ago
A better title might be "hand waving around depression, sleep, productivity and some unrelated numbers"
16.
by jacalata 9y ago
http://mkweb.bcgsc.ca/colorblind/
17.
by jacalata 9y ago
Too mainstream?
18.
by jacalata 9y ago
For a single person renting out one house, they will get away with it. But for an apartment complex, they can get investigated and have secret shoppers come in and then they get in trouble for not treating the two marker customers the same.
19.
by jacalata 9y ago
Are you using the slippery slope fallacy to argue against the existence of federal protected classes?
20.
by jacalata 9y ago
A company that doesn't rely on the resources and services of society can argue that. But a company that wants to rely on any infrastructure like roads or electricity, and a landlord relying on the socially enforced theory of property,
21.
by jacalata 9y ago
Your newspaper is reporting many instances of men with their career ruined by a false accusation? Those stories don't seem to make it to the New York Times, perhaps you should diversify your sources.
22.
by jacalata 9y ago
This is a great example of a time when you should go home, get some sleep, and everything will work in the morning :)
23.
by jacalata 9y ago
I am skeptical that there is anything you could do that would never offend any men but would offend a significant percentage of women. Even more skeptical if we're restricting the scene to professional interactions.
24.
by jacalata 9y ago
Yes, I couldn't resist.
25.
by jacalata 9y ago
The occasional occurrence of an unlikely event does not make it reasonable to arrange your life around avoiding it. See: kidnapping by a stranger, plane crashes, suddenly having a photo of yourself go viral on the internet.
26.
by jacalata 9y ago
The amount of hysteria on display by men in this article and elsewhere is ridiculous. What happened to the skeptical "treat each person as an individual" attitude that created "Not All Men"?
27.
by jacalata 9y ago
So your argument is that there is no existing problem that needs dealing with.
28.
by jacalata 9y ago
Apparently not. Was that a serious question?
29.
by jacalata 9y ago
Are you saying that you know this is happening, or that you are concerned by the possibility of it happening?
30.
by jacalata 9y ago
I understand him to mean that adding women made it worse, but like many things, you can't simply take it away again and get back to where you were.

More ›