Gender is the cultural outcome of primary and secondary sexual characteristics and in no meaningfully physical way exist. In other words, we traditionally have a "boy" culture and a "girl" culture, not a gender. We are artificially indoctrinated and assimilated into a given culture based on primary or secondary sexual characteristics.
Likewise, it follows that all other gender identities are similarly a cultural phenomenon and not the outcome of some essential characteristic of the individual.
Gender cultures are, at least historically speaking, bad. They've generally been used to persecute people who aren't in the dominant (boy) gender, and the conditions dictating mobility between genders is so intensly arbitrary that it warrants abolishing the whole stupid idea. Gender dysphoria is a symptom, generally, of the tyranny of these conditions.
(PS, I totally am open to being wrong about this.)
To be fair, they generally advertise it as regular lemonade and market it with an unlimited refill deal. I've drank 3 green teas before while at a Starbucks over a few hours. These lemonades contain far more caffeine than a similar sized cup of coffee. This is the second death linked to it now.
It's not wild to think you might drink 3 refills of a lemonade during a visit to a restaurant, but it is unusual to think you might drink 3 times the maximum recommended dose of caffeine doing so.
Edit: back of the napkin math. 3 large lemonades = 12.3 cups of coffee.
To take over the world? I'd take the records of every international technology and medical patent. And, a cell phone. I'd get the local news interested in my new handheld PC, find the least scrupulous tech company which reached out to me, and hatch a plan to create a trillion dollar tech empire.
It sounds really cool, but I've honestly had issues installing it on two PCs now on two separate occasions separated by a couple months. Issues I didn't have installing Ubuntu. The installer would fail to complete. I'm not a Linux power user, and while I tried debugging for a few hours, I gave up.
This article is actually an interesting critique of the original studies analytics which suggest that such an effect perhaps doesn't actually exist, or at least was not demonstrated scientifically.
Tbh the grail for me would be if it could execute code in a persistent, local, virtualized environment. I'm sure that sort of product will come to Windows, but it can't come soon enough for me.
I am unimpressed with copilot on Windows 11. Privacy aside, It seems like a web wrapper for Bing ai, which is a performant chat bot, but isn't anything special when you compare it to openai's data analytics ai.
It wasn't able to update PC settings or files, for example. Though, I only had 15 min with it.
I don't like the "There's just stuff bumping into other stuff, and how is that free?" Argument. I feel like it's unessisarily reductive.
A stone washing down a river might be guided deterministically by fundimental forces, as are all of the actions of a human brain.
However, the stone was dislodged by erosion. My will was set into motion by abstract human concepts. My memories, biases, emotions, education, habits, etc. these are not fundamental or physical forces. I was free, uninhibited by state or peers, to decide based on these internal factors.
Sure, if you rewinded time and replayed it, I would always make that decision, and so would the stone wash down the river, but the human had a meaningful perception of free will.
I would argue that free will is not a physical concept, but a phycological one. It succeeds in describing the experience of mulling over a decision, and freely acting upon it. It is fair and reasonable to say it, just like in my example it is fair and reasonable for me to say a terrible person is evil.
If you twist the definition of free will contain some mention of subatomic autonomy, then sure, it doesn't exist, but the concept predates such ideas...
Heck, even the Bible- I'm an atheist- but the point of writing that God gave humans free will was the expression of the human experience. The writers wanted to explain why being a human FELT different from being a stone. They were grappling with the experience of consciousness in a spiritual way. The original text never claims to be the ultimate expression of physics. It's reductive to dismiss the text as meaningless just because some later "free will" proponents claimed that the brain is quantum or whatever.
Sorry, I agree with you about the nature of the universe. I just think these reductive debates are, in general, unproductive. I believe they misrepresent the subject from both sides.
Gender is the cultural outcome of primary and secondary sexual characteristics and in no meaningfully physical way exist. In other words, we traditionally have a "boy" culture and a "girl" culture, not a gender. We are artificially indoctrinated and assimilated into a given culture based on primary or secondary sexual characteristics.
Likewise, it follows that all other gender identities are similarly a cultural phenomenon and not the outcome of some essential characteristic of the individual.
Gender cultures are, at least historically speaking, bad. They've generally been used to persecute people who aren't in the dominant (boy) gender, and the conditions dictating mobility between genders is so intensly arbitrary that it warrants abolishing the whole stupid idea. Gender dysphoria is a symptom, generally, of the tyranny of these conditions.
(PS, I totally am open to being wrong about this.)