zkfcfbzr

Using they/them by default is already a good start - I would be surprised to learn if neopronouns are a thing at all in languages that don’t have gendered pronouns to begin with. they/them is perfectly acceptable to 99+% of people - both cis and LGBT+.

You can just say LGBT or LGBT+. Lots of others are in use but very, very few people will legitimately get mad at you for picking one over any other.

If someone specifically tells you to call them a certain thing, you should call them that thing. Otherwise just stick to they/them.

If someone tells you their sexuality and it is not relevant to you, you have no obligation to ever bring it up again, just as with any form of oversharing.

And as for why some people share these things even though you may personally find it too revealing - that’s just down to personal preference. Different things are important to different people in different ways. Some people might go through their life never giving their gender a single thought. Others might base their life around affirming and fighting for it in various ways. Most people are somewhere in the middle. Everyone has a cause they believe in a lot - for some people, this is that cause. As an “Aero Ace” (a term I had to look up - “aromantic asexual” for those who also haven’t encountered it), you’re probably pretty predisposed to not care about any of this stuff on any significant level.

So… The NO WAI Act?

> Makes thread asking if you should go to the ER

> Literally everyone says to go to the ER

> Doesn’t go to the ER

ok

I use 160g spaghetti with an entire 14oz jar of sauce, personally.

gen z: Roughly the generation currently in their teens to twenties.

dommes - Sexual dominants, as opposed to subs. Specifically female in this case, with “doms” being the masculine/gender-neutral variant.

puppygirls - Dog equivalent of a catgirl. A girl who takes on visual and personality traits of a puppy to various extents, often as a form of sexual play.

dogcage - Where you put your puppygirl when she’s been chewing on the remote or peeing on the rug.

rawdog - To experience something “raw”, without any aides to make the experience safer or more tolerable.

Translation: It’s incredulous that young sexual dominants allow their submissives to use their phones while in their cage. It lessens the experience!

Cory in the House?

Literally none of this matters anyways if pennies are going, because making prices end in certain amounts won’t work as nice in practice as it does here for the simple reason that US prices almost never include taxes.

Relevant

Honestly the worst thing about this equation isn’t the fact that they had poor typesetting, it was that they used decorative constants. The ε and φ values they chose just cancel out. The equation is equivalent to (xᵢ - mᵢ) / mᵢ.

Asterisks for multiplication are fine and normal and common in typed text. Where it’s unusual is in text that’s been typeset, where using things like asterisks for multiplication defeat the point of typesetting, It would be like going through all the effort to typeset an equation, but still saying sqrt(x) instead of using the square root symbol.

While introducing a new number that would yield a nonzero result when multiplied by zero would break the logic of arithmetic and algebra, leading to irresolvable contradictions, we do have something kind of similar.

You’re probably familiar with certain things, like 1/0, being undefined: They don’t have any sensible answer, and trying to give them an answer leads to the same sort of irresolvable logical contradictions as making something times zero be nonzero.

There’s a related concept you might also be familiar with, called indeterminate forms. While something like 1/0 is undefined, 0/0 is an example of an indeterminate form - and they’re special because you can sensibly say they equal anything you want.

Let’s say 0/0 = x. If we multiply both sides of that equation by 0, we get 0 = 0 * x. The right side will equal 0 no matter what x is - and so the equation simplifies to 0 = 0. So our choice of x didn’t matter: No matter what value we say 0/0 equals, the logic works out.

This isn’t just a curiosity - pretty much all of calculus works on the principle of resolving situations that give indeterminate forms into sensible results. The expression in the definition of a derivative will always yield 0/0, for example - but we use algebraic and other tricks to work actual sensible answers out of them.

0/0 isn’t the only indeterminate form, though - there are a few. 0^0 is one. So are 1^∞ and ∞ - ∞ and ∞⁰ and ∞/∞ and, most important to your question, 0*∞. 0 times infinity isn’t 0 - it’s indeterminate, and can generally be made to equal whatever value you want depending on the context. The expression that defines integrals works out to 0*infinity, in a sense, in the same way the definition for derivatives gives 0/0.

This doesn’t break the rules or logic of arithmetic or algebra because infinity isn’t an actual number - it’s just a concept. Any time you see infinity being used, what you really have is a limit where some value is increasing without bound - but I thought it was close enough to what you asked to be worth mentioning.

There can be no such actual number that gives a nonzero number that works with the standard axioms and definitions of arithmetic and algebra that we all know and love - they would necessarily break very basic things like the distributive property. You can define other logically consistent systems where you get results like that, though. Wheel algebra is one such example - note that the ‘Algebra of wheels’ section specifically mentions 0*x ≠ 0 in the general case.

God, you’re exhausting. They don’t sell the data. Get over it. The email left no room for ambiguity. You’re reaching so far it’s embarrassing. Are you really that jaded?

Reviving a long-dead thread for a relevant update, in a top-level post because you deleted all of your replies in the thread where it was relevant.

Mozilla did reply to my email asking for clarification on their Fakespot privacy policy, and whether they collect or sell user data, as we were discussing - though that reply took them four weeks. Their response in full:

“”" Hello,

Thank you for contacting Mozilla and for your question. At this time, Fakespot does not sell or share any user data pursuant to any applicable privacy laws. The only data we share outside of Mozilla are generalized aggregated metrics with service providers who make Faksepot run to help us with logging and debugging issues to provide an uninterrupted experience for our customers, and we do not share this data for monetary gain. We are in the process of updating our privacy policy for additional clarity on all the points referenced in your email.

We trust this answers your questions and thank you again for reaching out.

Kind regards, Mozilla “”"

My own reading of the situation on the developer’s GitHub is unfortunately that the review by Mozilla is indeed completely inaccurate in every way. No way to even read it as a “Each side has their own story” type of thing since they reproduce Mozilla’s emails verbatim. They seem just materially incorrect. The source files referenced by the emails are visible on the same GitHub account, along with their complete histories showing no changes at all - the issues referenced don’t and never did exist.

The only redeeming thing I can find is that the dev (ambiguously) seems to have never replied to the email from Mozilla about the issues, and so Mozilla was never made aware that there was an issue with the review that needed fixing. They seem to have done this because they perceived the process as hostile and not worth engaging with, which… fair, I guess.