The subjectiveness of it being a superior product aside.
Brave is chromium under the hood and therefore contributes to the rendering engine homogeneity that leaves Google in control of web standards.
Iirc they are keeping some support for manifest v2 , for now. It'll be interesting to see how that plays out for them both financially and from a technical upkeep point of view.
I'd guess it doesn't last long, but haven't looked at it hard enough to have an informed opinion on it.
That's also a logical fallacy.
You are conflating lack of effective choice with active support.
In an effectively two party race, where both arguably are supporting a position (through action if not through ideology) there is no option where you aren't effectively contributing to said position.
Vote either way or not at all , you are contributing to the overall success of one party or the other.
"Our genocide guy is better" is really the only option when there is no other practical choice.
Even voting independent just supports whoever happens to be winning from the two main parties.
What are you proposing is the practical option for people who don't want to be "in support of parties involved in committing genocide"?
To be clear i have no good answer to this either, just wondering if you do.
They do yes, this is clearly marked as an opinion piece.
What i was trying to convey is to not expect stellar journalism, opinion or otherwise, from a media source that has built it's readership on sensationalism and tabloid shenanigans.
That is of course, just my personal opinion.
The guardian is three tabloids in a trenchcoat.
They don't generally outright lie, but unbiased journalism it is not.
To be clear, the interview was a shitshow, I'm just saying you'll need to manage your expectations about journalistic quality when reading the guardian.
"News outlet" might be the most generous interpretation I've ever seen.
I don’t see the appeal of watching her win only because she is allowed to compete against women with much lower levels of testosterone than she has.
Let's try adding your first argument to your second and see how it sounds.
"I don’t see the appeal of watching them win only because they are allowed to compete against people much shorter than they are."
A genetic predisposition to success in a particular sport is either a problem for all sports or none of them.
If you are arguing that the current categories are what they are then testosterone shouldn't be a factor unless you are positing that testosterone level has a threshold past which you are male.
The whole point of having a women’s competition is to prevent that.
The whole point of having a women's competition is to separate "men" from "women", if the point was to prevent unbalanced categories we'd be basing the categories on things that were important to the perceived integrity of the sport.
You could also argue that historically ( in the west at the very least ) it was partially to stop "women" from competing in "men's" competitions, not because of a difference in physicality but because of a difference in societal expectations.
it makes no sense to allow a person with the specific set of innate physical advantages that men have over women to compete in the women’s competition.
Again, lets switch the subject of your phrase
"it makes no sense to allow a person with the specific set of innate physical advantages that tall people have over short people to compete in the short peoples competition."
This is not a good argument.
As you said the theoretical solution to this is to based the brackets/categories on things other than biological sex, something that can be measured reliably and precisely, but also as you said , good luck convincing the public/advertisers to switch at this point.
It doesn’t escape me, but what part of what I’ve said has invited confrontation or dismissal? I’m asking honestly.
In this case i can't see any big red flags.
The tone is a possibility, as i said, being correct isn't an absolute defence against being considered an arsehole.
To be clear, I'm not implying you were incorrect, or the tone was incorrect, just that that kind of certainty (evidence based or not) gets some people's backs up.
It’s grating that it keeps happening and I keep telling people to stop.
I don't think it's what you actually meant but this could be interpreted as "Somebody didn't accept my answer and argued, so i told them to stop, they didn't even though i was clearly correct, this is grating"
Hyperbole aside, it’s frequent enough that I can see a pattern of people starting petty arguments trying to win and throwing low punches instead of clarifying what is being said and why.
Firstly, welcome to public internet forums in general, this is common behaviour.
That aside, there are numerous trolls and bad faith "debaters" around, but just because you consider something petty doesn't mean the other person does.
This is what i was trying to convey in my reply earlier, if almost all interactions end up with what you consider petty behaviour it's worth considering the possibility that you are contributing to that outcome somehow.
Like, I don’t even want to argue.
So don't, if you don't want to continue the interaction then don't reply.
Meaning what, it’s also me?
Possibly, yes.
lol If I’m the one telling people to stop and act like adults and that gets 180° turns in behaviour, what does that say to you?
Honestly, it says to me that your communication skills might need some work.
Again, to be clear i don't mean your communication of facts and information, i mean your ability to understand how phrasing something in a certain way might illicit a certain kind of response.
"Stop acting like a child" is a very good way to build enmity and confrontation, which is useful in some cases, if you intend to illicit that response.
However, saying something like that and then being confused/frustrated when people get confrontational and dismissive suggests a lack of understanding about the impact of tone and phrasing.
Because stoners are basically a cult at this point, and refuse anything even as remotely negative as “it’s not good for your cats?”
I mean, i specifically stated it wasn't related to the actual topic being discussed, but i can address this anyway i suppose.
Possibly culty i suppose, about the same amount as alcohol consumers, smokers, people who see chiropractors etc.
Less than people in organised religion ( big cults ), actual cults and MLM schemes.
If all of the stoners you know are your definition of culty ( except you of course ), perhaps consider that it's your choice in acquaintances rather than an entire demographic.
Can't say i care either way, but i'd be interested in any studies you might have on the subject ( belief systems of stoners in general, not specifically the ones you know ofc, that would be unlikely )
To be clear, I smoke most nights… but god damn do I hate people who feel the need to defend weed against everything.
If that personal preference works for you, who am i to tell you you're wrong.
It’s a drug, y’all. It’s not good for you.
Drug doesn't automatically imply harm, but i think i know what you mean.
So, two things unrelated to the actual topic being discussed.
I’ll pretend your choice of words isn’t low-key confrontational and dismissive like every other comment on this site
It's entirely possible to be correct and do it in such a way that invites confrontation and dismissal.
If it seems like everyone apart from you is confrontational and dismissive, perhaps it's time to consider additional perspectives on why that might be happening.
Do you have an example of this ?
Randidly Ghosthound, from the series with the same name.
/r/onetruegod would like to know if you have some time to discuss ..well...the aforementioned one true god