Yes it’s technically trivial. I have read the patch. That’s beside the point, which is social and political.

I get to decide and report what does and does not hurt me thankyouverymuch. And I do think this is a step that erodes my right to privacy, taken with shockingly little discussion. (Which got it reverted)

There’s a lot of degrees of freedom between “just comply bro” and “good luck enforcing that”. For example https://blog.system76.com/post/system76-on-age-verification

I see how hard you’re trying

It’s definitely wrong to degrade or harass this guy for doing it.

Buuut this is being made to support a bad law that should be opposed. The law is a bellwether for compulsory age and identity verification, which should strike fear into the hearts of everyone. And especially everyone who cares about their privacy (which really should be everyone, but …).

Furthermore, it’s questionable whether a law like this can apply to open source software. IMO it really can’t - who exactly is liable? Is the world really better with ageless Linux outlawed?

Retail price or rental price lol

That sounds like a great reason to return it and buy used lol

IF YOU BUY ANY TV, DO NOT CONNECT IT TO THE INTERNET.

Televisions were never meant to be smart devices. There’s no reason your screen should have software of its own. That would be like your face having a mind of its own.

Ummm, <eldrich horror rant text>

If the servers have public IPs and you want the minimum possible ports open, just SSH? With passwords disabled and large keys, it’s quite secure.

If that’s still not enough for you or you need a private gateway, then Wireguard. I can strongly recommend Tailscale - It’s really an orchestration layer on top of Wireguard. You can setup your own Derp relays and head scale if you are truly paranoid. But 99.9% you don’t need all that and Tailscale out of the box will work well.

Also Tailscale isn’t a single point of failure the way you’re imagining. It’s certainly possible for Tailscale’s servers to go down, but that won’t drop existing connections.

I too am an ape

They’re going to make this way too sensitive so people throw away even more food and effective prices get driven up. I guarantee it

Have you considered… Asking them? If they lie they lie and you’ll find out they’re a shit person (and know it) pretty shortly.

But yeah if you want to get psycho about it just follow them to work.

Top/Bottom in which sense?

Not every men’s group is a shitty stereotype.

determine the relative “okayness” in an individual case

Well, yeah?

OP asked the question in general terms, I answered in general terms. With more specific information you can make a more specific judgement. That’s why I said “stereotype, not rule” and separated is vs ought?

I don’t need to list out every possible reason someone might want a gendered group to show that there is a valid reason. Instead just give one. In fact I avoided talking about domestic abuse shelters exactly to avoid this sort of ‘whataboutism’.

As ~always with gender and politics, there’s a pretty big gap between what is and what ought.

What is: The people who make and seek out men-only groups have a stereotype of being shitty, sexist people. The stereotypes around women-only groups are a lot weaker and less negative. These stereotypes are not rules, but do certainly lead to some social stigma.

What ought 1: In a better world gender-specific groups might exist for people to find support and connection around their gendered experiences. There’s some experiences that aren’t commonly shared across genders and it can be a lot easier and safer to share with people who you know also have that experience.

What ought 2: In a still better world there wouldn’t be a significant desire for such groups because we are all sensitive and caring enough that such a group doesn’t make sharing meaningfully easier or safer, because it’s already easy and safe.

Yes. Haven’t even had any really bad scrapes or anything.

Some odd I pass out from blood loss (like everyone). Or pain. Also I’m gonna have even more wicked scars on the sides of my fingers. But like, no broken bones and no major trauma is just really survivable.

Uhh, clouds? Duh

Do you think it’s (morally) right for you to have kids that you know would have a 50% chance to have bone tumors?

Sex bans are generally not workable. A marriage ban for you would be restrictive. This is very different for cousins, because there’s plenty of non-cousin alternatives for everyone.

“I don’t believe the state should have a say in what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home.”

So that’s why it’s a marriage ban?

24 US states ban cousin marriages. No states ban people over 40 from having children. You want to equate the two but there is a line between that that you can draw, as evidenced by half of the USA doing so.

I’ve expanded on my views elsewhere in thread.

Children of first-cousin marriages have a 4–6% risk of autosomal recessive genetic disorders compared to the 3% of the children of totally unrelated parents.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cousin_marriage

Is it eugenics now to say people should avoid conceiving children that are likely to have birth defects?

Should disabled people be blanket banned from having sex or children? No obviously not. Not really workable anyways and quite morally hazardous to put into law, as you point out.

Should people with disabilities ought to (in a moral sense) have children that are at high risk of sharing their disability? Also no. To be frank, there’s a reason we call it disability. Even though they can have good, rich, valuable lives, they much more often don’t.

This is definitely a question of degrees. Society and medical support can change this line. Like where diabetes used to be a death sentence now it’s serious but treatable. So less problematic to pass on diabetes today vs 200y ago, but why would you want to?

Finally let’s get to cousins. Beyond the additional risk that they have children with health problems, there’s a question of consent. Even between cousins (like siblings) there’s often a power dynamic that makes consent hazardous. So IMO, obviously immoral. Making this illegal is not very restrictive (it affects you banging like 0-100 specific people out of literally billions) and codifies what was a taboo anyways (which is like, a pretty significant amount of law). 24 US states agree with me.