If an employer did the same thing, would you argue that's also not discriminatory? Or, to pick a notorious example, if a cake shop only agreed to sell to straight couples, would that be the same? If not, why not?
These platforms connect service providers and consumers. That should be obvious, I think.
A better challenge would be if these same platforms allowed racial selections. Which I think everyone would be uncomfortable with in a way “let women avoid men” does not evoke.
Probably because of motivation. To my knowledge, there’s no evidence of racially motivated bad behavior on these platforms, but there certainly is for gender-based bad behavior[1]
So the apparently-similar hyptothetixal is not that similar, though still useful for rhetoric.
My libertarian view on discrimination (independent of the Civil Rights Act) is this:
If a service is not widely available in the region, any systematic discrimination leading to refusing to provide service, or specific level of service or care, based on anything unrelated to the ability to provide it, should be illegal, locally, in that community. Rules like ousting disruptive customers apply across the board.
If a service is widely available, however, then “x-only” service providers should be allowed to operate (as indeed they are with women-only gyms, Jewish-only clubs, or nightclubs that let women in first and charge the men) as long as they advertise it up front and not make people go there only to find out that “ladies can go in free of charge, men pay $300 for a table with bottle service”
PS: replace “ladies” and “men” with “whites” and “blacks” and hear how that sounds. And no, citing crime or violence statistics shouldn’t play a role in shaping whether people can get into places, whether it’s women citing male vs bear violence / harassment or people citing racial FBI statistics on violence / harassment. This is the prosecutor’s fallacy.
Yes, I think the argument that "discrimination is fine so long as it doesn't result in complete shutout of a vendor/customer" is reasonable. But that argument didn't fly for the cake controversy case, so society doesn't seem to agree.
In your cake shop example, the more accurate version would be some gay couples only agreeing to buy wedding cakes from cake shops with gay bakers.
On account of it's the customer choosing the service provider, albeit with the help of filters provided by an aggregator, instead of service providers denying service to customers based on their belonging to a class.
edit: I missed that you can, as a woman driver, also filter out male riders.
No, they're pointing out the "right" way is also corrupt and the problem is deeper-rooted. It being done plainly is obviously worse, but the corruption runs deeper than just this.
Supposedly DOGE was to fight corruption. We were all going to get checks back!
Not only did they find zero cases of corruption that were referred to prosecution, they ended up costing us MORE money even than they hypothetically “saved”.
That’s before we even add in “stupid wars of choice” to the “savings” mix.
The idea that “well everything is corrupt so it doesn’t matter” really needs to be confronted, especially when it’s so easily dismantled as an argument.
(I agree though that this administration has massive corruption, and see how you were explaining the above, so I’m talking generally.)
Mobile platforms are entirely useless to me for exactly this reason, individual islands that don't interact to make anything more generally useful. I would never use any os that worked like that, it's for toys and disposable software only imo.
Mobile platforms are far more secure than desktop computing software. I'd rather do internet banking on my phone than on my computer. You should too.
We can make operating systems where the islands can interact. Its just needs to be opt in instead of opt out. A bad Notepad++ update shouldn't be able to invisibly read all of thunderbird's stored emails, or add backdoors to projects I'm working on or cryptolocker my documents. At least not without my say so.
I get that permission prompts are annoying. There are some ways to do the UI aspect in a better way - like have the open file dialogue box automatically pass along permissions to the opened file. But these are the minority of cases. Most programs only need to access to their own stuff. Having an OS confirmation for the few applications that need to escape their island would be a much better default. Still allow all the software we use today, but block a great many of these attacks.
Both are true, and both should be allowed to exist as they serve different purposes.
Sound engineers don't use lossy formats such as MP3 when making edits in preproduction work, as its intended for end users and would degrade quality cumulatively. In the same way someone working on software shouldn't be required to use an end-user consumption system when they are at work.
It would be unfortunate to see the nuance missed just because a system isn't 'new', it doesn't mean the system needs to be scrapped.
> In the same way someone working on software shouldn't be required to use an end-user consumption system when they are at work.
I'm worried that many software developers (including me, a lot of the time) will only enable security after exhausting all other options. So long as there's a big button labeled "Developer Mode" or "Run as Admin" which turns off all the best security features, I bet lots of software will require that to be enabled in order to work.
Apple has quite impressive frameworks for application sandboxing. Do any apps use them? Do those DAWs that sound engineers use run VST plugins in a sandbox? Or do they just dyld + call? I bet most of the time its the latter. And look at this Notepad++ attack. The attack would have been stopped dead if the update process validated digital signatures. But no, it was too hard so instead they got their users' computers hacked.
I'm a pragmatist. I want a useful, secure computing environment. Show me how to do that without annoying developers and I'm all in. But I worry that the only way a proper capability model would be used would be by going all in.
There is a middle ground (maybe even closer to more limited OS design principles) exist. It is not just toys. Otherwise neither UWP on Windows nor Flatpaks or Firejail would exist nor systemd would implement containerization features.
In such a scenario, you can launch your IDE from your application manager and then only give write access to specific folders for a project. The IDE's configuration files can also be stored in isolated directories. You can still access them with your file manager software or your terminal app which are "special" and need to be approved by you once (or for each update) as special. You may think "How do I even share my secrets like Git SSH keys?". Well that's why we need services like the SSH Agent or Freedesktop secret-storage-spec. Windows already has this btw as the secret vaults. They are there since at least Windows 7 maybe even Vista.
I have no idea why someone would get mad about getting a vacuum cleaner as a gift. It's boring, sure, but if you keep complaining about your old one, it seems pretty thoughtful.
Everyone’s situation is different. But typically the reason this offends is because for a stay at home mom a vacuum is a work tool. If the current vacuum is broken then you should just get a new one. It shouldn’t take the place of a Christmas present, which is the opportunity to get her something related to her personal interests rather than her job.
Interesting point of view. But it's common for a man to get a work tool as present (e.g. a drill or a set of wrenches), with the obvious implication that the man will usually be the one who will have to use that tool to fix things around the house - and I have never seen anyone find that offensive. So what makes the vacuum cleaner different?
Powerwash simulator is occasionally fun. There's shiny rewards, I don't have to deal with potential bad weather, and there's no random patches that take 20 times to get rid of. If I don't feel like powerwashing simulator, it will wait for me, forever, with no ill consequences or social judgement.
If I never wash my actual driveway, the same is not true. Therefore I will need to wash it at times when it's unpleasant or I don't want to, and it will take longer than powerwashing a driveway in Powerwash simulator.
In this scenario (again, everyone’s situation is different) DIY is more often a hobby for the husband. Repairs are infrequent enough that you could just hire someone as needed, but the husband chooses to do it.
Perhaps more importantly, it’s not his full time job.
The implication is that it implies vacuuming is that persons responsibility to the point of giving them "their" tools instead of it being a shared purchase for the house.
Not everyone will care, but this is a stereotypical type of present likely to trigger anger and resentment in the recipient for a reason.
That's not what he said or implied, he's merely responding to your argument 'Donating any amount of money to prevent people you don't know from marrying each other'. I think you might have a justifiable argument here, but it's not clear at all to me what it is.
I cannot imagine the mental model you're working with if my observation is not crystal clear despite omitting the word "adults" in my initial post. Both your and Y_Y's responses read as bad faith to me, but it could be extraordinary ignorance.
In either case I have no idea how to make it clearer for you. Good luck.
That's right. To get a bit philosophical, it's interesting to see some people's justifications about how they are right to be intolerant in the ways they want to be, while still believing that they are free-thinking and tolerant. A lot of convoluted arguments are really about keeping one's self-image intact, justifying beliefs that are contradictory but which the person really wants to believe. I think that is a trap that is more dangerous for intelligent people.
For what it's worth, I support and supported gay marriage at the time, but don't think people should be forced out of their job for believing otherwise. Thoughts and words you disagree with should be met with alternative thoughts and words.
That's kinda my point, this was already argued like 80 years ago.
> Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.
I've had recurring headaches my entire life. Have been to many neurologists, none have any idea what causes them, they just give me different pills to prevent them instead. This isn't unusual for headaches, quite often the cause is basically unknown. (If you ask people they'll give you a series of common things, eg water consumption, eating enough, etc, but it's just all unprovable folk medicine) Expecting everyone to "find the cause" is unreasonable.
If you have a headache, it's totally fine to take a painkiller. (If it happens on a regular basis, eg at least once a week, it can be a good idea to get those different pills from a neurologist, because the two main painkillers have bad side effects in the long run, but those different pills are just "masking" it in a different way)
I am not trying to say that you are never supposed to take medications long-term. I take medications, too. Unfortunately the causes are known (or rather, there is a diagnosis), but there is no treatment or cure.
What I am trying to say is that after the Nth time you would take the kid to the doctor to find out what causes the pain, instead of just giving them painkillers. It could easily be something treatable, or rather, curable.
If an employer did the same thing, would you argue that's also not discriminatory? Or, to pick a notorious example, if a cake shop only agreed to sell to straight couples, would that be the same? If not, why not?
reply