The madness that is overlay networking and other brainfuck networking stacks that are normalized now due to Kubernetes and Docker are horrific. Moving to micro-VMs with each one having it's own unique IP and leveraging basic networking has paid us off in spades.
Which is exactly why there's a gigantic push for gender ideology, whiteness studies, and other grievance studies. Those steeped in the ideology are truly uneducated and will vote for those pushing these beliefs. They're pro-open immigration so the better workers will flood in, and the more diverse the workplace, the less likely they are to unionize.(https://www.jstor.org/stable/24810295).
>and the tendency of people to move out of states with laws that oppress them
This is categorically false. More people are moving to states like Texas, Florida, and Georgia than states like California and New York. Blacks are moving in droves back to the South.
Apache serving 21%?! What kind of websites use Apache in 2022? I haven't deployed a site on that dinosaur in over a decade at this rate. Nor have I used it as a reverse proxy in that timeframe.
> I haven't deployed a site on that dinosaur in over a decade at this rate
That's why your memory of Apache is a dinosaur itself: Apache has been constantly improving over the years. The advantage that Nginx had in performance was gone with Apache introducing event mpm. Now event mpm + any backend can provide you the same performance with Nginx, but with ALL the benefit of the gigantic module ecosystem that Apache has.
Like another commenter said, merely WordPress would constitute around ~50% of the web, and it uses Apache. Even if there is a nginx proxy cache at the front (as is so common with run of the mill web hosts that use cPanel), the Apache in the backend is irreplaceable - modifying .htaccess file is critical to many !very! important plugins in the WP ecosystem that people use to run their businesses. And if a web host does not provide for that, they remain gimped. You can use Nginx for WordPress, but then you will have to get non-technical users to add mod rewrite rules through a web panel or something. Good luck explaining what a 'rewrite rule' is to a non-technical user who just wants to launch an ecommerce site for his flower shop. Less, any regex that needs to be used for some specific rules...
WordPress pretty much requires Apache and is a very big chunk of the web.
Actually, WordPress works with Nginx but it's less plug and play than Apache, so many people are still going to use Apache, even if they put Nginx in front of it. Apache implements stuff Nginx intentionally doesn't, but this stuff is still useful in some scenarios.
A lot of prominent plugins require the ability to modify .htaccess. With Nginx hosts, the users have to do it via a web panel by adding the rules manually. No non-technical user can do that. So the majority of WP space still runs behind Apache.
Its not. Literally almost ~50% of the web runs on it. Apache has top level permissions. Then individual virtual hosts/sites can modify their own htaccess per the permissions that they are afforded. These permissions are generally limited, but when it comes to mod rewrite, they have pretty much full liberty to write any rewrite rule. Since their rewrites would affect just their own vhosts anyways.
Works like a clock. And its extremely convenient even for developers. Anything ranging from seo friendly urls to anti-bot/security rules can be written in by a plugin.
Fifty years from now we'll look back at this time the same way we look back at Lysenkoism. Sad to see science has been so corrupted by the religion of Newchurch [0].
That's ... a pretty inflammatory and dismissive point of view.
There's lots of evidence going back to egyptian times supporting the science behind this. Unfortunately most people only see the surface level sound bites thrown out in the media and make up their mind based on that - or what their own religion has pushed forward.
I suspect that fifty years from now we will have built on all the existing knowledge (including historical) and have a more refined understanding put together.
>There's lots of evidence going back to egyptian times supporting the science behind this.
No there isn't. There isn't any science behind this to begin with.
>Unfortunately most people only see the surface level sound bites thrown out in the media and make up their mind based on that - or what their own religion has pushed forward.
Exactly right.
>I suspect that fifty years from now we will have built on all the existing knowledge (including historical) and have a more refined understanding put together.
Hopefully we'll continue with the knowledge of science based biological facts that are no longer in vogue: humans are a dimorphic species that come in male in female. That is what science has taught us.
>No there isn't. There isn't any science behind this to begin with.
Sorry I didn't realize you were an expert in this topic, but you must have slept through the lessons of SRY gene (one of the many topics that touch on this).
>That is what science has taught us.
Er, no. While you may believe what you wish, the scientific AND medical AND psychological community disagrees with your assertion. There's more research happening into it in the past 10 years than in the past 100 years with some interesting research. Unfortunately people are operating off 50+ years of knowledge handed down in elementary schools or via religion. I don't expect this is an area of study for you, so that's probably why you're not aware of these advances. At one point in time people thought the earth was flat or that people were only righthanded. I'm glad to part of the scientific community that embraces increasing knowledge regardless of how it challenges preconcieved notions. That's what science is.
Regardless, your claims relating to Lysenko are extremely hyperbolic at best - for either group in the comparison.
>While you may believe what you wish, the scientific AND medical AND psychological community disagrees with your assertion.
No they don't. "Scientific" is meaningless here, grievance studies are not science. Medical field deals with male and female humans, such is basic biology still taught in all university medical schools. Current medical books also cover male and female specific physiology (because there are only two types).
>There's more research happening into it in the past 10 years than in the past 100 years with some interesting research.
Quantity != quality. There were a lot of publications in the USSR that stated genetics was a false Western ploy.
>Unfortunately people are operating off 50+ years of knowledge
Some basic findings and facts don't change. The fact that we're carbon based organisms is 50+ old. The fact that we're sexually dimorphic mammals is 50+ year old.
>elementary schools or via religion.
Yes, Newchurch is definitely working this way.
>I don't expect this is an area of study for you, so that's probably why you're not aware of these advances.
There are no advances. You don't need to concentrate in an "area of study" to understand the fact that humans are sexually dimorphic. Grievance studies are not an "expert" field.
>At one point in time people thought the earth was flat or that people were only righthanded. I'm glad to part of the scientific community that embraces increasing knowledge regardless of how it challenges preconcieved notions.
And that science was settled decades/centuries ago, much like the fact that humans are male/female mammals. Thanks for making this point for me.
>Regardless, your claims relating to Lysenko are extremely hyperbolic at best
I asked a friend who just left med school. He laughed and said yes there's lots of evidence supporting this in his profession alone. He suggested you pick up a copy of "Principles of Transgender Medicine and Surgery" ISBN 1138857009 which was a required for one of his courses. It has hundreds of references by MDs,PHDs and the like on the medical side alone.
He did agree that quantity is not quality and recommended to use "Directory of Open Access Journals" to access a large amount of peer reviewed research that does establish the science.
You should contact everyone referenced in the book/research papers and let them know they're incorrect.
Having an open mind to learn more information is not a weakness.I work in data science adjacent and it's fascinating to see new information being uncovered all the time that does fill in missing information about everything we know - or don't know.
>I asked a friend who just left med school. He laughed and said yes there's lots of evidence supporting this in his profession alone.
I just asked a friend who is a professor of medicine. She laughed and said no there's no evidence supporting this in her profession alone.
>He suggested you pick up a copy of "Principles of Transgender Medicine and Surgery" ISBN 1138857009 which was a required for one of his courses.
A book that covers transgender care for mentally ill men doesn't magically make them female. They are still human males, and will always be human males.
>It has hundreds of references by MDs,PHDs and the like on the medical side alone.
None of the MDs disagree with the fact that "gender affirming care" is for human males or females, and their biology is most definitely male or female. The grievance studies PhDs are not experts in science.
>He did agree that quantity is not quality and recommended to use "Directory of Open Access Journals" to access a large amount of peer reviewed research that does establish the science.
There are none that establish "the science", there is no science backing any of it. Again, grievance studies papers are not science.
>You should contact everyone referenced in the book/research papers and let them know they're incorrect
"You should contact Hitler and Goebbels and let them know they're incorrect about the Jews."
>Having an open mind to learn more information is not a weakness
I agree.
>I work in data science adjacent and it's fascinating to see new information being uncovered all the time that does fill in missing information about everything we know - or don't know.
Data science is not biology. There is no missing information. Humans are mammals, humans are sexually dimorphic and produce two gametes. The earth is round, not flat.
Where is the science to support the idea that any male who says he's a woman actually is a woman? As that is the ideology of gender identity that is being so heavily contested today.
Gender identity is something that is nuanced and complex. I'm not looking for an argument but I would invite you to think of the opposite:
- What is the proof that this person is not what they claim of? (ie, what ideology of yours makes you convinced of this?). This ties into deeply philosophical questions - what makes you "you"? Do you have a conscience? A soul? Is your brain the source of your identity or is your loins? Does your loins control your brain and thus your existence?
But on a more direct reply - anthropology has made some significant discoveries about the history of people - including trans people. I would encourage you to look into that for more information - assuming you wish to learn more about the subject.
There's lots of information out there, and more is being discovered every day so it's very useful to keep your eyes open on evidence - and not personal beliefs.
Agreed, there is a lot of information out there. Some of this can be examined through scientific research, I agree, but the rest is ideological. I think it is important to distingush between the two.
The brain research aims to answer the question of whether there is any fundamental neurobiological reason that some people experience strong feelings of gender incongruence. That link you found is somewhat out of date, by the way - more recent studies that control for homosexuality show correlations between this and some sex atypical brain structures and activation patterns. The only significant correlation with gender dysphoria found so far is in brain regions known to relate to body perception. And even then, researchers don't know if this is innate or due to post-natal experiences. Much more research needs to be done.
This is fascinating, but, it doesn't answer any of the questions on the extent to which society, law and policy should be reorganized to accommodate people who say they have a gender identity that doesn't match their sex. There's no objective, empirical measurement to support anyone's claim of an alternative gender identity. Nor is there any scientific backing for ideas such as "male woman" or "woman's penis". Choosing to believe such claims, and the manner in which they are acted upon - often controversially in modern times, e.g. by housing males in women's prisons, letting males compete in women's sports, and so on - is an ideological stance.
So I think it's very reasonable for the Science Museum to reject this particular exhibit, seeing as it included no scientific research, and only promoted a specific ideological viewpoint regarding gender identity.
I'm surprised that this was an exhibit in the first place tbh with that limited information. My comments were related to the hyperbolic comparison OP did.
Trans people exist. Full Stop. Anything more than a 5 min scan of our history and scientific back to recorded times show they do exist. And there's lots of research being done today that was not done decades ago when people started to formulate their opinions. We obviously don't know everything yet but like I mentioned I expect in 50 years a lot of questions will be put to rest.
> There's no objective and empirical measurement to support anyone's claim of an alternative gender identity. Choosing to believe such claims, and then acting upon them (e.g. by housing males in women's prisons, letting males compete in women's sports, etc.) is an ideological stance.
^-- That also is an ideological stance whether you intend it or not. I don't believe the harm in the claims. The amount of people that are affected by your 2 examples seems to be in the hundreds, maybe thousands world wide so I'm perplexed why people spend so much time worrying about such edge cases.
That feels quite controlling and oppressive and I expect you would hate others to do the same to you.
What I don't understand is how this personally affects you, and why this matters so much to yourself. Were you in a prison with a trans person? Did a trans person beat you in a swimming competition last night? What did a trans person do to you?
We look back at Lysenkoism as a movement that promoted a wrong scientific theory using political means that led to censoring alternative theories and killing or imprisoning scientists.
Not only have nobody been jailed or killed for promoting views antagonistic to the view of this presumed "Newchurch", but you are writing your comment under an article about how these "Newchurch" views have been censored after a complaint against them in the name of science.
No matter how hard people try to believe it, we don't live in the time of Stalin and Lysenko. I feel it is disrespectful to their victims to claim that our petty frustrations are in any way comparable to their very real suffering.
As unpleasant as these women's experience is, none of them are in jail, and none of them were murdered by the state for holding these views. We're a far cry from the Lysenko era. Especially because none of the parties (on either side) even claims to be doing science.
What I see in the articles you linked is a lot of noise on both sides of the ideological line, using twitter first and then traditional media. We live in a noisy time, and this may have deplorable consequences, including (self)-censoring. I don't see a systematic state-led ideological war using systematic jailing and killing.
