No. If it's everyone, then it's everyone and at worst it's not the most efficient way to communicate.

I would say, if you single out a group of people based on physical characteristics, then it gets weird.

But if it's "The internet won't start" vs "Every packet on port 433 is dropped even though no firewall rule is set", then I think it's reasonable to make some asumptions and adjust communication accordingly.

I work in IT and sometimes I have to explain something to a user who is somewhat tech-illiterate. Even developers may have significant blind spots when it comes to their OS or networking, for example.

So, if I notice it, I'll change some terminology and I may explain instructions differently or use metaphors so every user understands what I'm saying.

And most coworkers do the same thing.

Here's why I bring this up: For whatever reason, some colleagues give female coworkers the same treatment.

And that's weird.

If someone is constantly treated like this, they should be allowed to rant about it on their blog. I'm fine with snark if it geht's a point across.

Der Witz hat irgendwann mal mit Bergdeutschland angefangen. Somit ist's aus historischen Gründen der Bodensee geworden.

Wurde nach der Einführung des 10€ Tickets von Furries besetzt, ist jetzt schwul und hat 100%ige Gigabit-Abdeckung.

Berliner Inseln > Sylt

Even worse; the Greens get blamed for shit the FDP does, because people don't know how coalitions work.

Sadly not.

I was told. Without asking. By a long lost friend of a cousin you wouldn't know.

Only data that is not stored cannot fall victim to attackers. It does not matter whether it is a 'nigerian prince', Microsoft or some agency. Even if you completly trust whatever entity with your data right now, they may become problematic in the future.

This is why a low profile is a crucial component of OPsec.

Recall is objectively stupid, even if Microsoft only had their users best interest in mind. And they don't.

Hello, I'm your boss. Saw you on your phone during your break in the video feed.

You've been asking for a raise for years. Unfortunately, you're a really good performer, always on time, good worker, and I've never heard anything negative that I could base my decision to deny your raise on. So I watched the video feed to find the most minuscule thing that I can pinpoint as a "problem". I was about to tell you that drinking water on the job significantly decreases your performance, but that post you made on your break is now going to be my reason. Screw you. I love money!

Sincerely, your favorite boss

Who's "they"?

If it's Urologists, like, those are the experts. If it's someone on Twitter, they don't matter. If it's women as a whole… oh, boy. Dude. If it's "the jews", OH. BOY. DUDE. HOW EVEN?

Me: Can I have (small template parser)?

Stackoverflow: No, we have (small template parser) at home.

Small template parser at home: Full-stack web framework

I'd love to say something sensible, understandable and concise.

But this post is like someone shouting "WHY DID MATHEMATICIANS MAKE THE √ SYMBOL TICK SHAPED?!", convinced they've found a way to prove that 2+2 is not 4.

There is so much to unpack there. Properly responding to every explicit and implicit grain is like reasoning against a beach.

Thanks, you too!

My "favorite neoliberal"?

I'm an entire person, not a single-sided strawman. I edited my reply to also state that I think neolibs suck too, if that helps to unflatten my thoughts on this a bit. And because I think they do.

I'd also like to add that I've seen this image and others like it posted in anti-progressive groups by anti-progressive people, instilling exactly the message I explained earlier. Which is why I say the message either isn't clear, or just bad.

I don't feel like I'm "gasping at straws". I feel my argument is somewhat reasonable and I hope my point is a little clearer now.

I have to go back to work now.

I mean that someone saw hostile architecture and then decided to photoshop a trans flag over it for political reasons.

We, as strangers, will never know their exact motivation, but I think if their idea was a message regarding the unfair treatment of economically disadvantaged people or neoliberal hypocrisy, there would be much better ways to communicate the issue, that don't involve something that can easily be construed as anti-trans messaging.

It's a bit vibes based, but you know.... people ain't robots, and even if that wasn't the original intent, that's how the message comes across. And I'd rather have a better, more poignant statement that's worth repeating, rather than this, perhaps unintentionally, bad one.

Especially because people will take this at face value and there are more photoshopped images just like this, making the whole thing a bit sussy, imo.

How can it be that people don't realize how badly faked this is and what position it is trying to sneak through?

As a German, I feel like, we should be capable of seeing 10th of thousands of people die, including reporters, aid workers and literal children, and fathom that this… is bad.

Hab einen Vorschlag:

Wir nehmen ein existentes Konzept für ein gelöstes Problem.

Dass benennen wir dann um, sodass es futuristisch und neu klingt.

Anschließend ent-lösen wir es, indem wir super geringe Energiedichte mit maximaler Ineffizienz kombinieren.

Und wir nutzen unsere Lösung in einem Bereich, wo sich die bisherige Lösung nicht durchsetzen konnte, weil sie für diesen Use-Case die schlechtest-denkbare Lösung ist.

Wissing (FDP) gibt uns 150 Mio.