Entirely different things, and I think the meme actually correctly corresponds to orthopedics. It’s a pediatric specialty, and unfortunately, most of the treatments are some form or another of restraining body parts so they grow straight. Hence the snake tied to the rod in order to remain straight instead of wrapping and slithering around.

I told you, I’m not arguing. I actually agree on that point.

Not arguing here. But just want to point out that disability subculture usually arises as a survival response in the face of discrimination and segregation. Everyone has a need for community and a sense of belonging. When broad hegemonic culture rejects you and your presence, belonging is found in the one distinctive feature that is the cause for the rejection and the source of cohesion with your peers. See also gay subculture as a response to homophobia, US black culture as a response to racism, feminist sorority subculture in response to misogyny, etc. So it is not rare to see disability subculture as a response to ableism. These communities are very important for security and preservation of individuals. Just as everywhere else, security is always a trade-off with something else.

She probably did. But the reviewer won’t know that as the paper (should) get anonymized before review. The author’s own name will be censored all the way throughout the paper with certain publishers.

It’s a catch-22 situation. You are supposed to disclose if you wrote the thing you’re citing, but also cite in third person, and also it should be obfuscated for the peer review. So, what happens is that you write something like “in the author’s previous work (yourownname, 2017)…” then that gets censored by yourself or whoever is in charge of the peer review, “in (blank) previous work (blank)…”. Now, if you’re experienced in reviews you can probably guess it is the author of the paper you’re reviewing quoting themselves. But you still don’t know who it is, and you could never guess right whether it is Ruth Gotian or not. So you’re back to the tweet’s situation.

Pourquoi pas?

Friendly warning that SD cards are not a backup. Those things die, frequently and without warning. They also bitrot fast. If you value the data being backed up, choose a more stable medium.

Navidrome for service. Dsub2000 on android and feishin on desktop.

There, all your needs covered.

As a plus, dsub also does podcasts and audio books.

A VPS with a reverse proxy connected to your tailnet and a dyndns domain. It would be cheaper than Plex premium, you can use the vps for other stuff, and you have 100% certainty it will never ever show ads.

Nope, they showed you a thing that said they got to erase anything and everything you uploaded at their own discretion for any reason, and you clicked “I agree”. So, not hidden.

BTW, according to their TOS, they own everything you upload to their site. So they didn’t erase your album, they erased their album that they own now. So they don’t have to tell you shit about what image they didn’t like in their album.

https://docdecoder.app/summary/imgur.com/terms-of-service

They aren’t hidden. It was probably on the Terms of service somewhere. They are not legally binding, nobody reads them, but is the way the company runs anyway. They’re not a cloud service, they claim they are a social network for image hosting. So they have no duty of care with user’s personal data or privacy.

Many free open podcast apps and webpages aggregate and index RSS feeds. Where you can simply search the podcast name and they will find the correct feed for you. Never had an issue.

I’m aware of fyyd and podcast index, since they are both supported by Antennapod.

Significantly bigger, as in x2500 times bigger than cubesats.

Canonical, leading the charge towards enshittification of Linux. Who would’ve guessed this 20 years ago?

You’ll be surprise how often paradox is just a proxy term for we don’t fully understand it yet. The point remains, scientists, as subjective human beings we all are, can only approximate natural truth through our own perspectives. Socially constructing knowledge that we deem our truth. Is it a game? Yes. Can it be politized by bad faith actors? Absolutely. Best we understand it to fight it than try to pledge absolutism as a banner, because that will pe politized too. And there we will lose. Absolutism feeds fascism, nuance and empathy are the enemies of fascists.

You had shitty teachers. That doesn’t mean social-constructivism is wrong. Quite the contrary, it kind of bizarrely proves how social relations alter your perception of reality.

But if your roommate says he isn’t a thief, however he always hangs around with the local gang and continuously brings used stuff that he has no way of legally acquiring since he doesn’t even have a job. I don’t know man, you have to start asking questions.

Mike is not a nazi, he just goes to the nazi bar because he likes the beer.

Oh, please. Let’s not go there. Epistemologists have never suggested or promoted any such thing, your wariness is misplaced, it seems. If anything, fascism will use any and all rhetorical resource to promote their rise and stay in power. Remember, before post-modernism—which is the source of the “every person has their own truth” thing you dislike, not epistemology which predates post-modernism by a couple of centuries—fascism used objective truth as justification for the superiority of the in-group in power. Eugenics was touted by fascists in the 1800s as the epitome of scientific enlightenment. It was obvious and proven scientific knowledge that black people were an inferior race, etc. All the classical Nazi pseudo-arguments. A harsh and closed view of objective truth is precisely the kind of mindset where fascism thrive. Fascists like absolute truths quite a lot, even when they contradict each other.

The point of epistemology is to analyze the ways in which humans come up with and use knowledge. It has absolutely no prescriptive tenets at all. It is entirely descriptive.

Like, you can’t look at me in the eye and seriously suggest that Bertrand Russel, Jean-Paul Sartre, Locke, Hume or Immanuel Kant were fascists.

Yeah, because thieves go around making public statements of “we are thieves!”

Exactly, remember the point was not to be right. But to have the discussions. It wasn’t the physics we were interested in, but in the ways to construct knowledge. Definitions and models are human constructs. The universe doesn’t care that we do or do not have neat words and models of its workings. However, language and knowledge, as human endeavors, require human interaction.

An interesting one way to illustrate this point was: An hermit, all alone in the wilderness, by sole virtue of reasoning acquires absolute objective truth of the fundamental laws of the universe. Way beyond any current scientific knowledge. However, he doesn’t tell anyone. Has any knowledge been gained? If he dies, not telling anyone what he discovered, has any knowledge been lost?