Haha people have sent it to me! I'm currently trying to make it on my own in the wide world though.
I never disagreed with the decision to lay people off to become profitable. That's part of the implicit agreement when you take employment in the US. You can quit whenever you want and they can fire you whenever they want! I knew that going in!
I agreed with it, but of course it stung. That's only natural!
Sam and I are all good though! To his immense credit he reached out to me directly a little while back to mend any hurt feelings, of which I had a few. We're friends. He even came on my podcast and we talked for over an hour like old buds.
I have a lot of feelings and sometimes they get hurt. Sam has a fiduciary responsibility to the company. Today PlanetScale is a going concern and I'm happy and doing great! All is well.
Wow I didn't know he got laid off. I remember watching his videos a few years ago and absolutely loved his way of teaching. He's the reason I found out about PlanetScale to begin with.
Looking at their youtube channel, Aaron's videos had a total of ~1.4m views over 24 videos (an average of ~58k per video). Their recent videos don't even get past 1k views...
After they ditched there free tier, it became basically untenable to justify trying Planetscale for $30 (USD as well) on a POC or MVP product, and it also felt like you were paying a lot for unneeded hardware.
I went backpacking last year for only a little over a month. Absolute pain in my chest when someone who I'd gotten to known over the past few days said it was their last day lol.
Wait, I'm confused. Do you mean that I correspond with the caricature by which you're accustomed to see HN users represented, presumably not by themselves, on other social media platforms? Or do you mean instead that I correspond with a caricature of the caricatured representation that etc.? Your comment is ambiguous. Please clarify.
Slowing in this context means going down. Basically they look at 'age acceleration', I.e. how old are you epigentically compared to chronologically. They saw a reduction of several years in this measure over a much shorter period, basically meaning their epigenetic ages went down.
Although one of the clocks they used, DunedinPACE, only looks at pace of ageing, so in that case you can only infer that it slowed (as you do not get an 'epigenetic age' figure from DunedinPACE).
Fundamentally, I believe it's how they want to be treated culturally, but in our society, we tie gender and sex so closely together, that to be treated the way you want to be treated culturally in society, you need to change some of the sex based features you have.
In a better society, a medical approach wouldn't be needed. In our society, we _should_ accept that it is.
That's my opinion, and it's a pretty weakly held opinion, someone could dissuade me from it.
This is basically the conclusion I've come to, which is why I wanted to ask.
If this is accurate (which is a big if, and I'm asking the question to try to figure out if it is) then we could make a lot of progress in trans acceptance very quickly by just reframing the whole thing in these terms.
The woman-in-a-man's-body concept sounds mystical and metaphysical in a way that triggers religious objections from substantial portions of the US population, even those in the middle politically. But arguing that males shouldn't need to live up to an artificial and incredibly outdated standard of masculinity? That would be a much, much easier sell.
So I guess the followup to my question is: if for most trans people it is cultural and not biological, why are we doubling down on gender binaries and talking about switching genders instead of creating a campaign that would both get at the root of the issue and be easier to swallow for a larger portion of the country?
(I say this fully aware that biological intersex is a thing, but from what I understand most trans people are not biologically intersex in any measurable way. Correct me if I'm wrong.)
> We could make a lot of progress in trans acceptance very quickly by just reframing the whole thing in these terms. [...] But arguing that males shouldn't need to live up to an artificial and incredibly outdated standard of masculinity? That would be a much, much easier sell.
It's an "easier sell" of a different thing.
I'm not seeing a "we" forming here as far as "trans acceptance" is concerned.
Judging from your comment history, your perspective on this seems to basically be grounded in an objection to (more generously: apprehension about) transgender healthcare practices. On purportedly scientific grounds, while ascribing a "politically-driven" motivation in terms of groupthink to people who support these practices. So I think your motivation to ascribe this to a "cultural thing" is grounded in a desire to decouple it from the healthcare thing, because you think it serves an overall political project better.
I'm with you on loosening gender roles. I'm not with you on reducing trans acceptance to that.
> why are we doubling down on gender binaries and talking about switching genders instead of creating a campaign that would both get at the root of the issue and be easier to swallow for a larger portion of the country?
In my personal life, I am probably about as far from "doubling down on gender binaries" as anyone you are likely to encounter. In my experience, I find many more people who are genuinely working past "doubling down on gender binaries" in transgender spaces than I do outside them.
My not-doubling-down-on-gender-binaries approach to it is not an easy pill to swallow for a large portion of the country. It may not even be an easy pill to swallow for you. (E.g. "which" bathroom do you want me in? How easily do you think the rest of the country will swallow that?)
I'm here trying to understand your and others' perspectives. I appreciate that this is a sensitive topic for you and many others, which is why I'm trying very hard to be careful in my framing. I'm sorry if I failed in that.
With regard to my comment history: yes. Similar to OP at the root of the thread, I created this account specifically to ask questions that I have about our collective approach to helping trans people in need. At the time I wrote that other comment 9 months ago I had concerns about feeling shut out of the progressive movement entirely because I have doubts about some of its principles. Today I'm here to try to understand better why those principles are so ironclad.
I want to help make a difference in people's lives, but I live in a deep red state and know intimately what kinds of rhetoric would work to accomplish which ends. I want to know what I can share with the fiercely conservative people around me that would best help people like you, and for that I need to understand your goals and needs.
I'm here trying to collect information to better understand people's perspectives on this topic, and so I really do appreciate your feedback. It sounds like for you reducing the rigidity of the binary and freeing up people to be male or female in whatever way works best for them would not be sufficient, and that's good to know. Thank you.
I addressed this in another comment, but for most trans people there is some component of both physical and social dysphoria. I have physical dysphoria to the extent that I had signs when I didn't even know what the word transgender meant. Untested of course but growing up feral on a desert island I believe I would still have physical dysphoria.
My opinion is that the root of the issue is a combination of misinformation, outrage porn, cognitive and attentional biases, scapegoating, and isolated demands of rigor.
Validation tools will also tell you if you have an H1 in a <section>, but no H1 outside of the section, because the <section> actually creates it's own scope, thus your page has no H1.
Looks like that kind of validation was premature. They mention in this article that the “creates its own scope” part was never actually implemented for accessibility, this change brings the display rules back inline with reality.
