Would have been nice to have some more network, code and command line examples. You need to set up a local ntpd and need to point your local master at that temporarily. A better utility to write would be "timediff -s1 -s2" that takes two time servers and shows the offset. I bet there's a way to do that in one line. Anyone?
Um, that's a pretty inaccurate way to notice an offset in the millisecond range, isn't it?
* Okay, you have a little control in that you can press enter, or otherwise set it running, at a particular moment.
while true; do date +%s%N; doneI have a program I use in shell scripting called sleepuntil that does something like this, but it doesn't try to be millisecond-accurate.
So I figured you need a time "diff", a single command that updates from both timeservers and then presents the offset in a single operation. So (I just researched this again and) there's three answers here [0], using ntpdate and something I've never seen before called clockdiff.
[0] https://stackoverflow.com/questions/2296981/how-can-i-work-o...
To see the NTP offsets of a machine you can run something like:
ntpq -pn
To see the clocks ticking visually you can do something like the following and run it on each machine (assuming they have the same ping).
#include <time.h>
#include <sys/time.h>
#include <stdio.h>
void main() {
struct timeval tv;
struct timespec ts;
ts.tv_sec = 0;
while(1) {
gettimeofday(&tv, NULL);
ts.tv_nsec = 1000000000 - 1000*tv.tv_usec; //number of nanoseconds left in the current second
nanosleep(&ts, &ts);
gettimeofday(&tv, NULL);
printf("%lu.%06lu\n", (unsigned long) tv.tv_sec, (unsigned long) tv.tv_usec);
}
}
Are you saying the slurs DO make sense? Or is it possible you added some words to what the OP actually said and then objected to that?
> Twitter is the only place where well articulated sentences get misinterpreted.
> You can say “I like pancakes” and somebody will say “So you hate waffles?”
> No bitch, that’s a whole new sentence wtf is you talkin bout
It's quite obvious to me that the original poster was confused about what the end of the article meant and trying to communicate that the explanation they got made sense.
It's also quite obvious to me that they don't think the updated policy about using slurs being okay makes sense.
> Then proceeded to get downvoted to oblivion because there’s apparently a large subset of folks who think calling homosexuality a mental disorder is a perfectly normal thing to do.
If you are receving massive downvotes, instead of insisting on your interpretation being the only correct one, maybe you can try to critically analyze your interpretation and see if there is another way to interpret what was said, instead of doubling down and believing that HN is the last bastion of LGBTQ hate.
It's really a rather simple concept entirely void of cencorship.
In case of more interest, Kant is a good source for educating oneself:
> Kant holds in contrast that there is no innate right to unlimited freedom but only an innate right to freedom “insofar as it can coexist with the freedom of every other in accordance with universal law” (6:237).
Prohibiting slurs is like prohibiting nudity in public parks. You're prohibiting an action so that people don't self-prohibit themselves from visiting.
Yeah, I know… everybody is a winner and what not.
First they banned murder, then it was punching, next it was looking.
The problem with slippery slope arguments is that you need a slope.
---
The thing you're missing is that it's really a "you" problem. Most people don't go on the internet to read slurs just like they don't go to public parks to look at penises. You want to post slurs and so you want to remove the rules against it. The result is just going to be people not visiting 4chan.
Censorship is suppression.
Insulting someone or discriminating against them is not supression, it's unlawful.
If that's not your cup of tea, I'd challenge you to forego any and all (!) ameneties of modern civilized society to enjoy your anarcho-freedom.
Don't pretend to be a tough one by sitting in a comfy chair and picking the raisins out of the dough.
It is not, at all, unlawful to insult someone. Your argument is absurd.
Neither is or ever was charging anyone who writes an insult online a proposed or practiced option but simply deleting derogatory comments.
This is not GP's "notion" this is an actual thing under US law that the US Supreme Court created back in the 1960's. As with all rights, it depends on the country, but in the US Public Figure Doctrine (and the concept of a Limited Purpose Public Figure) are both real things, with a court deciding if Public Figure Doctrine applies to a given case or not.
You can claim this and reach to the transphobic dog whistle but these "biological truths" aren't actually true and the only world in which they are is a grossly oversimplified version of reality that ignores all of the messy complexity of how biology actually works.
This isn't a matter of "truths being insulting or discriminating". It's a matter of stopping people from using their complete misunderstanding of biology as an excuse to try and harass, other, or discriminate against groups out of prejudice.
In much the same vein, men and women exist. We can fool ourselves into thinking a person can completely cross the divide between them, but it simply is something we tell ourselves/friends, an idea its not currently polite to deny. It is not objective reality itself.
And my point isn't to try and claim that just because intersex people exist that the terms are useless. My point is that the definitions people try to ascribe to those terms are statistically more likely to exclude other groups of people (who the definitions are not intended to exclude) than they are to exclude trans people.
Definitions that don't work:
- Defined by "passing"/looking like what society expects a given sex to look iike: Refuted extremely commonly by queer people of all kinds. Also just wildly subjective and impractical.
- Defined by chromosomes/karyotype: Rule broken by prevalence of intersex people. Additionally from a biological perspective so much more goes into sex determination during gestation and afterwards than just the karyotype.
- Defined by presence of breasts: Indistinguishable at birth and defined by hormone levels. Rule broken by numerous medical conditions. A woman is not less of a woman for getting a masectomy or double masectomy. A man is not less of a man because medication or hormone levels cause them to grow breasts.
- Defined by the presence of primary sex organs (testes/ovaries): Rule broken by numerous medical conditions. A woman is not less of a woman for getting an oophorectomy and a man is not less of a man for getting an orchirectomy. Likewise a woman who has lived her entire life as a woman who finds out that her ovaries differentiated as testes is not any less of a woman nor the reverse for a man. And both of the aforementioned surgeries are very common.
- Defined by presence of secondary sex organs: Rule broken by numerous medical conditions. Bottom surgeries for trans people arguably make up less of the share of genitoplasties performed than the numerous other reasons (recovery from trauma or disfigurement, recovery from cancer, etc). And surgeries like hysterectomies occur in up to 20% of women depending on the region. Having or not having one or more secondary sex organs isn't a reliable differentiating factor and unless you are storing photographs of genitalia from birth and sharing them with every person or organisation that want's to know your sex then this isn't a reliable method either. It's unnecessarily complex and/or it's unnecessary exclusive.
- Defined by hormone levels: Rule broken commonly by intersex people. Commonly broken by people with various medical conditions and/or medical interventions. A woman with low estrogen levels isn't less of a woman. A woman with high testosterone (such as due to PCOS which occurs in as high as 20% of women) doesn't make a woman any less of a woman. The reverse goes for men (such as men taking testosterone suppressors or blockers for diseases like prostate cancer which occurs in around 12% of men).
----
At the end of the day you only really have one appraoch and that's to just be more precise, use better terminology, and use the necessary information where it's needed.
- Government and social documents (drivers licenses, passports, ID cards, etc) should just use gender. There's no reason to use anything else and it doesn't actually benefit anyone otherwise.
- Medical records should indicate known presence/absence of organs and hormone levels. Awareness of which organs are or aren't present is only important due to care relevant to those organs and their interaction with the rest of the body. And hormone levels should be documented because the majority of medical distinctions for healthcare purposes (risks, dosage changes, interactions, effects on the body, etc) are tied to hormone levels. If someone is manually controlling or augmenting/manipulating their hormone levels that's relevant for care and it serves the patient better to be explicit about these types of things than to attempt to tie them to a single binary differentiator and make assumptions.
- Access to bathrooms, changing rooms, etc: Just let people use the bathrooms they feel most comfortable with? It's not hard, it's not complicated. If a lady or a lad is being a creep then someone can do something about it but that has nothing to do with any indicators other than "they are being a creep".
- Sports, etc: Either just divide it by gender or drop gender/sex based division entirely and divide it by skill. This is such an exceptionally small non-issue and protections against this perceived incursion have only contributed to discrimination. There is no reason why women's sports restricts competitors on their natural and/or nominal testosterone levels but men's sports do not. In competitive women's sports abnormally high natural testosterone is disqualifying but in men's sports it's a permitted competitive advantage. Additionally with regards to sports records, gendered performance differences have been rapidly closing in on a pace where they may disappear entirely within a century or less. And in particular, with non-professional sports there is absolutely zero reason for exclusionary restrictions. In those environments this is a complete and total non-issue.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lj4V-Nme86U
Should he be allowed to whip his dick out in women's bathrooms?
If actual women complained about his presence in, say, a support group for mothers, what would you say to them?
Should he be allowed to join a women's boxing club and punch women in the face?
And so on. I'm sure you get the idea.
She is a trans woman. She is a woman. Within the context of medical access, from what I can gather she has a penis, she has testes, and she doesn't take hormones currently (she might but a comment she made suggests she doesn't). That gender-non-conformance doesn't make her any less of a woman.
I'm not sure what your hangup is with respect to her? She very clearly present herself as a woman. And women with beards, sharper facial features, or deep voices aren't terribly uncommon nor do those aspects make them any less of a woman. Women like Harnaam Kaur exist and they are just as woman as any other woman.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HB85apiZgFg
> Should he be allowed to whip his dick out in women's bathrooms?
Should she.
Should she be allowed to use a woman's bathroom as intended? Yes. No questions asked.
Now if someone was doing something problematic in the bathroom (flashing/exposing genitalia or breasts) and/or harassing other women in the women's bathroom then they'd need to be removed. Not because of their gender or because of their features but for the behavior. It's a very simple and straightforward concept.
> If actual women complained about his presence in, say, a support group for mothers, what would you say to them?
Her presence.
If she is a mother she should be permitted. If she isn't a mother/doesn't have children then there is an argument to be made for denying her presence there. If she has children but it was a support group exclusive to birthing parents then again there may be an argument. But more often than not those support groups aren't exclusive to birthing parents and they aren't even exclusive to women.
> Should he be allowed to join a women's boxing club and punch women in the face?
Should she.
And the answer is that it depends.
If it's at a competitive or professional level then she is subject to the rules of the club and if they require certain hormone levels to participate then that's the nature of the beast. I personally don't see it as necessary but if it's the requirements for participation then that's what they are and the best you can do is fight to change them.
Now if the club is a hobbyist or non-varsity/school club then absolutely they should be permitted to participate.
Either way whether they are technically permitted, I think they should be allowed to participate regardless of testosterone levels or anything else. Boxing is divided into weight class anyways so there's little flexibility for testosterone influencing being "bigger".
> And so on. I'm sure you get the idea.
I understand what you are saying but I just outright disagree. Trans women are women. Intersex women are women. Non-gender-conforming women (regardless of whether they are cis or not) are women.
No, he's a man who calls himself a woman. Anyone with eyes can see that, he is very clearly male.
> She very clearly present herself as a woman.
What do you mean? Is your view of women really so shallow and sexist that you when you see a man wearing a skirt, you truly believe that he's a woman?
> If she is a mother she should be permitted.
Well he can't possibly be a mother, due to being a man, and if you said that to women who complained about his presence they'd assume you were taking the piss.
That's just not true. What even makes you think that? Facial hair is not uncommon in women, deep voices are not uncommon in women, and sharper facial features are not uncommon in women. I'm not sure what you think is so "clearly male" about her but those were the only traditionally masculine features I could think of.
> What do you mean? Is your view of women really so shallow and sexist that you when you see a man wearing a skirt, you truly believe that he's a woman?
There's no reason to be impolite. Wearing feminine clothing is not a requirement to be a woman. Nothing about being a woman requires wearing feminine clothing. Even if she was wearing purely masculine clothing she'd still be a woman.
> Well he can't possibly be a mother, due to being a man
She could absolutely be a mother, she just may not be the birthing parent. In the exact same way a cis woman can be a mother to a child even if they weren't the one to give birth to them. And likewise a father can be the birthing parent. You see this commonly with trans men for example.
> and if you said that to women who complained about his presence they'd assume you were taking the piss.
People can complain about a person's presence all they want. It doesn't make them any less of a mother and it doesn't make it any less acceptable for them to be present. If they have a valid complaint then there can be a discussion but "they look wrong" or "I don't believe they are who they say they are" aren't valid complaints.
And I'm not sure how you think these types of discriminatory complaints are acceptable? Discrimination being acceptable against trans women doesn't just hurt them, it hurts cis women as well. Especially gender non-conforming women.
How do you think a new mother feels when people try to falsely accuse her of being a man when she's just trying to discuss her experiences and learn how to be a new parent? Who does that benefit?
My stance here is not complicated. You treat people with respect, you limit your assumptions, and if something isn't clear you politely ask. And for the love of god you don't needlessly exclude people. If the fear is that a group or minority will commit some crime or transgression, then you punish people for committing the crime or transgression. You don't punish people for being suspected of being part of a group/minority you are afraid might commit a transgression.
Well, apart from the fact that he very obviously has a male body, the video title itself indicates this.
> There's no reason to be impolite. Wearing feminine clothing is not a requirement to be a woman.
Then why did you say that he "very clearly presents" himself "as a woman"? What exactly were you basing that on?
It's very clear that he presents himself as a man who calls himself a woman.
> And for the love of god you don't needlessly exclude people.
Agreed. Excluding men like this from women's and girls' spaces is absolutely needed to ensure that they still remain women's and girls' spaces.
The problem is that far too many of these men have no respect for boundaries, and will turn up to venues like support groups for mothers and demand entry.
your words have insulted me so imma hit up HN to have it be deleted and maybe file a lawsuit as well :)
That's what a (functioning) court system is there for.
What's heavy is blowing up a nothingburger in so many words. :D
Good luck with your lawsuit!
Being deceptive is more questionable than doing your own censorship on your own platform.
Removing things you don't like without justification while claiming your platform is freedom-land would be much more problematic. Same with shady algorithm favouring specific content without transparency.
That would skew platforms far to the right from their current (2020-2024) political leanings though.
[1] https://twitterfiles.substack.com/p/1-thread-the-twitter-fil...
The cosine adjustment that Google originally used is not the best: NTP aims to measure the difference in rate between the client’s hardware clock and real time, and it works best if the rates are fairly constant. With the cosine smear, the rate changes continuously! If you use a simple linear smear, NTP just has to cope with two small rate changes at the start and end of the smear.
The smear needs to be slow enough that NTP’s algorithms have time to react without overshooting; 24 hours is a reasonable choice tho you can go a bit faster. There’s some disagreement about when the smear occurs relative to the leap second; if the leap is in the middle of the smear the max offset is 0.5 seconds, but if the leap is at the end of the smear the offset is always slow. They were able to test the up-to-one-second-slow scenario in a system-wide live trial, whereas they could not do the same for the sign flip. I think if you can cope with a 0.5 second offset from real time then a 1.0 second offset should not be much more troublesome.
https://timemachinescorp.com/ntp_poe_wifi_dotmatrix_clock_ti...
Seeing that this was written by Rachel by the Bay, I thought it was going to be a post about Facebook's recent policy change, and indeed it was.
I feel like there's a link to a story missing there
https://www.newsweek.com/democrats-genz-kamala-harris-trump-...
Doing sth because of somebody's spouse is a bad reason, imagine the relationship goes sour and they face a divorce, boom they change their tune.
> This is why it's important not just that people do the right thing but also why they do it.
I care about what Zuckerberg, Loraine Powell Jobs or Musk feel the right thing is about as much as I care about what my bus driver thinks the right thing is. What we need is a functioning government.
If anything, I'd say that's become less prominent in recent years as the consequences of that mindset have been playing out around us.
What on earth are you talking about? 18-29 year olds were the most Democratic age group, as usual. 18-29 year old men might have slightly favored Trump, but to a significantly lower degree than older men.
https://apnews.com/article/election-harris-trump-women-latin...
Yes, which is not remotely the same claim as
> Gen Z were heavily supporting Trump in the recent election [and therefore Zuckerberg needed to change political course for his social media to stay relevant]
which is the false claim I was responding to.
> If those numbers hold democrats have no path to winning national elections
Yes, it's certainly the case that if Democrats keep getting the same percentage of votes as in elections they lost badly, they'll keep losing elections.
They even said that Trump could threaten Facebook with specifically removing protections for the platform, and then turn around and not do it: resulting in damage to the platform without having to do anything.
I think everyone knows why Zuck is doing it. If there were any other republican government, the capitulation wouldn’t be this abject.
Punchline being that these tech companies were never the bastions of progressive values they claimed to be -- they were surfing the zeitgeist until a bigger wave came along
I come from a post-communist country which had a lot of censorship. It was happening 50 years ago as well (it was happening since the end of 40s to the end of 80s). Call me sensitive. ;)
The guy is removing the company from 50 years back.
> So, yes, in June 2015, I slowed down the whole company [Facebook] by a second.
> Of course, here it is ten years later, and the guy in charge just sent it back fifty years [by ending fact checking?]. Way to upstage me, dude.
I worked at FB for a decade, and I now am rooting for its complete destruction.
Source: https://transparency.meta.com/policies/community-standards/h...
The hypothetical Santanists would not be called mentally ill either.
I don't understand how we can insist that these conditions are both the worst mental illnesses, and not mental illnesses at all, at the same time. And maybe you do understand, but it's not so clearly explained that people shouldn't be allowed to discuss it in public.
> though not any other group (e.g. religious people).
Is this made up?
It's just the same for transgender people. Growing up feeling that you're in the wrong body can cause a lot of mental distress, and the best and most universally effective option for fixing that distress is to simply transition to living as another gender.
Not all people who are transgender experience severe enough dysphoria to cause serious mental health issues, and yet they still decide to transition and report being happier afterwards. [1] However, many transgender people do experience distress over it, and a proportion of that population are even suicidal over it.
This is why I consider it to be a cause of mental illness, not a mental illness in and of itself. And it's important to note that, even for the group that experience suicidality, transitioning is still an effective treatment. [2] [3]
Plastic surgery, on the other hand, is not even close to universally effective for people who are depressed about being "flat-chested" or "ugly." Cosmetic surgery such as breast enhancement has been shown to have a much, much higher rate of regret than transgender surgeries. [4]
In short, the reason that gender-affirming care is considered a treatment for gender dysphoria, whereas breast enhancement and rhinoplasty are not considered treatments for body dysmorphia, is simply that the former is effective and the latter is not.
1. https://www.apa.org/topics/lgbtq/transgender-people-gender-i...
2. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10925986/
Umm...We actually do pay for breast implants/breast reductions in the case of medical need which can vary from reconstruction to hormone imbalances, the latter of which makes sense to consider being transgender under since hormones do quite a bit to help with the illness.
What are your credentials, anyway? Why do you think you know more than decades of in depth research and millennia of anthropological evidence?
They have a whole media ecosystem, the actual main stream media, giving them training and talking points to subvert these conversations and successfully move away from facts.
They only follow the style of debate, not its substance.
Limiting your self to the substance only weighs you down against an attacker of this nature.
Engage, but just waste their cycles.
Eventually there is always a missing definition, something extremely basic that’s being alluded to. Or a contradiction that shows up.
Point that out and you will get the “go google it yourself”, retreat flag show up.
He doesnt need credentials. No one needs credentials to be correct, their statements should be evaluated on their merits alone. Credentialism is a choking ideology, leading to higher prices and possibly higher quality in many things.
Having studied or lived through something makes you far more likely to be correct than simply thinking about it with your giant brain. You don't need them to be correct, but they really help.
Do you think pro-natalist policies (anything that can be seen as incentivizing the act of having more children) need to come from a desire to see more equality, or human dignity?
In fact some of the most evil people of the 1900s thought it was good to support the medical costs of pregnancy, and even thought you should /pay families if they had more children to incentivize having more/ (see pro natalist politics in Western Europe in 30s, 40s, 50s. The ones in my country, France, actually had their strongest push in 1939, and are a large part of the reason why France's baby boom was one of the strongest in Europe later on).
You will find out that people who usually hate social programs will have different opinions about anything related to demographics, and it's not complicated to understand why (whether their motives come from racism, or selfishness ie a desire to preserve the GDP and make sure the country won't be an empty hell hole of old people dying in the hospice when they retire).
Uh insurance actually does cover them, particularly for reconstructive surgeries. It should be noted that the conditions under which insurance would cover a trans person's gender affirming surgery is going to be essentially under the same conditions they would for a cis person. Now it's worth noting that Medicaid does generally cover gender affirming surgeries in certain states however Medicaid is required to be primarily paid for by the state rather than the federal government. Medicare only covers them under specific circumstances with a large pile of supporting documentation attached. And then with private insurance providers it is highly dependent on the company and policy whether they cover them or not.
> We're also not labeling it as "life-saving."
Gender affirming surgeries are almost always the very last step for trans people and it's far quicker, easier, and more common to get them as a cis person than it is as a trans person.
Gender affirming care however is generally what is referred to as life-saving more than anything else. This is primarily access to medication in the form of Hormone Replacement Therapy and additionally in the form of access to counseling and therapy to support the transition and to mitigate gender dysphoria among other issues.
And the thing I think most people don't really understand is how disgustingly cheap the primary form of care, Hormone Replacement Therapy, is.
For trans women the main medication is estradiol. This medication is extremely cheap and most pharmacies won't take insurance for it due to how cheap it is. A month's dose in the cheapest form at one of the higher doses is going to be at most 15-20 USD per month. More expensive forms of estradiol that don't have to be taken as rigorously and/or have less risk of side effects cost around 1.5-3x that depending on the form. For the first few months to a year they'll also generally take a testosterone suppressor until the estradiol suppresses testosterone by itself and those medications only cost around 10 USD per month or less.
For trans men the main medication is testosterone. It's controlled so it's more annoying to get due to it's abuse as a "performance enhancing drug" but even at the higher doses it costs more or less the same amount or less than the equivalent doses of HRT for trans women (coming in at well under 20 USD/month, more often less than 5 USD/month).
This puts the cost of the bulk of treatment for transgender people at well under the cost of most other medications.
Lets not pretend that the current climate in SF isn't both way outside the Overton window for most of rest of the US and most of California until ten years ago.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/985183/size-urban-rural-...
>>In 2023, there were approximately 55.94 million people living in rural areas in the United States, while about 278.98 million people were living in urban areas
If Trump won, it couldn't have been solely because of people in the boonies, who represent a much smaller proportion of total demographics. The same goes for Brexit, and all the happenings that have been shifting Western societies as a whole towards the far right.
This sort of obliviousness is not helpful in fixing the situation. Same energy as the media acting like Trump could never possibly become POTUS. These incompetents are getting in positions of power because the left and moderate right are, it seems, still not perceiving what is going on outside of their very specific bubbles.
63% of Urban voters went Harris, 35% Trump. 63% of Rural voters went Trump, 35% Harris. Suburban went 52% Harris and 47% Trump
The 15% more Rural than Urban voters, combined with gerrymandering and state vote power differences offset the 5% Democrat lean of Sub-Urban voters.
If we look at who ACTUALLY voted from the voting age population, then the boonies certainly did win it for Trump despite the other 65% being pro Harris to varying degrees. If we consider people who didn't vote at all that could have, and assume the majority of those would have voted for Harris, then we can likely blame those that didn't vote for leaving the power in the hands of those in the boonies.