In another video on what his favorite phone is though, he picks an android. He does use both phones daily though because he likes to stay up to date and enmeshed in both OSes for his job. He prefers android though. If he covers a lot of Apple videos it’s probably just because those attract the most clicks. There is an entire media ecosystem around Apple. Some YouTubers purely post speculation videos about Apple. Many just repost different variations of Apple’s history and the Steve Jobs story.

I think you’re trying to make an argument from a perspective of free will and rights — like if I one day wake up and just choose to change my gender then I shouldn’t need any scientific nor other basis to explain that decision. I don’t oppose the idea, necessarily, but I’m not sure it captures the full picture.

I have LGBTQ+ family and they describe it as something that is not a choice and that they knew from an early age that they identified this way. Even when I think of my own identity, it’s something I know about myself and not one I could choose to change on a whim.

Within the scope of the law, things that are perceived to be choices within one’s control are more likely to be regulated. It’s harder to justify regulating those components of ourselves that we inherit.

I think it’s a valid question, and I don’t think you should be downvoted actually. Now, I hope you do read my answer.

The answer is that some components of gender are socially constructed — like what different genders wear, what roles they fill, and certain behaviors. However, there is also very likely a component of gender that is biological and doesn’t always manifest itself in your bodily form or sex organs, but in the brain.

We know from genetics that it’s common for mutations to occur. We also know that certain chemicals and hormones impact brain chemistry, especially during gestation. So, why is it so far fetched that how one thinks of one’s self in their mind might not align with their bodily characteristics?

Sure, on the whole, people who identify as masculine in their brains tend to have a penis and tend to be physically attracted to those who present outwardly as feminine and have vaginas. And those who identify as feminine tend have vaginas and tend to be physically attracted to those who present outwardly as masculine.

But, nature, genetics, and hormones can result in those three components - gender, sex, and sexual preference - having different combinations. Trans folks might have a physical body that is different from the gender they feel they are in their mind. They might feel relieved to bring these two things into alignment, and even to adopt some of the socially constructed components of a gender that they identify as in their mind.

We also know from the existence of gay and lesbian people that sexual preference does not always align with one’s sex or gender. It is possible to identify as a man, and to be attracted to men. It is possible to identify as a woman and be attracted to women. Why? Well, nature, genetics, and hormones can some times create people who have small differences from the average population.

That’s all it is and the existence of these types of people poses no real threat to you. Nor are their differences from your own a valid reason to deny them equal treatment under the law, nor privacy in the medical decisions they make to feel more like themselves.

Well it would be something that is for, you know, research. Like the core technology exists in a GitHub repo for science and the public interest, but the master keys are just not included, and up for you to procure on your own with a “legitimate license.”

Then it can be an open source project like PiHole that runs on a raspberry pi and that only cool people know about

Cryptanalysis researchers demonstrated flaws in HDCP as early as 2001. In September 2010, an HDCP master key that allows for the generation of valid device keys was released to the public, rendering the key revocation feature of HDCP useless.[8][9] Intel has confirmed that the crack is real,[10] and believes the master key was reverse engineered rather than leaked.[11] In practical terms, the impact of the crack has been described as “the digital equivalent of pointing a video camera at the TV”, and of limited importance for consumers because the encryption of high-definition discs has been attacked directly, with the loss of interactive features like menus.[12] Intel threatened to sue anyone producing an unlicensed device.[11]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-bandwidth_Digital_Content_Protection

Time to bring back Tivo

How is that even legal and not a violation of the 1st amendment?

I’m sure conservatives really care

I very much don’t. My time is valuable.

lol this guy… with a history of giving Trump stimulants like candy and who was drunk on the job

It depends on the behavior of the officer. It’s the difference between these two statements:

“I’m going to make things worse than they should be for you if you don’t do what I want”

And

“Ok, I will not fulfill my duty because you offered me something to look the other way.”

In the first case, the officer IS using the threat of imprisonment to have sex with someone. In the second case, the officer is shirking his duty because the arrestee has offered a quid pro quo. These are two different scenarios and it comes down to who is instigating the act. In the eyes of the law, intentions matter. This is why there is a distinction between first and second degree murder.

I’d be asking for more — emotional distress, rent to live somewhere else while they fixed my house for months, additional money for the inconvenience.

You’re basically saying if anyone commits a crime and an officer arrests them for that crime, but the person offers money or sex to get out of it, and the officer accepts, then that person was robbed or raped. So, all any criminal needs to do to become a victim is convince the officer to take their bribe.

Don’t you think there is nuance in how both parties behaved?

If the officer was going to execute their duties fairly, but gave in to temptation and took the persons offer; that is bribery.

If the officer fabricated or embellished the charges and used that to make a threat against someone in order to pressure that person to give something of value, then that is rape/robbery, and blackmail.

A court and jury should review the case closely, but from the article, it sounds like the officer was doing his duty in arresting the woman on legitimate legal grounds, and then she offered sex to get out of trouble, which he accepted. I did not see any evidence that he threatened to escalate the trouble she was already in, in order to get sex out of her.

I see… I only remember the very early days of Justin.tv and kind of lost track of it between then and when it became twitch.

I think it’s a little different than straight up rape. Rape is forcing a sexual encounter on someone. In this case, the woman was not forced to have sex, she tried to use sex to get out of legal trouble. This is the definition of bribery. Here is a thought experiment - if the woman offered money instead of sex, would you say the officer robbed her? I doubt it. The woman offered a bribe, the officer accepted it. The officer is corrupt, not a rapist. Let’s not absolve the woman for offering bribes just because what she offered was sex instead of something else of value.

Now, if the woman was not in legitimate legal trouble and the officer fabricated a charge and threatened her with it unless she had sex with him, that is rape and blackmail. Doesn’t seem to be what happened in this case though. The woman was in legitimate legal trouble.

You’re not wrong

I don’t think the reason the US hasn’t sent soldiers is because it doesn’t have 3000 available.

Was Justin.tv doing copyright infringing things? I seem to remember it was just a guy streaming his everyday life. He would literally wear a hat with a camera on it and record everything he did all day. It makes sense that it became twitch because they solved a technical problem around mass streaming that empowers twitch today.

Kaspersky reported a major iOS exploit to Apple in recent years. They discovered it and helped unravel the details of how it worked. I understand the US decision, but it seems unlikely that they’re bad actors through and through. I guess the Russian state could lean on them to do their bidding though and that potential is enough to consider them a threat.