It may be an aside, but could you you clarify what you mean by a huge shift in American religious belief? For the benefit of those of us, who are on the internet, but not from or have been to the US?
Are their desktop PCs built around standard boards? I presume their 'Thelio' is Mini-ITX form factor?
It sounds condescending of them to omit the exact model names of their hardware in their 'tech specs' section. I, for one, would like to know what exact model of motherboard I would be getting when I choose 'AMD' or 'Intel Advanced' in the 'Platform' section. Same goes for RAM, SSD, etc.
The exact model? That seems like a higher standard than other computer companies are expected to meet. It sounds like you ought to build your own PC if you care about every single component.
Maybe you're right. I never bought a PC from any of the name brand 'computer companies' and maybe there's no sense to start now.
Just wanted to compare their Thelio mini PC to my last PC setup in a NCASE M1* Mini-ITX case and found that their 'tech specs' page (intentionally?) lacking.
*NCASE M1 cases are discontinued, but are widely available secondhand.
From an AP version of the story someone linked bellow:
Tickets for the Moscow-Belgrade flights operated by Air Serbia, the only European carrier besides Turkish Airlines to maintain flights to Russia despite a European Union flight embargo, sold out for the next several days. The price for flights from Moscow to Istanbul or Dubai increased within minutes before jumping again, reaching as high as 9,200 euros ($9,119) for a one-way economy class fare.
Lots of Middle Eastern airlines. Qatar Air, Emirates, Air Arabia, Azerbaijan Airlines, all have flights out of Moscow that are still bookable according to ITA.
The important thing is that foreign airlines can fly only between Russia and their country of origin. So some AirFrance can't be making flights to Turkey, for example.
It doesn’t work at all because, well, the borders are open yet and no one in Russia ordered to prohibit selling tickets to men. This is misinformation.
Earlier you praised democracy being the system by which the "population" decides "their own political matters." You go on to cite this democratic system where "46,000 neighborhood meetings" determine family law as being exemplary citizenship involvement and democratic process.
Then you take a viewpoint (legalize polymarous marriage, basically) that goes against the democratic majority in the US and Cuba. Wanting to force an anti-democratic solution while praising democracy as the solution is contradictory.
Do you want polyamorous marriage, or do you want democratic decision making on family law? Until the public opinion changes, you can only pick one.
We can't vote on human rights, we can't vote on economic policy, we can't vote on foreign policy, then what is left to vote? How can you call this democracy?
I'd agree that your argument at least has merit, and I'd point out your argument is counter to 'pastacacioepepe' glorification of democracy as the tool for settling these rights.
Of course down in the weeds is 'what are human rights' which is often settled by democratic process. It turns out to be a nasty problem determining who decides what human rights really are.
It might surprise you but I want both. I want civil rights and I want a strong and partecipated democratic process. The democratic process will always win tho. Any right that is "imposed" rather than conquered will not last.
> that goes against the democratic majority in the US and Cuba
Maybe in the progressive US, not in Cuba, where 54% of the voters are in support of the proposal. The contrarians are not the communist by the way, but the Cuban catholics.
I read both articles but I went back to re-read them, as I'm willing to be proven wrong. Neither mention anything about polyamorous marriage, and definitely nothing about 54% support for it. They mention traditional (2-person) same-sex and cis marriages.
The majority of people are heterosexual, every other orientation is in the minority. The natural state is 50% male, 50% female. Roughly meaning most people will find a match. We are not at some enlightened stage where genders are truly equal, this scenario at this stage would just lead to a situation where we just regress to multiple wives to one husband. 25% of the male population have two wives that's 25% of the population with no prospect of funding a partner, stretch that to three wives and that means half of men have no prospect of finding a partner.
This stuff is well studied in countries that allow polygamy, men become angry sex offenders and jealous spouses take it out on other partners children. It's not good stuff, were not there as a society, we'd need to be at a stage where we all just date other humans and I don't see anyone doing that anytime soon.
>A comprehensive survey of traditional societies in the world shows that 83.39% of them practice polygyny, 16.14% practice monogamy, and .47% practice polyandry. Almost all of the few polyandrous societies practice what anthropologists call fraternal polyandry, where a group of brothers shares a wife. Nonfraternal polyandry, where a group of unrelated men shares a wife, is virtually nonexistent in human society. Why is nonfraternal polyandry so rare? [0]
While human nature can change, something as fundamental as human sexual family unit preferences radically change from favoring polygny over an order of magnitude more than polyandry seems unlikely to be overthrown simply because of changes in democratic opinion on legitimacy of polyamory. Using history as an imperfect precedent, one could make an educated assumption the balance will tip towards leaving lots of unmarried men on the sidelines rather than unmarried women. Evolutionary constraints may also push against having women on the sidelines, since the sexual reproduction throughput is rate-limited by females. There is little evidence to suggest polyandry is as common as polygny.
We're only now discovering that a significant chunk of society is not cis, because we've been forcing them to hide this fact over the past centuries because of religious anachronisms. Why assume it's different with polyandry?
I'm willing to be proven wrong, but it seems fairy reasonable to assume if a strong pattern emerges across a variety of different disjoint and poorly connected traditional societies with unique religious systems, that the pattern isn't likely to be explained away by simply pointing to recent (past few centuries) religious anachronisms.
Of course if a pattern were to emerge in the vast majority of religions across time and cultures I may be tempted to speculate it's a display of common human traits and rather than something to be assigned to a particular religion. In that same vein one draws the conclusion favoring non-cis behavior is probably a minority (but common) human trait (all humans may enjoy some non-cis behavior but most seem to favor cis behavior) and polyandry is unlikely to counterbalance polygny.
"over the past centuries because of religious anachronisms" is your words. Were you lying? YOU were the one that attributed this persecution as 'anachronisms' of 'past centuries.'
>Religiously motivated persecution of sexual minorities
When did anyone say minorities haven't been persecuted? Total straw man out of left field.
I guess I was foolish enough to think you would have said "millenia" or better if you were referring to more than a few (roughly 1-9 IMO, but that's semantics) centuries. Mea culpa.
In my parts people rarely use the word 'centuries' to refer to periods larger than 1000 years, and numbers less than 10 are generally ok to think of as a 'few.'
With your follow-up clarification, I amend my statement:
>I'm willing to be proven wrong, but it seems fairy reasonable to assume if a strong pattern emerges across a variety of different disjoint and poorly connected traditional societies with unique religious systems, that the pattern isn't likely to be explained away by simply pointing to recent (past few centuries) religious anachronisms.
TO
I'm willing to be proven wrong, but it seems fairy reasonable to assume if a strong pattern emerges across a variety of different disjoint and poorly connected traditional societies with unique religious systems, that the pattern isn't likely to be explained away by simply pointing to "past centuries" religious anachronisms.
Sharing a household with a genetically unrelated adult is one of the biggest risk factors for experiencing child abuse. This is well known and well supported by evolutionary psychology: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinderella_effect
Therefore, introducing additional genetically unrelated adults into a family would likely increase the risk of child abuse.
The fallacy is to say that we can't have legalized polyamory because it's negative for the children, while we allow sistemic issues to have a much greater negative effect on said children.
> and nobody is abolishing your civil rights
Hello Texas? What are we even talking about?
> Civil rights don't mean you can do whatever you want.
I never said this, but if you needed to remind yourself of it go ahead.
While I don't necessarily agree with your stance about systemic issues, I would like to point out that solving them would take a lot more work than simply not legalising polygamy, and I don't see why we should neglect taking measures we are actually capable of implementing in favour of a pipe dream that might never be implemented.
I agree. You do both. If revolution is not immediately possibile, you fight for reform instead, hoping that it will sow the seeds of the revolution in those who fought with you. Any small victory for social movements generates a strong taste for solidarity and the expectation that the victory can be repeated.
When the US legalized gay marriage (at least for now), one of the talking points against it was that men could marry their sons to avoid the inheritance tax, the same idea you are talking about. But the fact is fathers could marry their daughters and mothers could marry their sons to avoid taxes before that law was passed, yet it wasn't done. It was all just a smokescreen.
The other funny thing was that the people against gay marriage by and large were also against inheritance taxes, so you'd think they'd applaud a new loophole.
> But the fact is fathers could marry their daughters and mothers could marry their sons to avoid taxes before that law was passed, yet it wasn't done.
No fathers cannot marry their children. Nor can mothers. That is illegal in every state I believe.
That's true: in US you can legally marry a child ("the youngest girls to marry in 2000-2010 were three Tennessee 10-year-old girls who married men aged 24, 25, and 31, respectively, in 2001", https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_marriage_in_the_United_S...), but not your own child.
Although I'm sure there are ways around it if you are wealthy enough.
(ps "Human Rights Watch pointed out that Afghanistan has a tougher law on child marriage than parts of the United States")
Basic web browsing hygiene: hover links and see where they go before clicking on them.
ULR shorteners aren't blocked on HN, despite being more dangerous than labeled links (because you have no way to know where they point to without clicking).
How about altering how the Markdown would be rendered?
E.g., the previously mentioned input:
[Check this cool similar new app out HN](http:/not.suspicious.com/nor/has/tracking)
Could be rendered as:
<a class="link-display" href="http:/not.suspicious.com/nor/has/tracking">Check this cool similar new app out HN</a>
<span class="link-content">[not.suspicious.com]</span>
.link-display {
/* Whatever styling you want for the link itself. */
font-weight: bold;
}
.link-content {
/* A more in-your-face helper that shows at least the domain. */
font-style: italic;
opacity: 0.5;
}
<a class="link-display" data-host="not.suspicious.com" href="http://not.suspicious.com/nor/has/tracking">Check this cool similar new app out HN</a>
.link-display:after {
content: " [" attr(data-host) "]";
}
Edit: Commenters say long-pressing reveals a URL without opening it in mobile browsers, which is nice to know. I only have experience with using regular desktop FF on my (Linux) phone, which doesn't support such a thing AFAICT.
Worked fine on mine (chrome on Android): touch and hold and wait for pop up. If the link in the upper right is cut short with an ellipsis, touching the link will expand it, just like ellipsis shortened alt texts.
Depends on the device and software. At least on my phone's Firefox browser a long-press of a link will bring up a menu that includes the URL (though it can run into space constraints for long URLs).
It sort of works, but the background cuts in my face and arms and all that all the time. It may just be my actual background isn't optimized. Overall I'm happy with zoom.
