This article is about how Javier Bardem, Joaquin Phoenix, Emma Stone, and Mark Ruffalo are blacklisted from Paramount. Which one of those actors are Jewish?
Even if all parties involved were Jewish, I still don’t understand why that would make it not of interest to others that a corporation is blacklisting people on the basis of a mainstream political viewpoint.
Is this realistic though? Every time you update a dependency you would have to read its source (and its source dependencies, and their source dependencies...)
To do that well, it would be someone's fulltime job to read and do security audits on all those dependencies.
Last time I went to one of the Bay Area node meetups, that given meetup was being sponsored by just such a company. Can't remember the name, unfortunately.
The idea was though that you'd feed them your package.json and they'd let you know of any vulnerabilities, iirc. Or maybe they had a private repo of packages they'd checked? Can't remember.
> Glad this won't be an issue going into the next presidential election.
I wish this was true. But I think the decision will increase the discussion of marriage equality in the next election. Just look at the political impact abortion had after the supreme court decided Roe v. Wade. Abortion was used to galvanize conservative votes against liberals and SCOTUS.
Has anyone used a service like https://www.equidateinc.com. They help you "sell" the right to buy your stock options to a third party. From their site:
> Traditional stock sales are time consuming, expensive, and clutter a company's cap table. Now it's easier: the Equidate contract transfers the economic upside and downside of your shares without actually selling them. It honors all exisiting transfer restrictions on your stock, and your identity is kept private throughout the entire process.
> The contracts Equidate has designed have aspects similar to both a derivative contract and a asset-backed loan. The result allows an investor to purchase the rights now to the economic upside/downside of a share now, without going through the complications of adding additional shareholders to the company's cap table or the hassles of a secondary stock transaction, postponing any transfer of shares until the company is ready.
Just for reference, that situation doesn't apply to California because of [Prop. 13](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_13_%2819...). It restricts the annual increases of property taxes to an inflation factor, not to exceed 2% per year.
We can probably replace many instances of (s)he or he/she with a singular they. As the Wikipedia article says[1], this is not a recent phenomenon. If using he in a gender-neutral way or in gender ambiguous situations is somehow not politically correct, we should use the word they to replace all instances of he/she or (s)he or he or she where the gender is not important. This is probably the case in over half of our usage of he/she or (s)he or he or she.
Instead of: Barack Obama is the current president of the United States. He was born in 1961.
Say: Barack Obama is the current president of the United States. They were born in 1961.
Fight the madness of people getting mad over gender of pronouns with a greater degree of madness. It is the only way.
I feel like you're making a good argument but have chosen a singularly poor example. Use of "they" is most justified when the gender is unknown. Barack Obama is a very known male.
At some point, we may use "they" for everyone, even if known. But at present, it's not accepted even for cases when gender is unknown.
It's likely better to argue for its usage in unknown cases first before making a case for its usage even when gender is known. The latter is a far more radical proposition.
Consider that like Chelsea Manning, at some point in the future Barack Obama may announce she has always been a woman. Also like Chelsea Manning, at that point you would be obligated to alter all past and present references to Barack Obama as "she," or else be guilty of a hateful and cruel misgendering slur. So as a matter of practicality it's probably easier just to use the singular-they in every case so you are being respectful. On the other hand, it still wouldn't be considerate to leave it at "they" if Barack Obama had clearly stated her preferred pronouns, so you might have to change it anyway so now I am not actually sure what advice to give.
Fine, I'll say it plainly. Using singular-they in all cases is in my mind a reasonable accommodation if you live in a world where there are two or more genders and you are obligated to use someone's gender-identification rather than their society-assigned gender. But during the Chelsea Manning trial, a group of serious people very "concerned about trans issues" demanded unreasonable accommodation, that all references to Manning as "he," even ones made in the past and which referred to her when the world identified her as male, had to be altered. My point is that using singular-they in every case, even if you think it could be a reasonable accommodation, is already not good enough for a significant number of people, both people that will still demand that you retroactively erase all reference to prior gender, and people for whom "they" is offensive and demand you memorize and use everyone's personal pronouns.
I was not intending to mock trans people, I was mocking extremists in that group. It's really fucking annoying when you were for gender-neutral pronouns your whole life, took shit for that because nobody wanted to use "clumsy grammar," then you get shit from some trans people who claim that you're erasing their identity:
<quote>Look, if you take gender neutral pronouns and start using them for people that aren’t gender neutral, you are appropriating my and other non-binary people’s pronouns, whatever way you cut it. You’re also erasing and devaluing both binary and non-binary trans* people, who have to fight every single day to be recognised and treated as their gender. This smacks of that whole ridiculous ’gender is irrelevant’ shit. That sentiment ‘gender is irrelevant’? Yeah, it’s trans* erasure.</quote>
I am not the pedant. These people are the pedants. But these are the people you are going to be dealing with when you talk about what pronouns you should use in writing, so you better be aware of it.
I'm a trans woman and I do agree that anyone who was demanding that all previous written instances of using "he" for Manning be altered is going too far.
On the other hand, once she informed people about her true gender and pronoun preferences then there ought to be no use of "he" in media to refer to Manning. At most, I'd support using "nee" and a reference to her old name for the sake of continuity.
Make no mistake about it, pronoun issues may seem trivial to those not affected, but it's often a deeply distressing and systemic problem for many trans people.
Overall, I like your post. You might be interested in reading about Spivack pronouns - yes, the same Spivack that wrote the well regarded calculus text.
Do you realize that you just jumped headlong onto the slippery slope of complete subjectivity that can only lead to a paralyzing inability to set a coherent thought to paper?
I agree! But that's a terrible example of it, IMO. Singular they should be used when the gender is unknown or not stated, or at least that's how I use it. It flows rather well in speech too for the most part, but if you know the gender then it causes a bit of cognitive dissonance.
> I agree! But that's a terrible example of it, IMO. Singular they should be used when the gender is unknown or not stated, or at least that's how I use it. It flows rather well in speech too for the most part, but if you know the gender then it causes a bit of cognitive dissonance.
Yes, I got a little carried away. I was trying to say that there are cases where gender of the person is not important. I was trying to come up with a case where the person's gender was not important. In hindsight, since there have been no female POTUS I guess the gender is still relevant.
A little off topic, I respect Barack Obama (not being sarcastic at all even though I probably disagree with him on more issues than I agree with him) and can imagine where he is coming from.
In post-mortem, I'd imagine I was thinking in terms of something like an Overton window where I suggest something so outlandish hoping that we'd settle somewhere saner in between...
