There is absolutely zero overhead for the person messaging to simply add more context to their opening message regardless of the situation. They're going to have to give the context anyway. If it's an emergency, just say "Hello, there's a fire", if it's informal say "Hello, you heard about Eddy?".
Isn't that because they don't have a more effective alternative? They're forced to rely on the security by obscurity of camo (ignoring the guns).
If you had an indestructable soldier, you could paint them bright pink and have them live stream their position, it wouldn't matter they're indestructable.
Isn't that true for software too though? You cannot ever rely 100% on any tool you use, so if you're serious about actually avoiding penetrations and not just about the academic discussion, you're better off using at least a bit of obscurity on top of your real security system.
> Quite simple: a person with XX chromosomes. Or are people starting to deny biology now?
This is a really common response, and I do honestly empathise with it because for most people (me included most of the time) in everyday life there's not really any need to think about it too deeply. Like you said in another comment "A child can tell you what a man and woman are."
But can they? Or can they just point at people and guess, with about the same accuracy as you or me? They probably can't _actually_ tell you what a man and woman _are_ in any useful way any more than most grown-ups.
Like you agreed in that other comment too, there are some "extremely extremely rare" cases where a child would probably say they're a man or woman but their chromosones aren't what you'd expect.
That highlights that chromosones aren't really a deciding factor though right? The child isn't using chromosones when they decide, and I've never been asked about my chromosones, or heard of anyone else being asked about theirs outside of a hospital.
So to answer your question, I don't think anyone is denying biology, it's just that biology isn't as relevant as it might seem at first thought.
I can see your point here, but would argue that biology is the underlying reason that you don't have to think about it too much.
Think of it this way... in your lifetime of genuine interactions with people (e.g. conversations), how many XX people have you mistaken for XY people, and vice versa? For most people the answer is very close to zero, but why is that?
I would argue it's because billions of years of evolution (a biological process) have already helpfully trained us to detect even the tiniest differences between males and females. We have been a sexually dimorphic species for a very long time. And those differences (whether massive or tiny) are directed in large part by the chromosomes inside our trillions of somatic cells - skin, hair, bones, eyes, brain, etc. etc.
Also, for those rare cases you mention, the chromosomes often are a major deciding factor in how we do the classification, e.g. we might be confused about someone with a DSD because although they were "assigned female" since birth, they continue to show some male characteristics, due to the Y chromosome present in their organs, skeleton, etc. Surgeons can operate on genitals etc., but they can't alter all of the trillions of somatic cells in the body.z
> how many XX people have you mistaken for XY people, and vice versa?
I have no way to know, that's my point.
Most of us have a basic biology education to drawn on that allows us to look back and in hindsight say "The men I know probably have XY and the women XX chromosones" but it's never part of the process any of us actually use.
To me, chromosones just seem like a distraction. It promises to replace all of the messy, political, social uncertainty with a polite, clinical, objective answer if only everyone would realise it's just about the biology.
The trouble is, the biology can't seem to answer the questions that are the most contentious. I have no idea what my chromosones are in reality, but I know how I'd like to live my life and mostly there's no problem, no one checks, no one asks, and if they did, how would that knowledge justify overriding my autonomy?
You've spent the time evaluating a candidate enough to make a decision not to hire them, you know why you aren't going to hire them, the only extra work is passing that information on to them.
What about the great candidate that you couldn't hire because you only have X positions?
If you help those candidate by referring them to a job at another company then both the candidates and the other company will love you.
Months or years down the track, when you need to hire more, you will have a list of good candidates, and companies that may refer candidates back to you.
> What about the great candidate that you couldn't hire because you only have X positions?
Life's tough all over, you know?
I mean, if you know of an opening they would be good for off the top of your head, sure, go ahead and refer them. But you're not obligated to go find them that opening.
However if I ran a company I would have an eye on both the short term and the long term. It is good for the long term interests of the company to be loved (by customers, employees and the community).
Doing very cool things for people, especially when it takes little effort or money, is a great investment to create goodwill in the future.
Agreed. Heck, you know what I do in interviews when I don't want a job? "I don't think I'm the right fit, but here's somebody I know who might be." Or even, if I don't have anyone offhand, "here's the name and number of a recruiter I personally trust who I think can feed you applicants." I've called around, too, when I didn't think somebody was the right fit for me but was obviously worth hiring somewhere. I didn't go for "low-hanging fruit," I decided that, yes, the world needs this person working in an excellent and rewarding job, and I made it happen.
Being good to people is just so easy, but so many people hide behind "business transactions" as if that's a reason to turn their back on somebody. Be a fuckin' person, would you, guys?
One problem that comes to mind is that people who would choose not record themselves would be looked on with suspicion, having the police do the recording would eliminate this problem.
Personally life logging is something I'm personally quite interested in, but mandating it, even socially rather than legally, is highly problematic in my eyes.
So I get to pay you $30/m to work for you on projects and I get to talk to the other developers you have locked up in your forum and to listen to you do a screencast of unverifiable quality. Sounds amazing, sign me up!
