It's a cellular automaton showing complex behavior emerging from very simple rules.
Through especially crafted inputs you can simulate a Turing machine or Conway's Game of Life inside itself.
That isn't really a literal comparison being made -- it's maximally exaggerated, to emphasize the main point: that the negative thing being conceded vastly outweighs the positive thing being lauded.
"OK, yeah, our buddy Louis does beat his wife, and totally deserved to get arrested last weekend, don't get me wrong -- but man does that guy make a delicious lasagna!"
The piece of shit known as RFK isn't just your normal crackpot science-denier uncle. I mean, he actually is very much like that in many ways, but because of the famous family name he banks on, and perhaps the credulous idiotism of our modern media landscape and/or celebrity-worship cultural defect, he is responsible for enormous suffering, including the deaths of many children. It's hard to put a precise number on, because the parents are truly responsible, and he only convinced them not to vaccinate -- but if bringing back measles to kill children was a sport, he'd be the Joe Rogan color commentator for it.
He's repudiated by his family, and those with at least a rudimentary high school understanding of science, for a reason.
So, yes, toxic chemicals in our environment or in consumer products is a problem, and one that the US political system isn't doing well addressing. But even if Jeffrey Dahmer agrees with you, and can pithily and eloquently summarize the risks -- you still need to find a different spokesperson.
This is true, but on the other hand the previous VR/AR headsets confine their usage themselves, especially in social situations because they are not accepted by other people. Blurring that boundary might cause less isolation compared to other headsets - but might cause more isolation in the long run as an indirect effect due to more widespread usage.
I was wondering why that would be a bad idea and how much radiation sterilization is used today.
Apparently about 40-50% of medical single use products are sterilized beforehand using radiation.
See if you can find numbers for food irradiation. Depending on country o ly a small number of foods is permitted to get that treatment but they're usually the large volume ones like wheat or flour.
I think this is due to the bilateral symmetry of most animals. But imagine being non-symmetric yourself (or the alien race being non-symmetric). The concepts of left and right seem to become much more communicable now.
The whole point of female leagues is, that females don't become overpowered by males. So the decision you are talking about is already made. If one starts to introduce biologically males back into the female league one could arguably instead remove the female league and introduce a unisex one. This would be more coherent with your reasoning in my eyes.
The purpose of female leagues is to allow women can participate in sports. If all sports were unisex, then pretty much all competitive athletes at every level would be men, denying women access to an important part of culture and social life. This is pretty exactly what you advocate doing to trans women, who could not possibly compete against cis men.
Trans women are rare, and transition dramatically reduces muscle mass and other attributes related to performance. In fact, trans women typically have a lower testosterone level than cis women due to hormone treatments. There's absolutely no reason to believe that allowing trans women to participate in sports would prevent cis women from being able to compete. Trans women have been allowed to participate in women's Olympics events since the early 2000s, and not a single one has won a gold medal. You use the term "biological males" to refer to two completely different sets of people, which is dishonest and despicable.
The decision about female leagues was made at a time when transsexuality wasn't socially acceptable and hence did not factor into it.
My point is, there are options to explore besides an outright ban. For example, a trans woman that goes through HRT will lose some of the advantages of her birth sex. However, she might still enjoy the advantage of the male frame, hence my suggestion of an additional penalty.
A unisex league as you suggested could also be a posibility, and one could think about introducing not only weight classes, but testosterone classes as well.
But again, the female leagues were established because of the physical differences between men and women. Yes, some trans people who undergo some medical interventions have some of their physical sporting attributes brought closer into line with the opposite sex, but it’s not all attributes and it’s not all athletes. It’s exceedingly complicated.
The reality is that female leagues was a cultural hack that worked well enough in the 20th century. But in a world where we recognise that neither sex not gender fit neatly into binary categories, it is impractical to assume that we can fit people into two sporting categories.
testosterone is highly variable even at the individual level to the point that I think this particular metric would difficult to implement.
Before the higher level of testing, there were plenty of rumors that fighters would overtrain (or cycle on steroids) to the point of plummeting their testosterone levels to be given a TRT exemption. By the time their baseline levels recovered by fight day, they could still be on TRT
