It’s literally a tactic in divorce reddits. Go to all the lawyers in the city and get a meeting. Now they can’t work with your partner because they’ve given you advice.
Whatever you do please DO NOT look up these links on the Internet Archive.
Not just that but I would also suggest to stop using the Internet Archive in general, as it is obviously not a reliable source of truth like Wikipedia or many news outlets with specialized people that spend a non-trivial amount of their time carefully checking all of this information.
A lot of people believe that Fridman is not affiliated with MIT even though the university says it is. <https://lex.mit.edu/> It's a recurring thing in the Talk page for the Wikipedia article.
Nah, that's just reddit. At this point it's safer to take anything that's popular on reddit as either outright wrong or so heavily out of context that it's not relevant.
Oh, sure, I learned a long time ago that Reddit is a very reliable anti-indicator. But given that HN isn't nearly as bad (but there are moments), it's still strange that people would just repeat something about someone else that they could disprove for themselves in 30 seconds.
This entire thread should be annihilated, but since you mentioned being pedantic...
You're correct that a pure encryption algorithm doesn't use hashing. But real-world encryption systems will include an HMAC to detect whether messages were altered in transit. HMACs do use hash functions.
There are a lot of explanations elsewhere in this thread. If you've read all of them and still don't understand, I don't know how to help you further.
Mainly I take issue with the person I replied to implying "I don't understand the solution, therefore there must be some functional issue with the solution."
>open the valve to release the required volume of oxygen
Mega LMAO. I can assure you this is not what's going on, at all. Also, if you release oxygen in gas form into the liquid you're going to run into a zillion other problems.
One of the golden premises of measuring things is to avoid altering what you're measuring, lol.
The issue is not if it's a good/bad thing. We all know that.
The issue is that is neither common nor a natural thing for men to "struggle not to rape someone" as much as you think it is. While your intentions might be good, and I do believe that, it reads like some sort of freudian slip.
Imagine if someone wrote "hey guys, let's be honest, I don't really like this thing of urinating on your food before eating, can we just agree to stop doing that :)".
You wouldn't think "oh what a sensible comment, finally someone has the balls to talk about it", no, you would just :O and think the guy is crazy ...
Frankly, there are far too many men who have one foot in the “rape is OK” camp. (Framed as “you have to be forceful even if she’s reluctant,” “if she’s drunk or passed out it’s still OK,” “society owes me sex,” etc.) Just look at the insane popularity of Andrew Tate. I think it’s a salient point.
If you mean, by reporting statistics, you’re probably right. But men in general are widely used to physical abuse and are expected to take it. Granted, it is rarely significantly harmful and women use it as a way to reassure themselves that men are “in charge “ or whatever, but that doesn’t change the fact that it is vile behavior.
Men’s behavior is as much shaped by female expectations as the behavior of women is molded by men.
Like it or not, we’re in this together, and cooperation with mutual understanding and benefit is the only way forward. We can see what happens when this breaks down, as in sharia law. How do you think this ends if we ceaselessly demonize men? Shame has its limits, and they start where the violence begins.
Of -reported- incedents, 1 in 4 women report having been the victim of significant physical harm by an intimate partner, as do 1 in 7 men. Now if you consider the comparative likelihood of severe physical harm in M vs F and F vs M, and factor in the likelihood of reporting for women vs men, I think you can see that the rate is not at all what it seems at first glance.
(FWIW, despite the relative -frequency- of incidents , I do agree that the danger is greater to women just on the basis of the likelihood of harm in a MvF conflict.)
Reported incidence of psychological/emotional abuse are almost exactly at parity, with just under half of both sexes reporting abuse in their lifetime. Physical abuse prevalence in lesbian relationships is also much higher than either heterosexual or male-male relationships.
From this I would estimate that the willingness to act out in violence against a domestic partner is something close to evenly distributed among the sexes.
Collection of definitive data about subjects such as this is notoriously difficult, but reading between the lines both here and in violence among youth (m-m, f-f, m/f) seems to indicate that the predilection, if not the severity, of violence is relatively evenly distributed among.
Fallacy of composition: Not every member of a set is guaranteed to share all attributes with the "bad apples" in the set. Not even if there are a lot of bad apples.
This bullshit is why #NotAllMen is a farcical trope among feminists.
Can ya'll please grow slightly thicker skin?
It doesn't take much effort to give the author benefit of doubt, especially when he already qualified his claim with "If you're a man, one of your hardest battles may be..."
To those who are unaware, "may be" signals uncertainty. It signals #NotAllMen.
reply