I am going to try to keep my response apolitical to try to avoid fanning a culture war. That Wiki is the exact reason we are in this situation because we are bringing up points for 1 in 20000 or 0.005% of the population. Any system designed around 0.005% edge cases is going to be so complex that it is functionally impossible to do in practice. That is why one side says the solution is "obvious" because we have a simple rule that covers 99.9% of cases and the other 0.1% is unfortunately effectively barred from high level competition. Note, high level competition already bars 99.9% of people. Even though the opposing side is correct in pointing out these edge cases, it does nothing to advance an actual solution.
There are statistically around 15 women AFAB with XY chromosomes in the NCAA by those numbers (assuming no correlation between Swyer syndrome and athletic performance).
There are currently around 10 openly transgender women in the NCAA.
Sure, it covers 99.9% of cases, but top elite athletes are the genetic exceptions, they are the genetic freaks. They are the top 0.0001%. You don't get to compete at the most elite levels without your body being exceptionally gifted and almost specifically shaped for the relevant sport, which inevitably means funky genetic traits and disorders, higher testosterone levels etc.
I mean the word freak in the most loving and caring way possible, mind you.
I am not sure what point you are trying to make. When it comes to the Olympics, it was decided a long time ago that having both men and women's events was beneficial for societal progress to have both sexes represented. This was at a time when sex=gender. Now, we recognize the difference between sex and gender but one side thinks the split of events was always based on gender whereas it was almost surely based on sex. This ruling confirms that view point.
Except I proposed a solution, which you ignored (I'm assuming here that I'm your "opposing side".)
Also, there are a significant number of these sorts of arguments in high-level sports, probably precisely because these "0.1%" cases are exactly the ones that result in exceptional ability relative to norms. It's also curious that there is such obsession about naturally occurring genetic outliers with respect to females or gender but absolute silence about naturally occurring genetic outliers among men unrelated to gender. And surprise surprise the top athletes often have such outlier genetics!
If you're drawing a distinction between natural genetic difference related to only gender and no other factors then sadly it's exactly a culture war, not a war based in science or fairness.
Yeah "You can use newline or tab characters in the HREF attribute and the browser will throw a validation error, remove the offending character, try again, then succeed" would be a more accurate title.
Validation errors aren't really "exceptions" to be thrown, they are indicators for authors that something is probably wrong but they make no visible difference in the output. I'm not sure if any browser even tracks them (and if one did, the best it could do is complain in the dev tools).
Also, this is not limited to HREF, it's defined in URL[0] so you can also put newlines in new URL("...") etc.
You're assuming so much that is wrong. Thieves don't know how to use technology?
They can't use a charger? (I imagine they'd wire one to an also stolen generator)
Then you assume they're gonna be in a car chase? That's not how most stolen vehicles end up.
Afaik most stolen vehicles either get quickly parted out at a chop shop, or are sent across a border (driven across borders or container shipped to another country), or used for other crimes, or they're joy rided around then abandoned. Basically all things you could easily do on a partial charge with a modern car mechanics skills.
This is one place some sorta "trickle down" economics worked. CPB contributed to developing the content on PBS. Now PBS either has to cut costs by either canceling programs or ordering cheaper content that corporate sponsors like, run more pledge drives, or seek more corporate sponsors. None of those are appealing to me.
Also CPB helps keep rural stations open means all the niche local productions about state history or geology or whatever can happen.
It's a cut to the already strained budget of a wonderful resource. I'd be surprised if there weren't lost jobs and less quality as a result.
Edit to add: Just sentimental but I'll miss hearing "this program was made possible by The Corporation for Public Broadcasting and by contributions from viewers like you!"
I think the cuts are bad and certainly there will be programming losses. It's just not an existential threat to public media in America, which has over the last 20 years become far less dependent on local stations. GBH, which produces Frontline, gets $177MM in revenue from major donors and viewer subscriptions.
I don't know if I'm the only one that finds fault with:
> GBH, which produces Frontline, gets $177MM in revenue from major donors and viewer subscriptions.
Given Frontline is a production for public consumption, for public good, it shouldn't have to be financed by donations, it absolutely should be financed by the federal government.
I find your tone (sorry) offensive, in the sense that you DON'T find it dramatic and just plain terrible that CPB had to cease operations, just because billionaires feel it's a waste of "money that could be in their pocket" and obviously they prefer the greater population to be clueless and ignorant.
Me? I am furious. But what can I do besides the usual? Write my congresscritters, call them, write angry posts on Hackernews, donate?
I guess you could blame Craigslist for commoditizing their competitor’s complement, which mattered because newspapers found their lunch being eaten from both ends: first by Craigslist with classified ads (which CL capitalized on with low-ish transparent flat fees for job, rental, real estate, and commercial posts), then by Facebook, which first became a direct source of truth for citizens to find local and regional newsworthy information, and then again when Facebook Marketplace became a competitor with classified ads in newspapers and on Craigslist.
Elon Musk talks about wanting X to be a super app, and I think he’s jealous of Zuck and Meta. Meta is a super app without having to be one, but since the failure of Libra Meta has been trying to get another bite at a similarly large apple, and general purpose AI isn’t a bad one to bob for, and X is trying to swim in those same waters.
It's unfortunate, but as someone who's been on HN since probably 2010, I remember the ethos of this site to news like this used to be a lot more "let's find an opportunity" – maybe I'm looking with rose colored glasses.
People would say "should we setup a donation site" or "how can we build a product that saves local affiliate stations money" etc etc etc. Maybe that's still happening quietly. But I just see a lot more doom nowadays in HN comments. (Just a feeling, obviously no data whatsoever to back it up)
> how can we build a product that saves local affiliate stations money
Let's bring back those supposed good 'ol days!
What are some valid business models that could successfully fund local affiliates? Knowing nothing of the industry, some initial questions come to mind:
- Is there value in cross-affiliate connections and referrals where a broadcasting association could work?
- Direct donations seems like a filled market, but what about donation pooling?
- Does private equity have an interest in these affiliates and why or why not?
- Is there a product in marketing and branding local stations that appeases YouTube and related algorithms? Would this fundamentally work against the mission?
- Are there potential alternatives for some of the alerting products provided by the rural areas, that is lost in this process?
- Can we also use some of the same tech that's used by influencers, etc to reduce the costs for local affiliates? Like could the shows be produced at home, with cheaper gear, reducing their in-studio costs?
- Program scheduling can be done in the cloud, and maybe the content can be posted on YouTube for more monetization options, however small?
- It could overall lower the costs involved in running a station.
It doesn’t help that many of even those rose-colored startups created 15 years ago have since crossed the rubicon.
It’s solid PR to mumble something about effective altruism being the justification for predatory capitalist behavior.
It just becomes hard to believe after the company was sold and the employees screwed over and the customers screwed over and the founders used their gains to financially support whatever authoritarian fantasies they had all along.
Turns out, people who are good at being ruthless aren’t doing so for a secret ethical reason: they’re just ruthless people.
Yeah... I have no idea why HNers seem more negative these days?
We are now in a timeline where dramatic concerns are legitimate. I would love to be proven wrong on this, but there's plenty of clues to show that I'm not.
Next up in the timeline - when a bad jobs report lands, the person reporting the unwanted data gets fired [0]. Undoubtedly a toadie will be put in their place who will report numbers that make fearless leader look better.
We are now well on our way to George Orwell's 1984 dystopia.
Honestly no one knows but two scenarios could play out:
1. The economy goes bad quickly as actoes realize they cant rely on data to make rational economic decisions.
2. Certain actors pay some quasi-governmental organization (say, "Friends of Mar-a-Lago Book Club") to get access to more accurate data, on the agreement that they make the stock market go brrrr, and they continue to make money.
reply