It worked on my box!

To be fair a certain security company was in global news for exactly that same send it behavior. Why waste precious resources on multiple instances? Investors hate waste. 😅

This. They provide outstanding insights and the articles they provide alongside the data are quite good.

Yes that would be why caddyshack was over the top and funny.

I dunno the video seems to be of a groundskeeper just doing his normal rounds.

People are converting. Not entirely on its own merit, of course: Its competition repeatedly is enshitifying the user experience and pushing people to try other options. Combine that with steam and their work on linux’s compatibility layer and you get most of the movement.

That said once you hit a certain market share developers become more willing to port or provide binaries for the growing platform. It can accelerate further from there. Linux mainstream isn’t there yet but it’s starting to get in striking distance of its competition.

Especially now.

Yeah, it’s more a commentary on the whole current ‘country’ lifestyle. Texan? Buy all the things with a single star on it or you aren’t Texas enough. Southern? Get that truck. Gotta lift it. Biggest tires you can find. It’s all just the most degenerate capitalism with a dixie wrapper on it.

The majority of the southern states identity (not that part) has long since been reduced to a caricature of itself.

All being a southerner requires now is access to your divine guide: whatever the most recent pop country album is. It’s just advertisement set to country tunes.

If anything I’d say the least free group in America is your typical ‘country boy.’

I’ll be honest: I think this only made the news because it wasn’t league of legends. I was shocked.

Baggy means cargo pants and moar pockets. Yesssss. Also don’t forget about the mid-phase between the two: bell-bottoms and boot cuts. I forget when they show up but I feel like we are due soon…

For the afflicted? No.

For us as a species? No.

For capitalism? God yes.

Thin people consume the least. Once we stop growing we stop needing new clothes. Obesity changes this. Clothes wear out faster, you need new sizes. Obesity leads to depressive states where people buy more to feel better. Speaking of more: eat more! Have some sweets to feel better!

Be bold. Be beautiful. Be you (for us!)

Clothing stores and food chains done with you? Guess you are broken now…

Welcome to the medical system you will now need to rely on to function and stay alive! Till death do we part.

Obesity is an epidemic and it’s too profitable to actually do anything about. They don’t care about you, your feelings, or your health. You are literally livestock to these corporations that you think are caudling you and your way of life. This is a wake up call.

Obesity is difficult to conquer. It requires change and persistence. It requires support. Not everyone can achieve a ‘healthy ideal’ but everyone can do better.

It really is a shame a lot of that got deleted as we all were referencing off it. The reason given didn’t fit as the discussions, while heated, were mostly civil.

I forget my exact choice of words (which is frustrating) but in essence I said that a pause doesn’t exist. It is a chemical process being blocked. It doesn’t run it back for the missed time after the blockers go away- it simply runs its remaining time out. I recall acknowledging that while yes blockers have been in use for some time the dosage and effect desired were different: think reducing a flow rather than outright turning it off. The result and long term effects are different and there are far fewer studies on the latter. I made an off the cuff comment about not wanting to use children as test subjects I believe.

All of that more or less to explain my position that outright blocking so early can have lasting effects that may threaten the health of the person later in life. This is why I think the use of pause and the downplaying of potential side effects is in poor taste or disingenuous.

let’s not be pedantic to try to weasel out a point. Let me clarify: people [in this thread] have stated it is a method to prevent the results of puberty… which unless I am mistaken can start quite early (12 and earlier.) My statements echoed how ridiculous that is… so thank you for the concern but my facts were straight.

It’s a distasteful and disingenuous tone but I’ll break it down:

Elsewhere in this thread, you assert that hormones produced during puberty are essential to the cognitive development of these children you seem to care so much about.

You are combining two statements I made and inferring something incorrectly from it.

First in reference to the hormones and puberty: it’s known that these hormones don’t exclusively develop our sexual attributes. They do, certainly, but that’s not all they do. Many of the drawbacks of taking inhibitors are result of inhibiting this (other) development in our bodies. I believe I referenced the mayo clinics site as an example.

Cognitive development is important. Absolutely. I firmly believe that prior to the age of consent we shouldn’t be in a hurry to medicate away this “problem.” The adolescent should be supported and given access to counseling so they, given sufficient time and information, can make an informed decision.

But now we should make those same children wait nearly a decade – delaying this vital development – until they’re legally adults?

That is roughly what I’m implying- but your math is off unless we are starting this discussion around the age of 6 to 8. Let’s dial down the dramatics here.

I’m omitting your catch 22 as it is circular nonsense.

Out of curiosity, what medical treatments do you consider allowable for minors? … [truncated] …

This is more or less all the same. In short most of the things you have listed can be tested for and quantified. And yes while we can use drugs for treatment - very frequently we employ counseling and other less drastic methods before resorting to drugs. A state of being or sense of self is difficult to test for or quantity. There has been some headway on it but it’s in it’s infancy… so yes my stance on exercising a more methodical and cautious approach remains a reasonable decision.

16+ is the age of consent depending on where you live. My stance is focused on prior to that age. I have indicated as much in other responses. People are saying it should be started to counteract puberty which for many starts as early as 12. Within that scope in mind… I imagine my stance is a bit more logical.

There was a time when it was almost trendy to have a child who was gay. It was a disgusting period and it highlighted how people would project their ideals and ideas onto their kids. I had a friend I cared for deeply struggle with some fallout related to that. There is a reason I stress informed consent opposed to what I’d describe as guided consent: It’s their decision and they should make it when they have been given sufficient time and counseling to be certain. This isn’t a binary discussion - there’s a lot of nuance.

As a direct answer to your statement (your question warranted a separate thread):

I agree on case by case. Some will be clear cut but kids are malleable and uncertain. They have very little worldly experience to draw on and need to be protected… universally. My reaction to posts and positions such as this one is visceral. Too many people will bandwagon the ideal and ‘virtue’ of it and in doing so propose overly simplified ideas that aren’t a real (or complete) solution. It’s social media - I expect the response I got to a degree but it is pleasant when it yields a good discussion. It may benefit someone later to be able to observe those views and see that it is possible to discuss differences in opinions without a firefight.

Yeah, I saw that. Apparently rule 3… despite most of the interactions being civil. I petitioned its return as I think it adds context and is worth the discussion:

I made a spoiler text analog to a statement that we should allow underaged (implied age which we have been discussing) adolescents to have complete sexual freedom. Some people clearly stopped reading and took that to some impressive extremes. I had prefaced and followed the statement with an indication that we wouldn’t allow such a thing (and rightly so.) The statement’s intent was to illustrate that we cannot expect someone so young to make informed decisions about certain things.

I believe in a follow-up statement I expanded saying it was equally incorrect for someone else to make that decision for the child/adolescent. It’s too important.

I selected it for its fairly universal acceptance and (as I’ve mentioned) some similar gravity in allowing them to make those decisions so early.

More generic hand waving and resorting to mudslinging. If I were actually here to troll rather than have a discussion I wouldn’t be engaging with others in earnest.

I’m acquainted with your type and identified it early on. You simply mimic the masses rhetoric and have nothing of substance to bring to the table. When pressed you only can get angry and use that to mask this shortcoming. Honestly though, most people can identify this behavior… children do it frequently. Most grow out of it.

I provided you a rope to come back and have civil discourse - you opted to hang yourself with it. Predictable, but a shame.

I have to admit I didn’t think that jab would regress you any further. Color me impressed. Most people would stop before behaving that embarrassingly. That got an audible laugh out of me.