I mean, I have to assume they meant “oppose” and just mistyped.

In the Chicago black community

I’m sorry, what‽ As a black Chicagoan, no the Hell we aren’t.

For a second, I read your fruit predilection literally and was like, “Is…watermelon controversial, now? Are they [the people who banned you] cartoonishly racist?”

I follow you, now; sucks but expected…

The eugenicism is because of the tests; not the politicians.

https://www.tumblr.com/dovewithscales/714693265828478976/very-much-so-the-early-comics-were-written-during

You think this would work because you assume we could write such tests with such accuracy as to evade bias (or that such requirement for testing wouldn’t be exploited by opportunists to place metrics much more aligned with whom said opportunists would like to eradicate).

I’d point out that you say the tests should test for empathy but Empathy Deficit Disorder exists and, as EDD people often point out, the lack of being able to feel empathy doesn’t stop them from wanting to help people and making choices based off that desire. They just don’t feel empathy when they do it.

Of course, you’re not using that word to mean literally understanding and relating to others’ feelings; sympathy would certainly qualify.

But how do you ensure that? Who gets to implement these tests? And what stops it from being someone who just sees Empathy Deficit Disorder and goes, “Eew…keeping them away from this….”

I always feel to like I sound like I’m being condescending but (and I mean this as genuinely as possible) you should try selling out writing and theory by disabled authors. Because of the way disabled people are erased from both culture and society as practically a matter of function, it can be really hard to even realize the ways in which our assumptions don’t factor them in. Stuff covering ability and autonomy are incredibly interesting in the ways they think about concepts due different lived experiences.

Hey, bud; maybe let’s not bring whorephobic and misogynistic euphemisms into this.

Not to mention the eugenicism this would ignite.

Yeah; as a black person, the whole thing was just so obviously in the vein of White Flight rhetoric, etc.

I was trying to see if someone else was going to mention F. D.

Shame for yours to be at the bottom; this is a good list of choices, in general. Excellent taste.

Folding Ideas is fantastic

It shouldn’t be discounted, either, that they’re willfully abusing perception.

It’s like when they argue that voter suppression or them winning without a majority of the vote is actually what was intended because that’s why we’re a Republic and not a direct democracy.

Like, I don’t doubt that there were founders who would be sympathetic of depriving certain groups the vote (after all, they hadn’t given them the vote in the first place for that very reason) but “tyranny of the majority” very much wasn’t meant to mean outright suppression like through a carceral system.

It meant boosting minority opinions so you’d have to actually address and debate with them rather than rushing past.

But they know most people won’t have familiarity with the concept so they argue that their suppression of representation is actually a good thing, though I cannot believe anyone who’s passingly familiar with these concepts could say that and truly mean it.

The number of times I’ve watched Twins and that…didn’t, at all, stick out to me…

I mean, you always see this around new technology/fads, all the time. When it’s new or ongoing, there’s either an excitement at the novelty or being in the minority of people doing it; people see the chance to do some of the things that fix limitations of the current process and there’s always those willing to try that out.

For a day that’s already compounded with expectation and often hyped as a sort of zenith in one’s life, it’s easy to see being able to customize things exactly to the way you’re having them play out in your head as really alluring.

And, once the hype dies down or we get used to the novel aspects, all the things you mentioned with get greater focus in the general attention, again, and people will likely value those things more (because, ultimately, you’re not wrong).

But I do feel like this is a pretty consistent phenomenon with almost any trend and you always see an uptick of adopters because the ability to solve some pain points is novel.

Incident on 57th Street by Bruce Springsteen, live at the Main Point '75

It’s always hard to gauge, with Bruce (obviously not an unknown but, also, lots of people who’ve only casually listened to him, if even that), but this one’s a live performance for a track that doesn’t get a lot of radio play.

Also a great example of his early storytelling work and great use of violins, to boot. The whole original album is a classic but this one’s great as a one-shot.

I hadn’t; any source, by chance (or summarization, if not)?

I dunno why but this comment was the one that made me burst out laughing.

No; I’m not. I very explicitly started my first comment with “a year is too large of a time” and the person before me noted it’s suited for “casual short term planning” (which I consider things like the dates on homework assignments and the like to be; I would argue most things that people do within a given year fit this use case. You simply don’t care about the year most of the year but you always care about the month regardless of if you care about the day of the month).

DD-MM-YYYY just simply isn’t usefulness because a month is too short a period of time for the day to be most relevant to you. In almost every case where you need to use the day of the month, you need to know what the month is. It may not be a consistent ordering but, given the average person’s interaction with dates in a society, it’s the one that matches the relevance of these values to their daily lives.

As I originally said, I can admit that – if we wanted consistency – YYYY-MM-DD is probably better (MM-DD-YYYY is absolutely worse when looking over a period of years though no worse than DD-MM-YYYY) and I could accept that as a universal form but, for day-to-day (assuming we don’t want to lose the year so these dates don’t become useless in the future), MM-DD-YYYY works really well. Consistent/logical/etc. or not, a month is simply too short, in the context of human perception, for us to care about the day of the month without the context of said month.

DD-MM-YYYY just gives me the info. I cannot do anything with, without further context (which I probably needed more, anyway), first.

Yeah; I did. And that’s a short stop for that date being useless in the future, after the short-term use case. That’s more wild, to me, than having the least useful part of the date just be at the end where it’s easily locatable.

Again, – within most use cases – it really isn’t.

In your day to day, will you need to know the year of a thing? Probably not; it’s probably with the year you’re currently in.

Do you need to know the day of the month first? Probably not unless it’s within the current month so you need to know the month first.

Telling me “22nd” on a paper means nothing if I don’t know what month we’re referring to; and, if I do need to know the year, – well – it’s always at the the of the date so it’s easy to locate rather than parsing the middle of the date, any.

No because the year is a super large time; there’s a reason people always say they take a bit to adjust to writing the new year in dates because it’s s long enough period of time that it almost becomes automatic.

For archiving, sure; most other things, no (logically, ISO-8601 is probably the best for most cases, in general, but I’ll die on the hill that MM-DD-YYYY is better than DD-MM-YYYY).