Statistical significance of what? The number of people who vaguely see that gender identification is important to some people, but who don’t quite get why is such a big deal so they don’t spend a lot of time thinking about it, which results in some people being somewhat offended sometimes?

What i mean by people taking advantage of the movement for attention has less to do with statistical significance and more to do with the fact that most people hear or experience very little information about gender dysphoria outside of very vocal or exaggerated examples. Is that statistically significant? I’ll try to answer that if you can give me even a ballpark number that you think would define either side of that equation, with the overwhelming guess being that you have no more idea than i do. My examples are anecdotal just like im guessing you’re are.

Your arguing 8 different lines that have nothing to do what i said. You’ve replied to nothing in any grey area, you’ve only taken each example to a black or white extreme and then mocked it. What exactly does statistical significance have to do with 'it’s going to take a bit for the culture as while to understand that, and why, gender is so important.

If you really can’t get you mind wrapped around this, maybe this will help. There are still people violently against trans people existing, and mocking and degrading them isn’t going to help. So you think mocking and degrading people who are at least nominally on you side is a good idea? Do you think driving away people who are almost there is a good way to get people on your side? Or do you think a little understanding on your side might be a better way to go?

So I’m not going to address this whole list of responses to comments you twisted around in order to be offended. I’m not dying on a hill of refusing to treat trans people with respect, my entire comment was aimed at cautioning against getting bent out of shape when people struggle a little bit with a new (to them) bit of culture and language.

Yes, we all understand that it’s not ‘hard’, but no matter how much you want everyone to see it your way, treat it with as much importance as you do, to some it’s going to take a bit and if you take that as an attack and attack back, you’re doing more harm than good.

My takeaway from the entire conversation is that if someone refuses to make a good faith effort at using a preferred pronoun, they’re a dick. If someone understands the importance and makes a moderate good faith effort but struggles getting it right and you judge or mock them for it, you’re the dick. And that second audience is bigger than you give credit for.

That’s where you lose the argument entirely. We don’t have to tolerate the intolerant… Nothing i said suggests that outside of your insistence on being offended. You don’t tolerate the worst examples of the other side, but you at least take a breath to try to understand the well intentioned members who don’t see things your way.

Except for the most extreme cases you can come up with, nothing is black and white, everything is grey, and your insistence that i must be a bad guy because i challenge anything makes you not terribly worth engaging.

Except for those baiting the conversation, everyone has reasons for feeling how they do on a topic, even if it’s just defaulting to it because of their social circle, but you are not a good champion of the cause of all you can come up with is mocking straw men arguments and feigning indignance.

Just a guess here, but are you that desperate to get offended at something that you have to double down on everything you find? Where in my comment did you find an opening for someone politely correcting a preferred name, to turn it into a snarky taking over the person.

I fully understand that it isn’t hard to use gender neutral or specific pronouns, and that they comfortably fits within many sentences, but you seem to be insisting that that there are no circumstances where someone might struggle… Can you really think of no insurance where they sounds at least ambiguous, like when it’s unclear if you are talking about a specific person or a group of people, and then stumbling trying to correct, then wonder if you should correct, maybe that’s offensive… Just because you use a simple example doesn’t justify the snark surrounding how others don’t have to pay to do it.

Just because people in the past (and present) have overreached or minimized groups doesn’t mean no one can have a valid thought in that direction. You may want to dismiss or ignore those that take advantage of the gender topic purely for the attention, or lie about sexual abuse for revenge or money, but that doesn’t make it disappear. Understanding that the bad apples don’t invalidate the group is fair, but you’re using the vocal objections as false flags just as much as the media used the false arguments as reasons to minimize the groups themselves.

You seem to be primed to take everything as bad faith almost intentionally. Not understanding that arguments have two sides is what keeps conversations from happening, not what settled them. Yes, it is not a huge burden to remember someone’s pronoun, but people have a lot on their mind and something that has been one way for the majority of most people’s lives is absolutely going to take some time ‘not to get wrong’ even for people who are honestly trying, yet you act as though it’s rude not to suddenly find it natural. If i told you I’d find it rude not to remember everyone’s favorite color, would you jump to making an effort to learn everyone’s favorite color? Now, was your first instinct when reading that example an indignant response that it was insensitive because ‘favorite color’ isn’t as identifying as a person’s gender?

I understand that many people discount a person’s gender or sexual preference, or even sexual abuse in order to minimize it, use examples of people taking advantage of it, or lying about it in order to dismiss the larger group of people who have real claims and preferences and experiences… But those things come from a real place too, and trying to bully or shame people for it is the same thing you accuse others of.

Honestly this conversation has gotten far too broad to even address all the differences of opinion we have, but if there’s one thing we might be able to agree on is that people don’t like being minimized, whether it’s about their gender, or if it’s their struggle with understanding sometimes struggle with gender. If you insist on insisting that the only valid argument is that everyone takes it as seriously as you do, you’re accomplishing a net negative for the cause.

Until you’re that rural person dropped into a convention center with people wearing name tags with their preferred pronoun and almost no understanding of how to actually use those pronouns appropriately.

For the most part, it’s amazing how seldom pronouns actually get used in referring to any specific person. Even if Bob uses he/she/they relatively often, the he/she/they being referred to is a specific person and the number of times Bob uses the word ‘she’ when referring to Sally is related entirely to how often Bob talks about Sally, specifically with other people. That might literally be never/once a year/once in his lifetime/etc.

If the vast majority of the time Bob talks about other people, they’ve not mentioned any preference, it’s understandable if he struggles when the need comes up, mid conversation, to substitute a ‘they/zhe/xer’ where he has only every used he/she (they still sounds plural to most people), and to remember off the top of your head a pronoun you’ve only seen on a name tag one time, roughly amounts to remembering everyone’s name and their hometown. Of course the impact is lessened by the fact that you will rarely have to refer to some specific person in third person when you don’t even remember their name, and in that case ‘they’ is kind of a fallback anyway.

Perhaps an undesirable outcome is that if the pronoun is a hurdle to overcome, it’s easier for Bob just not to bring Sally up at all, a possibly unfortunate result because it might have been an interesting conversation that is now simply avoided.

We’re still in the growing pains version of it, though, where there are far too many people taking advantage of a legitimate position just for the attention. This isn’t unique to the gender conversation, but it definitely suffers from it.

Another issue is that there is a component of needing to be vocal and firm or no one will take you seriously, but it’s a fine line between that and being obnoxious and over-asking…reminding someone who wants to be considerate is good, being offended at someone intentionally mis-labeling may be necessary, but being offended by honest mistakes or berating someone for not realizing zhe or zher or some newly defined label was a thing definitely hurts the cause.

Well ‘no benefits’ is a bit of a stretch.

You’re probably getting suggestions for what she should do different because, at least at a starting point, it could just as easily be something her phone is doing before sending as it is something your phone is doing on the receiving end.

I’ve had a phone say ‘video to big, do you want to crop or share through abc app’ before. Don’t recall the exact message, but seems more likely than you phone downgrading something it’s receiving.

This is a really old message, but if you’re still having the same question i could try to answer, but that kind of message is pretty context dependant. For that specific one, it sounds like your program is trying to access something outside your network, like they have a website they need to access to check for updates or something.

A benign scan could just be looking for an ftp server to connect to or a repeater or relay server of some sort. There are plenty of open services people make available for free and the fact that you would consider it an attack it doesn’t make it one.

At minimum you could be alerted to look for someone attempting to connect to your ftp server with a single basic anonymous authentication vs someone flooding that port with known malicious software attacks, and block the latter across your entire network and effectively ignore the former. Really it seems like you’re advertising your lack of imagination in this context than a legitimate lack of possible uses for spoofing open ports.

That’s probably a majority of the point. Falsely report that some interesting ports are open and he’ll spend time on them and potentially trigger alerts or blocks.

Fake open ports aren’t something a normal user would bother with or understand, but with all the tools available in the nefarious side, it makes sense to have options that make their job harder if you’re willing to use them.

Maybe what you’re referring to is along the lines of a port being open but the software on the other side of it not sending acknowledging responses?

At a guess, you might tell the difference between some benign scan and an attempt to actually take advantage of the port, perhaps to use as a trigger to automatically ban an ip address? or a way to divert malicious resources to an easy looking target so they are less available in other areas?

The difference between someone scanning for open ports and someone attacking a port they find open seems significant enough to at least track and watch for patterns… Whether that’s useful for the majority of users or not is rarely why a feature is implemented.

Maybe think of it like one of those big walls of post office mailboxes…behind the wall is your computer and an app might be waiting for a message at box 22 or box 45678. You could close all the boxes and nothing could get in, or you could open one or all of them and allow people to deliver messages to them.

If you connect your computer directly to the internet, anyone who knows your IP address could say 'deliver message X to port 22 at ip address <your ip address> and the program watching that box would get the message.

If you put a router in the mix, and multiple computers, the router has the same block of boxes, but if someone sends a message to one of the boxes it just sets there. If you set up ‘forwarding’, sending a message to your ip address gets the message to the router, but if you forward box 22 from your router to a specific computer on your network, then the router takes a message at box 22 on itself and ‘forwards’ it to box 22 on whatever computer you specific (using internal ip addresses).

You could map box 22 on your router to any other box on your computer…like port 22 coming into your router might get sent to port 155 on your computer…this is useful if you don’t want external people just exploring and lazily breaking into your computer using known vulnerabilities. Lots of ports are ‘common’, so an ftp hack on port 22 is easy, and might be ‘slightly’ harder if you tell your computer to actually look for ftp traffic on port 3333 or something.

I think this is a little over-simplified. If there are only a few tables it likely happens, but with current staffing, even before covid, if a servers section is full there’s no way they can watch for tiny signals from every table. Heck it’s hard to even catch your servers attention in most restaurants during busy times between when they are taking orders and actually serving other tables.

Sub-protocol here…you can walk on the right but don’t stand on the left. Kind of like the fast and slow lanes on the road.

Not really debatable, that’s the actual rule. An before words that start with a vowel sound.

Because an precedes a word that starts with a vowel sound, not just because they start with a vowel letter