Installing updates in the background requires special permissions that require google's blessing. For now, the workaround is a Magisk/Xposed/Lsposed module to give those low level permissions to the F-Droid app.
Not anymore since Android 12. As far as I know, if the installation (or update) of app A through app B is approved once, app B is now free to update app A in the background without a prompt.
Yes, but F-Droid isn't on the play store so it wouldn't matter if they get Google's blessing to upload the app to the Play Store. They can just distribute the app with background installing capabilities from their website like they already do.
Disclaimer: I am transgender and i have done actual research on transgenderism a couple years back.
I have seen this firsthand on some acquaintances. Social media has a massive influence on people and there are some persons specifically that have a weaker sense of identity (usually associated with poor development or some mental disorder like schizophrenia, STPD, or BPD), and those persons can be influenced to the point of actually, legit molding their own identity by their own media consumption.
This consumption in most people only plants seeds that will lead to questioning or trying stuff, but won't have a long-lasting impact on their core identity. So for most people this kind of exposition will be something either transitory or will just provide awareness. People grow out of it and it actually it's "just a phase" for many.
So yes people can learn to have a new identity if they don't have a strong core identity formed yet or if it is weak or broken enough.
OTOH, i am unsure what do you mean by a statistical over-representation of GD. There are no bounds set for deviation of the norm for the general population (i.e. normalized rate of growth of % of population that is transgender is not an outlier vs the rate of growth of other emergent behaviors afforded by greater overall inclusion and reduction of discrimination). The places where it is statistically over-represented, like on people within the Autism Spectrum, are under investigation.
In any case the risks of social media brainwashing are not restricted to stuff like disorders but go way beyond and i think the solution to this stuff is, like for many other things, more education and awareness of risks, tradeoffs, what is gender, what is identity, and how they work both intrinsically and within the bounds of social interactions.
> OTOH, i am unsure what do you mean by a statistical over-representation of GD.
This is quite clear to me and I do not think gender dysphoria - which is a DSM-5 diagnosis [1] - is the correct term to use. Compared to previous years or decades (or centuries) there is a markedly higher percentage of children/young adults who "self-identify as 'trans'", often clustered and in waves. This did not use to be so but that does not mean similar phenomena did not occur, they just did not get a diagnosis attached to them. It is highly probable (and feed for a dissertation if there is a university which would accept such a politically charged project) that the same character types who now "self-identify as 'trans'" were those who would style themselves as "goth" or "emo" or (in the late 80's and 90's) "metrosexual" or any other androgynous style. The difference is that these earlier style figures did not come with a diagnosis nor were they adopted by any mainstream political movement and as such were taken less seriously. You could be a goth just like you could be a metalhead or a prep and be part of your in-crowd by just wearing the right clothes (and, for some crowds, make-up) and listening to the right bands. It was accepted as a way for children and young adults to "belong" without coming with much baggage.
> Compared to previous years or decades (or centuries) there is a markedly higher percentage of children/young adults who "self-identify as 'trans'", often clustered and in waves.
I don't see how you could usefully extrapolate a "real" baseline rate based on what prior generations did. Atypical sexual/gender identities have been taboo for almost the entirety of human civilization, and only as these taboos are now being lifted are people able to express these traits without fear of horrific repercussions.
The current wave of "self-identification" was markedly absent in the wake of the '68 revolts and the ensuing "free love generation" which casts doubt upon your thesis. It is far more likely that these current "self-identification" trends are emergent properties of the availability of direct one-to-many communications media - social media and the like - which make it possible for these identity groups to emerge and grow rapidly.
Parent might be falsely inferring an over-representation of GD from the statistical discrepancy between younger and older age groups of those who identify as LGTBQ+.
IIRC, research also shows that those who identify as trans in middle age are much more likely to be happy when they do choose to transition, compared to the younger folks.
I don't see anything to support this in the literature. The overwhelming majority (94-98%) of youth who transition maintain their gender identity many years later as adults. [1][2] It's hard to imagine they would continue treatment if it was making them miserable.
AIUI, another user ITT has mentioned https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33883438 that this is merely statistics of how many transitioners formally pursue detransition, and that the numbers of those who practically desist from treatment are a lot higher than that.
The number of individuals failing to follow up on a study or even treatment for any disease at the same medical office is high, for example it's approximately 50% for _cancer_. [1] You're welcome to extrapolate to your own taste, but it's still simply an unknown -- unlike the people you _do_ have data for.
But the whole question is why people are desisting from treatment that's supposed to help them reaffirm their gender. Everyone knows that cancer treatment has very uncomfortable side effects; it's not surprising that people might neglect that. Gender treatment is literally supposed to make you feel good, by treating disphoria.
Lost to follow up is not necessarily discontinuation of treatment is the issue. The person may have moved out of state or out of country, or simply have moved to be treated by a different physician. Consider also the perspective of the detransitioning person: in trying to reconcile their experience, they project that there must be more people out there like themselves and point to a known unknown to justify it.
Is there any statistical significance to that. Have the emotional baggage and social complexity younger people are dealing with and the share of middle aged people who did or could not transition been accounted for?
I'm a a 3yoe full-stack developer, great for small startups, and mostly oriented to frontend modern tech. Worked in cloud design and deployment, some of the business side of development, and all the common tech for a complete stack.
You're adding a 200% of speed, which is twice the nominal speed (the 100%). Given the nominal speed is 1x and you're adding 2x, you end with triple the magnitude of the original nominal speed.
It would be nice if this were the universal meaning of this phrasing but people do use it to mean both "twice as fast" (2x) and "faster by double the original speed" (3x).
People will rail about them using it wrong but it's pretty useless when you have to basically guess whether people subscribe to your definition of "right" before you can understand something.
After some clever engineering, it now runs 50% faster. Its speed is now 100% (baseline) + 50% (improvement) = 150% of 1 m/s (original speed) = 1.5 * 1 m/s = 1.5 m/s
The budget option runs 20% slower than the original model. Its speed is 100% (baseline) - 20% (derating) = 80% * 1 m/s (original speed) = 0.8 m/s.
Most comments here seem to lean a lot into the lawfulness aspect and that the individuals should be prosecuted, but the platform should be left to its own devices.
But the fat is that organizing criminal activities is a criminal activity! Having a whole platform where there is rampant, blessed-by-the-mods organized crime is not something acceptable. Even if you give credence to the idea that this activity is not representative of the platform as a whole, it is responsibility of the platform to prevent crime being harbored there, just like in any other business.
Morals and ethics are a complex thing, impossible to "solve" in a perfect way, and both restriction and freedom have their costs and benefits for everyone. Maybe instead of understanding this events as the demise of freedom, we could understand them better as a way to learn --as a society-- how to manage this balance properly.
- There also is Paxos[0] as the most significant option.
- You should not have too many nodes to make a decision, this is usually reserved for leaders; if you have a large distributed system you may clusterize them or forward decisions to leaders, whom decide for consensus. If you clusterize, the leaders for each node can also be selected by consensus. If you can't do any of those then having a consensus protocol might not even be a good idea; you'd end up with a sort of merkle tree (or some sort of blockchain) to make sure all the data is registered, or maybe audit transactions. In any case this[1] might be interesting.
The perspective presented re: schizophrenia is awful too.
The author appears to be very ignorant of the last 20? 30? years of research in both schizophrenia and DID. I can tell just at a glance both by having professional experience in those areas, and by having to deal with both disorders of them every day (my life partner has both DID and schizophrenia).
Making this sort of publications without actually acquainting with the state of the art is dangerous, reckless, and frankly just plain insulting.
Freudian/Jungian psychology and its derivatives have done enough damage already, let them die.
First, sorry for being so rude in my previous comment, and what i might put here. There is a lot of misinformation out there (and in the article) and it hurts people in very tangible ways. Stigma and misinformation can very literally kill.
There is a lot of inaccurate information, and a lot of unknowns being taken as fact in this article.
For starters, almost any model of the mind based on ideas of wither Freud or Jung have been thoroughly... i won't say "disproven" because there is no proof for any of this within reach of humanity so far, but they are effectively useless. Those models don't account for a lot of things, lead to wrong outcomes in others, and overall they are a bad way to describe what's going on inside the psyche of a person.
Some characteristics of those models can be inherited into newer models, but basing anything off them will lead to routes that won't be representative of the way the mind of a person works, whether is neurotypical or not.
Having this in the middle of the article demolishes whatever credence one might hope to sustain about what it further develops.
As you point out, the "voices" that schizophrenic people might hear are not a simple auditory hallucination; though just saying it's reasonable to say they are actual selves is taking an idea in a very simplistic way. Here is where the issue begins, a person not versed whatsoever in psychology reads the article and believes as gospel what is said here in a very simplified way, the nuance is lost in the middle.
Whether the voices of a person with schizophrenia, schizotypal disorder, or schizoaffective disorder might actually be discriminated as having the same qualities as a disembodied being, is dependent on the specifics on the case, how is it treated, and how other comorbidities might interact with it. Things regarding mental illnesses are extremely messy and extremely hard to grasp even for trained professionals with specific experience in the area (years to find a psychiatrist qualified enough to treat my partner. years!).
The article contains a lot more bad sources, inaccurate understanding of the self and the inner dialogue (that not even everyone has) and has a haphazard mixture between pop-psych and neuroscience that conflates things that are pertinent to a certain domain as generalizable or universal.
I'm sorry but this is not good and it's not as simple as correcting a thing or two about schizophrenia, because when i read the whole thing it screams "i don't really know what i'm talking about but i will throw a bunch of sources and topics and pretend i do". Maybe you're knowledgeable about this stuff and just the process of simplifying things for the article butchered everything, or maybe you don't really have much idea about what you're writing. In any case if you want i can give you some books/papers/sources, or chat about the subject, feel free to contact me.
I appreciate the apology! Not strictly necessary though, it's the internet after all :) I also appreciate the detailed response.
I'm not sure how much of your criticism to chalk up to disagreement (totally valid!) versus me being factually wrong. E.g. while Jung and Freud have fallen out of favor with mainstream psychology, I and many others find their ideas both intellectually and practically useful. Jung in particular has helped me deal with issues around psychosis and depression. I understand it's not for everyone, but it helped me a great deal, when little else did.
> The article contains a lot more bad sources
Any specific sources I should have avoided? I went through all the links, and it's mainly Wikipedia, Nature, The Atlantic, NYT, etc, aside from one article by Tanya Luhrmann (who I think is brilliant) in Wilson Quarterly (which I know nothing about).
> Jung in particular has helped me deal with issues around psychosis and depression. I understand it's not for everyone, but it helped me a great deal, when little else did.
The same can be said for supernatural belief systems like Christianity: oftentimes people find them useful or helpful.
That doesn't make them true or accurate or related in any way to reality.
Your article has an authoritative tone on a scientific topic. You should fix that, given that modern science has rejected the cited models as without merit.
You are welcome to constrain your thinking to the artificial, speculative Overton Window laid down by The Science (which is based on hypotheses in the Motte version), but some of us choose to do otherwise, thanks.
A claim above is "they are effectively useless" - this is a claim of fact, but science does not know the facts about such matters.
Completely agree. You don't even have to go much further than reading the title with some more intent; How is having a "Clear and Simple Design" not a way of architecting a project?
