> This implies you don't understand what privilege is. It's very literal. There is no blame in having it. It's not an "us vs. them" thing.
And that implies you don't allow for those who reject the very political and racist concept of white privilege to reject this presupposition. It's not a matter of "understanding"; he's not failing to understand privilege, he's rejecting it and thus doesn't like her pushing those politics on him.
> So?
So he doesn't want to hear her whining about how white men are to blame for bad things that happened to her because he probably doesn't like listening to racist drivel.
> Partially sounds fair if they did a lot of it. What's the problem?
The problem is such thinking is fallacious. Just because bad things happened to her, and white men did it, in no way implies they did it because they're white. They probably all had hair to, does she blame all men with hair? Or to put it more scientifically, correlation isn't caution. What people call white privilege, generally isn't; usually it's just majority privilege which has nothing to do with whiteness and more importantly is not a bad thing at all.
> That's political?
Yes, it was; you don't think it was because you don't accept your own beliefs as political beliefs but rather as reality.
> he's not failing to understand privilege, he's rejecting it and thus doesn't like her pushing those politics on him.
If he understands it then why does he think it's "odd" for her to have a white male husband?
> So he doesn't want to hear her whining about how white men are to blame for bad things that happened to her because he probably doesn't like listening to racist drivel.
When you're talking about abusive behavior online, and you describe the individuals that leveled the most abusive behavior at you, that's not "whining" or "racist".
> What people call white privilege, generally isn't; usually it's just majority privilege which has nothing to do with whiteness and more importantly is not a bad thing at all.
I'm happy to call it "majority privilege" if you want. I'm not sure how you think it's not a bad thing for certain races to get treated better than others, though. (Different ones depending on what area you're in.)
> Yes, it was; you don't think it was because you don't accept your own beliefs as political beliefs but rather as reality.
What beliefs? "The story had to have some kind of genders for the characters"? "It's not a horrible choice to pick the most common genders involved in adult sexual abuse[0]"? "It's possible to design a character with non-political motives"?
[0] Honestly, I think any gender combo would have been fine here. Which ones would you find "non-political"? (Unless you think rape itself is political which would be weird.) And I know there are under-reporting issues for rape against males, that's why I used the term "sexual assault" to avoid miscategorization problems. It's an unfortunate fact that men commit more sexual assaults, and when they are not against children assaulters usually go for the gender they are attracted to. Here's some statistics: https://richardfelson.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/sex-assaul...
The desire is generally for high availability now and ability to scale out in the future; while a single write db is generally more than enough performance wise, it doesn't give you high availability which is the main desire.
There's nothing you can do to eliminate the high speed trading case short of outlawing automated trading. As long as computers can trade, they'll compete on speed and nothing you do can prevent that. You could forcibly slow down trades to 1 a minute, and you'll still have bots competing on speed to be the first trade each minute and they'll still beat humans.
That, and depending on the companies they got data on (i.e. any number of widely traded stocks with large market caps), they could have had a LOT of volume to play with. This is a big deal and it's mind-boggling that the breach happened.
Not quite. If you knowingly acquired the information from an insider and the insider himself would be liable for your trade (e.g. you're a friend or family member), then you could have derivative liability.
> Just because we can't consciously communicate with something it doesn't mean it's not alive.
Strawman, no one thinks life requires communication.
> Why wouldn't Earth be alive?
Because it's not, it's a big rock, it has life on the surface, but is not itself alive.
> We love separating things by arbitrarily naming and defining them, but the universe is completely connected, we can't exist outside of it or disconnected from it.
More strawmen.
> If anything, the only life that exists is the entire universe and we are just tiny tiny pieces of it with a very limited view and awareness of the whole.
The universe is not alive.
What's clear is that you just don't know what you're saying, you're just pontificating woo woo.
Life self replicates, metabolizes something for energy, and grows through cellular division. None of the things you just called alive do that, so they're not alive; you don't get to change the meaning of the word life to suit your narrative.
If you can see it for even a fraction of a second, you do have a minds eye; those with aphantasia can't see anything at all for any length of time. If you can see anything at all, you can improve that with practice.
I always thought of diatonic as playing within a harmonized major/minor scale, even if you change keys. What I'm talking about is music that doesn't obey the rules at all, doesn't have a key, doesn't change keys, it's just random chords thrown together because the artist thought they sounded good. Changing to another key is still playing in a key. Many rock musicians wouldn't know a key if it bit them in the ass.
Roman numerals still presume you're playing on a harmonized scale in a key; not all music fits that as many rock musicians don't know what a key is and pick chords randomly by sound, not by knowing anything about music theory.
And that implies you don't allow for those who reject the very political and racist concept of white privilege to reject this presupposition. It's not a matter of "understanding"; he's not failing to understand privilege, he's rejecting it and thus doesn't like her pushing those politics on him.
> So?
So he doesn't want to hear her whining about how white men are to blame for bad things that happened to her because he probably doesn't like listening to racist drivel.
> Partially sounds fair if they did a lot of it. What's the problem?
The problem is such thinking is fallacious. Just because bad things happened to her, and white men did it, in no way implies they did it because they're white. They probably all had hair to, does she blame all men with hair? Or to put it more scientifically, correlation isn't caution. What people call white privilege, generally isn't; usually it's just majority privilege which has nothing to do with whiteness and more importantly is not a bad thing at all.
> That's political?
Yes, it was; you don't think it was because you don't accept your own beliefs as political beliefs but rather as reality.