Schadrach

This is not at all accurate. If a girl wants to play a sport for which there is a boys team but not girls team, she must be allowed to try out and participate on the same basis as the boys (a boys team is really an “everyone” team - this actually applies beyond schools and Title IX as no professional sports league in the US actually bars women from competing). Only girls/women’s teams get to set restrictions with respect to sex/gender. For Title IX, this is a wildly discriminatory interpretation of a low that bans discrimination, but it’s the one that has been in use for years.

And Title IX doesn’t require equal funding, but something much more nebulous about impact and opportunity that makes the whole thing kind of intentionally wishy washy so anyone they need to be can not be in compliance. To make it even more impossible to actually comply, questions of funding and opportunity are not limited to what the school itself supplies, so for example anything donated by parents or volunteers (such as the work of a booster club) also counts. So for example, if you cut funding to a boys team and parents more than make up the shortfall in donations and fundraising, it’s entirely possible based on that you might have to cut it further. Related, this kind of thing is why less popular boys sports are prone to being cut at the drop of a hat - football and sometimes boys basketball make money, most other sports teams lose money so the school is incentivized not to make cuts from King Football or Prince Basketball, but they have to target equal opportunity and impact between boys and girls athletic spending which means they spend what they’re willing to have as a cost on girls teams and cut whatever boys teams they need to cut to avoid cutting into the football budget, because the football budget has an ROI.

Per NFHS website (https://nfhs.org/stories/title-ix-compliance-part-iv-frequently-asked-questions):

FAQ: Does Title IX require that 50 percent of our athletic budget be spent on girls programs and 50 percent be spent on our boys programs? Answer: No. The key to allocating financial resources under Title IX is the overall impact of expenditures – does your school’s allocation of financial resources provide equivalence of athletics opportunities and benefits to boys and girls. Although this will result, in most cases, in an approximate 50-50 budgetary allocation, Title IX does not require a strictly proportional division of dollars.

FAQ: Our school offers soccer for boys, but not for girls. Does Title IX require that we allow girls to play on the boys team? Answer: Title IX requires that in sports where a girls team is not offered, girls must be allowed to try out for the boys team and participate on the same basis as boys. This does not mean that a girl automatically gets to be on the team. She has to try out and make the team on the same basis as any boy would have to try out and make the team. She can also be cut from the team, but only on the same basis as a boy could be cut from the team – for an objectively verifiable lack of ability or a lack of size, strength, skill and experience making participation unsafe.

FAQ: Our school offers volleyball for girls, but not for boys. Does Title IX require that we allow boys to play on the girls team? Answer: No. Although there have been a few, isolated lawsuits where boys have obtained injunctions to allow them to participate on a girls team for which their schools offered no same-sport equivalent for boys, the courts generally rule that the purpose of Title IX is to remedy past inequities of athletics opportunity for the historically under-represented gender – females – and that if boys are allowed to participate on girls teams, they will because of height, weight and strength advantages come to dominate the membership of those teams, and thereby decrease the competitive opportunities for women. Therefore, in the vast majority of cases, the courts have not permitted boys to play on girls teams, even if there is not a same-sport boys team.

The law in question only prohibits biological males from participating in female sports. It does not prohibit females from joining boys teams.

There’s a simple reason for that - the second sentence is required under current interpretations of Title IX, while the first is not. The argument for that is about girl’s sports being a sort of protected space for girls, so it’s OK to bar non-girls (however your jurisdiction chooses to define that) from girls sports, but “boys” sports are actually for everyone who can compete.

i think sport, exspecially in schools, should always be mixed.

Girls’ teams exist entirely to guarantee girls a number of slots, on the presumption that on average in most sports once you hit puberty generally the boys will start to dramatically outperform the girls due to things like size, upper body strength and other traits that are broadly connected to testosterone levels. Then you have things like chess, where you still have a women’s league, but that basically exists because “not enough” women play chess and the notion is that a smaller talent pool broadly means easier competition that will in turn be more approachable.

Mixed teams in school sports as a general practice won’t happen unless specific minimums are mandated, because it would impact competitiveness.

At the same time, under Title IX, if there is no girl’s team and a girl wants to play a sport she must be allowed to try out and must be allowed to play if she can pass try outs. The reverse is not required under current interpretations, leading to a weirdly discriminatory interpretation of a law banning discrimination.

Was going to be my second pick after the considerably more niche VR.5. Which involved the MC entering the minds of people via modem because it was 90s scifi about virtual reality. It also tended to be trippy as hell in a way that is just amazing. Also basically impossible to find without sailing the seven seas, and not easy even then.

Was going to throw Kindred: The Embraced in as a third choice. Also considerably more obscure than Heroes, it was basically a White Wolf Vampire: The Masquerade TV series.

Meh, no process is perfect and sensitivity and specificity are often enemies. Basically, in a lot of cases the more sensitive you make a test to detect something, the more likely it is to accidentally catch false positives.

Sounds like they’ve vastly improved it’s ability to detect, hopefully that didn’t come with false detections for people running unusual hardware or software combinations.

…and yet the elevator pitch “Seth McFarlane wants to be Picard” sounds like it would be awful. But it works.

They don’t give a fuck if murderers and armed robbers get away with their shit.

They care if murderers and robbers get away with their shit, they don’t care if murderers and robbers get away with your shit. Important distinction.

they very likely didn’t know you were a woman,

I didn’t. I don’t usually check the user profile and comment history of whoever I am responding to to verify their demographics before responding.

It was info I already had (which a reader could glean from my comment),

Could they?

do cocaine (although I’m pretty sure it was speed back then, but I’d still take it).

…in response to a reference to cocaine cola. That doesn’t sound like you were aware cocaine cola was actually a thing, but rather sounds like you were saying people weren’t using cocaine much but were doing speed instead, implicitly suggesting cocaine cola wasn’t a thing, at least not commonly.

You did so in comparison to cocaine, in response to something that only mentioned cocaine in the context of cocaine cola. If you say it wasn’t cocaine but speed back then, how am I supposed to get that you are referencing diet pills and not at all contradicting the whole cocaine cola bit?

But yeah, diet pills were basically just speed back then too. I can’t argue that. Not sure why that’s related to cocaine in cola though. Turns out people do all kinds of drugs, especially when readily available.

Getting high as shit has had an important cultural role in most of the world at one point in time or another. Westerners got away from it post-Christendom but even then it’s been a thing basically everywhere at one point or another, unless nothing psychedelic grows there, and even then there are ways to achieve ecstatic states to roughly similar effect through extreme asceticism - if there’s not something to eat or smoke to get there then your shaman might have to starve and dehydrate himself then be suspended in the air through rods run through his chest, but you can get there either way.

Coca-Cola literally used to contain cocaine. It started life as a patent medicine made from coca leaf and kola nut, and expanded from there. By the 1950s they at least on paper were already cocaine free - they switched to “spent” leaves in 1904 (leaves that already had cocaine extracted and so only had what was left due to inefficiencies in the process) and later switched to extract made by a third party that was invested in being thorough in removing the cocaine since they were selling that for medical use as well so any cocaine in the extract sold to Coca-Cola was a loss in their higher-dollar product.

I mean yeah. That said, if the GOP seems to start shining that turd a bit later than this time next year, know that the plan is for Trump to learn the meaning of planned obsolescence.

They want him to make it to Jan 21, 2027, then he can keel over. That way Vance can still qualify for two full terms afterward.

While the effect of not having as much random porn on steam is kinda nice, the underlying reasons for this are fucking horrifying because it’s further proof that some giant american companies (visa, paypal, mastercard) are the global morality police.

They have been for decades. You just aren’t going to see news stories anywhere major when what’s being banned by the morality police is something like loli or zoo content, but stuff no one wants to publicly defend are targeted first to set precedent to justify anything else they might want to ban later.

See the H.L. Mencken quote about defending scoundrels.

The truck owners I know, myself included, use them all the time for towing and like the added utility having the bed as as secondary feature.

Then you put it beside a truck from 30 years ago that’s a quarter the overall size but has the same bed capacity and towing power along with much better visibility instead of not being able to see the child you’re about to run over. And then you understand what people mean when they say massive trucks - giant ridiculously unnecessary things that are all about being a status symbol and dodging regulations rather than practicality.

You underestimate the number of people you wouldn’t class as intelligent. If no one wanted massive trucks, they would have disappeared off the market within a couple of years because they wouldn’t sell. They’re ridiculous, inefficient hulks that basically no one really needs but they sell, so they continue being made.

It’s not “fine”, but it’s also not him acting outside his authority. Fuck, who was the last president that didn’t bomb anywhere without Congress declaring war? Who was the last president to even get Congressional approval before all bombings? I’ll give you a hint, it wasn’t in the last 25 years.

“Trump does thing that other presidents, both Democrat and Republican have done without issue in the past” is poor grounds for an impeachment.

Again, read the rest of the comment. Wikipedia very much repeats the views of reliable sources on notable topics - most of the fuckery is in deciding what counts as “reliable” and “notable”.

that he just wants a propaganda bot that regurgitates all of the right wing talking points.

Then he has utterly failed with Grok. One of my new favorite pastimes is watching right wingers get angry that Grok won’t support their most obviously counterfactual bullshit and then proceed to try to argue it into saying something they can declare a win from.