"(I find it sad because to me it’s turned a serious movement for which very brave women had to fight hard into a joke.)"
What you're seeing there is an effect of the internet, not an effect of shifts in feminist movements. The internet gives everyone a place to speak which is great but the loudest/most astonishing/most disruptive voices are the ones that come out on top. Not the majority, not the thoughtful, not the ones who take action, not the voices who would like to have a conversation. If you dive past the surface I don't think you'd find modern feminism a joke and think that it has grown and matured. But I'm just one opinion
This is "WhatAboutism". Not all dangers are equal and therefore should be treated differently. In society we try to limit danger to whatever we think is an acceptable level (which is totally made constantly up for debate). Saying that the universe is dangerous and so any other danger is irrelevant doesn't hold.
I'm not really expressing an opinion on weed or anything, just the flawed logic.
No -- the nanny state is what I'm not for, so my argument has nothing to do with pot but more with the perception that safety is a requirement for something to be legal/accepted by society.
Your logic is forcing me to draw parallels with marijuana that I don't want to, but this reasoning is not very persuasive.
Why shouldn't safety be a requirement for something to be legal? Should drunk driving be legal? Should firing a gun in a crowded place be legal? Should serving food that's contaminated with a poisonous substance be legal?
I know that marijuana isn't harmful in the way shooting a firearm or poisoning someone's food is. But this line of reasoning--"never consider safety when determining what's acceptable"--is ludicrous.
My use case where Vue fits better is in lots of isolated reusable components that aren't tied to a global state. So an image slider or datepicker for example.
But I would consider React and Vue for building a larger scale, stateful application like Spotify or Slack.
That's definitely a thing in Germany. Pretty much all job posts there have that.
It's there because of anti-discrimination laws. Job titles and occupations in German always have a gender associated with them (it's just the way the language is), but companies aren't allowed to discriminate. So it's shorter and easier to put (m/f) at the end rather than having to always list both gender forms of job titles every time the job title comes up.
English still has some of those gender forms for older professions. For example, there's waiter/waitress so instead of always writing "waiter/waitress" they just write "waiter" and then put (m/f) at the end to indicate that they will hire either gender.
Agreed, but adding that in Dutch a shift was even made to always designate with the male form, regardless of gender. So a "directrice" (Dutch, which would mean something like "directress" in English, a female director) then overnight became a "directeur" ("director"), with no sex change.
Myself, I saw the familiar m/f designations here, and wondered whether that is still desirable, given the emerging use of additional designations?
It's a language thing. Many languages have genders attached to nouns, and the formulation is different for males and females. So in German, for example, a job posting might be for an Engineer (Techniker (m); Technikerin (f)), but instead of saying Techniker oder Technikerin, they will just write Techniker (m/f).
To me the recognizing of the letter is a whole lot more impressive than knowing facts about it (If we're talking about OCR).
In your example a computer could very easily learn those simple facts, just like you did. It's nothing to tell a program how to classify a piece of data. You didn't use some crazy learning when you attributed A to being part of a Latin alphabet, someone just told you that fact and you saved it and classified A into the Latin alphabet.
What you're seeing there is an effect of the internet, not an effect of shifts in feminist movements. The internet gives everyone a place to speak which is great but the loudest/most astonishing/most disruptive voices are the ones that come out on top. Not the majority, not the thoughtful, not the ones who take action, not the voices who would like to have a conversation. If you dive past the surface I don't think you'd find modern feminism a joke and think that it has grown and matured. But I'm just one opinion