hangonasecond

It's an analogy, not an example. We are significantly further from a theoretical, all powerful, all knowing god than we are from ants. The scale of sentience from "inanimate object" to "all powerful god" is likely to have us mistaken for inanimate object. So the analogy serves its purpose, but of course the specifics are different.

There it is!

I don't know if you're interpreting the situation the same as I am. From my perspective, the other commenter and I are having a pretty genuine discussion from two different points of view about the issue. Being ambivalent or apathetic about the inclusion of pronouns in the email signatures does not preclude someone from joining into the conversation, and it also doesn't preclude someone from having a strong opinion about the surrounding context.

They aren't debating whether or not people should be allowed to use any particular pronouns, just stating a pretty valid opinion that it shouldn't be all that important and in their lived experience it hasn't been. For what it's worth, I actually agree with that stance in a certain sense. I don't think we as a society should be placing any stock into gender or sex or sexuality as something that needs to be declared. However, while we do, and while we still have people ostracising and attacking others for being true to themselves, these are issues that need to be tackled. Maybe one day everyone will be on the same page and we can do away with the social construct of gender all together, and maybe we won't.

I really don't see anything in their comments that indicates they are secretly hateful. I especially don't see enough to presume anything about them as an individual.

Very relevant anecdote! There are definitely a lot of different attitudes to names and pronouns outside the context of gender identity. I personally don't really mind when people get my name wrong, I've got a common name spelt a little differently. On the flip side I've worked with "Matt"'s that are very serious about not being called "Mat", and others still who will refuse to respond if you shorten their full name.

That's a good point. Honestly, given other headlines I've seen and also things I've experienced in my own working life it wouldn't surprise me if HR or legal wasn't involved (or were steam rolled by a signature happy leader surrounded by too many yes-men). In saying that, I'd think it's more likely that they were.

This comment will serve as my springboard to go and find my favourite, gender neutral word for "yes-man".

What about people named Ashley. Or Courtney. Or Kelly. Or Sam. Etc.

Plenty of other commenters here who are similarly ambivalent to pronouns have provided reasons that they can understand their practicality if nothing else.

Sure, for a lot of people being misgendered is nothing but a minor inconvenience. For someone who is used to being intentionally misgendered out of spite, such a small change makes a big difference.

If being misgendered in emails was the only problem trans and non-binary people faced in the world, then maybe saying people should get over it is fine. That isn't the case. This is just one of a million things someone in that situation might experience each day that acts as a barrier to participating in society and it is such an easy one to change. In fact, the situation in question was already working fine. Effort was put in, in response to some misguided outrage, to actively prevent the simple solution.

I understand your position of apathy, and maybe if the cost of addressing this particular issue was high, it would make sense to weigh up the solution, but the cost of this is nil so why not facilitate an easier world for all people.

I'm assuming the 10 Bold part only applies to Australia, just poor grammar. Network 10 is just one of the Australian broadcasters, owned by the same company that owns Paramount. It's the worst it's ever been for accessing our local national league, fwiw.

I'm seeing spurious articles saying we're signing Rashford and it better not happen

They are almost certainly restricting the amount of information they release under the advice of the legal team at the University, in preparation for the impending commercialization. I agree, it'd be great to have the details and to live in a world where all information is free and open. However, we don't on both counts. The assumption that they could only be attempting to mislead people when this isn't even a product for sale yet, is at best naïve and at worst willfully obtuse.

The snippet quoted in the original comments and referenced in subsequent comments refers specifically to the decibel reduction of the frequencies being targeted by the invention, not the volume of the overall sound.

I probably would've lost the job too. I thought exactly the same thing.

I mean, yes. The wiki page for technological unemployment has some good examples, like the mechanised loom being disastrous for artisan weavers.

The big thing is that the effects of new technology causing mass job loss are felt far more severely when the economy is in a bad state. A particular Australian news outlet bragged last year about producing "thousands" of news articles using generative AI. The outlet in question is garbage, but the journalists who lost their jobs (or were never hired) aren't living in a prosperous economic environment where starting an outlet of their own is in any way feasible.

Sure, the whole industry is far from being replaced, but if you have the misfortune of dedicated a good chunk of your life to learning a particular skill only for it to be made redundant due to new technology, you have every right to be afraid and uncertain about the future as long as the safety nets we have are completely inadequate.

Wow private servers aren't uncommon, although I do think they violate the TOS as it stands. I imagine people would continue to use those in the event blizzard shuts the official servers down.