I’ve heard people (admittedly only online) advocating for surgery for trans minors, the main argument being that puberty has such a big impact that an earlier surgery often means a much more effective result.

(This is just from memory, I might be getting stuff wrong)

To be fair, the first despicable me was decent imo. But the abominations which followed…

From twitter or like, from the human species?

Then I must be missing a lot of projects, because I don’t know of any which use discord for any of these things, besides questions and answers. And even then, only for informal stuff. Anything more serious goes on GitHub (or alternatives) or forums.

Public forums serve a different purpose to a live chat. Actually what I’m seeing a lot in the comments is people making assumptions about what the purpose of the discord server is, and from those assumptions then conclude that it would be easy to use something else. Some assume that they use it for documentation (???), some assume it’s for technical support. But usually what I see, is that these kinds of servers are just an attempt to build a community. And for building a community in the tech space, discord has by far the biggest user base for a chat solution (unless you really think there are more target audience using Facebook messenger, than discord?)

I’m sorry but where is this random assumption that the documentation is on discord coming from?? It is extremely common for projects/organisations to have some kind of community discord, but I have never seen one that used it as their main documentation host. The discord are almost always just community hubs to chat with other community members.

then don’t brag about being 100% FOSS supporter

You are literally doing exactly what the meme was about lol. A discord alternative may simply not be a viable alternative for their needs, if no one is using it.

A pro Po, bin ich, auch Arsch.

I always read his name as Bankman-fraud

I think where the difference lies is that you are interpreting “cost X lives” to mean “cost X lifetimes of Human experience” while the interpretation I, and articles use is more like “cost X people their status of being alive”

That is not what costing something means. Cost is to lose something which you have, it does not mean to lose the potential to something you don’t have. If an apple costs a dollar, it means you had that dollar, and now you don’t. The impact of the apple was for the number of dollars you have to decrease by one. If you buy it with 100 dollars it obviously doesn’t cost 100 dollars because you get 99 dollars back.

When talking about lives, we don’t get them back. People have lives, and if something causes them to lose them, it means costs them a life.

If I own a car, then after ten years of owning and driving it, I trade it to buy something else, that thing still cost me a car. The amount of car I have does not decrease over time but through use. It’s quality might, but the count does not care about quality. Same with life. People who are middle-aged do not only have half a life, they are still fully alive.

How is the language extreme? For something to “cost lives” means exactly for those lives to be cut short, there is no other meaningful definition. The language used is exactly as extreme as the scenario it describes, by definition.

Do you apply your same logic to other scenarios too? Like would rather that “the tsunami cost the lives of 55 people” be reworded as “the tsunami shortened the lives of 55 people”?

You could say this about anything though. A serial killer isn’t taking lives, merely shortening them. Suicide isn’t ending a life it’s just shortening one. Literally all death can be seen as merely the shortening of an otherwise longer life, which makes your distinction pointless.