Schadrach

Given the Lemmy view on AI, I wonder how many folks are now uninstalling the game and demanding a refund because it's suddenly transformed into "AI slop"? Or demanding it be delisted from Steam since they didn't disclose their use of AI on Steam?

It's weird that both France and Germany are as low down the list as they are, since English is a Germanic language with an absolute fuckton of words rooted from French.

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.

“Brianna Wu is a fucking idiot”

Ahh, I remember when saying anything less than utterly complimentary about Wu was considered transphobic and misogynistic.

She got an awful lot of free passes and clout from "these people are mad at me, and they are mostly right wing" about a decade ago.

And holy fuck was her game terrible. Like bad enough that when I got to try it at PAX East it stood out how awful it was, to the point that when she popped up in other contexts my immediate reaction to the name was "the dev behind that terrible mobile game from PAX". You always expect some indie stuff to not land with you, but usually that sort of thing is at worst forgettable. But this one was so bad it circled all the way back around to memorable, but in the bad way.

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.

The more money someone makes, the few drug tests they take.

The more money someone makes, it's also the less likely they're working a job where people can be seriously harmed or killed by the direct, immediate effects of their behavior on the job. Jim from Sales being on smack is less likely to cause injury or death in the short term than forklift driver Klaus being on smack.

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.

More like 0.7056 IQ move.

Wikipedia is not a trustworthy source of information for anything regarding contemporary politics or economics.

Wikipedia presents the views of reliable sources on notable topics. The trick is what sources are considered "reliable" and what topics are "notable", which is why it's such a poor source of information for things like contemporary politics in particular.