Increasingly going to apply to the new laws coming to the real world and online. It's actually a thing coming up on the UK's Criminal Justice Bill designed to expand laws criminalising homelessness could inadvertently if passed, make it illegal to be unattractive in public.
We don't want a software equivalent of Boeing but that's where I fear we are heading if they succeed. Might not be as deadly as a Boeing mistake but I'd rather not run the risk of having my data wiped because of a need to fulfil diversity quotas in contributors meant someone who didn't know what they were doing put in a critical bug (it's already happened in the Steam Linux client).
They thought of people forking code and have safeguards to ensure people can't work around their purity tests and policing. I think eventually we'll see licences implemented on code that will ban use or contributions to it on "ethical" grounds.
Fork the kernel before it had the Code of Conduct but the problem is, contributors will only ever contribute code to the mainline kernel plus you're going back years, would lose compatibility with modern day devices and programs. BSD has this ideology infecting it too.
TempleOS is fast becoming the only OS without this ideology infecting it.
We used to have meritocracy where code stood on its own merit and was accepted or rejected. Now those who do the coding (likely to be neuroatypical, low social status and high in intelligence) are labelled problematic and therefore should be excommunicated from FOSS. Subsequently those who are replacing them work on ideology where contributions are based on how oppressed you are and little to no actual coding gets done.
Forking code now appears to not be an option either as they've cottoned on to that prospect to avoid their Internet policing and purity testing. In the same way that a hobby gets co-opted and people move elsewhere, their opponents follow.
Pre-selection in action.
It's why middle aged divorced men have much better outcomes in dating compared to their long term single male counterparts. It's also why you get more female attention when you have a partner. Men are more attractive when they are in a relationship or have the receipts that they have had a relationship.
Evopsych doesn't disprove all of these theories and observations made by evolutionary biologists. But I haven't seen any other attempt to discuss human nature other than "God dunnit". It's certainly more logical than the blank slate concept, evolution stops at the neck and the human brain and the (il)logical aspects of it can't be studied.
Briffault's Law is just a coined term. It's a general observation, no different from saying that people are heterosexual. Homosexual people existing doesn't invalidate the general observation. You can still have intrasexual competition while still understanding that society panders to the biological sex that bears the most cost in reproduction (women). Same with a small percentage of men having the choice of the dating market. These things don't disprove the rule.
ETA: Alexander from DatePsychology did a video in the last few days regarding what seems like two contradictory concepts - hypergamy and assortative mating but they can co-exist and both be true at the same time.
We've always been gynocentric from tribes to the modern day. Feminism is the politicisation of female nature. And this has been a thing before women were given suffrage. What changed is technology - the birth control pill, reduction in labour intensive jobs with health and safety laws, online dating and other changes.
Let's not forget the last two letters of what TERF stands for - "Radical Feminist".
I have always suspected Rowling and other advocates like her will only be happy with one solution - biological women spaces and men's spaces will become open spaces where anyone including biological women can enter if they wish. As a start.
Oddly enough, this contempt and erasure of men's identity won't be looked into by Police Scotland under its new hate crime law because misandry is deemed not a hate crime.
Humans are traditionally a tournament species but we adopted pair-bonding as a necessity for a functioning society when we implemented civilisation and farming. Cue the birth control pill, social media, online dating and a raft of other cultural changes which freed women from the consequences of unplanned pregnancy and expectations on men to make a good wife out of the woman he got pregnant plus allowed both to explore sexuality with relatively no cost. Now look at what's happening in the dating market, the top tier men have several women on the go, women are chasing and potentially sharing the top tier men and most men are getting little to no attention.
I would say that you're being conservative and optimistic in the ages for men. I would suggest that things become difficult when you hit your 30's (there is no "fine wine" moment for men unless you want to become a sugar daddy) and impossible by your 40's. Particularly for long term single men. We know that middle aged divorced men have better outcomes in dating compared to their long term single peers and we also know that if a man is unmarried at 40, he's likely to remain unmarried (as well as not father a child or even find a partner).
Humans have never lived in a patriarchy. In a sexually dimorphic species, it is the biological sex that bears the most cost who determines the conditions for a species. In humans, that is women. It is the basis of Briffault's Law.
"The female, not the male, determines all the conditions of the animal family. Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place".
The idea that humans are a pair bonding patriarchy until the big bad feminists turned up and women were given the right to vote does not tally with all the studies and recorded data I have seen.
I have heard humanity described by a modern day online philosopher as "powered by orgasm". It's wrong to assume that men built things and women are subservient, it's that men built things so women continue the species. After all, it's why MGTOW is a small minority of men going their own way whole feminism has political, social and cultural power. Men in unison on a sex strike only need a few outliers to undermine it (such as the top tier men) but women doing the same thing could bring down your society in a generation. Fact, men have built everything around us for women. Everything you take for granted today has been done for this manner. Those roles for men and women are hardcoded into our biology. We've always been a gynocracy.
Evolutionary psychology is the best scientific explanation so far for how humans have evolved and progressed.
The problem is that paywalling everything isn't a sustainable model for individuals and households. Life will get prohibitively expensive if everything was paywalled. It would also herald the time of "you will own nothing and you'll be happy".
We've always been gynocentric. Even the oldest religions have a basis in gynocentrism.
What changed is our social dynamics between men and women. Less physical labour, the birth control pill, welfare and so forth that allows women to survive independently of men. If anything, we're seeing the beginning of the transition back to the sexual strategy humans naturally follow - a tournament species. Where a small number of high value men monopolise the dating market, children are raised collectively in alloparenting by the women and most men get nothing but work and pay taxes in return for being a member of society.
Another offensive truth - women over 30 have more options than the average male. If they're not pursuing those options, they have voluntarily left the dating market. Said women expect the top tier of men to commit to them after one night but said women are seen by said men as practice while those men have younger options.
I've dropped as much Google as is practically possible years ago. There is the odd thing or two you can't avoid because they're exclusive (and likely the first up against the paywall) and unavailable on alternative sites.
This is yet another warning to those who haven't because of laziness, inconvenience or investment.
Google's traditional search engine would remain free of charge but would continue to appear with ads alongside searched-for content, which subscribers would also see, the FT said.
The article states that traditional searching will remain free but the Financial Times article contradicts it by stating that ads will appear for subscribers so it looks like there will be a subscription for traditional searching, if not now, in the future. Free and ads or pay with the same amount of ads makes zero logical or financial sense.
Time to switch search engine if you've been putting it off.
Eventually we'll see splinternets where every country has its own Intranet, regulated and licensed by the Government and sold to you as both digital sovereignty and protecting digital borders through monitoring and survelliance "for your own safety". While Internet access is restricted to the Government and companies for international trade and as a middle man for the public if they wish to communicate to someone outside of the country or purchase an item for import via said company Intranet portal.
We've also got the desire to abolish anonymity, likely through both Government photo ID and live (ongoing) facial recognition. The likelihood of VPN's, Tor and proxies being made illegal. And to "protect the children", proposals to ban technology for under 16's.
The powergrab to splinter off the Internet into manageable country wide chunks by states is beginning. We're a long way away from what the Internet used to be.