The problem is that the locals cannot find housing themselves. Laws like this protect the common people of Amsterdam at the expense of the flat owners inalienable right to exploit them
Why is it an important problem? We have hormonal and non-hormonal UIDs, many different types of pills, rings, and not to mention _condoms_ which actually prevents STDs. I don't have a problem with other guys heating their balls up, but where is the important problem?
Why must women must be the ones that compromise by having a medical intervention? Don't they also have the right to be "squeamish" about having an IUD or their hormones altered?
>don't they get the right to be squeamish about having an IUD or their hormones altered?
IUD exist without any hormones, and taking hormones generally are safe and extemely well tested. Saying "hormones altered" shows your bias, and you don't think blasting your balls with heat "alters" your hormones? Certainly men who get vasectomies produce less testosterone.
>> and taking hormones generally are safe and extemely well tested.
Well, if you are willing to accept an increased risk of cancer, sure, "extremely safe". Like, don't get me wrong, it's still one of the best options for pregnancy prevention, but let's not pretend like the pills are candy - they aren't.
What is "Shows your bias" supposed to mean here? Look: There are women who don't like hormonal birth control. They feel bloated &etc. Trust me on this.
> IUD exist without any hormones
Yes, and theoretically and by the numbers it's effective, but did you know that it hurts to put one in? It's actually not a small ask. If a woman chooses it herself without prompting, fine. And in the context of a really long term relationship where you can "have a conversation", maybe. But it's not a little thing. In fact, it hurts enough that it can create a fair amount of resentment.
> you don't think blasting your balls with heat "alters" your hormones?
Actually no, that's not the mechanism at work here.
> Use condoms.
Well, that's reasonable advice, though you still do want to use multiple methods.
We have tested methods of birth control for women. We have untested and/or not as effective and/or not as safe methods for men. These methods also alter your hormones, the testicles are where the male hormones are produced. (We also have condoms guys)
The "important problem" should be to have _even safer_ birth control, not male birth control.
A vasectomy does not inhibit testosterone production and the hormones in existing birth control have been shown to cause blood clots, migraines and other serious issues for women taking them.
Condoms require proper use every time and are not as effective as other methods.
Females have a wide range of birth control options, all highly effective. However, they are all entirely under the woman's control. They can stop birth control without the man even knowing about it.
This isn't some conspiracy theory, either. Women do show up to gynecologists to ask them to remove their IUDs with the explicit intent to have a child regardless of their partner's wishes. This is not considered rape.
Male contraception eliminates this problem. Men are now in direct control of whether their sperm is able to fertilize. Just like women are currently in control of whether they ovulate.
If your relationship balance and trust is based on whether or not your partner can secretly make babies with you without your consent, that is something to be addressed (in a human way, not by using ultrasound on your testicles).
Relationships are hard and often imperfect. People often lie and act irrationally. I've seen justifications like "he won't leave me if I have a baby with him".
As men, this is absolutely something that we should worry about.
They are hard and can be imperfect. More importantly, you cannot have a good relationship founded on this kind of thinking:
> People often lie and act irrationally.
If that is your fundamental truth in interacting with your partner(s), your relationships will never really get anywhere. It is just not good advice to tell people to do so, unless you want them to never create meaningful connections with their partners.
My experiences with relationships are overwhelmingly positive. However, there's always a non-zero risk that such a maneuver can happen. I've seen it happen, many times. Even in otherwise happy couples. Are you willing to bet your future on it?
Betting your future on your partner is the whole point of having a shared household. You and I must have a significantly divergent of what a positive relationship looks like.
> You and I must have a significantly divergent of what a positive relationship looks like.
I guess. I've never had reason not to be open about these issues and it's never disrupted trust in the relationship. I've discussed these ideas with every partner I've ever had. They weren't offended, they understood. Many even had their own stories of unplanned pregnancies to share.
My girlfriend lets me give her the trimestral birth control injections.
> But this doesn't make a difference either because now the man can stop going to the ball blasting session.
It makes a huge difference. Actually it changes everything. With male birth control, there are 4 possible outcomes:
1. Man and woman don't use birth control.
Conception is likely.
2. Man uses birth control. Woman doesn't.
Conception is unlikely.
3. Man doesn't use birth control. Woman does.
Conception is unlikely.
4. Man and woman use birth control.
Chance of conception is astronomically low.
Notice how conception is only likely when both partners want it.
When only women have access to effective birth control, they have a lot more leverage and therefore power:
1. Man has no birth control. Woman doesn't use hers.
Conception is likely.
2. Man has no birth control. Woman uses hers.
Conception is unlikely.
Currently, the choice to have children rests almost entirely on the female. All she needs to do is secretly stop her birth control.
> The main issue is trust, and why are you having unprotected sex with people you don't trust in the first place?
Trust should not be necessary for a matter of this importance. Children should only be born when both partners consent. It's as simple as that.
Also, condoms are not particularly effective at contraception. The statistics assume perfect use and that doesn't happen in reality. Their main purpose is protection against sexually transmitted diseases. That isn't perfect either.
What kind of relationship do you think you're building without any trust and explicitly telling your partner you don't trust her by both of you using contraceptives?
> What kind of relationship do you think you're building without any trust and explicitly telling your partner you don't trust her by both of you using contraceptives?
One where I don't end up with children I didn't plan to have.
> Let the fairer sex have some power
They do have the power to prevent conception. That's nice.
They should not have the power to have our children without our consent. The reasons for this should be obvious to anyone. I'm honestly surprised it's not considered rape.
Actually I've had it happen quite a few times, but it's been my own fault every time either for using condoms that were too thin or the wrong size when I first started using condoms or being drunk when putting them on.
Right, as you yourself admit - it has nothing to do with trust. You can absolutely trust or not trust someone, and a condom can still break, maybe because you made a mistake, maybe for some other reason, but trust isn't the "main" issue.
Condoms are not very reliable (historically about 90% pregnancy prevention effectiveness over a year) due to issues with using them.
The other methods can fail due to misuse (missing a pill or get the timing wrong) or be removed without the partners knowledge - which does happen surprisingly often.
It says that with an IUD if you get pregnant it's more likely that it will be an ectopic pregnancy, and those are by very definition extremely dangerous to the mother and treated as medical emergencies most of the time.
"It is the most common cause of death among women during the first trimester at approximately 6-13% of the total"
IUDs greatly reduce overall risk of pregnancy. The risk is not zero, though. When IUDs do fail, and they will, they increase the risk of ectopic pregnancies. The vast majority of those are located in the uterine tubes. Those are life threatening. There is no space for the fetus in the tube, it will rupture and cause severe bleeding which can and will kill the mother if left untreated. It's an important cause of acute abdomen.
The little asterisk you see on those 98% numbers is important, as it ignores the real life variables that come up. At least according to this planned parenthood link [https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/birth-control/condom...] found when tracking down some data (they do a lot of birth control), it’s actually even worse - 15 out of 100 couples using them consistently get pregnant every year, so 85% real world effectiveness.
Not saying either side is the only one who ever does weird things - noting that ideally, each side would be able to make a choice and have it stick, and it would require both sides consent for a child.
98% if used correctly, which they aren’t. Now I guess one could say “well then that’s a personal problem - people should just use them correctly”.
But the problem we want to solve is poor control over family planning, not blaming people for making human mistakes. We do that by developing better contraception options, for both men and women.
Assumes perfect use. The real figure is lower. Condoms simply can't compete with other contraception methods. Their main purpose is prevention of sexually transmitted diseases.
Uhh Id be concerned about this for the same reason, do we know the effects of repeatedly microwaving my balls on cancer and future fertility (both ability to get a woman pregnant and rate of birth defects)?
I honestly believe that the leaders at Mozilla are actively trying to ruin Firefox, and are perhaps paid off/run by people with interests in another competing browser. Even if that's the case I can't keep using this shitty browser, Chromium here I come
It's really amazing how far Firefox has fallen. This used to be a browser people bought TSHIRTS for. TSHIRTS! And wore them! And not just in SV: I'd see them in the wild in small cities too.
The discussion is always the same, I'm not sure what can be added at this point. Yes the way they're actively destroying it is mystifying, yes, maybe money issues are part of that but god can't you just make your own browser? Mozilla's problem, more than any specific incident like this, is that they've become completely incapable of thinking for themselves. Everything is a follower move, trying to find something popular and than emulating it.
I'll continue to use FF, but only because it's easier to massively "tweak" into a usable product than chrome.
They fired Eich and turned from a company of smart engineers and users of their product to randos who work on weird projects using their big paycheck from Google.
Their products suck because they don’t care about them. They don’t genuinely want to compete with or anger Google for fear of losing funding.
They’d be better off cutting down to a lean $5/year spend and just making a browser.
A lot of their lack of focus predated Brendan Eich's 11 day CEO tenure. By 2014 Firefox had already lost a ton of mindshare and Mozilla was working on their unsuccessful Firefox Phone.
In retrospect it seems firefox phone was actually a good idea, it’s been reborn as KaiOS and doing great. Pretty embarrassing for Mozilla to fail and cancel the project and then have another company take it and succeed…
Eichs short lived reign was a symptom, not a cause. The decision to put him there was certainly a decision made by an executive board that is out of touch.
I don't care how few users Firefox has. I do care that the product has become a pile of garbage. I already tolerate the dumb tab bar, the update nag screen that interrupts my work, the telemetry setting that doesn't actually disable telemetry, the web services I don't want like Pocket, the ads, the memory issues that hobble my machine when I stream video...
I won't move to a browser like Chromium with a connection to Google, but I'm moving to something. I'm done with Firefox.
And what browser would that be? Mozilla keeps doing these things because they're desperately searching for a revenue stream that doesn't make them beholden to their biggest competitor. There aren't any other viable options because no one else knows of any better revenue streams for web browsers either
To avoid significant layoffs they'd something like 10% of their user base to donate $20/year. I'm far from an expert on nonprofit finances, but that strikes me as a tough but potentially doable goal
The reason I stopped donating to Mozilla is because they have too many people not doing things I think are important and are paying their executives too much.
None of these projects have enough resources to keep up with web standards, and patch security bugs on their own. So forks are either almost the same as Firefox, or may be less secure and/or doesn't work for as many websites and addons as Firefox.
Try LibreWolf -- it's Firefox with the nasty stuff stripped out. You can use your existing Firefox profile, but be sure to go through LibreWolf's settings as some of the defauts may be different than what you already have set up (they select privacy-protecting options by default).
If you're on Linux, exclude it from automatic updates in your package manager, and it won't interrupt you. On Windows, you should be able to set app.update.auto to false in about:config, but I don't know if that still works.
Try Brave, really. I always had issues with Chrome and RAM usage. Brave behaves better, plus the UI is slick.
People here complain about it having some sort of cryptocurrency embedded, but it's opt-in, so as long as you don't enable it, I don't see the issue. Plus it comes with an ad-blocker / anti-tracker out of the box.
Seems to me that Brendan Eich actually knows what he's doing.
Using Brave right now and no stupid popups. Make sure you turn off "Brave ads" or whatever causes popups. Always scan through every option in Settings at least once and turn all the junk off. The only mild annoyance left after doing this is that sometimes the new tab page has a little box shilling some Crypto coin biz which you can then silence. If this is all I have to suffer in order to fund a solid de-googled Chromium it's not too bad.
We don't put any popups anywhere by default. Are you sure the website wasn't trying, which flies a permission prompt same as in Chrome and other browsers?
I turned on the special, approved Brave ads thing last time I used it because I wanted to support Brave; and they only showed up as little pop ups on the systray and were infinitely more annoying to me than a static banner ad.
You click on them to open new tab pages if interested, can thumbs down and lower frequency in ads settings. You also get 70% of the sponsored images shown in 1 of 4 new tab pages. Static banner isn’t going to perform as well, so I hope you will give ads a try again. You could even turn off notifications but keep the sponsored images.
I think those ads are much better. In-page ads interrupt my content, claim my attention when I want to see something else, and distract from the page (and sometimes even break it). Ad-heavy pages are nearly unusable, especially on lower-power mobile devices. OTOH, I don't mind a popup once per hour - it's not modal, does not require me to do anything, does not consume resources and I can easily deal with it whenever I want. Page popup ads are infuriating, but Brave ones never really bothered me.
Before reading TFA, I would have called you paranoid. Now I wonder... Excluding Firefox from my package manager won't work for long -- surely I'll have to update, just for security purposes. Does anyone know of a good Firefox fork?
Just so I understand you, is your position that Sundar Pichai or Tim Cook or whoever is approaching Mozilla employees in dark alleys, Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory Slugworth style, and offering cash to covertly sabotage the product?
There is not a political component to this, we (Sweden) have probably the most objective and science based Health system in the world. For this reason we get criticized by other nations for not having lockdowns and not wearing masks, there is no indication that these actually work and they probably cause more harm than good. Our leaders have shown great competence to follow the science and not make a knee-jerk reaction to what France and America are doing.
If Moderna is clearly worse than Pfizer, then why shouldn't we stop it?
Except your scientist(s) were wrong this time and killed 10 times more people by not implementing quick and mild restrictions and letting the disease spread. Sure, what US and France did was also different kind of wrong but it does not make you right. Only thing that has been life saving is very quick reaction that limits the spread at its infancy. Also of course quick vaccination.
>Except your scientist(s) were wrong this time and killed 10 times more people by not implementing quick and mild restrictions and letting the disease spread.
This is the dumbest hunk of shit I've ever heard. We have the exact same death rates and infection rates as the rest of Europe.
Maybe at the moment but not during spring 2020. Other Scandinavian and Baltic states did not do the mistakes Sweden did and their death rates were 10 times lower. Also see Greece vs Spain and Italy. Well, Italy and Spain did not have change because they were the first to get hit by COVID-19 but Sweden had plenty of time to not make mistakes.
But perhaps Sweden is better off than others. You have now less burden on social system and economic loss was perhaps a little smaller, not much but perhaps still worth the sacrifice.
Give me any country in Europe and I'll show you when their rates were 10 times higher. Corona hits mostly in waves, the only worthwhile numbers to compare are the totals over the entire pandemic, not a specific period. We certainly wouldn't "sacrifice" our citizens for the economy.
Yes, it hits in waves and every wave should be handled properly. It is pointless to compare totals. It is important to understand what can be done better and for that it makes sense to analyze each wave separately. Sweden miserably failed the first one and did not really care about others. Other Scandinavian and Baltic countries fared much better but could not continue to make perfect choices. Baltic is at the moment totally messed up by their poor vaccination rates.
But if you insist to compare totals, here is small list. Not really 10x difference but close.
Deaths per 100000
Sweden 144
Denmark 46
Finland 20
Norway 16
For sure, there are countries with even worse outcome. Still presenting Sweden as some kind of success story makes me sick.
Well you did surprise me, I didnt expect Finland and Norway to be so low. Although these along with Iceland are outliers in Europe to say the least and Sweden is well in the middle. The baltics is comparable to Sweden.
But the reason we have more deaths than our neighbours is not because of no lockdowns, Finland was also very lenient. A _massive_ proportion of all of our deaths were from the nursing homes. The thing we did really bad was to not have any way to check the workers in the nursing homes for covid, which they did in Norway I know for sure and very likely in Finland. Had we done that then we likely would have the same as our neighbours, but don't pin it on lockdowns, they DON'T work.
That's actually not true, people who got the first dose of moderna will not get a second one, and it's being stopped for all persons under 30, not just males. In practice it will be stopped for everyone above 30 as well.
/Swede
