Fair point. I hinted with the idea of a new framework that you may be able to bolt something acceptable on top of JS (I'm sure it's been done already in the past with some framework) especially if you just want the before/after/around advice features of AOP without other stuff. Or perhaps go into custom syntax transpiled to JS/TS-then-JS since no one seems to mind heavy build processes these days. For the most common industry use, I'd have to say it's still Java's Spring AOP/AspectJ. Maybe it's not language-integrated, but it's pretty close.
For an uncommon use example of what could be possible:
(defmethod react.component:mount :after ((self counter)) ...) ; instead of componentDidMount
(defmethod react.component:update :around ((self counter)) ...) ; instead of shouldComponentUpdate
(defmethod react.component:unmount :before ((self counter)) ...) ; instead of componentWillUnmount
; (the react.component namespace qualifier could be whatever else and not necessarily typed out)
However closely you integrate it with the language, having that machinery generally available seems better for naming and for providing new lifecycle functionality, without everyone having to reinvent the wheel and provide it in different incompatible ways. But it's clearly not a big issue.
It is listed as MIT in the package.json, the LICENSE file, and the plugin.xml file. That’s more than reasonable enough to consider it MIT, and that’s where license information would be picked up by e.g. any license-scanning tools.
With the multiple contradictory statements, even just within the README, though, my company’s lawyer would say we can’t use this dependency at all if I showed it to them.
The argument in this thread is that you can’t, and you agreed to the other License Agreement. See the root comment, which thinks that this code is not under the MIT license.
And as I said: a feature like this is entirely possible with the MIT licence, because it only addresses the licenced source code, not what said code actually does at runtime. Just read the licence yourself, it's exceptionally short.
------
Copyright (c) <year> <copyright holders>
Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy
of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal
in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights
to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell
copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is
furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:
The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all
copies or substantial portions of the Software.
THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER
LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM,
OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE
SOFTWARE.
I agree in principle. It is bad form to not try to respect industry conventions.
However, blaming "e.g. any license-scanning tools" is not correct either, since that would be clearly a limitation of the license tool, encoding assumptions of location and standardization that are nothing more than convention. I mean this in the sense that if you went to court and your excuse was "my tool didn't pick that up", you would probably not be victorious, since the terms were laid out clearly for human consumption.
And I agree, a lawyer would not want to use this dependency, but it shouldn't take a lawyer to do that. You are responsible for the legal implications of using anyone else's software.
In the EU, people are switching over in droves - to the point that the dairy lobby got a law passed that they cannot be called milk, and cannot be advertised in ways evocative of milk.
I’ve lived in the UK and Germany and it’s incredibly rare that I’ve seen prices printed on the goods themselves. There’s a label on the shelf with the price. Even when there is a price on the box (usually much smaller stores - never supermarkets), the label on the shelf is often a different price.
To complement, in the EU, if you have two prices, one on the shelf and one on the box, the cheapest one is the right one. The only goods where prices are printed on the "box" are not in boxes, they are books or clothes.
When items get individual prices, they are usually small sticker prices and effectively only in small shops or discount prices in bigger stores.
It's not entirely that simple - if there's a store branded price on the shelf or a sticker, that takes precedence over any MSRP printed on the product itself by the manufacturer. Otherwise people could just rip off store branded stickers and opt out of the store's markup.
Maybe it's just not become an issue since the MSRP on most product packaging here is in £ or $ as they just reuse the UK or sometimes US packaging so it's clear that price is not aimed at Irish consumers.
Transgender vs transsexual is an attempt to demedicalise the trans experience; very little, all in all, of what trans people go through is related to the medical process of transitioning. “Transsexualism” is what the doctors called it when focusing solely on the medical aspects, “transgender” is the word we picked for ourselves when we looked at our broader experience.
There’s some more history and a bunch of bigotry involved, but that’s the core of it.
It's not a good solution, but no. We don't allow children to have sex until they're 16, or drink until 18, for valid reason. This is the same situation.
Which is that they're not mentally developed enough to consent to those things.
There is a doctor involved. There is, for children, an incredibly long wait time, a number of sessions in order to diagnose, very likely therapy, more appointments to decide what is the correct treatment process. If everyone involved agrees they should go on puberty blockers (for example, because their body development is causing them problems in line with gender dysphoria diagnostic criteria), there’s therapy and more assessments all the way through that. And now in the UK a fucking court is involved too. In a medical decision. That is, someone who is not a doctor has complete control over someone’s medical treatment.
A child can get put on lithium and kill their emotions for years with less hassle. And no court involved. That should tell you the priorities of the people who tell you it is a good idea to prevent kids from accessing medicine that is widely agreed to be safe and effective.
It wasn’t easy for children to be put on puberty blockers before and it’s worse now.
If you can’t see how it’s fucked that all this isn’t enough, and we must make it even more impossible for doctors to do their jobs, I don’t know what to say.
Trans children who wish to go on puberty blockers don’t consent to puberty.
But inaction is always more moral than action, even when it harms people, right? When we see that we’re about to run over 5 people, but we could instead run over 1 by pulling a lever, we shouldn’t pull the lever?
I don't consent to being ugly, but we don't let children get plastic surgery. Poor self esteem is directly linked to mental health, just like gender dysphoria.
Actually, no. This has been studied. There are no ill effects in brain development when you give adolescents puberty blockers that we can tell. You can use the google search <transgender puberty blockers brain development> to find articles, from actual doctors, with references saying so.
I'm sorry to contradict you. We currently do not know what effect puberty blockers have. There's not enough research.
It's also not true that there are no ill effects in brain developments; studies with animals have shown some concerning results with regards to cognitive functions.
So, it would be more honest to say; "Actually, we don't know. This has not been studied enough."
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01053 (“the findings suggest that GnRH treated CPP girls do not differ in their cognitive functioning, behavioural, and social problems from the same age peers”, albeit findings on emotional regulation and reactivity are inconclusive - which is not the same thing as bad, just their experiment design didn’t give them a clear answer).
DOI 10.10.1016/j.psyneuen.2015.03.007
We have no strong evidence that it is unsafe in humans, and a bunch of evidence that it is safe.
The Economist is a weird source for a medical research discussion.
Hey, thanks for the link! I'm not sure that the article is too relevant though, since it is about the effects of puberty blocker in treatment of precocious puberty.
Which brings us to the reason why I linked to the Economist article; it gives a pretty good overview about the various concerns of various groups and gives some rudimentary overview about the current understanding. It's pretty hard for laypersons to really understand the jargon in all these papers and it's easy to overlook subtle but important details.
I think my point still stands; we don't know enough yet. We need more research.
Aside from that, sure. I’m up for more research (that doesn’t harm trans kids - smarter people than I know experiment designs which don’t result in people receiving subpar treatment for years on end). More research on trans people is welcome, there’s fuck-all of it out there, and now the meantime, we must do our best to use what we do know to help people.
> More research on trans people is welcome, there’s fuck-all of it out there, and now the meantime, we must do our best to use what we do know to help people.
There’s a reason my recent HR training had an entire section on how not to put the company at risk by being open about one’s beliefs about trans people. Fact of the matter is transphobia is the norm and they’d rather us dead than working alongside them.
Stop shouting it from the rooftops and you'll be accepted however you present yourself. That's your option, but you refuse to take that one.
You're continually bashing your sexuality and gender identity politics into people's faces and then complaining that they don't like you. Nobody else does this.
If I work with you, I would prefer to not know about your deeply personal issues at all.
You would know my deeply personal issues only by how I dress. I don’t shout about shit at work, I do my job (better than most could), and still I get harassed.
I wish people did see it as a deeply personal issue and felt embarrassed about bringing it up, or trying to get their fingers into my healthcare as in the rest of this thread.
You cannot have it both ways - attempt to tell me to shut up when defending myself, while trying to tell me you know better than my doctor and me about my healthcare and gender.
> You would know my deeply personal issues only by how I dress.
That's an easy problem to fix. If dressing a particular way is causing harassment, start dressing differently.
I want to wear sweatpants to work, but nobody finds it acceptable. So you know what I do? I wear khakis now.
> I wish people did see it as a deeply personal issue and felt embarrassed about bringing it up, or trying to get their fingers into my healthcare as in the rest of this thread.
They absolutely wouldn't bring it up if they weren't prompted. Nobody goes around randomly making fun of people without cause because it's not fun to just make stuff up about people that's obviously not true. There has to be some hint of truth to it.
> You cannot have it both ways - attempt to tell me to shut up when defending myself, while trying to tell me you know better than my doctor and me about my healthcare and gender.
There would be nothing to defend against if nobody announced their personal issues by dressing a certain way and talking about it.
People in this thread are here voluntarily. If they don't like what's being said they can go to some other thread and stop talking about the thing that's causing them grief.
I dress the way I do because I am a woman. Sorry you don’t believe me. Do you wanna see my cunt to prove it?
I also have breasts, can’t exactly hide those without causing damage. Visibly disabled folk get harassed at work too, they can’t hide their very personal problem, nor should we be asking them to.
This isn’t relevant in the workplace. I am legally recognised as a woman. If you don’t accept that - politics isn’t acceptable in the workplace, remember?
If you're a woman then how would I "know [your] deeply personal issues only by how [you] dress"?
I have never seen anyone make fun of people who look like women for dressing like women.
Fat and unattractive people get made fun of and harassed the world over, starting in grade school. A cis woman who doesn't look like a woman is considered unattractive too as you mentioned below.
Honestly it just sounds like unattractive people problems to me. Perhaps we need a movement to protect fat and unattractive people too.
I have a jawline that doesn’t match what you’d expect, a receding hairline, and very occasionally I fail to shave absolutely perfectly. I have slightly broader shoulders than most women. All things some cis women have to deal with, I might add, which leads to stories like “cis woman assaulted when she tried to use the women’s bathroom”.
Point is - I am legally recognised as a woman. My legal name is a woman’s name. I have tits and a cunt. If you start asking me what my “real name” is, or suggesting to people that I might rape them if we share a bathroom, you’re the one bringing politics into work - I’m complying with the law. I want to be at work less than you do, I don’t have a choice, let me exist.
Being forced to wear men’s clothes, a binder, and be called Kevin would be literally torture - I would die before I did that. It is not at all the same thing as sweatpants or khakis. It’d be blood on your hands.
There’s already a movement to protect unattractive women (men generally do not suffer the same sort of gendered harassment, because women are generally not looking at their colleagues at work and being angry that they’re not fuckable) from harassment in workplaces. Has been for, what, the past 50 years. Laws around it too. My HR training covered them. Somehow guys don’t get the message.
Misogyny sucks, transmisogyny is a special breed of that, sadly.
Yeah, society has some weird fixations. Sex, sexuality and gender are very much taboo topics and anything that can not be put in nice little boxes is considered deviant and obviously bad.
Although I think that may be changing. Since we're slowly (maybe too slowly) transitioning into from a culture that has accepted that fact that reproduction does not have the primacy it once had, we can relax our collective fear of extincting for lack of children and focus our fear and panic where it actually belongs.
How does anyone at work know that another person is trans unless they're wearing that fact as a badge of some sort? If you look like one thing or another, people will accept you as that. The smart thing for trans people to do would be to keep it to themselves.
Heck, ugly and fat people have the same sorts of problems. Nobody wants to date them, they regularly get passed over for promotions if a beautiful person is competing and many get depressed to the point of contemplating suicide. [0]
Indeed, gay people often hate trans people (who, as another comment says, mostly want to get on with our fucking lives) as much as anyone else. What’s your point here? Hatred is cool and normal and Amazon should be promoting it?
Gay men and women being transphobic is... actually fairly common, actually. Being gay does not mean you automatically feel solidarity with trans folk, even if the roots of the gay rights movement involve us. The TERF movement in the U.K. started as a lesbian movement, and the argument that “girls are being forced to be trans” is one of their talking points.
Defending the right of someone to write a book about their thinly veiled hatred is one thing; commenting that you think there’s a good point in it and other people should read it is another.
