why does the existence of larger things have any bearing on our significance?

bigger than I thought, tbh.

The OP does not claim that all barycenters are outside of the sun. OP correctly claims that Jupiter & Sun orbit a certain point, and that point is known as the “barycenter,” and that point is outside the sun. I’ll admit they could have gone further to convey the additional curiosity that for other planets the sun-planet barycenter is within the sun, but then it might not be facebook-tier anymore.

I literally do not understand why you think I’m being pedantic here. The OP text is short and contains no obvious errors that I can see. Perhaps to someone who has made a mistake and doesn’t want to admit it, attempts by others to point out this mistake must resemble pedanticism.

Well that’s why I said “instead we have, uh…” and a frowny face. It was sarcasm, but I guess it didn’t come through.

I still don’t get it. Who doesn’t have hitler symbols? Why is that relevant?

I don’t know what that slang means.

I can’t reasonably glean that, because the OP clearly says this:

It is so massive that both Jupiter & Sun orbit around a common point that lies outside the Sun known as the “barycenter”.

I agree that OP is facebook-tier but your reply is reddit-tier :P

didn’t realize until just this moment that Rise Against ≠ Rage Against The Machine

Before those, in the 60’s there was CSNY, CCR, Bob Dylan, John Lennon, Buffalo Springfield writing protest bangers.

Can’t really think of much for this generation unfortunately. Instead we have, uh… Ye. :(

OP wasn’t asking about classics, was asking about protest music

No, it is not true in general that the barycenter lies outside both objects.

They are For-profit

Reminder that FOSS is compatible with commercial licenses.

That is not to say /e/ is FOSS. But given the reality of the capitalist hellscape we live in, we should not shame developers (FOSS or not) for not opting to work for free.

Hell yeah.

damn, I’m so happy that this is the takeaway message people are getting.

Granted, it’s not proof, but I find it very hard to believe that all cases of identical twins with apparently differing gender identities is explained by one of the twins simply electing not to transition while the other does. This is particularly hard to believe given that the twins grow up in similar environments, so if one is in a transition-hostile environment the other likely is as well. I think we should believe people when they insist they are not transgender, especially if they are part of a study where their identical twin is comfortable being open about it. If this were a rare occurrence, I would be more inclined to agree with you, but it is not rare at all.

“transgender”

One instance where I have seen “transgender” used this way is from the same article where I learned about the link between transgender, skin elasticity, and hyperflexibility:

it’s at least possible that EDS and transgender are linked

It’s no typo; other articles by this same author use the same grammar. I have also for sure seen this used on other sites, including by trans authors, but in 5 minutes of searching I can’t find those instances. “Being transgender” does seem grammatically fitting to me, but it doesn’t always make sense to use “being transgender” as a substitute for “transgenderism”*/“transgender.” Anyway we more or less agree here and I have little interest in semantics.

gender dysphoria is not what I’m talking about, since not all transgender people have dysphoria.

To be clear – “transgender” the noun is not referring to a person (“that person is a transgender”* – proscribed) but rather as a substitute for “transgenderism”* (proscribed). Personally, using “transgender” seems linguistically strange to me and it just reminds me of Trump saying “transgender for everybody” but if it’s what people prefer then who am I to judge.

Anyway – yes, I agree that it seems very probable that there are strong genetic components to transgender, but it’s also clearly not purely genetic, given there are identical twins where one is cis and the other not.

Funny.

If we assume that the distribution is measuring some trait (e.g. “testosterone content,” “femininity,” measured however you will), and it’s bimodal (distribution is dominated by two binary sexes), then there will be people on either side of both peaks.

my bad, updated to “transgender,” I read online that’s the preferred noun form (though it looks more adjectival to me)

gender identity is clearly not primarily genetic, as twin studies suggest otherwise.

I don’t entirely agree, because gender identity is known to be at least partially biological, e.g. there are correlations between transgender, skin elasticity, and hyper-flexibility.

it’s a normalized distribution. The y-axis is unitless.