Dragon Age Veilguard character creator includes top surgery scars

Ethereal · 2024-09-21T00:48:30+00:00

The combat wheelchair is incredibly dumb. You can start the game with it, and it has:

The same move speed as walking, and a speed bonus downhill.
Is near-indestructible. You must crit-hit it 3 times in one encounter to temporarily break it (and even then it's simply too broken to use in combat), and it can be fairly easily repaired.
Can hover out of combat to negate the problem of stairs.
Gives advantage against being knocked prone.
Lets you use any mounted combat abilities anywhere.

And has a bunch of upgrades you can buy with money.

You're not even playing a disabled character at that point. Even characters who are not disabled should probably be using it.

Ethereal · 2024-09-16T02:09:43+00:00

To continue the analogy, said "football fans":

Try to pretend that "football" can mean anything when they're clearly talking about baseball.
Demand constant validation of their status as football fans
Demand entry into your social group to talk about ~~baseball~~ football
When you reject their entry into said group, threaten your career and legal ramifications.
When they force their way into said group, try to get you kicked out of it.
Try to prevent meaningfully talking about football in any way because it exposes the obvious truth that baseball is not football.

Ethereal · 2023-08-22T17:00:12+00:00

More like, "I know I am right; therefore, I know without checking that any contrary evidence must be a lie because the only people who would disagree with me are liars."

I really want to ask this person his opinion on conspiracy theorists, just for laughs.

Ethereal · 2023-08-22T02:57:20+00:00

But they do know the facts. They know because other people told them. How do those people know? Well other people told them. This is incredibly well researched you know. The science is settled.

Chloe Cole? Well she's a conservative talking point, therefore it must be a lie (this one's not even hyperbole; someone straight up said this).

Ethereal · 2023-05-31T03:31:42+00:00

First off, all this is unfalsifiable, making it a bad argument. But let's imagine anyway. I want to break this into a few parts:

As far as physical dysphoria, yeah the physical sensation of having a couple weights on my chest would probably be pretty distracting. For how long that would last, who knows?

Socially, I wouldn't want to be hit on by guys, but I can't see myself running around insisting that everyone call me a man.

Of course all of this is not a direct comparison, as this situation is about actually being one thing instead of another, as opposed to claiming that you are and know what it's like to be a thing you never physically were.

Ethereal · 2023-03-31T21:30:15+00:00

I doubt it. They'll say you're faking it to mock them and kick you out. Never mind that according to the ideology you can never question someone's identity, they'll do it anyway and either offer an excuse that they would never accept if given to them or just never respond to the accusation of hypocrisy.

Ethereal · 2023-02-21T01:13:17+00:00

No way to really know since estimates of trans population varies wildly study to study.

Ethereal · 2023-02-11T15:45:34+00:00

r/technology -> politicsoncomputers

Ethereal · 2022-08-25T05:59:14+00:00

Right, but the bigger issue here is that UW was made aware of the issue with the study, and even agreed with at least point 1. They updated the wording in the study itself, but did not tell anyone who previously reported on it that it had changed. Internal emails show that because the original claims got positive coverage, they didn't want to draw attention to anything that might detract from it.

Ethereal · 2022-08-25T04:19:08+00:00

This is the article expressing criticism. There were a few main issues Jesse pointed out. This isn't even all of them

People were conflating depression going down with depression failing to go up. These sound similar, but it's like the difference between cancer not getting worse and curing/reducing cancer. They're both good things, but fundamentally different claims.
The number of people in the study went from 7 people on hormones/blockers vs. 92 not on blockers to 57 on blockers vs. 6 (!!!) not on blockers over 12 months. So the study lost 36 participants over the course of it. Studies lose participants, but the non-blocker group went down to 6, a very small sample size.
The number and distribution of the dropouts calls the results into question, as the people who dropped out may have done so because they got better or because they didn't feel the clinic was helping.
Just as the survey doesn't ask why people left the survey, the survey doesn't ask why the 6 people stayed in contact but didn't go on blockers. They could easily be extreme cases, where they weren't eligible for blockers due to existing issues. The small sample size means these issues can become a big deal for results.
They had participants fill out a survey that scored people's depression from 0 (completely healthy) to 27 (imminent suicide risk). Yet it largely compressed the results into binaries such as whether the score was higher or lower than 10. This means that someone could go from upper 20's to lower 10's and be counted as no change, or have only a tiny change but they were right at the line between the two.
There's a lot of data they didn't reveal, which could answer some of these questions.

Ethereal