Sorry, I don't buy this concept that hordes of (or any, for that matter) predatory trans women are queuing up for the chance to prowl round changing rooms. Do you, really?
Say you're right. What stops them sneaking in right now? It's not like there are mandatory ID checks at the entrance.
This is what I don't understand. How many examples are there of the horrible ills these bathroom bills will "solve"? Trans people exist today, they use bathrooms, where are the problems?
Virtually none. In fact trans people are vastly more likely to be victims of the sorts of things that the people pushing those policies argue those bills are meant to prevent.
Gendered bathrooms are a concrete expression of the fact that it is gender that is the major fault line through our society. The fact we need them is a damming indictment on our society (on men probably)
Even if we ignore the fact this is a nonsense non-issue that isn't solved by the "solution" of forcing people into bathrooms by biological sex rather than gender identity, it's still nonsense.
You've just created a world where predatory men pretend to be trans men, who are now legally required to use women's bathrooms.
At least most trans women are trying to express in a feminine way (disregarding the issues with women—cis and trans—being discriminated against for not being “feminine enough” by someone's standard), with this "solution", you've just normalised people actively trying to be as masculine as possible going into women's bathrooms. Congrats.
(Of course, predation in bathrooms is illegal, why on earth would someone who is willing to break that law be stopped by another one saying they aren't meant to be there? It's literally the same nonsense argument used by homophobes to argue we shouldn't allow gay people into those spaces.)
I'm not hypothesizing anything. I'm pointing out that "someone who's biologically male in the women's room" doesn't have to mean "predatory trans-woman" but could be "predatory man pretending to be trans".
And I'm asking you, when you are just-pointing-out, if it's actually happening in a way that is statistically recognizable and thus a contribution to the discourse in question, or if it's not.
The reality is predatory men already invade women's restrooms for perverted reasons. You don't think they would not be emboldened by being able to shame people for being transphobic to increase their chances of getting away with whatever they are doing?
Without proof to the contrary the assumption should be that the trans population has a similar proportion of rapists as any other does.
Since its been well established that essentially all rape no matter who is raping who goes under reported it is completely rational for women to be just as fearful as they would with any other stranger.
The question isn't whether women should assume that a transperson is less likely to rape them than any other stranger. That's not what "bathroom bills" are about.
The question is whether bathroom bills forcing transpeople who wish to not break the law (potential rapists are obviously not part of this set...) into men's bathrooms, and a surrounding climate of generalised hostility towards anyone with any remotely masculine element of their physique or style in women's bathrooms actually meaningfully reduces the risk of rape, or just makes the environment more intimidating for everyone.
It's literally in response to the posit that trans women would rape strangers in changing rooms. I've tried to make it as far from a strawman as possible by arguing against even a single occurrence of that happening.
Cis women can perpetuate rape. Should we ban them from changing rooms too? How far through the looking glass does this have to go?!
It's really nice for exploring data. I find whenever I have ~5+ series on a single axis on mpl I start to struggle to differentiate colours & lines etc. I sort of addressed that by getting creative with dash styles etc, but still it's not ideal. Plotly is much more dynamic & I love the call outs etc. I do find it much less intuitive and less well documented than mpl and it's fussy about the shape of the data you give it. Maybe this new version improves on those things.
I'd love to hear more about what you found fussy in terms of shape of data... I've worked really hard to make Plotly Express as flexible as possible in terms of input formats (https://plotly.com/python/px-arguments/) and Graph Objects will eat pretty much anything list-like :)
Hey, thanks for the response - it was actually exactly what you seem to have addressed re the wide & long formats. I'm still using v4.1 and ended up writing my own reshapeForPlotly() function which just called the pandas melt function. Will update to v5 now which sounds like it will simplify things.
I think Plotly is great, btw! I use it a lot with streamlit for quick visualisations of big datasets. Thanks for your work on it. I always found the relationship between plotlyexpress & graph_objects confusing but the docs seem much more explanatory now than I remember from a year or so ago and the code snippets on the main plotly site seem much more abundant. Hopefully as it gets more widely used, the community support on stackoverflow etc will build too.
Some pretty wild unsourced claims masquerading as facts.
As with pretty much any energy source, (including wind, solar, gas..) nuclear tends to get cheaper the more you build. You can look up FOAK vs NOAK and note the curves. Not sure what you're referring to re difficulty of increasing %share?
How are you measuring "fuel rod lifecycle"? And how does that possibly comparable to "$/kWh solar"?
Here's [0] a good source for some facts. You should note that accounting for the whole lifecycle of mining/processing/operating/defueling/decommissioning, nuclear is ~1/4 of the emissions of solar. And this is only considering electricity; we still have 2-3x the kwh to source for our heating requirements. You're suggesting we get that all sorted with solar & wind too?
First your source is heavily biased, dig into the numbers they use and they skip for example workers commuting emissions as nobody lives within walking distance of a reactor. Making their comparison absolutely meaningless.
More importantly nuclear very specifically gets more expensive as you ramp up the percentage of grid energy your supplying. For a simple fact check look at the capacity factor of French nuclear reactors, for example:
Lower capacity factors directly translate into higher costs as you still need to pay for the building and security guards etc, you just don’t generate as much energy from identical infrastructure.
PS: If you don’t want to do the leg work just compare national averages around 2000-2005 and then realize France needed to import and export a lot of electricity because they simply couldn’t afford to operate in isolation at 70+% nuclear generation.
That could be because the chili molecule has polarity and clumps together in fatty environments, like meat sauces and yoghurt. Conversely it gets dispersed by water. That recipe probably has a bit less fat than what your usual meaty one has, so less chili goes further :)
FWIW, I have a nylon strap-mounted rack (name withheld to avoid accusations of ninja advertising!) which hooks onto the trunk seam. 6 hooks and it's brilliant. Much cheaper than a hitch mounted version, much more compact so I've been able to hang it in a little storage closet in the last few apartments I've lived in and goes on a wide variety of cars without any damage. Rock solid with 3 chunky mtbs on it too. I've even had people come up to me in car parks asking me for details!
Not wanting to derail the discussion but if it was that that put you of the review site you mention, it could be worth reconsidering..
... What? Trump decided to enact some protectionist uranium policies and this makes the nuclear industry the baddies..? Did you throw out all your cutlery in disgust when he jacked up steel import tariffs? This is cretinous.
"according to the Department of Energy, the desire to enhance the domestic uranium industry is being driven by a demand for low-enriched uranium that will be used in tritium production for nuclear weapons in the 2040s, as well as highly-enriched uranium needed to fuel Navy nuclear reactors in the 2050s"
What would "proper connection to Europe" have looked like to you? HS2 ends in London where eurostar begins. If HS2 terminated in say, Milton Keynes, I'd wholeheartedly agree with you.
> Linking it to a program of speed improvements on connecting commuter rail would have been a cheaper vote winner
Do you have any evidence for this? Any publicly available report showing even outline calculations? HS2 has always had cross party support.
> before covid19 made public transit irrelevant
In one way or another, the threat of covid will eventually pass. We'll still need public transport when it does.
Sorry, no. High speed rail's main benefit is to increase capacity on existing lines by removing fast trains from the mix. Currently big gaps have to be left in front of the fast trains to allow them to run. The reduction in travel time is a secondary benefit.
I was unaware of this until I recently discovered Gareth Dennis on twitter, who is doing a fantastic job of making up for HS2 ltd's appallingly lacking public engagement "strategy".
Maybe "slow" is a misnomer or misleading. By slow we're talking about local services which stop at every station. When you relocate fast trains onto another line, those local services benefit considerably. Ultimately you get more local services running, which alleviates the sardine-style travel we currently endure.
Say you're right. What stops them sneaking in right now? It's not like there are mandatory ID checks at the entrance.