spaduf

Honestly the Amazon selection for barefoot shoes is pretty solid currently. I personally have a couple of pairs of the Whitin brand. If you can find a sale I've gotten solid shoes for $20 before.

The way to solve this is still largely through more focus on the provided context as the space of "facts" from which to operate. This combined with well thought out domain-specific context engines should still get the average user an absolutely enormous amount of utility. All that said I am not sure if OpenAI's business model will get us that sort of application of the technology. I am looking forward to improvements in the open source space as I think advancement there is necessary for further development of the technology.

Hexbear is a firehose of leftist shitposting.
EDIT: Also fairly old by fediverse standards.

This makes sense but is it fair to attribute this to the women in this situation? Or does this have more to do with men in power upholding patriarchal practices at the expense of other men?

Lol at the implication that the term community is indicative of communism.

It is not so much that they are conflating two unrelated stoicisms as you seen to imply but rather that you seem to be specifically trying to distance yourself from historical stoicism. There's good reason for this, stoic philosophy was originally just as tied up in metaphysics as any ancient philosophy. This sense of metaphysics, while easy to discount from a modern perspective, was used primarily to justify existing power structures. Key among them patriarchy and slavery. Ultimately, this has little to do with the particulars of the philosophy. Knowing that, it would seem an easy task to separate the two as you would like to and yet it is still remarkably difficult to find any modern stoic groups that do not recommend Marcus Aurelius, Seneca, Epictetus, etc.

What you call the more general stoicism (lower case) is better understood as the whole of stoic cultural influence as it relates to the modern world. Even the etymology of stoics comes from the school of philosophy. It is not reasonable to try to claim stoic philosophy is best understood as only it's most modern incarnations even as popular stoicism relies on ancient men to be it's primary mediums.

It is not so much that they are conflating two unrelated stoicisms as you seen to imply but rather that you seem to be specifically trying to distance yourself from historical stoicism. There's good reason for this, stoic philosophy was originally just as tied up in metaphysics as any ancient philosophy. This sense of metaphysics, while easy to discount from a modern perspective, was used primarily to justify existing power structures. Key among them patriarchy and slavery. Ultimately, this has little to do with the particulars of the philosophy. Knowing that, it would seem an easy task to separate the two as you would like to and yet it is still remarkably difficult to find any modern stoic groups that do not recommend Marcus Aurelius, Seneca, Epictetus, etc.

What you call the more general stoicism (lower case) is better understood as the whole of stoic cultural influence as it relates to the modern world. Even the etymology of stoics comes from the school of philosophy. It is not reasonable to try to claim stoic philosophy is best understood as only it's most modern incarnations even as popular stoicism relies on ancient men to be it's primary mediums.

I think the business model where peertube really works looks something like a creator co-op. I think Nebula works under a similar system.

Cuff everything and grow your hair out

And this is the core trouble with the identity of capital-M Men: It ultimately rests on the negation of female identity.

I am reminded of this passage from Gender Trouble which talks about early feminism's own history with defining themselves as something other than simply the negation of men.

In a move that complicates the discussion further, Luce Irigaray argues that women constitute a paradox, if not a contradiction, within the discourse of identity itself.Women are the “sex” which is not “one.” Within a language pervasively masculinist, a phallogocentric language, women constitute the unrepresentable. In other words, women represent the sex that cannot be thought, a linguistic absence and opacity. Within a language that rests on univocal signification, the female sex constitutes the unconstrainable and undesignatable. In this sense, women are the sex which is not “one,” but multiple. In opposition to Beauvoir, for whom women are designated as the Other, Irigaray argues that both the subject and the Other are masculine mainstays of a closed phallogocentric signifying economy that achieves its totalizing goal through the exclusion of the feminine altogether. For Beauvoir, women are the negative of men, the lack against which masculine identity differentiates itself; for Irigaray, that particular dialectic constitutes a system that excludes an entirely different economy of signification. Women are not only represented falsely within the Sartrian frame of signifying-subject and signified-Other, but the falsity of the signification points out the entire structure of representation as inadequate.The sex which is not one, then, provides a point of departure for a criticism of hegemonic Western representation and of the metaphysics of substance that structures the very notion of the subject.

That actually means a huge amount to me. Apologies if I came off a little hostile with the stan comment.

I suppose I should probably throw my hat in the ring, but I will admit I have absolutely no mod experience. I've found it pretty easy to be active in this community and have been interested in putting together some weekly stickied threads (e.g. freetalk friday, mentalhealth monday, etc).