I don’t see what it has to do with my argument, though.

You’re proposing an extremely harmful measure to remediate a problem that men cause without citing that we’re also the main victims of said problem. You’re framing it as if we only cause suffering and do not experience it.

Or are you saying that risk-taking is important so it’s worth keeping men the way they are even if it causes most serious crime?

Risk-taking is one example of effect of testosterone other than violence. It does not justify serious crime, it shows that if you get rid of testosterone you also get rid of other caracteristics.

Most people see violent crime as a problem, but few see it as a problem with men. When people discuss crime, I never hear them frame the problem as “there’s something causing men to commit 10 times as much rape and murder as women: what is it and how do we stop it?” Even feminists who talk about male violence generally don’t frame it that way.

Telling that a group very concerned with gender equality don’t frame it that way, isn’t it? Reasonable people will never suggest that racialized groups should learn western European values by norm to solve their high criminality rate.

No empirical data can lead us to accept something as “necessarily true,” but it stretches credulity to think that castration would reduce aggression in pretty much every kind of male mammal we try it on

Again, it doesn’t. People are orders of magnitude more complex than any other animal and, even then, we haven’t castrated that many animals. You’re thinking of domesticated animals, and we’ve done a lot of other things to remove undesired traits in them, like selective breeding. Do you think that eugenics is a reasonable solution to violence amongst men too?

that the most aggressive humans coincidentally have elevated testosterone levels.

So we already have a much more reasonable, though still very unethical, measure: bring down testosterone levels of violent individuals so that they’re closer to the average. Miles ahead and still in the same line of thought.

I don’t think that you actually believe that, since you said:

It may make them less aggressive, but what else would happen?

I specifically listed the other effects I could think of. If you think something else bad might happen, just say what it is. If your objection is that we should be cautious because there might be unexpected effects… well sure, that’s true, but it’s also a general-purpose objection to any suggestion to change anything ever.

I don’t have an specific effect in mind and your examples are bad. Let’s quickly analyze the third one:

3. They’ll won’t be able to get hard—That’s what viagra is for

Is solving hormone-caused impotence that straight-forward? What are the side effect of using Viagra? For how long can you take Viagra and how frequently?

I don’t think we could enumerate the problems that would arise from screwing with people’s endocrine systems. The issue isn’t that solutions also bring problems, the issue is that your “solution” brings so many problems that it is very hard to believe that you actually want to solve anything.

Furthermore, “make society less toxic” is a goal, not a policy.

Yeah, sure, and castrating men is a “policy”.

But I think chemically castrating men would have a bigger effect in a shorter amount of time than just about any other policy you could think of, and those effects would be in addition to anything else you did.

Wow, and the things you can think of are so spectacular, while you can’t even spot your own prejudices. Your “fax and logic” facade does not fool anyone other than yourself that you want to help society instead of externalizing your prejudices.

Well, men are also most of the victims of serious crime and do most of all dangerous jobs. These are all consequences of taking more risks.

Men commit almost all rape and murder, but no one seems to think this is a problem we need to do anything about.

Really? No one?

But we know exactly what to do about it when we’re talking about other species. It doesn’t take a genius to realize that putting men on testosterone-blockers is going to make them less dangerous.

It doesn’t take a genius to realize that, it takes a fool, because it’s not necessarily true. It may make them less aggressive, but what else would happen? You’re giving an easy answer to an extremely hard problem.

YES, there are many people thinking about this. What about we make society less toxic first, for example? But I commend you for posting an actual unpopular opinion.

This feels like, IMHO, trying to put out a forest fire with a single bucket of water. Instead, we should have a platform that does not encourage making titles and thumbnails completely unrelated to the video’s content.

Being able to repair your or other people’s system. Also, you can store things other than isos, so your device doesn’t lose much utility, it uses a vfat partition.

It’s good to have you here!

Vai depender muito do que você faz e do seu hardware. O que eu recomendo é sempre carregar um pendrive com Ventoy e uma ISO razoavelmente atualizada do sistema.

É difícil explicar por completo tudo que um twm permite, a melhor forma de entender é testando mesmo, e mesmo testando você vai ter uma experiência única, já que eles são tão flexíveis. Acho que na verdade esse é O ponto de maior importância dos window managers, a flexibilidade, você cria um workflow bastante pessoal, o que talvez não seja tão fácil em Ambientes de Trabalho, já que são generalistas, mais complexos. Os twms são bem mais enxutos, então você tem que construir o que você quer, um DE você já tem algo pronto e molda esse algo de acordo com suas necessidades. Do mesmo modo que é difícil ficar escolhendo tudo no dedo, criando atalhos, personalizando a interface num twm, as vezes também é difícil você moldar o workflow de um ambiente de trabalho, então os twms realmente não são para todo mundo. E tudo bem com isso, usar ou não usar twms não te torna melhor ou pior que ninguém. Mudar facilmente entre workspaces por si só não é o que torna os twms especiais, é só um exemplo.

Quanto ao Windows, é bem mais difícil você definir ou redefinir teclas de atalho, muitas vezes você precisa de programas externos, e nem sempre essas teclas de atalho funcionam em todas as janelas. No terminal do Powershell, por exemplo, as teclas de atalho do PowerToys não funcionam.

Realmente, eu tive que escolher TUDO, desde o gerenciador de arquivos aos applets da bandeja do sistema. A aparência não sei se impacta tanto assim pq as janelas meio que estão em tela cheia a todo momento (dá pra mudar isso, é claro), então não fica muito detalhe para ser percebido. Mas eu sou uma pessoa que se importa mais com o funcional do que com o visual kkkk então pode ser isso

Então volta pra cá, pô rs

São revolucionários, mudaram para muito melhor a forma como eu uso meu computador. A maior facilidade que eles trazem é que consigo acessar um programa específico entre os diversos outros abertos e mudar a disposição deles rapidamente. Por exemplo: uso pouco o modo mosaico (tiling) em si, uso mais abas e workspaces; posso abrir o programa x no workspace 1, y no 2 e z no 3, se quero acessar um desses programas específicos, não preciso ficar apertando Alt+Tab até achar uma janela, basta apertar a tecla de atalho que defini para o workspace n, Super (conhecida popularmente como “Tecla Windows”) + n. Posso agrupar os programas em um workspace de acordo com tipo, criar quantas abas, pilhas (stacks), mosaicos e subabas, subpilhas, submosaicos dentro de um workspace quanto quiser, utilizar quantos workspaces desejar, entre outras coisas. Outra coisa muito útil que os twms permitem fazer é deixar programas abertos para depois, sem que eles dificultem a navegação entre os programas que estou usando no momento. Enfim, dá pra escrever um livro sobre isso kkkk. O que eu uso é o i3.

Arch Linux, o aprendizado que eu tive e tenho com esse sistema é inestimável. Não é tão difícil quanto falam, recomendo todo mundo testar pelo menos uma vez.