So do you think 30 year olds should be considered children, legally? Some intermediate thing where they get some rights but not all?

Adulthood, as a human concept as opposed to a strict biological classification, is a medley of biological, legal and social definitions. Do you exist in society independently, or under the explicit social umbrella of your guardian? Do we find you legally capable of bearing guilt? Are you physically mature?
Can you answer those questions with an fMRI? We can estimate age with one, but that just gets back to where we are now. We can measure brain connectivity, which is associated with the frontal cortex properties we associate with responsibility. The inflection point we see is around 15, and the growth rate after that is largely subsumed by the margin of error between individuals. We can also see that the brain doesn’t really stop developing those connections.

None of that answers the primary questions of what constitutes adulthood for humans.
Given that the comment thread started with assertions about how 29 year olds act and behave in society and what’s to be expected of them responsibility wise, it’s clearly a discussion about the social aspects of adulthood, not the biological measurement of brain maturity.

They’re still not talking what you’re talking about. They listed a set of specific activities and behaviors they believe 29 year olds engage in to say they’re not adults.

They eat children’s food, have no money saved, no proper furniture, no hardships, and they ask their parents for advice. (Having parents you respect the opinion of and asking for advice is evidently childish).

That’s an extremely patronizing view on 29 year olds.

You’re talking brain development studies. That has nothing to do with adulthood.

Just for more clarity: they workshoped for ideas on how to improve clarity and accessibility from some editors at an event. They did some small experiments, and they then developed a plan to trial some of them and presented the plan to a wider audience for feedback. After they got feedback they decided not to.

It’s not quite the editors pushing back on Wikipedia. Or rather, it’s not the “rebellion” people want to make it out to be.

https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Readers/2024_Reader_and_Donor_Experiences/Content_Discovery/Wikimania_2024,_"Written_by_AI"_How_do_editors_and_machines_collaborate_to_create_content

https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Reading/Web/Content_Discovery_Experiments/Simple_Article_Summaries

It rubs me the wrong way when the process going how it should go gets cast as controversial and dramatic. Asking the community if you should do something and listening to them is how it’s supposed to go. It’s not resistance, it’s all of them being on the same team and talking.

Eh, that’s not quite original research. There are plenty of other examples of images and sound files created for Wikipedia. A representative example isn’t research, it’s just indicating what something is.

The Wikipedia article on AI slop and generative AI has a few instances of content that’s representative to illustrate a sourced statement, as opposed to being evidence or something.

It’s similar to the various charts and animations.

Yes, but…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3ADatabase_download

That’s because viewing the page uses server resources, as done API access. If you want the data you can download the database directly.

I don’t love an abstract legal identity. I’m capable of being happy with institutions, the culture composed if the people living there, and adoring the natural splendor.
Right now I’m actively angry at the institutions, a huge number of people have taken a sharp turn towards fascism, and I’ve got no problems with the forest still.
Me and the forest are cool, and that’s part of why I’m mad at the institutions.

I have no desire to live in the forest because, if nothing else, that’s not good for the forest. Then the people who opted to live there became insane, and decided to largely gut all of the institutions, and make it easier to destroy the forest.

“I live in a state of natural splendor, and I’m willing to fight to let you cut it down, splash me with mercury , and blot out the sun with smoke because I don’t have healthcare and fuck you for asking. It’s the refugees who are the problem”.

Oh my God, no. “Great place to live if you want you all your neighbors to be frighteningly conservative, the closest store to be a 30 minute drive, and the nearest hospital to be an hour away and shutting down because their public funding got cut”.

Yes. Because every person who deals with the software has the same opinion about functionality.
Dirty food is objective. Variety isn’t. “Menu is confusing” is subjective, hence some people don’t feel motivated to change what they don’t see as broken.

I honestly can’t fathom arguing this hard to defend flagrant entitlement. You keep glossing over how your demands of fair treatment and community are directed towards someone offering to share with you without any request for reciprocity.
Usually the maintainers are people who got involved because they actually have ability and were able to change something they wanted to be different. Their opinions matter more because they actually bring something to the community.
You’re not entitled to someone’s nights and weekends just because they shared with you. Trying to phrase it as elementary school manners doesn’t make it magically true that now they owe you.

“You invited me to dinner. If you didn’t want my critique of your cooking and home decor you should have never invited me”. Same entitled energy.

That’s not quite right because we’re all getting the exact same thing. I’m giving you a free steak and you’re complaining about the cut of meat. Everyone is getting the same cut, and I bought the steak that I’m giving away so I get to pick what I buy. If you don’t like it you’re more than welcome to bring your own steak and I’ll get it on the grill, or pay me to get you what you want, or hope that I remember to grab one for you the next time. You’re not entitled to a free steak though.

Even backing up and looking at your interpretation as you presented it: you’re complaining that your free steak got ruined and asking for a new one. You might not always get a new gift just because the one given to you went wrong.
Sorry you didn’t get a free steak. Do you want me to take one from someone else?

You don’t want a community, you just want an adoring fanbase for your passion project!

Here’s the thing though: so what if I do? If “I” get what I want, then you get something you like for free. At worst, you get nothing for the grand total of no cost.
You might be forced to go pay for some commercial software, where it’ll cost more and you’ll probably also not get your feature on demand.

So you expect people to work for free on what you think is important, rather than on what they think is important?

A different analogy: I invite you over to a BBQ that I’m throwing. You show up and say you don’t want to eat what I’m preparing. You don’t want to bring anything or contribute because you can’t cook, and I invited you, so it’s rude to ask you to contribute and now I owe you food that you want that I’m not interested in making.

You don’t want a “community”, you want to be provided with high quality low cost software.
Even in your sandbox example: if I’m building a sand castle you don’t get to demand I build it the way you want just because I said you could play too. I don’t want to build that into the castle. If you want to add that bit, you can do it. I’m sharing by letting you play in my sandbox and that doesn’t entitle you to dictate how I play in the sandbox. We can play together, but that doesn’t mean I have to do what you want.

Remember that what you’re doing under the auspices of “community” is justifying telling other people how they should give you free stuff that takes a lot of work that they don’t want to do unpaid in their free time.

The key part there is that they’re not paid. So working on a passion project is all that matters.

As an aside though, those core system rewrites are often undertaken by businesses rather than the individuals. A lot of businesses view Linux as a tool rather than a consumer OS, so the core systems are the only part that matters.

Sure, never said they weren’t. But comparing a conversation that stopped a month ago to the inquisition justifies pointing out that the conversation ended a while ago, so maybe people aren’t going after someone as they seem to think.

Telling people talking about transphobia that they should spend their time doing something else invites an observation that the conversation had seemingly moved on, and they’re the one bringing it up again.

Okay? That doesn’t obligate you to res a dead thread or act like anyone in it cares as much as you seem to.

Dude, I replied to a comment on an image post. You’re the one who resurrected a month idle conversation to defend transphobia and call recognizing transphobia “the inquisition”.

Why do you give a shit what other people talk about?

going as far as putting lgbt flags on government buildings

In and of itself, the allegation that the only reason people might want to do some sort of show of solidarity or support for a historical marginalized community is because it’s being pushed by non-specific monied interests for non-specific reasons is transphobic.
So is the notion that it’s in the public discourse only because of big money. I’d argue it’s because there’s been a massive transphobic pushback against civil rights by religious fundamentalists and conservative groups. They run for office on culture was issues, so transphobia is a campaign issue.

When was the last time a civil rights issue was pushed by the bourgeoisie?
When was the last time someone said “this is being pushed by the bourgeoisie and big money” about something they approved of?

Putting up a flag at a government building is an extremely low bar to saying something is backed by powerful money.

allowing biological men to compete in women’s sports at the Olympics.

Just going to skip over that bit? Echoing an entirely fabricated claim that someone is trans as an attack on that person is clearly swinging some transphobia around.

Replying to someone and sharing your opinion doesn’t make your opinion not transphobic if it’s, you know: “a transphobic opinion”.
As I said, I read the context. Saying trans rights are part of a bourgeois conspiracy isn’t better when it’s in response to someone saying transphobia is part of a bourgeois conspiracy. It’s a transphobic opinion regardless of why you’re sharing it.

What, pray tell, are my alleged “bad intentions”? Should I ponder what your bad intentions are for jumping in to defend transphobia, unprompted, weeks after the fact?

First, no, I’m not. I said that having read the full context of the comment.

Second, what context do you think would make what they said not transphobic? I don’t think there is one, so even if taken out of context, which it wasn’t, it would be as I said.

Couple things: a statement relating to unspecified testing about one failed test to Russian state media is a pretty far cry from “it kind of holds up”.

I’m glad you avoid manufactured outrage. In this case, the manufactured outrage is from the people falsely claiming a woman is secretly transgender and spreading misinformation, like in the original post you seem to not have a problem with.

You don’t see what accusing someone of being transgender to undermine their win has to do with transgender issues?

Also, “transexual” is not the preferred nomenclature. Transgender is. The former is an older, dated term and is generally best avoided.

swing and a miss. Remember that big part where I talked about how she’s a woman in every possible sense of the word? Read that again.

You’re looking at the hate and then just believing it. Don’t.

Middle of the image you’re responding to, when they refer to “allowing biological men to compete in women’s sports at the Olympics”.

Said Algerian boxer became the center of claims that she was actually trans and competing against women unfairly after she punched another boxer in the face, like boxers do, and the other boxer had to drop out on account of “face all messed up”.

See my previous comment for a breakdown on the validity of that claim, and maybe some understanding of why it’s just a big pile of ignorance and hate.

That context doesn’t actually change the reading of the message as far as I can see.

I’m not sure why the original poster brought economic politics into it, but the best possible reading of “where are these ‘transphobes’ and why do they need ‘rooting out’” is only neutral, and none of it offsets the weird Olympic sports thing.

So … Yay for context, but nothing disingenuous about this post as far as I can see.