Notices by Taylan (Now 18% More Deranged) (taylan@fedi.feministwiki.org)
-
Embed this notice
Taylan (Now 18% More Deranged) (taylan@fedi.feministwiki.org)'s status on Monday, 17-Aug-2026 00:22:46 JST 
Taylan (Now 18% More Deranged)
I wish there was an actually good low level / systems programming language. They're all different flavours of shit. -
Embed this notice
Taylan (Now 18% More Deranged) (taylan@fedi.feministwiki.org)'s status on Thursday, 13-Aug-2026 00:05:08 JST
Taylan (Now 18% More Deranged)
you're* -
Embed this notice
Taylan (Now 18% More Deranged) (taylan@fedi.feministwiki.org)'s status on Saturday, 08-Aug-2026 23:10:37 JST
Taylan (Now 18% More Deranged)
@coolbean @mischievoustomato @dagda @snacks
My gramps was a PoW too although not in Russia. I think Dagda's summary is correct.
Recently, gramps was reading the book 'Neger, Neger, Schornsteinfeger!' by Afro German writer Hans-Jürgen Massaquoi, and talking about it with people, casually dropping the N word because he's 100 years old and everyone knows he's not a nazi. -
Embed this notice
Taylan (Now 18% More Deranged) (taylan@fedi.feministwiki.org)'s status on Monday, 27-Jul-2026 00:35:14 JST
Taylan (Now 18% More Deranged)
Wikipedia doesn't want to acknowledge that Hamas is a terrorist organization, despite the fact that a dozen or so countries as well as the EU have designated it as such, as they admit towards the end of the article's introduction.
In contrast, there is an article titled "Gaza genocide" which is "part of a series [of articles] on the Gaza genocide" which immediately claims in its first sentence that Israel is intentionally committing a genocide in Gaza, because some sub-unit of the UN, two countries, and some NGOs and "experts" said so.
Quite an interesting contrast. -
Embed this notice
Taylan (Now 18% More Deranged) (taylan@fedi.feministwiki.org)'s status on Sunday, 12-Jul-2026 19:10:41 JST
Taylan (Now 18% More Deranged)
@dagda Have you seen this? Apparently it's real, from 2024, though they changed it after backlash.
Taliban oppressing women for "identifying as a girl." Why didn't they just identify as a boy? :blobcat-thonking: -
Embed this notice
Taylan (Now 18% More Deranged) (taylan@fedi.feministwiki.org)'s status on Sunday, 12-Jul-2026 19:10:39 JST
Taylan (Now 18% More Deranged)
Amnesty International literally not even knowing the most basic facts about the political groups they libel as "anti-rights" is quite incredible.
They seriously looked at a list of almost two dozen feminist and gay rights groups and said "yup, looks like right wing Christian conservatives to me"?
It's so stupid it boggles the mind. Once again I'm THIS close to becoming a conspiracy theorist and have to remind myself of Hanlon's Razor. -
Embed this notice
Taylan (Now 18% More Deranged) (taylan@fedi.feministwiki.org)'s status on Sunday, 12-Jul-2026 18:13:58 JST
Taylan (Now 18% More Deranged)
@sun
Full Self Driving next year -
Embed this notice
Taylan (Now 18% More Deranged) (taylan@fedi.feministwiki.org)'s status on Thursday, 09-Jul-2026 22:03:49 JST
Taylan (Now 18% More Deranged)
@lebronjames75 Sadly I've noticed this kind of trend in political discourse surrounding digital privacy. The advocates are often spreading undue panic, refusing to look into what precisely is being proposed and how it would be implemented, rally against stuff "on principle" because it "may normalize" surveillance, or is supposedly a secret scheme to start implementing mass-surveillance etc. etc. Typical polarization. -
Embed this notice
Taylan (Now 18% More Deranged) (taylan@fedi.feministwiki.org)'s status on Wednesday, 08-Jul-2026 06:50:54 JST
Taylan (Now 18% More Deranged)
@realcaseyrollins
Sadly, an atheist wouldn't stand a chance. At least according to polls that were done some years ago, people would rather vote for a Muslim POTUS than an atheist. Even shortly after 9/11, I've been told. :blobcat-joy: -
Embed this notice
Taylan (Now 18% More Deranged) (taylan@fedi.feministwiki.org)'s status on Tuesday, 07-Jul-2026 00:13:15 JST
Taylan (Now 18% More Deranged)
Umm @BadFediPosts please?
@SuperDicq @VD15 @georgia @quad @thisjayx @ergo -
Embed this notice
Taylan (Now 18% More Deranged) (taylan@fedi.feministwiki.org)'s status on Tuesday, 16-Jun-2026 22:52:13 JST
Taylan (Now 18% More Deranged)
After all this time, I still loathe journald / journalctl. This is literally the worst aspect of systemd ever. For 99.9% of use-cases there was absolutely never any justification for ditching plaintext log files in /var/log.
And even if an application really needs something more sophisticated than that, including line breaks or binary data in logs, it could just use some well-known plaintext-based serialization format. For example, it could simply log each log line as a JSON string, so line breaks are escaped as \n and you can't "forge" fake log lines with a line break. Or if it really wants more structured data, it could log each line as a JSON array, or object. That way you could STILL just open it with less(1) and use grep(1) and whatnot. Heck, there's jq(1) these days to parse JSON from the CLI.
I loathe journald. -
Embed this notice
Taylan (Now 18% More Deranged) (taylan@fedi.feministwiki.org)'s status on Saturday, 13-Jun-2026 08:23:50 JST
Taylan (Now 18% More Deranged)
@georgia
Deep down I'm neutral good but damn I'm dejected. Or jaded? Maybe even a little bitter. So I try to care less and be more neutral.
Reverse character development. :blobcat-uwucry: -
Embed this notice
Taylan (Now 18% More Deranged) (taylan@fedi.feministwiki.org)'s status on Thursday, 11-Jun-2026 19:07:56 JST
Taylan (Now 18% More Deranged)
@abucci
It's under the GPL v3. Which is a license that cannot be revoked.
- If a new version is buggy, you can use the previous version.
- If the current maintainers do a bad job, you can fork it.
- If development goes inactive, you can fork it.
- If you disagree with the trajectory of development, you can fork it.
- If new versions start coming out under a proprietary license because every single non trivial contributor agrees to this (that's the only way under GPL) and thus it actually stops being free software going forward, YOU CAN STILL FORK IT (the last GPL version).
Free software has a definition. Let's stick to it. Let's not confuse people by claiming that something has ceased to be free software, when it clearly is still free software, just because someone doesn't like some new version, or the recent work of the main maintainer who has thanklessly developed it for years and made it available to the entire world.
I freaking love rsync and have like three daily automated scripts that run it. For a moment you really made me think it's gonna stop being available or something, until I went and checked the license!
Thank GNU it's not going anywhere because it's GPL. -
Embed this notice
Taylan (Now 18% More Deranged) (taylan@fedi.feministwiki.org)'s status on Wednesday, 03-Jun-2026 09:15:19 JST
Taylan (Now 18% More Deranged)
@sun @feld @coolboymew
TBH I didn't read the full thread.
I've read more of it now and I like the Christian Rock analogy. That's the one aspect of it that tends to bother me as well, where you can tell that someone felt very righteous about an ideology, and you can sort of sniff out that certain decisions may have been based on that, and it makes things feel off somehow. (Sometimes it's very blatant so there's no sniffing needed. Like DA: Veilguard. That one's more like a really loud and stinking fart.) -
Embed this notice
Taylan (Now 18% More Deranged) (taylan@fedi.feministwiki.org)'s status on Wednesday, 03-Jun-2026 08:55:24 JST
Taylan (Now 18% More Deranged)
@sun @feld @coolboymew
Nobody bought Concord tho.
"DEI shit" isn't really ruining games that much, it's just that when the game sucks ass and it also has "DEI" then people hyperfixate on that.
Contrast BG3 to DA: Veilguard or whatever it's called, the one with the non binary dragon lady. Both are "DEI" or woke or whatever. But one was made by people with common sense.
I think the reason why a lot of games that some people think are "DEI slop" are still getting a ton of sales is not that "people just keep buying slop" it's simply because most people don't care about that and enjoy the game for being fun.
For example, my little brother loves that Miles Morales Spiderman game, because I guess it's fun. It reminds me of the various Spiderman games we used to play. And the only reason we played those was because they were fun and Spiderman was cool. I literally don't even remember what Mary Jane or other female characters in those games looked like (very pixelated I reckon) and the 10 year old me wouldn't have given a single solitary fuck if Peter Parker had been black, brown, green, or purple under his costume. -
Embed this notice
Taylan (Now 18% More Deranged) (taylan@fedi.feministwiki.org)'s status on Tuesday, 02-Jun-2026 21:49:08 JST
Taylan (Now 18% More Deranged)
@kaia
Huh?
Either BS stats, or some weird thing where teen girls claiming to be "lesbian" (while not being so) somehow correlates with being more sexually active.
There's actually another possible explanation that's very depressing: Actual lesbian teenagers experiencing high rates of sexual assault by males... I hope that's not the case.
I'm leaning towards "BS stats" in line with Occam's Razor. -
Embed this notice
Taylan (Now 18% More Deranged) (taylan@fedi.feministwiki.org)'s status on Sunday, 31-May-2026 03:32:36 JST
Taylan (Now 18% More Deranged)
@lxo @light @quasi @Gnomeshatecheese
Accusing women of "neurosis" for not wanting to be exposed to random male strangers, while they themselves may be naked, is quite blatant misogyny. I'm not sure that's how you meant it to come across, but there's hardly a different way to interpret what you said. I urge you to talk to some women about this and listen to them empathically instead of projecting "neurosis" onto them.
Indeed, based on the story you just told, I have to say the whole thing comes across like a case of projection. If a father is out with a daughter who's so young that she can't use a restroom alone, then there's no problem taking her into the men's restroom. The father is with her after all, which ensures the safety of the child, so there's no problem. Maybe you thought there was some hard set-in-stone rule saying no female human being (even a 4 year-old) is ever allowed to set foot into the men's room, unless the entire concept of single-sex restrooms is abolished? Some flexibility in thinking is warranted here. This isn't "psychological violence" but rather just your own confusion, sorry. -
Embed this notice
Taylan (Now 18% More Deranged) (taylan@fedi.feministwiki.org)'s status on Saturday, 30-May-2026 03:19:58 JST
Taylan (Now 18% More Deranged)
@lxo @light @quasi @Gnomeshatecheese
If only shared locker rooms are available, then women have two options:
1. Accept that she might have to share a locker room with random men. A random male stranger may walk in while she's naked, or she may walk in on a whole group of naked men upon entering a locker room.
2. She avoids ever using public locker rooms, thus not being able to fully participate in society.
Why would you want to force women into this predicament? It's bizarre. -
Embed this notice
Taylan (Now 18% More Deranged) (taylan@fedi.feministwiki.org)'s status on Saturday, 30-May-2026 02:26:59 JST
Taylan (Now 18% More Deranged)
@lxo @light @quasi @Gnomeshatecheese
> question: are male people in a locker room supposed to ask around whether anyone else in there is a trans person or a cis woman, and to get any such person's consent before exposing themselves?
A men's locker room is a place in which men undress. Any person entering hopefully knows that.
How great that these spaces exist, so people who don't want to be exposed to naked male strangers can simply avoid them, and so I as a male don't have to worry about accidentally making some poor woman uncomfortable. -
Embed this notice
Taylan (Now 18% More Deranged) (taylan@fedi.feministwiki.org)'s status on Saturday, 30-May-2026 02:22:40 JST
Taylan (Now 18% More Deranged)
@lxo @light @quasi @Gnomeshatecheese
> assuming she's not a made-up propaganda tool
No, victims of male violence are not "made up propaganda tools." This is an awful thing to say.
> I'm arguing nobody should be forced to face danger to change clothes
As confirmed by statistics from the UK, the changes you propose do as a matter of fact force women to face higher risk of sexual assault.
> requiring women to go make themselves more vulnerable in spaces where they're separated from their safe company where aggressors could be hiding
This is a nonsensical fantasy situation.
There is no such thing as men secretly sneaking into female-only spaces to wait for an individual woman to enter alone so he can pounce on her, which would be thwarted if only men were allowed into there as well.
Maybe such a thing has happened before in extremely rare cases, but even then, how would unisex rooms even solve this? Even such a psychopathic plan would be easier to commit with unisex rooms: The man can walk in freely and doesn't have to sneak around. Then he just needs to wait for a moment where a woman enters and nobody else is around. And the woman won't even be immediately alerted by his presence because it's a unisex space.
Had it been a female only space, then not only would the man need to sneak in unnoticed to begin with; women entering would also be immediately on alert as they see or hear him, since it's a female only space.
I think you're tying yourself into knots trying to come up with a reason why unisex spaces are safer, when it is simply not so.
> now let's think of a trans woman who is small and not particularly strong. does such a woman deserve a safe space? or is she not worthy of it? is she under a lower risk of violence in a men's space, in a women's space, or in a shared space?
Small and feminine men (some of whom might "identify as a woman") deserve safety as well, yes. Is their safety improved by abolishing female-only spaces? How?
> how about a trans man? does such a man deserve a safe space? where would he be safer?
Women who identify as men deserve safety as well, yes. Is their safety improved by abolishing female-only spaces?
> people have no easy way of assessing one's sexual orientation, just like they have no easy way of assessing one's assigned sex.
We can easily assess the sex of around 99% of everyone, by looks and voice.
And as I've already explained before: If a man genuinely passes as a woman, then no women would be bothered by him using the women's room anyway. The problem solves itself. What you're campaigning for is that men who look obviously like men should be allowed into women's spaces and that women should have no right to complain.
> what can be more evidently noticed is the gender expression, which would be fine for telling men and women apart. but that's not the categorization you're arguing for, is it?
No, a man putting on a dress and makeup is still easy to tell apart from a woman with the same style. Look at the photos I sent earlier.
A woman wearing trousers, having a buzz cut, and not using makeup doesn't make her look like a man.
The "gender expression" of a person has no relevance to this topic at all, really.
All GNU social JP content and data are available under the