You’re giving transphobic bigots too much credit; no one reads a verse saying that eunuchs aren’t allowed in the temple and infers that it’s a sin to be trans.

They aren’t reading the Bible and then developing prejudices based on what it says; that’s not what’s happening here.

Instead, what they are doing is starting with the prejudices they already have and then fishing through the Bible trying to find anything that even remotely matches so they can twist it into a post-hoc justification.

In this specific case, that verse doesn’t justify their position in any way shape or form.

The only reason anyone would interpret that as condemnation of trans people is if they’re actively looking for excuses to condemn them.

First off, that verse is talking about eunuchs rather than trans people, which is actually a really important distinction.

Further, that verse doesn’t even say that being a eunuch is bad; it just says they’re not allowed to enter the temple. which, for what it’s worth, hasn’t even existed for thousands of years.

Moreover, it is immediately followed by a verse saying the same thing about anyone whose ancestors (up to 10 generations back) were illegitimate children.

So, you can’t interpret it as saying that it’s a sin to be trans unless you also interpret it as saying it’s a sin to have great-great-great grandparents who weren’t married.

You’re right that neither the Bible nor any other religious text is a legitimate reason to persecute people, but that’s not what’s going on here.

They aren’t motivated by what the Bible teaches, they’re motivated by bigotry and performing mental acrobatics to try to find anything in the Bible that they can somehow twist into an excuse for their bigotry.

I feel silly now for not realizing that was a stage name.

I straight up thought her actual name was “Whoopi”.

Yes and No.

Yes, everything increases in difficulty but the increases in difficulty are asymmetrical.

The difficulty of reversing a computation (e.g. reversing a hash or decrypting an encrypted message) grows much faster than just performing the computation (e.g. hashing a message or encrypting one).

That’s the basis for encryption to begin with.

It’s also why increasing the size of the problem (e.g. the size of the hash or the size of a private key) makes it harder to crack.

The threat posed by quantum computing is that it might be feasible to reverse much larger computations than it previously was. The caveat on that, however is that they have a hard limit of what problems they can solve based on the number of qbits they have.

So for example, let’s say you use RSA for encryption and someone builds a 1024 qbit quantum computer. All you have to do is increase your key size so that it would require 1025 qbits to crack, and then that quantum computer wouldn’t provide an attacker any benefit at all.

(Of course, they’d still be able to read your old messages, but that’s also a fundamental principle of cryptography; it only protects you for a period of time)

It wasn’t being marketed and sold as a meme product. It was being marketed and sold as critical safety equipment.

On top of that, it was being sold during a pandemic when such equipment was being used continuously by large segments of the population.

It shouldn’t be surprising that large numbers of people bought it; the company selling it lied to those people to trick them into buying it.

The perfect material for Tesla’s new cyberboat

This is old. I’ve seen this image long ago… well before AI slop was a thing.

Honestly, Cosby’s fall was larger than Kanye’s.

Unless you were alive in the 1980’s it’s hard to understand how beloved Bill Cosby was.

It was probably on-par to how Mister Rogers is remembered today.

He went from that to being completely persona non grata.

I think Kanye’s fall is nothing in comparison to that; especially considering that he still has a career even though it’s not as successful as it used to be.

She’ll get even madder if you try to defend yourself saying “I can’t read your mind”…

because that makes it too obvious you weren’t listening when she explicitly told you what was wrong.

My first thought is that this entire article reads like a camouflaged press release from Meta.

The source for the article seems to be an anonymous, internal leak, but those “leaks” are often from the company itself as a way to send a message while maintaining plausible deniability.

My second thought is that they are grouping together wildly different types of infractions without saying how many people were guilty of each one. It’s possible that one person was committing outright fraud while everyone else was just accused of a minor technicality.

Finally, the accusation of “pooling” funds seems like a big tell. That’s what you should want the employees to do to save the company money. Without specific details about why that was wrong this sounds more like a gotcha than a legitimate reason to fire someone.

All of these together make this article seem like a way of scaring employees into resigning so they can cut the workforce without being subject to WARN act requirements.