I'm not sure "swap" is quite the right word for it. Effects can be used to drastically reduce the risks for performers, which already happens. Stunt performers wear harnesses and safety wires for high falls that get digitally painted out. Functioning guns with blanks can be replaced by non-functioning guns that have muzzle flash effects added later (though I still don't know how to accurately depict recoil). I would like to see awards going towards innovations in these areas.

That said, I'm not sure how to properly honor stunt performers for the risks and sacrifices asked of them without encouraging more people to do it.

Idiots will hurt themselves doing stunts for cheap too without the prestige. The "Big" stunts are actually usually safer as they have more people knowing what they are doing.

Having a prize for stunts encourages more low budget unsafe stunt work too as people take risks to increase their prestige to get the bigger gigs.

I don’t deny that stunt work demands immense talent and effort and risk. Just like a performance artist who does five-finger filet really fast for money. But is it moral to give out accolades for it?

Would it be better to look at ourselves and say “Woah, this is fucked up. It’s fucked up that it’s happening and it’s fucked up that I’m entertained by it. What can I do to encourage less of this in the world?”

This is all helpful and very good to keep front-of-mind while interviewing, but I imagine all but the most obtuse hiring managers are going to know how to not ask these kinds of questions. What I think would be an insightful follow-up to this article is how, as a hiring manager, to spot transphobic assessments after an interview panel/round has taken place.

When interviewing in the tech field, it's common to go through several rounds of interviews: one interview with an HR representative to sniff-test the candidate and ensure compensation expectations are in-line, one interview with the hiring manager to see if they think you're a good fit for a full interview loop, then the full interview loop itself (3-6 individual interviews with potential coworkers assessing various aspects of your talents). After that interview loop, the interviewers all meet to discuss how you did and share their assessments. The flaw here is that there's no verification that any particular interviewer is providing a fair or accurate assessment; you just have their word. If an interviewer is made uncomfortable by my appearance, they can claim that I didn't answer questions correctly, or that I didn't speak with sufficient confidence and authority, or any other kind of misrepresentation or half-truth and no one would be the wiser.

Hiring managers should have tools in their toolbelt to spot indicators of this. The biggest red flag I've seen is if the interviewer refuses to use the candidate's name or pronouns when sharing their assessments, like speaking in lists or incomplete sentences. Instead of saying "Susan didn't seem like she was adequately prepared for this interview," they might say "Wasn't ready for the interview. We don't need people like this."

There's more stuff like this: body language, not being able to produce notes on the interview, etc.

I wonder if Transvitae takes article submissions.

I'm sure Dunkey will be happy about the Animal Well plug.

Strawberry Mansion

https://youtu.be/dpPsvOSc1Gk

Trust me; you’ll have a good time. 🩷

Even using GhostArchive, the medium article is cut off after a few paragraphs. :(

See also the July 4 2022 cover of the New Yorker:

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/cover-story/cover-story-2022-07-04

I don't like Elon Musk either, but Cox and 404 are awful close to libel with that headline. They're talking about a person who goes by the online identity "ElonmuskWHM", not Elon Musk himself.

Loves, your journalism is strong; you don't need to do that shit.

Regular Car Reviews had some genuine signature insight on this…

https://youtube.com/shorts/DetsWY3e99w

“Yumyumyumyum, these boots taste amazing!”

This is an issue to take up with individual website operators.

Almost every large website is going to be protected by both a CDN and an application firewall, either of which can be configured to slow down, gatekeep or outright block traffic coming from an IP that is suspected to be a VPN. And there are many reasons why they could be doing this:

• websites that rely on advertising to operate get less value from VPN users. A lot of users using the same IP address means advertisers have a more difficult time showing them relevant ads, thus paying the website less for them. So there is a financial incentive for a website to convince its users to stop using their VPN voluntarily.
• a security-minded site could be concerned with malicious actors using VPNs to shield their identities and locations during attack/breech attempts.
• a site seeking to protect its content from automated scraping by various bots (search crawlers, LLM data harvesting or competitors) may believe that those actors are using VPNs to hide their identities.

The only solution I can see is to reach out to the site operators themselves and explain your valid use case. I’ve done this a few times myself. I’ve never received a response, but some of the websites that I visit which used to block my VPN traffic eventually stopped blocking it.

If you don’t like something, make some noise.

Alternatively, you could use a cloud provider to spin up a micro instance running your own OpenVPN server that you re-roll IPs on occasionally, but this takes more effort and doesn’t really address the root cause.

Jack Reacher, the vanilla gorilla.

But the slaves' emancipation was right around the corner in 1865, approximately 124 years prior to the release of Belgian techno anthem Pump Up the Jam.