Well, this is fun: Cards Against Humanity have apparently released a new version where every joke on every card is fully explained, turning the game into an “Informational product” to make it 100% exempt from Trump’s tarriffs:
every time something new is invented people want it to be a person. computer programs “oh what about artificial intelligence”. machines “how about robots”. straw “we need something to scare crows”
atla just so happened to write one of the most insane and complex brother sister relationships in all of television, and yet for some reason everyone focused on zuko and azula instead, even though they are basically just normal siblings, and as such not even that interesting ..
ALT
their dynamic is more fraught and tragic than you could ever comprehend……
ALT
this☝️ is just a typical sibling interaction
katara and sokka are what happens when you are your brother’s mother and your brother also tries to be your father. you love them, you hate them, you’re half of them, you can’t stand them, you look after them, they keep you safe.
azula and zuko are both just gifted kid burnouts with a dad that only loves the winner.
The guys in these photos are males in the process of transitioning into breeding plumage, which is why they’re all patchy! When they’re fully in breeding plumage, they look like this:
Females and males out of breeding plumage look like this:
You can see how the males in the original post are partway between the two! The species is also known as the Red Avadavat or the Red Munia, and they’re native to southern Asia
not to be a number nerd on main but 2025 (45^2) will be the only square year most of us ever experience. the last one was 1936 and the next one will be 2116
i very much will be a number nerd on main and the 27th of September will be extra special…
I keep saying “separating men and women’s spaces is anti-feminist at its root and all competitions, bathrooms, etc., should be mixed-gender” and people keep saying “trans people should be allowed in their respective gendered spaces.” Which I agree with, but is only a step on the path, and I take issue with people treating it like an end goal. In fact, we COULD eliminate that step entirely by simply having mixed gender spaces.
I remember the fight for mixed gender sports, but now we’re fighting for trans people’s rights to be included in gendered sports. The only justification for gendered sports that exists is Those Men Will Crush Our Weak Little Women. It’s sexist. Segregation is always a means of oppression.
I’m not a fan of that goalpost shift, and I’m not sure why it’s so popular as of late.
Humans of all the great apes are remarkably sexually non-dimorphic. The (mean) difference between men and women tends to be ~15%. For reference, other apes like gorillas, orangutans, tend to have about 50% dimorphism. 15% is comparable level of dimorphism to dogs and horses.
Both of which, if youll note, are species that we race in non-sexgender-segregated sports. There’s not one derby for boy horses and another one for girl ones.
The majority of the dimorphism that we *see* is social and cultural. Women are discouraged from sports from a much earlier age than men. Women who are naturally tall and muscular may choose not to pursue body building because of social pressures for women to be small and dainty. Women who have broad shoulders, double jointed ankles and webbed toes (the things that make Michael Phelps such a good swimmer) may never touch a swimming pool in their life because of similar stigma surrounding women’s bodies that men are not subject to.
Instead of looking to abolish the conditions that create these sexgender differences, trans-exclusionists attempt to reinforce the binary by asserting that women are naturally weak and there is no possible way to overcome this difference except by segregation. Ask yourself: who benefits from that train of thought?
This is unprecedented. Tech companies don’t just pull out of military contracts like this. I apologize if this sounds pessimistic in any way, but I really am just in complete awe that this happened. I had absolutely zero trust in Microsoft to do the right thing, and this news just blew me away to wake up to. This will never wash the blood off of Microsoft’s hands, but this decision will still echo out. It is a sign of change. The world is starting to see Israel’s genocide for what it is. Palestine will be free.
Here’s what I found from credible sources about Microsoft’s announcement / public statements concerning disabling services to an Israeli military unit. The picture is detailed; it supports that Microsoft did cut off or disable some services — but not a full severing of all contracts.
Microsoft’s public announcement and internal memo
Microsoft’s president, Brad Smith, sent a memo to employees stating that Microsoft has “ceased and disabled a set of services to a unit within the Israel Ministry of Defense (IMOD).”Financial Times+3GeekWire+3Reuters+3
The memo says Microsoft found “evidence that supports elements” of the Guardian-led allegations that certain IMOD / IDF units used Azure storage capacity in the Netherlands and used AI services for surveillance. Financial Times+3GeekWire+3Reuters+3
Microsoft informed the Israeli Defense Ministry of its decision to cease and disable specified subscriptions and services, especially those involving cloud storage and AI services / technologies that were implicated in surveillance. GeekWire+5Reuters+5Financial Times+5
Microsoft emphasizes that cybersecurity services to Israel and other Middle Eastern countries are not affected by this decision. GeekWire+3Reuters+3Financial Times+3
What Microsoft had previously stated / its policy stance
Back in May 2025, Microsoft issued a public “Statement on the issues relating to technology services in Israel and Gaza”. In that, Microsoft said it had launched a formal review into allegations (from The Guardian) that an IDF unit had used Azure for mass surveillance of Palestinians. The Official Microsoft Blog
In that statement, Microsoft claimed that up to that moment, it found no evidence that its technologies (Azure, AI) had been used to harm people in Gaza or to violate its terms of service. The Official Microsoft Blog
Microsoft said that its contracts with the Israel Ministry of Defense are structured as normal commercial relationships, bound by its terms of service, acceptable use policies, and AI code of conduct. The Official Microsoft Blog
The statement also acknowledged limitations: Microsoft said it doesn’t always have visibility into how customers use software on their own servers or in government clouds not operated by Microsoft. The Official Microsoft Blog
Key takeaways & caveats
From comparing Microsoft’s statements with media reports:
They did disable / terminate specific services
The disabling is targeted: specific IMOD subscriptions, especially those connected to cloud storage and AI services, have been cut. Financial Times+3Reuters+3GeekWire+3
The move was triggered by Microsoft’s internal review confirming some elements of the Guardian investigation. GeekWire+3Reuters+3The Verge+3
It’s not a full severance of all contracts or services
Microsoft explicitly said that most contracts / services remain intact, especially “cybersecurity services” and other non-surveillance functions. Reuters+2Financial Times+2
Microsoft frames the decision as enforcing its terms of service rather than a broader political or moral withdrawal. Financial Times+3GeekWire+3Reuters+3
The decision pertains to a unit within IMOD, sometimes referred to in reporting as Unit 8200, and not the entirety of Israel’s military. Jerusalem Post+4The Guardian+4The Verge+4
The review is in progress / transparency is promised
The decision is framed as ensuring compliance with Microsoft’s terms, especially prohibitions on use for mass surveillance of civilians. GeekWire+2The Verge+2
So, to your earlier question: Yes, Microsoft did sever (i.e. disable) some major services (cloud + AI) used by a key Israeli military intelligence unit, but no, it did not fully sever all ties or cancel all contracts with the Israeli military or government. Microsoft’s own statements support this more limited, principles-based action.
If you like, I can pull up the exact lines from Brad Smith’s memo (full text) and also see how activists / BDS groups are judging whether this is sufficient. Do you want me to fetch those for you?
tl;dr - the relationship between microsoft and the IOF is much deeper than just this. continue boycotting microsoft until BDS says to stop.
ALT
ALT
