Liver failure is terminal. She was invariably going to die without the transplant. She wanted to receive the donation, her donor wanted to donate. If the success rate for a living transplant is zero that's one thing, but that's not being claimed here since she wasn't eligible for procedural reasons.

I'd be inclined to agree, except that her partner wanted to donate HIS liver and was prohibited from doing so as a living donation due to the alcohol use determination.

Thank you for the kind words. Not updating is not a decision we have taken lightly. I can’t speak to the specifics because I’m not tech enough to fully understand them, but I believe a major part of the reason for not updating has to do with that migration off Lemmy - that it changes the way data is stored and organized and because of such the migration process (moving comments, threads, etc. to sublinks) would need to be entirely redesigned.
https://beehaw.org/comment/3796083

The instance admins have indicated in the post linked above and in several others that there isn't really any plan to upgrade to the newer Lemmy version given the desire to move to Sublinks.

Edit: There's some more discussion about it in this thread posted earlier today. https://beehaw.org/post/15453474

Not even, it's just a case of "this role was one of many eliminated as part of a larger cost-cutting measure affecting 200 employees."

Harris should share a video that mimics Elon's voice talking about how he loves and supports his trans daughter and accepts her unconditionally as a woman.

Edit: Several people seem to have taken this seriously. For clarity, it was a joke. It would be really unfair and inappropriate to weaponize her in this way without her consent. I regret the ambiguity.

Sure, but the argument isn't "should we ban work that is based on the study of past cultural creation" it's "we should prevent computational/corporate exploitation of past cultural creation in order to protect the interests of humans."

I hate Fox News. I think they are a joke masquerading as news and mostly serve to fuel misinformation, fear, and hate. I have no doubt that a significant number of their staff members are incredibly racist, overtly and covertly. I don't know enough about Kilmeade to know for sure where he sits there, but I definitely think being a Fox host is already a pretty big red flag on the "are you a racist" test.

But... I have to be honest on this one, I hear him say "college."

I think you'll find loads of young people without time for art, too.

The minors were charged with 20 counts of creating child sex abuse images and 20 counts of offenses against their victims’ moral integrity.

The article doesn't make the claim that the AI is what makes it illegal, simply that AI was used. It's literally the second sentence. Indeed, it goes on to highlight that there are legal novelties prosecuting the use of AI.

That 2600 pages of Trans hate collection is 60MB.

This piece is bad. That (and this post in general) is, of course, my lay opinion about the piece. But then, we are having a lay discussion about a lay opinion piece. So, the piece is bad. Perhaps the claim it makes has merit, but I find the piece itself unconvincing and thus don't find the actual claim particularly persuasive either.

First, an initial annoyance. While I found myself at least initially compelled by the argument that to call someone a narcissist could be considered a harmful slur, I won't be censoring the term "narcissist" in my thoughts here. This is because the author has established by convention in this piece (title and content) and others on the same blog (I'll come back to this) that, in contrast to other slurs, it is acceptable to use that term uncensored in at least some cases. In this piece that convention seems to be that it's acceptable to use the term when it isn't directed towards a person, and perhaps for initial "establishment" purposes. That said, the other slurs are censored. Maybe that's because they aren't related content, and that's fair, but I feel that if you're comparing the badness of two words, and you won't even say one of them, that's the worse word..

And about that other content. One might imagine that, after reading a piece about how it's never acceptable to use the term narcissist directed towards an individual, that "we don't use those words," it would be inconceivable for the author to directly identify a specific individual as a narcissist, regardless of a diagnosis or lack thereof. Unfortunately, that's not the case. That Maui (the character from the movie Moana, identified in the linked post as a narcissist) is a fictional character is not lost on me, but it would certainly be inappropriate for me to call him the n-word simply because he's not a real person and his skin happens to be a shade other than alabaster. Moreover, the Donald Trump piece argues that it would be improper to attempt to label someone as a narcissist (more specifically that it would be improper to attempt to diagnose him thusly) because he's a celebrity, and one we only get a narrow view of through the lens of "wacky media hijinks." What, then, is a Disney movie? To argue (implicitly) that it's alright to use the term "narcissist" to refer to a specific individual in some cases entirely erodes the argument that it's a critically harmful slur. Can it be used in offense? Of course, but "You're just a woman, you wouldn't understand" is an offensive statement too, but it doesn't make "woman" a slur. Anyways, I've rambled about this particular annoyance for WAY too long already.

Next, there's the title of the thing. If the goal of a piece is to change minds, this is a bad way to go about it. While it's impossible to set aside the bonfire that any post about Trump will attract, such an obviously provocative title is sure to kindle the flames under any reader even before they begin. Those who support him are probably not going to open the thing, or will almost surely bail after the first few lines in any case. And those who don't are going to be annoyed that a significant portion of the piece seems to be spent largely defending him against the label being applied, and thus disregard the actual arguments being laid out regardless of merit.

I'd also like to comment on the claim the piece makes about it being improper to diagnose Trump. More than half of the whole post is spent elaborating on the particular nuances of whether it's appropriate for trained professionals to make statements about whether Trump. That's well and good, but isn't really relevant to the question the piece presents. The question of whether clinicians can use clinical terms in a clinical context to refer to someone isn't an open one. The post makes the compelling argument that clinicians can't ethically comment on the specifics about a patient whom they've not examined. However, the piece seems to intentionally misrepresent the actual standard explained by the referenced materials. First, the Goldwater Rule does not contain any exemption that would permit psychiatrists to "rebuke" claims about a specific individual. The Wikipedia page linked in the piece is explicit about this in the section about Donald Trump specifically. Second, the comments about Allen Frances "speak[ing] out against diagnosing Trump" link to two sources where Frances specifically comments on Trump having narcissistic personality traits, but for a few (potentially) missing criteria. The sources do not really indicate what the piece purports that they do, and the combined error is egregious.

The piece goes on by detouring into a discussion on the morality of who is allowed to make comments on topics, vaguely implying that the only moral interaction one can have about a narcissist's behaviors is the interaction between a clinician and patient. The only healthy and acceptable interaction towards those with NPD is help, acceptance, and sympathy. Oh, and also it's totally fine to think that Donald Trump should be harmed "to the fullest extent" or shot.

This piece is bad. It's not convincing, and probably does more to hurt its cause then to help it. A more compelling piece would have, amongst other things, probably spent literally any time at all on how one can healthily describe narcissistic traits without being harmful to those with NPD. But, that would necessitate a situation wherein we're allowed to criticize narcissists without it being portrayed as us unfairly assuming that all of them are evil abusers. And alas, the piece is bad. And now, having spent the last several hours drafting this response, I can put it aside.

Last year, the popular right-wing podcaster Steven Crowder announced his own unwilling split. “My then-wife decided that she didn’t want to be married anymore,” he complained, “and in the state of Texas, that is completely permitted.”

I mean, women only exist to be owned by their husbands, after all.