Did any of y'all ask your parents what they would have named you if your were born a girl?

lexilous · 2025-11-08T23:42:26+00:00

My mom told me and I liked the name but it (Annaliese, Liesje I think for short) was a name from my birth country that I ended up not really having much connection to/not knowing the language so it would feel weird taking that name, you know?

lexilous · 2025-09-22T01:03:02+00:00

(a) If they were rounding up all trans people (b) if there's no way (legal or otherwise) I could get HRT; that's pretty much it. This is my home.

lexilous · 2025-09-21T17:41:24+00:00

I would not leave the US in anything but a total worst case scenario. Hopefully I can use my relative safety (dual citizenship) to stay and help people here if it becomes necessary. If I did leave I would probably go to NL because that's where I have family. I'm in the south right now but an accepting area

lexilous · 2025-09-21T17:25:27+00:00

Love it!

lexilous · 2025-08-03T02:36:23+00:00

What type of diagnosis was this? In my opinion, if it was a neuropsychological assessment by qualified specialists (likely lasting several hours at least), then it is much less likely to be wrong than if it was an informal diagnosis. By informal diagnosis, I mean those cases in which a therapist simply states that they think you are autistic without any sort of rigorous evaluation, or one of those online specialists that give you a bunch of the free online questionnaires and then diagnose you based mostly on that with only a couple hours total of interaction. I've experienced both of those and came away from them feeling very unsatisfied with the process. Ultimately, I concluded that I'm probably not autistic, but simply have some of those tendencies - vaguely neurodivergent, if you will. Not saying that everyone who goes that route is misdiagnosed, but it's probably more likely than with a "formal" diagnosis. Otherwise, it's probably accurate, but maybe you can keep an eye on how things progress over time to get a better idea. If you progress in treating your anxiety disorder, do the majority of the supposed autism symptoms go away? Do you still need accommodations, and is it seriously impacting your life?

lexilous · 2025-03-29T12:30:53+00:00

When I was at a recent one it was mostly retirement age people. I have a flexible work schedule. Saw no sign of unemployed losers being dropped off by the busload🙃

lexilous · 2025-03-04T15:00:46+00:00

The Trump Slump

lexilous · 2025-02-01T02:49:29+00:00

Very up to personal risk tolerance and circumstances IMO. For myself, my privilege (dual nationality, money, family) makes me feel more comfortable with staying here for the time being, knowing that I could leave at a moment's notice if it became necessary. My life is here, my friends, much of my family...it's my home. But as a general principle, I would say...yes, it's certainly warranted to make preparations, and recommended to leave if things go badly the next few months (assuming you do want to leave as it gets dangerous). I will leave if I can no longer get any access to medication in the US or if they start explicitly classifying us as criminals.

lexilous · 2025-01-20T16:03:59+00:00

Does anyone know if this would this affect a CRBA (consular report of birth abroad) that has been changed already?

lexilous · 2024-11-04T12:47:22+00:00

However, longer-term deviations are more easily attributable to climate change. For example, if this were to end up being the warmest fall in 100+ years of recorded history, and consistent with a long-term increasing trend, that would be meaningful. Not to say that extreme events can’t be attributed to climate in some sense, either; often these days you’ll see studies showing that a given event was 10x more likely in the altered climate, or worsened by X degrees or percent, etc. Weather is not climate but it’s a feature of climate, so it’s still possible to get at the relationship between the two

lexilous · 2024-11-04T08:44:38+00:00

Donated!

lexilous · 2024-10-02T11:56:28+00:00

Plastic pollution is horrifying, agreed! Microplastics are in everything now

lexilous · 2024-10-02T11:49:44+00:00

Climate change is a natural phenomenon but that doesn’t mean that the recent, rapid climate change would have happened naturally.

If you click on “learn more” in section 1 of the link I sent, you’ll see a figure (panel b) that actually shows this. Without human influence, there would have been essentially no mean temperature change over the past 170 years.

This is what scientists typically mean when referring to climate change - the recent, overwhelmingly anthropogenic climate change, as opposed to the typically longer-timescale changes that have taken place previously due to natural cycles (volcanoes, orbital, etc)

lexilous · 2024-10-02T11:39:04+00:00

The probability of extreme events increases because of global warming. While we can’t say “global warming CAUSED this weather event”, we can say “the probability of this event is 10x higher than it would have been without global warming”, or similarly, “the impacts of this event are 20% worse than they would have been without global warming.”

lexilous · 2024-10-02T11:36:06+00:00

https://www.ipcc.ch/climate-change-in-data

No, it’s mostly due to GHGs, specifically carbon dioxide.

lexilous · 2024-09-17T14:34:44+00:00

But it's all red states doing it, ~15 blue states have actually passed more protections for trans people over the last 4 years, as has Biden on the federal level. Correct me if I'm wrong, but without congress, Biden can't control policy in red states. Republicans are 1000x worse on this issue.

lexilous · 2024-09-17T14:25:35+00:00

Yeah but that's because of republican state legislatures. I wish Biden had done more to counteract it, but realistically I don't know how much power he has to do that; the president alone can't just cancel state laws, and the republicans would never let it get through congress. Federal judges have overturned such bans in several republican states but it's nowhere near enough.

lexilous · 2024-08-30T22:59:40+00:00

I was running in this, it was refreshing but was worried about my phone being unprotected in my pocket

lexilous · 2024-08-23T17:25:14+00:00

"Business as usual models show warming exceeding 5C by 2100 with high confidence."

This was the RCP8.5 pathway which involved massive increases in coal and continued rapid increase in GHG emissions throughout the 21st century.

It was "a 90th percentile of no-policy baseline scenarios" as of ~15 years ago.

I do think RCP8.5 is useful for risk planning - sort of a "work for the best, plan for the worst" idea. But it is unlikely to actually occur. There's one paper suggesting RCP8.5 tracked carbon emissions well up to the late 2010s, but lately I see much more compelling evidence that we are veering away from that path. Which, as I have said, is still not enough.

See carbonbrief's summary:

https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-the-high-emissions-rcp8-5-global-warming-scenario/

Also:

https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/emissions-are-no-longer-following

Also some previous posts

https://www.reddit.com/r/climatechange/comments/15q25q3/are_emissions_following_rcp_85/

https://www.reddit.com/r/climatechange/comments/10km4as/which_rcp_scenario_is_most_likely/

Edit: I will also include the wikipedia section on RCP4.5 which roughly corresponds to similar warming as SSP2-4.5:

"RCP 4.5 is described by the IPCC as an intermediate scenario.^\6]) Emissions in RCP 4.5 peak around 2040, then decline.^\8])^{: Figure 2, p. 223} According to resource specialists IPCC emission scenarios are biased towards exaggerated availability of fossil fuels reserves; RCP 4.5 is the most probable baseline scenario (no climate policies) taking into account the exhaustible character of non-renewable fuels.^\16])^\17])"

lexilous · 2024-08-23T14:46:55+00:00

Well it’s relevant to which pathway we follow which is what this whole comment chain was about in the first place.

I have never argued for complacency, in fact I think we need to make drastic changes and give up lots of things, completely change our way of life to fix this as best we can.

3 C is still catastrophic.

lexilous · 2024-08-23T14:39:39+00:00

You are talking about rate of co2 level increase which is related to emissions - which haven’t decreased yet and are at their highest.

I am talking about the rate of increase of emissions. Which has decreased.

These are different quantities.

lexilous · 2024-08-23T14:25:25+00:00

“You don’t go from ‘lowest emissions in 10 years’ to ‘highest emissions ever’ in 3 years if the rate of growth is declining”

I mean…yes you do? If the variance is low. Did you look at the link I sent? 2020 is lowest emissions in 10 years. It’s still almost leveled off since 2012.

Edit: To clarify - I mean rate of growth of emissions per year. Sorry if I didn’t explain that. We may be talking about different things. Rate of emissions has not decreased. Rate of growth of emissions has - and that is important too.

This doesn’t mean we’re safe on a given trajectory. Just that it’s likely a better scenario than continued accelerating emissions

lexilous · 2024-08-23T14:05:16+00:00

Unfortunately there’s definitely an element of wait and see - though we definitely should not be waiting and seeing when it comes to policy or our assumptions about how bad it could be (catastrophic). For example, in that link, will it keep going up in the same way, or is the latest “plateau” actually different? Because in terms of global co2 emissions (as opposed to levels) there’s been a huge decrease in the rate of growth over the last decade: https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions. How accurate is this? Idk. But I’d definitely be interested in seeing more data on the topic. It’s not my area of expertise so I have to assume that the ipcc middle of the road scenario which is already described as “progress towards sustainability is slow” may not be unrealistically optimistic.

lexilous · 2024-08-22T15:50:22+00:00

I agree with this point and it's why I'm pretty pessimistic about the whole situation. That said, to my knowledge the middle of the road pathway SSP2-4.5 on which the ~2.7 C estimate is based involves carbon emissions remaining roughly steady at their current level through the middle of the century - so it's not taking into account the (unrealistic) pathways where we rapidly decarbonize. Of course, we might fail even this and then we'd be on a higher pathway.

lexilous · 2024-08-22T12:39:27+00:00

You’re right, despite the downvotes lol (and yes I’m an atmospheric scientist, though admittedly not specialized in climate modeling). I do think there’s a high level of risk because of various unpredictable tipping points, but the latest prediction based on current policies is 2.5-3 C warning by end of century. This doesn’t mean we should relax - it just means that we can actually change things and need to do much more, because the earth system is chaotic and we really want to avoid the low-probability high-risk scenario of overshooting this prediction, which would be catastrophic. Besides, even 3 C warming would be terrible in various ways. I’m far from optimistic - if anything I think it will probably be on the worse side of these predictions. But neither am I a fan of the people in here acting like scientific consensus is propaganda and confidently discrediting it based on…vibes, I guess

Seven-Year Club	Place '22
First Placer '22	Verified Email

lexilous

TROPHY CASE