sudneo

when a man breaks a record he is a super human, when a woman breaks a record she is a man.

How did I miss the point? To me it seems clear that what you were saying that women can't be successful, if they are, they are considered men (because men have success).

I am not fixating on the example, sorry, it's the whole thesis you condensed into this sentence that I am fixated on. Women's success can be downplayed in many ways. Either way, in sports in 2024 I don't think this is as much of a problem as it is - say - in business. Most importantly, I think this case had not much to do with downplaying Imane's success (the whole case started waaaay earlier she won the medal), but simply with other factors.

You can take any other boxer, I specifically chose black and "masculine" athletes as examples to show that even race/body type alone was not the determining factor. In these Olympic games you have just Imane's example: how can you call this a trend or make general statements with one case (not even the Taiwanese boxer got attention)?

What do you mean? Comparing the rate at which women are subject to such effects vs men is a worse statistic than saying “but many successful women are not subject to such effects”? If there is a systematic bias towards women’s success being downplayed, you cannot call this an isolated incident of stereotypical bias.

Men don't have a category to which they are wrongfully assigned when they win sports. This is also because men are the higher category in most sports (i.e., higher performers), so it is a parallel that simply doesn't make sense. So yes. It is a worse statistics because men who are victim of gender stereotypes are generally not the ones who excel at sports (men who are called women in general break the masculine stereotype of the muscular and competitive guy - and these unsurprisingly are not characteristics common in elite athletes).

If there is a systematic bias towards women’s success being downplayed

But this was not your claim either. Your claim is that downplaying is done by specifically saying those women are men. The whole point here is on the cause, not the existence of the phenomenon in general.

To be honest I don't consider something being Russian as automatically 100% false. This case from the IBA seems likely made up, or at least it is until they provide further proof, which they didn't so far.

That said, this is irrelevant in this particular conversation. Real or not, that precedent is in my opinion partly responsible for why people decided to attack this particular athletes. I agree with you on the next country also playing a role.

Basically my whole argument is that there are multiple factors that made this a case. The fact that she "broke records" or "had success" is generally very low in the list, imho.

but there are other very successful women who have not been treated that way

What I am actually saying is that the vast majority of successful women athletes didn't suffer from this at this time at all. If this argument works only for Imane Khelif (not even the Taiwanese boxer, who has been mostly ignored), out of the hundreds of women who just won medals, maybe it is not an argument that can be generalized to "women of success", and other causes have to be searched.

This to me is basic common sense: if a thesis works only on a handful of examples and there are hundreds of counter examples, maybe the thesis is wrong. A tendency would require also more examples.

Those look nothing like "tools" to me.

I will make it simpler: In this very thread a person talked about "high testosterone". Why they didn't say the same about the 99% of the women who won competitions? Probably because of a combination of factors:

• The masculine aspect of this particular boxer, that doesn't fit the image that many people have of women
• The media reporting the immediately pushed to a polarization of opinions -> you had to take a side
• The previous IBA debacle that planted the seed of the doubt

To me the combination of the above is a much better explanation of the causes for which people attacked this particular boxer, and not the many other women of success, including black and including masculine (e.g., Simone Biles, or Grace Bullen).

historically of women whose success has been deliberately downplayed because she does not fit the stereotypical women in their head vs men who suffered from the same

I really don't see how this measurement can lead to any conclusion. How can you not measure the amount of women who don't fit the stereotypical woman aspect and yet whose success has not been downplayed due to their aspect (i.e., people called them men)?

I doubt that fight can be counted as "exceptionally good performance", but anyway why the same didn't happen for those that both performed exceptionally well and actually set records?

There are so many examples of that not happening that makes me seriously doubt it identifies the right cause(s).

At the moment we don't have any concrete data, so in case it is based on a suspicion at most.

I am sure that's the case, but I think this has not to do with "breaking records" I.e. having success in sport. It might have to do with general gender stereotypes related to body types, for example, or with other stuff.

So either way the comment I was answering to seems counterfactual and sensationalistic.

Did she break any record? Also AFAIK the same didn't happen to previous medalists or generally the strongest female boxers. It also didn't happen with other monsters who broke tons of records (e.g. Katie Ledecky) just during this Olympics.

This makes me think that it's not what you are saying but there are probably other reasons in play. Probably the IBA and the media making a case after the first boxer withdrew are responsible.

You should definitely be! I take backups every 6h for my self hosted vaultwarden (easier to manage and to backup, but not official, YMMV). You can also restore each backup automatically and have a "second service" you can run elsewhere (a standby basically), which will also ensure the backup works fine.

I have been running bit/vaultwarden now for I think 6 years, for my whole family and I have never needed to do anything, despite having had a few hiccups with the server.

Don't take my word for it, but the clients (browser plugin, desktop app, mobile app) are designed to keep data locally I think. So the term cache might be misleading here because it suggests some temporary storage used just to save web requests, with a relatively quick expiration. In this case I think the plugin etc. can work potentially indefinitely without server - something to double-check, but I believe it's the design.

Interesting! That's very close to this blog post I read long time ago (unfortunately medium.com link)! Are you actually sending emails from those addresses? Like if you need to drop an email to your bank, do you use the banking one or your personal (or something else)?

Fwiw, I do something similar. I use a mix of domain aliases without address (e.g. made-up-on-the-fly@domain.com) and actual aliases. Since I have proton family (and the same when I used ultimate) I have unlimited hide-my-email aliases, so I have it integrated with my password manager, and I generate a random password and email for everything I sign up now. These though are receive-only addresses. In fact, with this technique I probably use 3-4 addresses in total, but I have probably 30 domain addresses that go to the catch-all one.

Spam on these addresses are basically non-existing and you can still create folders based on recipient without having a full address (e.g. bank1@domain.com, bank2@domain.com). You can make folder categorization based on recipient regex and this way you also have the "stop bothering me" option: if some email gets into the wrong hands, you can create a spam rule for that dedicated address. However, my approach is that all of these are used just to receive emails, to send I have just a handful of actual addresses or -if really needed- I can create on-the-fly an address from a catch-all one, send the email and then disable it again (so it doesn't count towards the limit, but I still get inbound email to the catch-all).

Nice setup anyway!

Your requirements are totally fair tbh.

That said, I think you can use aliases for the use-case you have, you don't need full addresses. Proton supports "+ aliases" as well, so name+service@domain works, and most importantly they support catch-all addresses if you have your own domain. I now use actual aliases (the ones from simplelogin), which I generate on the fly, but if you can use whatever@domain and it will be redirected to your configured address. You don't even need to create this beforehand, so many times I was around and had to give an email address for some reason and I just made up an address on the fly. As long as you use your domain, the catch-all will get the email.

So the 10 addresses only include actual addresses, the ones you can write from. You can have as many as you want to receive emails (which is generally the use case for signing up to services, right?). Just a FYI in case tuta supports the same and you are making more effort than needed!