I feel like you’re using “supercede” differently to the rest of us. You’re getting a hostile reaction because it sounded like you’re saying that EM is no longer at all useful because it has been obsoleted (superceded) by QM. Now you’re (correctly) saying that EM is still useful within its domain, but continuing to say that QM supercedes it. To me, at least, that’s a contradiction. QM extends EM, but does not supercede it. If EM were supercedes, there would be no situation in which it was useful.

“X depends on or is built up on Y” does not imply “X is Y”. Concepts, laws, techniques, etc. can depend or be higher-order expressions of QM without being QM. If you started asking a QM scientist about tensile strength or the Mohs scale they would (rightly) be confused.

And people give Python shit for significant whitespace 😂

Wel, I guess I’m rewatching that tonight…

(For the uninitiated: Thomas Middleditch and Ben Schwartz, aka “the guy from Silicon Valley and Jean-Ralphio from Parks & Rec”, did an improv series on Netflix - and it’s great)

Sure, because something so egregious would definitely show up in a Google search for “Zach Weinersmith sweatshop”, right?

Unless…you’re exaggerating on the Internet to stir up outrage?

The Vegan Society says that “In dietary terms (Veganism) denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals.”

Vegan.com says “The word vegan was originally defined as a diet free of meat, dairy products, and eggs. The term now also refers to any item, from shoes to shampoo, made without animal products.”

Both pages, and the Wikipedia article, do mention the ethical considerations, but all make it clear that that is distinct from dietary Veganism.

It’s all very well to say that there is a deeper philosophy and decision-making framework driving one’s choices than simply “meat bad” - and that’s a noble motivation! - but you appear to be in the minority in your claim that a vegan diet can still include animal products. Maybe vegan-inspired, maybe “ethically aligned with Veganism”, but not “a vegan diet”.

EDIT: to be clear - from everything I can tell, Veganism is a sensible, moral, responsible, ethical, frugal choice; most people could derive great benefits both to their health and their wallet from drastically reducing or entirely cutting out meat and animal products, as well as benefitting the world in general. It’s a noble choice, it’s one I fully support, and I’ve seriously cut down my own meat intake over the last couple years and have great admiration for people who cut it out entirely. I’m not arguing with you because I love meat or hate Veganism - I’m arguing with you because, by being a dipshit about definitions, you are undermining a worthwhile cause and making it look ridiculous to people sitting on the fence.

The mental gymnastics here are fascinating. It’s as if you thought “Veganism has good effects. Therefore, Veganism is good. Therefore, not-Veganism is bad. But people will be offended if we tell them that their well-intentioned-but-restricted choices are bad. So we should expand the definition of Veganism so that anything which is good, is Veganism.”

Congratulations! You made it a religion!

nobody I deal with in RL ever implied something among the lines of "refer to me as ".

Most likely because they’d never experienced someone referring to them by the wrong gender. You can be pretty sure that if someone started doing so, they’d have something to say about it.

Which is what the other commenter was trying to communicate to you. Gender is already a key component of most cis people’s personality - the way they think about themselves, the framework they use to make choices, and the way they want people to relate to them - but it’s not noticed as such, because it’s “normal”, so no-one comments on it and they don’t have to act to assert it.