Get your eyebrows shaped! They change the framing of your face so much and nobody ever talks about it.

Thanks for the info, I didn't know that. Since voice training more/less got me to where I wanted to go, this isn't something that I researched all that well.

Thankfully this isn't an opinion I've shared at all outside of this thread, but I'll make sure not to contribute to the stigma going forward nonetheless.

Maybe it's because I'm risk averse or maybe I'm just not as well read on it, but I do personally think it's generally riskier than other transition surgeries.

For vaginoplasty, even if the job is botched, you'll still be able to walk normally. FFS, you'll still be able to talk and eat and smell normally. Breast augmentation, you can still lift your arms normally. Plus since these three are the "main" options available, there's more people doing it and more people experienced in handling the complications.

For vocal surgery, if the job is botched, you can permanently damage your voice and not be able to shout. And even then it still takes a degree of voice training to get a good result (althought it does lower the bar). The relative rarity of the procedure also does not inspire me to take that kind of risk.

I'm open to being convinced that it's not as risky as I think it is, but I do think that it's a pretty risky option. Especially when you compare it to voice training on its own, which is way harder to fuck up. And voice training will get most people across the line.

Well the thing with trans healthcare is that it's been hardly researched so what I'm about to say is not official medical advice. Especially considering that everyone's body is different and will develop at different rates. If you have a sister, you could use her as your benchmarks for approximately what changes you'll see. Otherwise, your mom may be a second option. If you don't have either of those people available to you, you're basically just taking a shot in the dark.

In terms of more scientific stuff. Again this is not medical advice so I urge you to make your own conclusions. You may want to check out the dr powers subreddit for the types of tests he uses. Just a warning though, don't look at any of his personal opinions. Because honestly he kinda sucks. But people also generally love his care and it's pretty radically different from the status quo, so tread with caution.

In a nutshell, some of the key differences include that he tests for not just total E levels but more importantly free E levels (don't ask me what the difference is, I didn't study biology or medicine). Also more generally, he tries to match up the low point in your hormone cycle to the low point of the average E level of a cis woman. Being below the low point of the average E level when you're at your trough level means that you're not getting enough E. Testing at peak levels can be pretty unreliable and I personally don't think it really makes all that much sense to match up the peaks of your cycle to the lowest point of the average.

I think it's important to note that almost every step in transition takes a lot of time, so you must be patient. Getting on hrt is a big step for sure and congratulations! But be prepared that it will take time to start seeing tangible results from it. Don't be afraid to get started on some of the other aspects like makeup and clothing in the meantime.

That being said, (and this is also partially a personal gripe of mine,) don't be afraid to shop around for a good doctor. Far too many doctors are unwilling to give trans people proper dosages, either out of malice or ignorance, and this can make the process of second puberty much harder of a process than it should be. I hate to reference the infamous Dr. Powers (his personal views are pretty... Weird, to but it lightly. And a lot of doctors practically despise him), but I can't help but admire his patient-first attitude. Even though his personal opinions are kinda gross, he takes his patients seriously and does more in depth testing than any of the doctors I've had throughout my own transition. Too many doctors will give you a bare minimum dose that barely does anything for you and refuse to increase it, citing poorly researched statistics or basing it off of cis hrt which was never designed to induce a second puberty. Listen to your body, keep track of changes and when they happen, and be patient. But don't let a doctor gaslight you into thinking that things are happening when they're not.

And on that note, take some good before pics that you can compare yourself to down the line! It can really help when you're feeling down or feeling like things are too slow, to see how far you've come and what changes have actually happened.

I was feeling pretty frustrated about my transition progress up until earlier this year when I finally switched to injections and was taking a way higher dose. And now I can confidently say that my boobs show through my shirts. As it turns out, I don't think having sub 100 E levels is enough to actually start going through puberty. It did do some changes for sure, but they're basically nothing compared to how my body has changed since I managed to switch.

This study seems to me to be a retreading of old ground by cis people. Like I can appreciate getting more data that yes, trans people aren't freaks, but the study just seems like a massive "duh".

Why did they think hrt changed vocal chords in trans women in the first place? It's pretty well known that hrt cannot take away the things that first puberty already changed. I also don't like how the article presents voice feminization surgery as if it's a common and normal choice for most trans women. Even beyond the implication that trans people need surgery to be successful in their transition, voice feminization surgery is extremely risky and is only ever recommended in extreme cases. If they couldn't even do that amount of research, it doesn't make me feel confident that the study is all that worthwhile to think about.

Secondly, why only focus on trans women? It'd be more interesting if they included trans men in the picture since on their side of the fence, hrt actually does affect their voice. It would be interesting if the study compared their trans participants with cis benchmarks at all, actually. Maybe the study itself does that where the article does not, but for reason #1 I don't feel like it's worth my time to check.

Lastly, the actual results of the study are pretty "duh". Just by the physics of how the human voice works, it's pretty easy to see that yes, having a breathier and higher pitched voice will lead to having thinner vocal folds. Because having thinner vocal folds is what causes those effects on the voice in the first place. The study mixes up the cause and effect here, so it isn't exactly groundbreaking research. What would've been more appropriate to examine is the vocal chords at rest compared to either cis benchmarks or the speaking voice average. Since the conventional wisdom is that voice training can't really change your voice at rest, that would be more interesting to look at.

Overally I appreciate having more data about trans people, but didn't find the study or article to be particularly knowledgeable about trans people in the first place.

Have you tried reader mode? In both firefox and chrome (i think, I haven't checked other browsers) there's a button usually in the address bar that you can click and it'll format the article into a readable page instead of a bunch of ad-riddled garbage. It works pretty well generally.

Am i mistaken in believing that cloud computing naturally lends itself to only having a couple of big players in the space? The whole point of the technology is to have someone else do the hosting for you, and the people doing the hosting win out by economies of scale.

This would be a different conversation if they found evidence in the software that it was throttling smaller competitors, but without any more information this seems like a lot of nothing?

Okay that makes more sense. I do think that "online dating is awful" is a very different statement from "well it used to be good but now it sucks" and the two phrases come with very different qualifications and conclusions.

The former phrase is a pretty blanket judgement on this aspect of society in relation to the whole. But the latter statement has more to do with the enshittification of the internet and the capitalist systems woven inbetween. The latter statement is a historical comparison while the former is a value judgment of society.

As for your opinion itself, I don't have any strong feelings one way or another. The nature of the internet has paradoxically connected more people than ever before while simultaneously isolating us more than ever before. I personally don't think that online dating really differs from that mold. I think that this is one small part of a larger problem where capitalism has commodified almost every aspect of humanity, which is accelerated by the internet.

That's not what the original comment said if you read it at all. The commenter was making the point that okcupid was pretty good before it was enshittified. There was no direct judgement about whether the world is better with or without OLD. And the subtextual judgment seems to be positive or at least neutral, so I'm not sure what you actually have a problem with.

I found this mostly to be a satiric nothingburger that doesn't make any meaningful observations at all.

Based on the title I expected it to go a little bit deeper into how "AI" technology will destroy society if it doesn't get regulated, but instead it was just a couple of short quips about how some of the big tech companies nowadays have changed what life looks like nowadays.

I felt like I was reading a boomer say "get off my lawn! Kids these days..." without any additional nuance or context.

Are there any benefits to doing this over having a dedicated server with a vpn you can connect to for outside the network?

Because otherwise this seems like unnecessary performance overhead on a device which I'd like to squeeze as much performance out of in order to play games...