Silentiea

I would be very surprised if the population of "people upset by the use of a teapot/bunny as a test render" was even within a couple orders of magnitude of "people upset by the use of a porn photo as a test image"

I mean, yes you can? You can inform authors that papers that include the image will not be published. How is that not a ban?

But what if someone accidentally changes the bubble and text colors to an unreadable combination? No. We must protect our users from this obscene nonsense.

Agreed on basically all points, but tbf there are more people imprisoned in the us than an awful lot of more popular categories than trans folks.

So, are you a stoned emo man, or a stone demoman, or what?

Sorry, but... "scientific"?

"I see," said the blind man
to his deaf dog
who was sitting on the corner of the round table
on the third floor of their two-story building.

And I get that the business maybe "has" to be run that way, because of the way it exists in the economic system it exists in, but I'm definitely taking issue with the language he's employed here. He's not a prisoner being forced to run things this way.

Seriously. Everyone gets the luxury of not having to run a profitable growing business. You didn't "have" to run that business at all.

Yeah, you shouldn't use who's for objects, as in the one "who is" doing something; that should be "that's" or "which is. But for possession like this case "that's" doesn't work at all. "Of which" or "for which" might work in this sentence, but I don't think any native speaker would be confused by whose here

The second rule of tautology club is also a rule.

Exactly. We know what shape the land is even for the bottoms of the oceans. But that doesn't mean we're done making maps.