They mean posting the link instead of uploading a copy of the image.
It's not about the comment.

Why not both?
n! / k! ¡n-k!

Two half-size batteries for the price of three full-size phones coming right up

I don't know what I was thinking, I managed to build an SR latch right after posting this and it wasn't even that hard.

Kovarex' message for which he is accused of sexism is just pedantry about the definition of "bigot".
Given that all this is taken from a huge endless discussion of that post, picking out a weird pointless bit of pedantry not addressing the original baseless accusation and calling that "proof" is a major stretch. (also the original accusation it isn't even shown, only paraphrased, which is weird)

I don't see the accusation of sexism having any footing at all if that is all of the "proof".

The homophobia part is mixed. I think Kovarex did fall for the right-wing projection that homophobia is "pushed into" media, and that you will be cancelled on twitter or smtn if you don't watch it.
Kovarex did however agree that if someone hates gay people, they are a bigot, and hating that homophobe in turn does not make you a bigot.

I don't think Kovarex is homophobic, he just fell for some weird right-wing talking points about popular media and twitter mobs. (Also this was 3 years ago, he might well have realized the mistake since then)

The racism is completely unfounded. I assume this is derived from the first part which seeks to apply guilt by association. FFF #366 quoted "uncle bob" who is described as "a racist, sexist and Trump supporter" by the accuser. I don't think it matters so I will simply assume it is true for this matter.
Kovarex' point is simply that quoting good advice is independent of who it came from. Saying "If Stalin had a good writeup on programming" that would not matter. He would quote it if it was good.
I don't fully agree, quoting someone extensively like that does push people towards them, what I have seen done before is a simple disclaimer that "the person holds weird views so don't mind finding that mixed in with their advice if you look them up", something along those lines.
What I do not at all agree with is that it makes kovarex a racist or sexist.

Guilt by association is a fallacy with its own wikipedia article, I consider the racism point dead in the water if that is it. I also consider the entire source extremely suspect for including that.

Finally, the rape part. I think this holds the most water out of the claims. I will quote it in full first:

• The male teacher preys upon and rapes the female student.
• The female teacher seduces and has sex with the male student.

It's statutory rape regardless of the genitals attached to the adult in the situation.

kovarex:
"statutory rape"? A new sjw term?

Yeah lol. Those darn two and half century old terms really scream "sjw" don't they? /s

kovarex:
I always thought, that rape means that you assault someone against his will. If teacher seduces his/her student and the act is voluntary, we can't really talk about rape right?

First of, this is 6 years old now. Also I cannot find it anywhere, the only source is the screenshot in the linked page.
Now to me there are two main interpretations here. One is that the question is legitimate, the other being that the question is rhetorical. If it was rhetorical, I don't understand the first question. Calling "statutory rape" and "sjw term" does not hold any arguments or dog whistles, it simply makes you look like you don't know anything about this topic. Which is what I think is the case here. Kovarex has no idea what that term means, or really about the complexities of rape in a legal and moral sense.

Assuming then that the second question is legitimate, I think it is fair to ask. In a colloquial sense in the ancient before times, rape meant something violent (probably, I'm not old).
Ofc then we were enlightened that you could be threatened, or drugged. And at that point it shifted to being consent-based. And if you then add an age or power hierarchy element, you also disqualify certain people from consenting.
At the end of that you hopefully come to the conclusion that calling it all some form of rape is sensible.
Either case, lawmakers generally have done that, and the resulting legal definition I assume is called statutory rape and might confuse someone hearing about that for the first time.

I assume therefore Kovarex simply had no idea and learned a new thing there.
Immediately jumping to "swj term" does again remind me of the riling up that right-wing influencers do. If you are told constantly that "sjw" are inventing new words and pushing xyz into media then you do jump to that for every normal thing instead of thinking about it more reasonably.
To me it sounds like Kovarex was in the "alt right pipeline" at the time. I can't speak about their opinions nowadays, but given the article doesn't have anything else I have no reason to believe Kovarex followed through and somehow became a radical right-winger since.

let x be the number of people like this

x = x+1

Am I doing this right?

The mean of 1 and 9 is 5

Huh, thank you for telling me, I'll amend the file with that info. This being a thing will probably spare many the troubles I experienced.

I did some digging to reconstruct what happened in my case. The file was created on 2022-12-08, and I remember this being after I rediscovered my earlier approach, from - going by my browsing history - mid september 2022. I worked through plenty of wiki pages at the time, including the btrfs docs on swapfiles, where I probably got my commands. The truncate in there to fix earlier mistakes is something I would keep in, but not add myself, so I must have copied that pages solution. Interestingly, going by archive.org, between dec 02 and dec 13 the documentation on btrfs fi mkswapfile was added to that page.
I am in no way confident in my memory here, but I vaguely recall seeing that command, and being somewhat surprised to not remember it from earlier. That confusion may have even contributed to pushing me to create the file.
Had I seen it, I probably would have tried the command and seen it not exist. Following the note of btrfs 6.1 being required, I would have checked the version and seen that my distro didn't have btrfs-progs 6.1, not even as an alpha on the development channel.
I may also have remembered there being multiple commands needed earlier, and not wanting to deviate from the proven method dismissed the apparently simpler method.

To complete this very meaningful and productive story, on 2022-12-23 my distro got the early christmas present of btrfs-progs 6.1 as an unstable release in the dev channel. After many retractions and republishings of a total of 4 subversions, on 2023-03-04 the first stable release of 6.1.x was made available.

I was 6 months early. Or rather the btrfs devs were 6 months late.

Edit (actually not edit because I didn't send yet):
I actually checked the repo and the documentation changed on dec 06. Here is the commit. The corresponding release occurred on dec 22.
Dumping 30mins into writing this actually resulted with a memorable story. By chance I stumbled over the documentation of a new feature, 2 days after it had been written, but 2 weeks before even the first alpha release containing it was created.

How is it their skin if some company can just take it away at their whim?

23.5andme

x.org has this a big fat link to follow them under, that must be where the X social network is now.

almost all the money. Which is an issue that needs to be addressed.
If the poor finally have no money at all they will be happy when feudalism is reintroduced, so everyones debts can be erased and we can finally switch to the superior class-based society.