Oh my goodness he's like the Abed of racism
- Posts
- 6
- Comments
- 885
- Joined
- 11 mo. ago
- Posts
- 6
- Comments
- 885
- Joined
- 11 mo. ago
It is true that it is easier to meet partners at these activities than, like, sitting on your couch scrolling through TikTok on your phone.
But that's because the people who are into meeting up to do things want to do the things themselves. It's very easy to see through the people who are interested in the thing only as a stepping stone towards something else, versus the people who are actually there to enjoy the thing.
If you can't show up to a meetup and have a great time despite there not being any available/single people you find attractive, you're gonna be the kind of dud that isn't attractive even when a potential partner shows up.
People should pursue hobbies and interests. It is fulfilling in itself, and makes you more attractive to others and puts you in contact with more people to have more opportunities to meet partners. But you gotta be the type of person to want to do it anyway, even if there is zero prospect of meeting a partner.
I think they mean ounces, cups, quarts, gallons, with no intuitive sense of conversion between them. I personally use ounces for almost everything (cocktail recipes are in 0.25 ounce increments, big cups are 40 ounces, big ol buckets can be 256 ounces). I might mess with gallons for very large amounts, but anything that can be expressed in cups or pints I'm usually just talking ounces anyway.
Rapesan
I'm not familiar with this anime character.
Any food where they use maltodextrin to make powdered fat (that is, many flavored chips) tends to catch fire really easily. Great kindling, because fats are high in energy and turning it into powder really increases the surface area to mass ratio so that any free oxygen will quickly react and make fire.
the process in processed cheese allows them to go as light as they want with the real cheese, I'm sure some government regulation has a minimum but the core point is that not all American cheese is the same
For the formal legal definition, American cheese can only be mixed with water and cream, such that the fat from the cream is less than 5% of the total product.
They're allowed to add:
- Water but the total moisture content of the cheese can't be more than 40%, and the fat content must be at least 47% of the solids (that is, the non-water part) in the total.
- Cream or milkfat but not so much to where fat from this cream/milkfat exceeds 5% of the total product.
- Acidifying agents but have a minimum pH
- Salt but it still needs to taste good
- Spices and flavorings that don't taste like cheese, but still need to taste good
- Smoke but it still needs to taste good
- "Harmless artificial coloring" which by its nature isn't going to constitute a significant percentage of the total weight
- Mold inhibitors up to 0.3% of the final product
- If sliced, lecithin may be added as an anti-sticking agent up to 0.03% of the final product.
Basically I can't think of a way to make stuff that can legally be called "American Cheese" without using at least 90% cheese as an ingredient. If you cut it with too much water you'll run afoul of the milkfat and moisture minimums. And everything else you're allowed to add is never going to constitute more than 1% of the end product.
Outliers are treated fundamentally differently between them, they are treated as bugs in economics, but as features in medicine.
I don't understand what you mean by this.
Let's take for example a simple example of the outlier of the person who smokes a lot of cigarettes but outlives the person who doesn't smoke. Does this break the model where smoking harms health and increases all cause mortality (which we know through epidemiological observation of deaths, which is not in any sense a double blind test)? Where does this observation fit into medicine?
Or take the example of a discontinuity regression in economics. A jurisdiction passes a law increasing the minimum wage above the market-clearing wage in that area, which shares a border with another jurisdiction that has a similar market clearing wage. Can we observe the differences on both sides of that border to see whether the minimum wage increase leads to an increase in unemployment? Yes, it's just applied math at that point.
Where does behavioral economics fit into your ideas of how economics expects a rational actor? There are differences in behavior that have been measured by economists in different situations, and those are important ideas in economic behavior and observations. So why do you assume those models have been discarded in favor of some sort of doctrinal insistence that humans behave in a particular way?
And if you're describing the reluctance of practitioners to abandon the core ideas of their models, or the core paradigms of their disciplines, I'd observe that you're largely correct but wrong to assume it doesn't happen in things that you'd probably call science, from medicine to meteorology to epidemiology. Things get overturned slowly, and sometimes these paradigm shifts meet a lot of resistance for an entire generation: phlogiston proponents slowly coming around on oxygen, cosmologists saying "fine I guess dark energy exists."
The critiques you lob at economics are valid. I just think you under appreciate how much they apply to hard science, too.
Plenty of medical science doesn't lend itself well to double blind studies. In vivo infection models can't ethically be tested with double blind studies, and can only be observed. Lots of medicine advances through observational studies, too, like almost anything relating to nutrition or lifestyle or trauma. There's no double blind study on how survivable car accidents are.
Plus double blind studies themselves don't necessarily have any kind of explanatory power (see the entire field of anesthesia where we know how much of each anesthetic it generally takes to put people under, but we don't know the underlying mechanism it uses to make people go under). Or, for that matter, Tylenol (whose mechanism of action remains a mystery).
how does that relate to Popper?
When a weatherman's prediction is falsified, the model itself is not disproven. The fact that the practitioners of that discipline stick with it even when a prediction is falsified starts to look like the pseudoscience side of Popper's falsifiability criterion.
In what way? And how does that differ from how medicine measures pain?
What definition of pseudoscience would capture economics without capturing medicine, ecology, or meteorology?
Everyone's just using models here, and the way we incorporate statistical observations to define the limits of the models' scope, and refine the models over time, or reject the models entirely, applies to economists, meteorologists, seismologists, and many branches of actual human medicine.
Popper would define pseudoscience as predictions that can't be falsified, but surely that can't apply to the idea of the weatherman predicting rain and being wrong, right?
Kuhn came along and argued that science is about solving problems within paradigms, and sometimes rejecting paradigms in scientific revolutions (geocentrism vs heliocentrism, Newtonian physics versus Einstein's relativity), but it wasn't a particularly robust test for separating out pseudoscience.
Lakatos categorized things further at explaining how model-breaking observations could be handled within the structure of how science performs its work (limiting the scope of the model, expanding the complexity of the model to fit the new observations, proposing specific exception handlers), but also observed the difference between the hard core of a discipline, in which attempts at refutation were not tolerated, and auxiliary hypotheses where the scientists were free to test their ideas for falsifiability.
But when you use these ideas to try to understand how science works, I don't think economics really stands out as less scientific than cancer research or climatology or other statistically driven scientific disciplines.
Many awards considered Andy Serkis eligible for supporting actor for playing Gollum in the Lord of the Rings movies. Translating his performance to the screen required a lot of work done by others, but in the end he did contribute the parts that we consider to be acting: saying lines, expressing facial expressions, using body language to actually convey and evoke emotions, in a way that his performance absolutely made the audience perception of his character.
For Ortiz, it seems like he did enough of the actual "acting" work to count. If Rocky is a character (and I think he clearly is), then the person who voiced and moved him in most scenes should still get credit for the acting part.
Similarly, Ryan Gosling had some scenes where he was in harnesses managed by teams of people coordinating the stunts. But he still gets the credit for the "acting" part.
Yeah, how can there be effective arbitrage of popsicles for elephants to popsicles for lemmings? Shouldn't everything be priced by weight, so that the big animals must have much more costly needs?
But the things a 100ft woman can do for their community and larger society are endless. In return for the effort put in for her, she is able to contribute largely in ways no other can.
Is this still a description of a sexual fetish?
There's a completely unnecessary courtroom scene in Project Hail Mary (the book) that really feels like Andy Weir just wanted to make his disdain for the legal system known. It's not necessary to the premise of the story, or even the background.
It's not enough that this multinational organization has completely seized control over the Sahara for an alien microbe farming operation or nuked Antarctica in widespread geo engineering, but, get this, they even got an exemption from copyright law!
Isn't that the name of their national lunch?
Lentils are good, but have a lot of carbs. Only using those might be enough, but is not enough for bodybuilding.
Most bodybuilding relies heavily on processed foods and isolated protein sources, regardless of whether it's meat-based, vegetarian, or vegan. For someone trying to eat 2500 calories per day with 150 grams of protein, they're looking for a ratio of 6 grams of protein per 100 calories.
Lentils are about 8g of protein per 100 calories.
Chickpeas are about 5g of protein per 100 calories.
Rice is about 2.5g of protein per 100 calories.
Wheat products (breads, pasta) hover around 3-4g of protein per 100 calories.
Broccoli is about 7g of protein per 100 calories. Green beans have about 5g. Peas have about 6g.
Moving onto processed foods can give a lot more protein per calorie: tofu is around 12g per 100 calories, and seitan is about 18g.
Basically many vegetables, legumes, and grains will hover near the right ratios, but it requires much more precise planning if you have a really limited calorie budget and refuse to rely on isolated protein from processed foods, but if you're doing the normal bodybuilding thing of 2g of protein per kg of lean mass, you won't have any trouble while bulking and will only have to do a bit more planning while cutting, compared to the typical meat eater who might have a ton of yogurt and whey protein in the mix.
It's one thing to just copy wholesale what another culture is doing, and another thing entirely to recognize that another culture fills in certain gaps on what could improve fulfillment and enjoyment in your own life.
For westerners following a vegan diet, there is a strong culinary benefit from learning from other cultures' vegetarian and vegan dishes, for a reset away from most western cultures' meat-forward approach to food and dining.
So pointing out poor health outcomes of a particular group of people doesn't actually disprove that bringing in their cuisine will improve the overall diet of the person who made this post.
And like with OP's joke, which doesn't contain a traditional punchline, many would disagree with your point that explaining the joke to make it more obvious would make the joke better. I think it's fine as it is.
I'm not asking you to like the original joke, but at least respect why OP chose to share it in the current format, and that some people in the audience may appreciate it better the way it is, compared to the way you're implicitly proposing.
Comic Strips @lemmy.world Transmission (Perry Bible Fellowship)
Weightroom @sh.itjust.works How's your lifting going these days?
Fitness @lemmy.world How's everyone doing with their fitness goals?
Comic Strips @lemmy.world Stan Kelly (The Onion) - Throwback and Forth
Weightroom @sh.itjust.works What does a maintenance program look like for intermediate-to-advanced lifters?
Comic Strips @lemmy.world Your Email Did Not "Find Me Well."
I think a lot of these can be explained as wires being crossed with mixed memories. Memories of the Jiffy boxes in the cupboard next to Jif peanut butter might have mixed things up to where people misremember whether there was ever a Jiffy peanut butter.
Chick-fil-A, same thing. Being a kid and thinking "wow that's a weird way to spell it" about the "fil-A" part and somehow blending it into believing it was about the "Chick" part. Looney Tunes, Froot Loops, Berenstain Bears, all similar processes.
The Sinbad Shazaam movie is almost certainly a mashup of a memories of Shaq's Kazaam, the Sinbad cartoon movie from 1992, and Sinbad dressing like a Mediterranean/middle eastern pirate in All That.
The thing I cannot explain, though, is the Fruit of the Loom cornucopia. I remember it that way, and I can't find anything like that.