532 karma · joined June 17, 2021
If calendars really did advance 300 years, we are living past the advance. That means that when we see a writing reference an eclipse that we know happened in what we call 900, it doesn't actually tell us anything about the calendar having moved or not. It only tells us that something was observed 1122 years ago. That could be 900 years after 0AD, or it could be 600.
Actually, almost every instance of dating anything back then depends upon few relative date calculations which are "known". The eclipse happened 1000 years ago, so that is year 1022, and this writing referencing it is from 1022, and so this scholar writing a generation later is from 1082. This inscribed rock was found under 1100 years of dust, so the people living here were from 922, and their language existed at that time, and all records we find from this civilization are now known to be from the early 900s. Now we can claim to have evidence that there was thriving commerce in the 900s with hundreds of written records about it, so of course the dates weren't changed.
If you dig into the records people cite as evidence against the phantom time hypothesis, the vast majority of them (literally every one that I've seen) is using indirect dating in this way, which doesn't mean anything.
Its role is to do everything you just said in one package, plus other networking features. It fetches, updates the store, subscribes the components, caches the responses, performantly rerenders. It allows configuration of when to refetch, how to cache, polling, pagination, infinite scroll, etc etc via a simple API.
Nothing is stopping you from writing all this yourself, but libs exist for a reason. It's a terribly useful networking package. If you just use a generic store and write a fetcher yourself, you have to at the very least write logic for when to (re)fetch and for persisting the responses to the store.
Without this feature, every component needing remote data D must share a parent ancestor fetching D for all of them, even when the children are not conceptually related. Adding another component higher in the tree means you have to hoist the fetcher up to that level, etc. React query is an incredible upgrade to anything else I've used over the years.
If you remove those units at the start, you've reduced the starting temp a bit, but you haven't much changed the long tail of the cooling. You essentially just started the coffee at a slightly cooler temperature, but this doesn't affect the curve much. Or to think of it another way, the change in temperature at the start corresponds to a small amount of X axis (time) on the curve.
If you add the cream later, the temperature reduction corresponds to a larger amount of time on the curve. This means the temperature will be lower than the above.
So to my intuition, cream first should yield hotter coffee
1. We already produce way more food than the entire world can eat, even if it were distributed equally
2. When population begins butting up against the limits of food production, demand for cheaper plant based food will rise. Most will be unable to afford meat, making the meat market naturally shrink itself for economic reasons. Likewise if meat becomes too expensive due to resource constraints.
3. At the point where population exceeds food supply, there will be at worst 1 generation of starvation, and then population will stabilize to have enough food
3a. Infinite growth of the population is not sustainable or desirable. Even if meat were banned, this same story will eventually happen again with any vegetable that is less calorie efficient to grow. Do we want 30 billion people eating literally one food, or 25 billion eating a varied, though less land efficient diet? At some point, the world will have to accept that there isn't enough food to have 3 children. At that point, when the 2 child policy is global, what kind of diet should be possible? We can stretch it so that we're all eating literally one crop and there's absolutely nothing more we can do to feed the world, but hopefully we stop breeding a bit earlier than that, to end with one where people can still enjoy meat.
It's not. It's literally not. Stealing food is illegal, even if you were going to die of starvation without it. Breaking into someone's home is illegal, even if you were going to freeze to death outside. And now, in some states, abortion is illegal, even if you were going to die from giving birth.
States or congress should pass a law allowing abortions if that's the will of the people. The court should not invent a law out of nothing; this ruling is legally correct.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. "
"Because A, B". It is emphatically not, "B if A" or "B for the purposes of A".
Many people are arguing it, successfully; that's why TFA is notable. My comment was rhetorically directed at readers who may agree with them.
> Next, I would say it's undisputed that even if someone has gone through body development as male, after prolonged period of lacking testosterone, their advantages diminish and they are not really competitive with males
Their advantages diminish to the extent that they cannot maintain as much muscle mass as a man. The structural advantages remain, such that they are always at an advantage against women. I would say they become like weak men.
I have no problem with a transgender section of sports. I just don't foresee that happening. The pool is so small, and nobody would watch it.
Transsexuals, I understand you want very much to compete in the womens' section, but you are not women, and so you cannot fairly compete with them for the same reasons that men cannot compete with them. I understand this is an upsetting problem for you, but your desires do not overrule the entirety of female competitive integrity. If you went through puberty as a male, tough luck, you cannot compete against women anymore. Just as I cannot compete in the Special Olympics intellectual disability sports because I went through full normal brain development, you cannot compete against women, because you went through male hormonal development.
Whenever someone pretends that modern mass media is not overwhelmingly in favor of the current zeitgeist, it seems to me that person is either arguing in bad faith, or is startlingly naive. Finding one minute counterexample of a publication that no one has ever heard of does not imply an overall balanced media landscape. It would be as strange as arguing that western 'the media' doesn't support Ukraine over Russia; just absurdly incorrect to a cursory inspection.
I am not saying this as sour grapes. I have had sex with dozens of women from Tinder, putting me in the top success percentiles of male users. The reality for average men online is extremely bleak. Denying this, giving advice to "like yourself" or to do therapy, or the ever common "you have to be happy alone first", are entirely fabricated coping mechanisms.
If you are even getting a handful of dates from the app from which to test your personality theories, you never had the problem at all.
This is why even elite female athletes, even with high testosterone, even when taking testosterone, even on steroids, even in the olympics, are physically competing on the level of high school boys. It is impossible to overstate the physical advantage that being a male provides. It is not about the current hormone levels.
I think few untrained men today, and even fewer women, truly understand the magnitude of natural strength difference between the sexes. They don't experience it in daily life. They think, oh, a man can just take estrogen and he'll be pretty much on the same level as the elite women. Let me put it in context:
- The US women's olympic soccer team lost a training match to an under 15 boys team, and it wasn't close
- The world record for 100m sprint by a woman is regularly beaten at state competitions by high school boys
- The world record for female deadlifting, 606lbs, set by a woman weighing over 200lbs, was beaten by a man weighing under 123 pounds (the lowest male weight class)
- This record of 606lbs is considered "pretty good" for a powerlifting male, nothing special at all
- It takes most fit, active women months of training to even be able to press a 20kg barbell above their head 5 times. A sedentary male can always do this.
- It takes years of serious training for a woman to bench press 60kg. Most men can do this innately, or within a couple of months of the same training.
- The world record for female standing vertical jump is 30 inches, which is below the average of a college football player (vertical standing jump is considered a proxy for power)
- A man can train to lift 100lbs over his head relatively easily. A woman will basically never be able to do this even after years of training. Any random gymgoer can grab a woman and lift her overhead like Rafiki lifting Simba. Most women cannot lift a 25lb box over their head.
I can go on. Why does this happen? Is it because the men currently have higher testosterone? No! It's because their tissues were bathed in testosterone in the womb, during childhood, during puberty, and into adulthood. It made their bones thicker and stronger. It made their muscles develop to contract more efficiently. It made their joints develop with more advantageous moment arms. It made their lung capacity greater. None of this has to do with muscle size, training, or muscular development! It also made their muscles bigger, but that's not the issue. None of this goes away when you reduce your adult testosterone levels.
This is why even elite female athletes, with high testosterone, even when taking testosterone, even on steroids, even in the olympics, are physically competing on the level of high school boys. It is impossible to overstate the physical advantage that being a male provides. It is not about the current hormone levels.