laoganmaplz

No, but I also sincerely believe that dang is a lizard. Not because I have any reason to believe that dang is a lizard, but because my ethos obligates me to believe anyone is a lizard when I see an opportunity to do so.

That's interesting. Anecdotally, I'm a gay guy from a working class town, and I'm one of only a few gay guys that ended up getting any sort of degree. My cousin is gay and he went into the Air Force, the rest of the gay guys I know of from my old hometown (all people I learned were gay later, being openly gay was not a safe thing there when I was in high school, but became less of an issue in the decade afterwards), all work at places like Dollar General or Family Dollar stocking shelves. I'm also the only guy from my graduating class to have gone to college at all, as opposed to three girls from my graduating class and a fourth whose gone to college in the years after. I wonder if other people's anecdotal observations match our own?

I wouldn't believe that this is a reasonable hypothesis. The implication of this would be that straight men are spending _so much_ time trying to get laid that it hinders their level of education as a demographic, and this just seems to be absurd on its face.

What is the mechanism by which the average straight man is precluded from higher education via his pursuit of sex? He spends less time on homework and gets worse grades? He spends less time in class or lecture in favor of pursuing sex? He's so sex-driven that pursuing education just isn't even a thought to him? Other factors along these lines?

It just doesn't seem to seem plausible that the pursuit of sex would take up such disproportionately large amounts of time for straight men vs gay men that it would lead to this kind of a difference. It seems like straight men would have to be neglecting comically large portions of their lives in favor of the pursuit of sex for this to be plausible.

I suppose it's possible that straight men end up precluded from pursuing higher education due to it being easier for them to start an unplanned family, but I'm skeptical of that as well.

Is this to mean "People aren't killing themselves, ergo everything must be pretty good for them generally"? Because, if that's what's meant here, I have to pretty vehemently disagree with that sentiment.

Also the proportions. While (in the US at least) manufacturers are required to list their ingredients in the order of greatest proportion to least proportion, they are not required to disclose what those proportions are, which also adds some difficulty to reverse-engineering the recipe.

Fascinatingly, quite the opposite! For example, the original Macintosh had only a small fraction of that to work with, at 128 Kilobytes![1]

Certainly a modern GUI a la KDE, Gnome and friends would be well outside of its abilities, but a functional GUI is possible on a shockingly small amount of memory!

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macintosh_128K