throwaway2245

I don't find this super convincing.

If you want to convince yourself that choking is a thing, then this is a stat you might look at.

But, this stat is just as likely to be more influenced by how close your opponent's skill was on that day (how often you play opponents at a similar skill level), your and your opponent's relative stamina, whether those match points appeared in a regular service game or a tiebreak (how often your style of play goes to a tiebreak), and perhaps even pure luck - out of thousands of tour players, some are going to have incredible luck.

> the system of government that the people of Britain have chosen

As a "person of Britain", I have certainly never had any say in the system of government.

If we model tennis points as random (let's say, accounting only for service), would we not expect people to occasionally lose when they had a match point? We'd expect this to happen more often when playing an opponent of comparable skill.

It's not obvious to me that it's psychological at all, and it seems to me that it's only reported as such because it makes a good news story.

Road directionality is variable over time. I'm not sure at what rate it changes but I bet it's a lot more than 1.1% per year.

No - evolution doesn't place a value (or worth) on reproduction at all.

Bigots can accuse you of being genetically defective just as well as they can accuse you of sinful behaviour.

Pandering to what bigots need is not productive or helpful.

I view this question - and the deliberation over it - as coming from present-day society's latent homophobia.

Doesn't the question apply to straight people, and anyone else, who don't reproduce?

Is it bad that I'd guess you would be excluded from a jury if you admitted this upfront?

For sure, I have experienced the same thing - and yet, the Italian diet is revered globally and considered to contribute to longevity.

Something about their approach appears to be working.

It strikes me that creating pseudo-science rules might remind you and help you to also follow the really useful rules, through dedicated practice and having multiple fall-backs.

For example, the rule "Eat green bell peppers not red bell peppers" reminds you to always be consciously aware that bell peppers and then vegetables in general are an extremely important part of your nutrition. If you don't have superstitions about bell peppers, maybe you just aren't thinking about them often enough.

As best I can immediately tell, the cost to incorporate in Nicaragua is $0 and ~30 days application period, with no residency requirement, and 0 tax on global income/profits.

A (low) bar to residency which leads to being eligible to apply for citizenship after a several years' commitment (also being highly dependent on any political change during those years) is not what I would call an "easy" process.

People often said that a tall person cannot be the fastest man in the world - until he was.

> there ARE countries

I'm not sure where this fits into your argument anyway, but I could not identify what country you might mean? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalization#Summary_by_coun...

> Anyone who is saying one bell pepper type is okay...

This assumes that Sasha's only concern with food consumption is nutrition alone, where other aspects of discipline and adherence are likely to also be important.

Asking for red, green and blue but specifically no brown M&Ms doesn't mean that you think brown M&Ms are fundamentally different in any way: there was another reason why Van Halen did that.

> I could put in all the hours of practice and guided training into boxing as Mike Tyson and I wouldn’t get nearly the same results.

I think this fails to recognise the talents that Mike Tyson has leveraged: the soft skills and gumption to identify the best trainers, the best team, the best opportunities, and to seize those, being motivated to gain fame and plaudits. Plus consistent, world-class training and experience on top - working outside of the 30 hours of class.

These skills are very transferable to other fields. Look, for example, at the George Foreman Grill.

Could you have done the same? Yes, I think it's possible. But, viewing it as only practice and guided training seems like a fundamental error.

I would call this a jazz club (in the UK; even if it doesn't play jazz specifically).

> In some sense, that is the point of having different countries.

If large corporations can decide to pick their country of incorporation freely and according to what most benefits them, but people can't (in general) pick their country of citizenship, then something has gone wrong.

It seems to me that changing the environment to manipulate human behaviour ultimately creates stress (in a very literal sense), which is likely to undermine the goal.

> it's 0.4% of the used market.

This sounded unlikely to me, so I checked a local site and got 4.9% >20 years old in the used market. A lot of people drive their old cars beyond the point that they are not worth re-selling, so I'd expect that to be an underestimate of how many cars are that old.

The article linked suggests the average age of a car on the road in the USA is 12 years - if you're then selling cars that are designed to obsolete in 6 years, that has potential consumer law implications.

I'm concerned if you're buying any product that's just labelled "meat" without further clarification. That doesn't sound good for you.

> the benefits aren’t particularly great while the risks are large.

Marriage brings specific legal and financial benefits, depending on the country (married couples tax allowances, spousal rights to pensions and inheritance etc, spousal privilege in court, visa/residency rights, child custody rights).

As these benefits have reduced over a few decades, the number of marriages has gone down (at least in the West?). I don't think that's a coincidence.

You don't need a legal marriage to share a loving and fulfilling life together with a partner. But, if you do share a loving and fulfilling life together, marriage might benefit you for one or more of the above reasons.

The gender gap in the USA/Western Europe appears to be a lot bigger than it is in the rest of the world.

A ratio of 3.4 in the US (77% male) as opposed to 1.7 globally (63% male).

If you understand logic, at the level which you claim, then you should know that "logically consistent" has no correspondence with "correct".

An "intelligent, logically consistent argument", as you say, can be plainly wrong or irrelevant.

The underlying claim that "Asian" and "redhead" are exactly analogous seems dubious to me and I disagree with that, although I can agree that it is also unfortunate that the word "redhead" is banned by this filter.

(I should clarify that I don't mean the author's opinion is important to falsifiability)

> The author described such a circumstance, but then explained that he did not have access to the necessary lab testing to actually do so.

In the parent article? Could you quote that part?

My point was to back up the grandparent.

This is equally science as going into the woods, picking some berries and roots, grinding them and put them up your nose, doing an antibody test, and writing your conclusions up in a blog post. There's no difference.

(But, yes, I think that writing hypotheses with 100% falsifiability, before challenging them practically, is quite a good definition of "scientific method", based on Karl Popper's work. You can compare with what Wikipedia has to say.)

Edited to respond to your edit: The word falsifiability is deliberately used to distinguish that we are talking about False, the Boolean state. The confounding factors are important - the confounding factors here mean I can't prove it False; there are no circumstances whereby the author has to accept that their hypothesis was False.

I don't agree that is technically falsified.

I know you used "pretty strongly" as sarcasm, but falsifiability is absolute - and this is not.

(On your later point about my claim that this is not scientific, we are back to the comparison with gathering roots and berries - either both are, or both are not)

The hypothesis "my homebrew works at scale" is falsifiable. As you say, that really isn't under test, nor is it a hypothesis the author cares about.

The hypothesis "my homebrew has worked on me" is what the blog asks ("I'm curious whether it will work - or whether we'll be able to tell that it works."). That is not falsifiable.

Does "go into the woods and gather herbs" follow the scientific method if I write my observations neatly in a blog post?

The author says they will accept that their homebrew worked if they get a positive antibody test (yet, plenty of people will get a positive antibody test without any administration of homebrew or vaccine); but will not accept that it failed if there is a negative antibody test.

As such, their hypothesis is not falsifiable and it is not science.

The Bloomberg link posted above states he had a positive antibody test before administering the home brew.

If the "machine learning feature" is acting as if it's a simple word-based filter, it's a simple word-based filter.

Counter-argument:

It's important, of note, news, that the word 'Asian' is blocked (why else are you bothering to comment here?). Whether or not it's blocked for a semi-automated reason, this is indeed what discrimination looks like. It's the sexual fetishisation of a whole race of people bleeding into every-day life.

Since the useful information is in the headline, I don't need to click - that's the opposite of click-bait. So I disagree.