This is a perfectly succinct, textbook example of Outcome Bias.
Betting $1 with a 1 in 3 chance to win $2 is objectively a bad idea; the odds are against you. It doesn't stop being a bad idea if you win the $2 after 1 bet.
This is a perfectly succinct, textbook example of Outcome Bias.
Betting $1 with a 1 in 3 chance to win $2 is objectively a bad idea; the odds are against you. It doesn't stop being a bad idea if you win the $2 after 1 bet.
It works in that show because the entire family are losers, and they all get mocked by all the others, regularly.
True equality, lol.
That is one horrendous logo, lol
One thing has literally nothing to do with the other, this was just a desperate attempt to inject your politics, lol.
How does the fact that a criminal is running for office serve as evidence against the legitimacy of statistics about the overall incidence of crime itself?
Ruth Gader Binsburg
Same, I'm really grateful she has no interest/desire to wear makeup. It was also nice to know what her face looked like from day 1, which is what this app is meant to facilitate.
The more I think about it, the stranger the notion of 'gatekeeping her real face' behind a full-on relationship sounds to me, lol.
P.S. lol, I just remembered reading an old 'hack' for this years and years ago: make a water park your first outing together.
women struggling in the office when they did not put on makeup that specific day, how the behavior of random strangers changed etc.
It's simply the difference that's being noticed, and no one's really at fault for that, on either side. Any woman who never wears makeup is also never going to get the same 'are you sick?' kind of reactions on any given day she doesn't wear makeup to work.
There was an attempt
Not a problem, glad I indirectly convinced at least one person to examine the facts objectively. đź‘Ť
How Did This Happen?
College loans are not dischargeable in bankruptcy. Simple as that.
With lenders knowing that the government will make sure they get paid, they're happy to loan out any amount of money to anyone regardless of credit worthiness, because they take on literally zero risk.
Then colleges realize the same, and jack up their prices in turn. The feedback loop brings us to where we are today. There is no market (or other) force putting any downward pressure on tuition costs, at all. This is the inevitable result.
Hello, you seem to be referencing an often misquoted statistic. TL:DR; The 40% number is wrong and plain old bad science. In attempt to recreate the numbers, by the same researchers, they received a rate of 24%, but only while considering acts like shouting as violence. Further researchers found rates of 7%, 7.8%, 10%, and 13% with stricter definitions and better research methodology.
The 40% claim is intentionally misleading and unequivocally inaccurate. Numerous studies over the years report domestic violence rates in police families as low as 7%, with the highest at 40% defining violence to include shouting or a loss of temper. The referenced study where the 40% claim originates is Neidig, P.H.., Russell, H.E. & Seng, A.F. (1992). Interspousal aggression in law enforcement families: A preliminary investigation. It states:
Survey results revealed that approximately 40% of the participating officers reported marital conflicts involving physical aggression in the previous year.
There are a number of flaws with the aforementioned study:
The study includes as 'violent incidents' a one time push, shove, shout, loss of temper, or an incidents where a spouse acted out in anger. These do not meet the legal standard for domestic violence. This same study reports that the victims reported a 10% rate of physical domestic violence from their partner. The statement doesn't indicate who the aggressor is; the officer or the spouse. The study is a survey and not an empirical scientific study. The “domestic violence” acts are not confirmed as actually being violent. The study occurred nearly 30 years ago. This study shows minority and female officers were more likely to commit the DV, and white males were least likely. Additional reference from a Congressional hearing on the study: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=umn.31951003089863c
An additional study conducted by the same researcher, which reported rates of 24%, suffer from additional flaws:
The study is a survey and not an empirical scientific study. The study was not a random sample, and was isolated to high ranking officers at a police conference. This study also occurred nearly 30 years ago.
More current research, including a larger empirical study with thousands of responses from 2009 notes, 'Over 87 percent of officers reported never having engaged in physical domestic violence in their lifetime.' Blumenstein, Lindsey, Domestic violence within law enforcement families: The link between traditional police subculture and domestic violence among police (2009). Graduate Theses and Dissertations. http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd/1862
Yet another study "indicated that 10 percent of respondents (148 candidates) admitted to having ever slapped, punched, or otherwise injured a spouse or romantic partner, with 7.2 percent (110 candidates) stating that this had happened once, and 2.1 percent (33 candidates) indicating that this had happened two or three times. Repeated abuse (four or more occurrences) was reported by only five respondents (0.3 percent)." A.H. Ryan JR, Department of Defense, Polygraph Institute “The Prevalence of Domestic Violence in Police Families.” http://webapp1.dlib.indiana.edu/virtual_disk_library/index.cgi/4951188/FID707/Root/New/030PG297.PDF
Another: In a 1999 study, 7% of Baltimore City police officers admitted to 'getting physical' (pushing, shoving, grabbing and/or hitting) with a partner. A 2000 study of seven law enforcement agencies in the Southeast and Midwest United States found 10% of officers reporting that they had slapped, punched, or otherwise injured their partners. L. Goodmark, 2016, BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW “Hands up at Home: Militarized Masculinity and Police Officers Who Commit Intimate Partner Abuse “. https://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2519&context=fac_pubs
No one shoplifts formula to feed their own baby, they steal it to literally scalp it to those who actually do need it, at a fat markup, after conveniently draining the store's supply so they're the only source.
They're not Robin Hoods sticking it to the Big Bad Corporation. They're profiteering scumbags.
In the language of the law, the Ten Commandments are “foundational documents of our state and national government.”
Uh, no they fucking aren't, lmao
i really don't care if it's a misleading or misquoted stat.
I'm frankly not surprised. Decent, honest people do, though, hence my effort to reveal that it is, in fact, a bogus stat, so that said people will know to disregard both it, and those like you, who continue to spread it in the name of their narrative despite knowing it's bogus.
People who care more about maintaining and propagating their biases/prejudices than about being honest and truthful, are abhorrent scum, and don't belong in civilized society.
Two consecutive candidates. As in two different people, who run under the same party. Not two terms.
Not that simple. This got started before he took office, and it culminated long after he was out of office. Way more than one person is to blame.
https://www.tateesq.com/learn/student-loan-bankruptcy-law-history
Student loans first became nondischargeable in bankruptcy in 1976 due to an amendment in the Higher Education Act. Section 439A of this act made student loan debt non-dischargeable until five years after the start of the repayment period, except in cases of undue hardship. Over time, laws were tweaked and widened to reinforce this limitation.
"Unnamed cast member"? Is it that they think we're really stupid, or that it's actually not people complaining about the black Juliet, and they want to make it look like it is?
How bizarre...
I'm as atheist as atheist gets, and I completely disagree with this, and it honestly smacks of edgy teen r/atheism. Just because you're religious doesn't mean you'd engage in that kind of dishonesty. Some of the greatest scientific discoveries in human history were made by religious people.
Also:
"Religion just ruins everything, like running a computer with Windows." "@secretlyaddictedtolinux"
Username absolutely does NOT check out, lol
Basically, unless the sale gets you enough to buy the next house in cash, it's a bad idea, lol.
The main problem though is this falls into the paradox of tolerance.
lmao, no it fucking doesn't. If you want to make an assertion, any assertion, and back it up with evidence, that evidence should be, well, not bullshit.
That's all there is to it.
And if your assertion is actually correct, but X amount of attention is taken away from it because you're spreading bullshit in support of it, that's your own damn fault. If you're right, you don't have to lie to prove it.
There are few things more frustrating, politics-wise, than seeing someone who you presumably fundamentally agree with on issue X, fuck everything up by exaggerating or fabricating evidence.
It's better to get called out by someone who isn't interested in doing anything but correcting them. Could easily be fuel to completely reject the premise if it was someone else.
Preface: I don't care at all what bathroom anyone uses, just a silly lighthearted comment:
But I do find it a bit funny that the headline mentions 12,000 complaints, but leaves out that only 5 of them were even looked into, lol.
Sensationalism is everywhere, I guess, lol.
I had to dig a bit, but I found out the source poll's threshold for "middle class": 200% or more past the poverty line.
The poverty line is about $15k for individuals. People making $30k a year are, clearly, not middle class. The current standard puts the beginning of middle class in the low $50k's.
This is doomer clickbait bullshit.
This program isn't UBI, and should not be compared to it, or used to argue for/against UBI. Universal Basic Income goes to everyone, not just certain people. That's what makes it UBI, and not a welfare program, which is what this is.
Yeah, I thought shit like this was far behind us and all settled, not a problem anymore, etc., what the fuck.
This is like saying "a triangle will never have 3 sides".
UBI, UNIVERSAL Basic Income, goes to everyone by definition. If it doesn't go to everyone, it's not UBI, and shouldn't be called such.
"You Scots sure are a contentious people."
But I guess you are right about all of that being one joke- that Donald Trump was ever or will ever be fit to be President.
I'm clapping and crying and shitting rn
They said two candidates, not two terms.
Assuming for whatever reason that this wouldn’t work with an EV, you can say “well that’s one trip a year you won’t be able to go on.”
More realistically, you should be instead told "well, that's one trip you'll be making in a rental ICE car instead".
You'd still come out on top overall, I'm pretty sure.
| will
i dÉ™ not
Is this a bot with bad OCR? What's with all of the weird characters?
What an idiotic thing to say in a comment to a post not written by an American, that's complaining about Americans.
Yeah, I've wanted instant runoff voting to be the system the US uses for decades, but it's clear that it's never going to realistically happen.
We can't even get rid of the dumbass electoral college after all this time, lol.
I had difficulty parsing the article title.
That's because it was deliberately written to be misleading. Don't imply that that's your fault, it's a standard trash clickbait headline.
Nope, 66% increase then, just checked.
This is extremely misleading--those companies produce those emissions in the course of creating the products that the rest of us 'down the pipeline' (pardon the pun) consume.
So, to everyone who's like 'all the things I do to reduce my footprint are meaningless because it's these guys at the top creating all the pollution'? No, it's not fucking meaningless. You and others like you consuming less is precisely THE way to get those companies at the 'top of the supply chain' to pollute less.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only reason I know of for cis kids to use puberty blockers is as a measure against the condition precocious puberty, which basically means the body is going into puberty too soon.
If that's correct, then this isn't really a good argument, because using drugs to delay premature puberty until its 'normal time' is very different from delaying 'normal time' puberty to a future 'late time'--the latter moves the body into an abnormal state, while the former movies out out of one.
Isn't that kind of like arguing that because we've been using blood thinners successfully for a long time (leaving out that it's used primarily on people who are prone to blood clots to treat that condition), that there's definitely no harm in prescribing blood thinners to people with regular blood?
Even the founder of Costco (only stepped down as CEO a few years ago), a company famous both for how well it treats its customers, and its workforce?
As for your claim that “nobody” steals for their baby
Congrats on contradicting the absolute literal interpretation of what was obviously hyperbole, I guess.
"Female" is a descriptor of sex (element of anatomy), not gender identity (element of consciousness). Considering that the whole foundation of the notion of being trans relies on sex and gender being two distinct things, it literally can't be transphobic to use a sex adjective to refer to homologous body parts that are inherent to that sex, because being trans is all about variations of gender identity, not sex--the two don't actually intersect.
For example, only males/females are capable of suffering from prostate/ovarian cancer--and this population includes trans women/men.