There’s an appropriate time and place for any methodology. There’s never an appropriate time or place for Teams or Jira.

No u

That’s fair, but I get the feeling that the researchers came up with their conclusion before performing their study, and then interpreted their findings to fit that pre-supposed conclusion. The only thing this study can fairly claim is that some homophobic men may harbor homosexual desires. They’ve failed to demonstrate any causal linkage between those two attributes, but they’re heavily suggesting one exists. Maybe their abstract grossly oversimplifies things, but it seems to extrapolate their findings far beyond any reasonable conclusion in my opinion, and that makes me question their methods and motives more than I normally would. The publication date also raises flags, as the common pervasive sentiment about homosexuality was very different in 1996 than it is today. All of those things combined indicate to me that this study should be carefully considered with plenty of grains of salt at hand.

But to get back on topic a little bit - my original intent was to refute the notion that if someone has a problem with the methodology of a scientific study, then they must perform their own study and present evidence to support a contrary claim. The examples I listed are things it would be reasonable to expect a layman with solid critical thinking skills to point out as potential flaws in this particular study, potential areas to look further into, to confirm whether or not the study is scientifically sound.

No, what you said was “if you disagree with the science, perhaps you should do your own study”.

“Disagree with the science” is a disingenuous oversimplification bordering on nonsensical. People are calling into question the methods of the study, and the conclusions reached by the scientists interpreting the data. All of which can be accomplished with good critical thinking, and all of which is part of the scientific process. We’re not “disagreeing with the science”. We don’t need to repeat this experiment or run our own to be able to point out that it looks like there are flaws in this study - we just need to have good critical thinking skills.

If you disagree with the facts, it is your responsibility to disprove them.

What facts? Are you implying that the content of a scientific study becomes “fact” simply because a scientist publishes it? Because that’s wrong, and any published scientist will tell you as much.

Nah, nope, nuh-uh, that’s not how science works. A person’s concerns about the methodology or conclusions of a particular study are not invalid just because they haven’t run their own experiments.

It’s pretty easy for even a layperson to question this particular study, for a few reasons:

• The sample sizes are very small
• Some men can get erections/aroused if the wind blows the wrong way, or even for no reason at all - putting porn in front of someone and expecting them not to become aroused is a dubious assumption at best
• Using some external test to determine someone’s sexuality, instead of using the person’s self-identification, goes against the last 30 years of progress we’ve made in gender and sexuality studies
• The conclusion of the study may indicate some level of homophobic or anti-homosexual bias

Don’t gatekeep good critical thinking. Good critical thinking is the only thing you ever need to question any scientific study.

Props for living up to your username

No! Heathen! Download the source for every package and compile it yourself! Compile the kernel yourself, compile the compiler yourself! Never script anything, always do every step manually, every time! Using tools that make things convenient and foolproof makes you weak and unappreciative of the real hardship and struggle it requires to checks notes use a personal computer!

I think the difference is that it’s harder (impossible-feeling) for people with ADHD to abandon the nostalgia box distraction and get back to the chore they were doing. Or, once a person with ADHD finishes going through the nostalgia box and starts coming down off that dopamine hit, it can be hard (impossible-feeling) to do anything afterwards, let alone the boring chore, leaving the person stuck in a “frozen” state.

Obviously there are different levels of severity to ADHD, and my understanding of it is colored/biased by my personal experience, I’m not a doctor, etc., but this is the difference I’ve noticed at least.

You can save quite a bit by getting a refurbished Pixel - looks like the cheapest “Google certified” option (so it comes with a 1-year warranty) is a 6a for $250, which is nearly half off MSRP. I’ve been using my 6a since launch, so it’s been going for 3 years now and I have no desire to upgrade.

You can definitely get cheaper smartphones, but $250 for a 6a feels like a pretty big bang for your buck.

But you can’t say X + Y is better than Z (by itself)

I mean, yeah, you absolutely can. Especially when X + Y and Z are both common configurations, and using X or Y by themselves is uncommon or a known bad setup.

Sure, you can’t be certain which of X or Y is making the differences in the comparison, but the comparison can absolutely be made.

(ABI? Idk)

Application Brogramming Interface?

I’m fairly certain that 80’s Joe Burrow can’t fit in my pocket

What difference does to make if someone is sitting on the bench, laying down, standing, crouching, or in any other comfortable resting position? It’s a public bench, to be used by the public however they see fit, as long as they’re not causing harm.

It’s weird to enforce the “correct” usage of a public bench, or the “correct” amount of space a person is allowed to take up, especially with such drastic elements that you yourself admit are not very effective.

Literally anyone using the bench potentially prevents someone else from also using the bench. Why is it a bigger deal when it’s a homeless person doing the using? Also, I’m sure there are other more attention grabbing options than a flyer, if we use our imaginations a little bit. Why is your focus on prevention and not education/outreach anyways?

Hey maybe I’m stupid too, but it seems to me it’d be way fucking easier and cheaper to just put some flyers in a little letterbox attached to the bench advertising the nearest homeless shelter or something, rather than inconveniencing literally everyone who wants to use the bench. But what do I know, I’m probably just stupid

If you were in marching band, there’s a good possibility that you had more thorough training in marching than what’s given in basic training, especially if you went to competitions. Marching makes up like half the activity of marching band (it’s in the name). Marching is only one of a plethora of things that are taught during the few months of basic training, and once you’re out of basic, you may never have to march again.

I also think your expectations on how rhythmically-inclined the average person (or soldier) is might be on the high side based on your experience in an activity with a bunch of highly rhythmically-inclined people.

A couple counterexamples doesn’t mean the trend across all elections has changed. And that’s what I’m talking about - the trend across all elections.

No, it is necessarily true, according to the data lol. The higher the voter turnout, the more left wing candidates win. I don’t doubt that what you say is true at some level, but it doesn’t happen enough to affect the trend of higher voter turnout = more left wing wins.

We are the majority.

🌍🧑‍🚀🔫🧑‍🚀 Always have been. That’s why conservatives constantly try to make it harder to vote - the more people vote, the more left wing politicians win. Because the majority of people agree with left wing ideals.

It’s fine, maybe even healthy, to be wary of other men. It’s also important to respect your partner’s autonomy, and to trust that with that autonomy, they will act in a manner that is healthy for the relationship (and for that trust to be reciprocated). It’s great that you are willing to protect your partner, but it’s important that you let your partner inform you when that protection is needed, instead of assuming based on your one-sided view of the person your partner is interacting with. Taking action based on that one-sided view, instead of having a discussion with your partner first, can make you come off as possessive.