marzhall

Lmao, I love the idea of adjusting the chart for obesity by subtracting men's breast sizes from women's

Pater tuus est?

"Survival of the fittest" is not a moral law. It's the scientific observation that, for populations of organisms that reproduce and make mistakes while reproducing, those mistakes that better fit the environment the organisms are in are more likely to be passed on, resulting in, generations later, those populations eventually adapting to better fit their environment. There's no obligation to consider and follow it as if handed down by a judge in the same way there's no obligation to consider and follow gravity when walking outside.

Literally had put the book down at this section when I saw this post. Was like seeing double.

That said, I think the "who domesticated whom" question is a little bit of a farce in itself. In reality, there's no agent making informed decisions to domesticate; it's the result of two adjacent processes benefiting from being around each other, and over time, variations in the communities that fit the environment better sticking around. "Simple" evolution. Ascribing agency to it seems a little silly.

Fallout Equestria obviously

Yep. It's a play on two meanings of "cut off":

"If you cut off my reproductive choice" == "prevent my choice to get an abortion." "can I cut off yours" == "can I physically cut off your dick."

Graduates, sure, but stundents are still learning

That's the placebo effect, baby. That's part of why's we's gots control groups in medical studies - to filter out the noise of just having hope now that you've got something new.

To take a stronger tack on what loonsun has said: IQ tests are bullshit.

Measuring intelligence - that is, the ability to find patterns and integrate experiences to synthesize solutions - is still an unsolved problem, and any psych major will happily tell you that - they'll have learned it in their first course, even. No one's figured out a way to do it that isn't just testing knowledge instead of the actual "intelligence" of someone.

To give you just one reason they're bullshit: there's no IQ test in existence where studying for the test does not significantly improve your score. Clearly that means the test is at least in part testing what you know, instead of some "base aspect" of your mind.

Another reason often quoted is that tests made in different cultures produce different results for people who aren't from that culture. So clearly, again, learned cultural knowledge - not some "base intelligence" - is involved in the test.

So instead of worrying about IQ tests, put them out of your mind. The only people who care about them are charlatans. If you're having trouble functioning in daily life, you'll likely go a lot further finding resources that help with the tasks you're struggling with - which may not be easy, but will help you. A therapist may also be a good person to chat with this about - mine has certainly been a big help to me. Good luck!

Oh jeeze, that's been around as a plugin in inkscape since at least 2011, I remember vectorizing an episode poster from Adventure Time using it. But I'd believe it wasn't quite as good as whatever photoshop had. I used the "never learn photoshop" trick to be happy with what I've got, but then I only edit images for fun.

...on the planet Earth, man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much—the wheel, New York, wars and so on—whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more intelligent than man—for precisely the same reasons.

• Douglas Adams

He's exploiting exactly the same weakness that llms exploit to appear so smart: he just sounds confident all the time, and since people use confidence as a shortcut to evaluate accuracy, anyone who isn't paying attention to the actual substance is going to just nod and smile at the confidence and assume everything is perfect.