papertowels @ papertowels @lemmy.one

Posts

0

Comments

722

Joined

2 yr. ago

There's actually a few types of interest, including student loan, that can be deducted.

Major props for being a solid human.

These size 11 shoes were put on me as a toddler, I've never taken them off since.

How I aspire to one day have a mudroom so I finally have a place to take off my shoes.

Real talk, just leave em by whatever you deem to be the entrance to your home.

God I didn't realize the GOP committee members were refusing to share information with Democrats on the same committee. What a fucking joke.

the main advantage men have in terms of muscle mass comes from their T levels

Can you explain what you mean by this, specifically what the advantage you're referring to is?

The conversation might be moot - the study concludes that trans women exhibited stronger grip strength than cis women, however when you divide that by the weight of skeletal + muscle, that result is what's lower than cis men and women.

I don't really know how to apply that knowledge to considering theoretical advantages in sports, even if both populations were athletes. There are some where the stronger grip strength suggests there's an advantage, and there are some where the "density" of that strength matters more. The study (only 8 participants, no longitudal aspect whatsoever) just doesn't seem to be the most fitting piece of evidence for what's being discussed.

I was saying that the study might not extrapolate to athletes because the trans women in the study have more reason to avoid working out than the cis women, so the actual participants may already reflect a difference in incentives to work out.

If you compare a population that is less inclined to bulk up to a control population, which population would you expect to be stronger? Do those results extrapolate to when both populations have the same incentive to bulk up?

Real talk though what was bloodthirsty about that comment?

I figured not working out results in less muscle mass, and as an athlete you'd typically want to work out.

I suspect that this study should be repeated on the athlete subpopulations, because I imagine many trans women are actively trying to not be muscular in order to aid transitioning, which is a different goal from those participating in athletics.

The answer has a spread wider than those cheeks are going to be.

To some folks that's immigrants who come here legally ;)

Guess we know what he thinks.

I'm not thinking about individuals, I'm thinking about foreign nations.

Yeah idk what app you're using but in sync, once conversations have this many exchanges, it becomes completely unreadable as entire comments are compressed into a single column of 1 letter wide rows. Given this UI issue I'm not sure we can really continue the conversation if we wanted to.

I hope you have a good day - I appreciate the good faith and earnestness from everyone.

Point of clarification - the race is NOT named after the shooter, instead it was named after the organizers friend.

Cantrell named the race for his longtime neighbor and running companion, Barry Barkley.[4] It was first run in 1986.[5] Barkley died in 2019 at age 70.[4]

Oh, well when I said , "simply claiming", I was implying that most folks don't have an issue understanding what they meant, because it's simple when you take both paragraphs into consideration.

It seems like just as you chose to interpret things in an adversarial manner then, you are choosing to do so now.

EDIT: sigh, to address your edit:

And I actually said that "to pretend like that is devoid of politics" was a problem, I never said you were saying it.

It's pretty clear that you were asserting it's one of my beliefs here:

You're one of the people pretending this isn't political.

Did I say that, or are you conflating the cognitive dissonance of me discouraging you from blindly trusting autogenerated summaries with me generally disagreeing with you on everything?

Great. Now that you have a more well thought argument, take it up with them, although I wouldn't be surprised if they just ignore you.

But on that issue, are you putting the other person on blast for not sharing the info?

No, because it's in the article being discussed at hand. It's already been shared, some folks have ignored it.

It's so weirdly worded to avoid the truth it almost has to be deliberate.

If you read the second paragraph of their comment, it further goes on to say it's just about the terrain. That second paragraph then reframes the first paragraph, because that first paragraph just states that organizers didn't comment on the crime, and the second paragraph says what the organizers actually focused on instead.

Sure, quoting the first sentence out of context makes it seem so deliberately precise that it could be misleading, but the second sentence provides the context that shows why they were so absolute in that statement.

They were simply claiming that the race organizers weren't being political when they founded the race - they just saw challenging terrain and figured they'd be able to give it a go and get do much better.

Look, man, if you didn't read the article and were misled by the auto generated summary, do not blame someone else for not spelling it out for you.

Maaaybe, step 2 of that miscommunication might've been them not explicitly spelling everything out for you, but what was step 1?

It was you commenting without having read the article at hand.

Guess which one of these two is within YOUR control to prevent future misunderstandings?

Things might be different if this comment thread wasn't centered around a single article, but it is, so the reasonable assumption is that participants in the conversation have read the article.

EDIT: Don't get me wrong, you get props for going back in the article and recognizing that it provides a very different context from the auto generated summary, but I just don't think chastising someone else without acknowledging that you messed up by not reading the article is the play.

Step 2 of being outraged by an auto generated summary would ideally be to read the actual article to get more context before expressing that outrage.

I don't think the issue being raised here is that you were outraged by the excerpt, it's that the excerpt was trusted at face value enough to mislead folks, and it seems people just double down after being misled by the auto generated excerpt.