Russian disinformation

You mean "Re-open the wound".

Not just English. The article links to this one about doing it in a general science course. The quote that sums it up:

For some of my students, the exams were mostly a review from content they learned in high school, but for others, the content was so beyond what they could comprehend because they lacked the basic knowledge I assumed they would have had in high school. How on earth is an “objective” exam supposed to measure learning under these conditions?

To answer her question, they objectively understand high school level science or they objectively do not.

The Hobbit Party: The Vision of Freedom that Tollkien Got, and the West Forgot by Jay Richards and Jonathan Witt came to the same conclusion as far as Tolkien being AnCap. They mostly focus on analysis of his works rather than his letters, however.

Close, but no one suggested it was lupus.

"Has gone"? He's been woke for years.

The real question is which uncle and auntie will his mother send him to live with this time?

How do you know they're not TERFs?

They're working on subverting Christianity too.

I doubt they'd miss a beat. They'd accuse the writer of internalized white supremacy or racism or whatever, and move on.

Remember when they were excited at the prospect of Covid killing a bunch of old white people because they tend to vote Republican?

If you'd like, you can read about it here. The manual must be from a downloadable version - no one was doing this gender nonsense in 1981.

What's everyone's best score? I got $4,500 and the title VP of DEI Initatives.

Whatever happened to that gel they injected into vans deferens they were working on in India?

I think there's an implicit agreement with the audience when the author puts the first volume of a multi-part series. Basically, "Hey, here's part 1. If there's enough interest, you'll get the rest." I don't think anyone can say the ASOIAF hasn't been successful enough. I suspect his publisher is begging him to finish.

However, I also think that Martin has written himself into a corner. We're basically left in a situation where everyone needs to band together. However, we've established everyone is a backstabbing snake who will absolutely work against the long-term goal if it benefits them in the short run.

So yes, I think you're right. The plan is probably to delay the rest of his life and let someone else try to square that circle.

We'd be thrilled if the president would consider all possible candidates rather than excluding 94% or more based on their race or sex.

The only similar practice that comes to mind that was eliminated (as far as I know) was Chinese footbinding. From what I gather, there were two forces that made the change. One was Christian missionaries who called the practice barbaric and noted that other countries thought less of China for engaging in the practice. The other was Chinese reformers, who pointed out the benefits of women not binding their feet (better health, more able to work).

Unfortunately, I don't see how this model could work for transitioning. In their mind, anyone who takes issue with the practice is an ignorant rube at best and more likely a hateful bigot. Those who point out any health risks are ignored.

I was thinking of the sex episode of Bill Nye Saves the World. He says:

We used to think [sex] was pretty straightforward. X and a Y chromosome for males, two X's for females. But we see more combinations than that in real life. And even for people with just two sex chromosomes, hormones can vary wildly. So can anatomy. What makes someone male or female isn't so clear-cut.

Clearly he and those who think like him think its more complicated than the absence or presence of the Y chromosome. Since they seem to have gotten hung up on chromosomal abnormalities, genital size, and hormone levels, I go to the ultimate question: can you get pregnant? Can you impregnant another member of your species?

That's the wrong tact. Sex is a category to define an organism's role in sexual reproduction. So, a female is an organism who is either:

• Capable of producing ova

• Would produce ova were it not for some type of disorder/injury

• Had the ability to produce ova in the past

• Will develop the ability to produce ova in the future, provided disorders and injuries don't prevent it

The definition for male is the same, but swap ova with sperm.

The result is anyone born with ovaries, but not testes is female, even if she has an enlarged clitoris, a Y chromosome, high testosterone, and low estrogen. Likewise, anyone born with testes, but not ovaries is male, even if he has micropenis, two X chromosomes, low testosterone, and high estrogen.

If they do attempt to define man or woman, ask whether they're a biologist or not.

Who needs surveys? Here's the process:

• Make an assertion in a paper.

• Have your friends cite your paper.

• There is now a scholarly consensus on your assertion. It is now fact.

Note that no attempt to actually prove the assertion is required.

I was right with you. I thought it'd be something like Marvel's Ultimate line. I imagined original movies loosely based on the Thrawn trilogy.

The worst part is they didn't read the article or failed to think about it. BBC Russia's list isn't meant to be every single Russian soldier who's died - it's the dead who have been identified in reports the journalists were able to obtain. Those who haven't been identified yet or whose deaths were noted in reports not available to journalists wouldn't be counted. 557 is the minimum possible and, as you've explained, unlikely to be the real number.

This sort of thing can't be happening that often or we'd have these stories all the time. Between the carnage and the sympathetic victim, this is what editors love.

In Scale, Geoffrey West makes the case against BMI because it contradicts the square-cube law. Thoughts?