I mean, I don't believe it but bible believers do; how about the global flood? Various plagues in Egypt as well as ending the whole party with killing off all first-born sons? Commending genocide (multiple times)? Enabling chattel slavery? Obliterating Sodom and Gomora(sp?). Ooh, on that same point, didn't he just turn Lot's wife into salt because he looked at her? All the stuff he did to Job to win a bet? And I think Jesus set a wild bear on a bunch of kids because they were bullying some guy?

Those are off the top of my head, but I know there's more.

I want to say they're from the same episode? They were being interviewed about their experience during some event and instead of doing a voiceover that segues into it being acted out they did this creative choice of acting it out and having the one giving a deposition pause to turn to the camera to tell the bit they're saying in the interview.

I'm not remembering a lot of the details, but this is the type of thing that made me love DS9. The themes were generally the typical Trek fair, but that show had style. They had the balls to film things differently than other Trek shows and make them really interesting. It was so different but still so Star Trek at its core. It made things feel fresh.

That and the way it was set up, being on a space station that didn't move meant it felt less like a sector/monster of the week. It accomplished a lot of the same by having the new aliens come to them instead of the other way around as is typical, but it felt different I think because they were stationary. It felt more character-focused, and because they were basically hovering just over Bajor it meant there was a whole planet that was able to affect the show consistently as it grew and changed along with the dynamics of the crew/station, while not really being part of the direct scenery.

I remember reading an article years ago about a village that put out an absurd amount of Olympic long distance runners. The article noted that the village was on a high plateau and far from other places. The extreme difference in height led to better lung capacity and the normalcy of having to travel by foot long distances just raised a bunch of people who conditioned their bodies from birth to be adept at long distance running. None of it resulted in any major changes in population physiology as it's just training your body to deal with environmental conditions after birth and doesn't cause the mutations in the genome that would mark evolutionary changes.

I mean, obviously there are some physical differences between races. They look different, some have more prevalence of certain diseases or conditions, but races are entirely a social construct. Scaled out, the differences in races aren't more severe than the differences in variability in smaller groups within a race, or even a family. It's like, yeah, uncle Steve's side of the family all have kinda pointy ears because he passed that on to his kids but his brother didn't pass that gene on but they're still family. Zoom out and view all humans not as different races but one giant group and uncle Steve's branch all just have darker skin or straighter hair, but they're still clearly part of the human family.

But also, who cares that it's less hard? I'm not using it for a drill bit, it's a cosmetic piece. Literally it's only function is visual. And moissanite is superior. All the visual markers that are used for beauty in a diamond it surpasses. And some quick googling I did to confirm that also showed me that diamond is only barely harder ("With a hardness of 9.25, moissanite is the second-hardest material used a gemstone." a diamond is a 10.) and it turns out, less likely to break in some cases. "Moissanite doesn't have a cleavage plane, while diamond does. (This is an internal plane along which a diamond crystal can easily split)" So if you hit a diamond in the wrong spot, it can still crack. Moissanite does not have a weak spot.

source

They still come for your sweets because they smell the fat in them, typically from butter in baked goods or chocolate.

But if it's illegal there wouldn't be legal brothels around?

And I haven't followed through but I've looked into prostitution in my area through various means. There do seem to be fairly moral options in my opinion. People who work independent and interact directly with the customer and they keep all the money. They have their own space to meet and they have the option of refusal at any time.

I'm not saying you're doing this intentionally, or that what you're saying is harmful, but I do worry. It feels like you're demonizing an entire industry and adding to the idea that it's immoral unless done through brothels. Sex work is work, and while often people end up there out of necessity, that's not much different than any other job people work these days. I would say that people who knowingly pay for sex work where the worker doesn't have their full autonomy is, at best, selfish and shortsighted.

Or are you saying that because it's a crime, by paying for it they're contributing to the sex worker also doing something illegal and that's bad?

Hold up. I'm not super experienced in reading studies, but I can read.

1. At best this is correlation. HRV increasing for these men doesn't mean a high HRV is required to be good at chess.

2. Sample size of 16... And only male.

HRV was reduced in participants who achieved worse results. This could indicate the possibility of HRV predicting cognitive performance

If reduced HRV means lower cognitive performance and women have, on average, lower HRV, you're saying women are less smart. At least in chess. I think that's bullshit and this study isn't incorporating enough/the correct data to show anything you're stating.

But here is one: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0149763411002077 that links HRV with stress response

And another: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0149763419310292 That shows women's HRV responds less severely to stress.

Both meta-analysis, not a single data point.

So maybe men are just shit at dealing with stress and that's why their brains go haywire during competition. But it's so gracious of you being so kind to women and giving them a space where they can play among equals on a "MORE level playing field."

By your logic, they should just be testing people's HRV and ranking them that way so they all are on even ground. Give those dummy men a MORE level playing field.

Have you ever watched a movie? Were you blown away by all the execs they added in the credits and assumed they must have had thousands of others under them not mentioned? Or do you not typically assume every other industry follows the same standard as yours?

What you said is akin to me saying "Why are they expecting their name on things? The restaurant I work at doesn't put my name on the menu when I'm cooking that night."

It's a different industry and I would be foolish to assume the standards in mine definitely should translate to others, and then confidently comment publicly about it.

Great deal. You get 10 hours pay, they get perpetual use of your likeness for all eternity and you don't have to work ever again! Great deal for somebody.

Does she have access to the bedroom during the day when you're not sleeping? If so, it's likely she views that as a piece of her territory. Personally, I'm not a fan of cutting cat's off from rooms for chunks of time if they have access normally. And sleep training your cat/cats is great. It takes some effort, but syncing their sleep schedule with yours is worth it.

Yeah. Fuck collective action and an entire industry fighting for their own survival. You get yours!

Remember the golden age of memes when the joke was just casual racism?