The argument that "you shouldn't vote for someone just because your favorite celebrity endorses them" seemed like a much more credible argument before the 2016 election when the winning candidate essentially won by literally being a celebrity.

Prior to 2016, Trump was probably best known for being the host of a reality TV show, and being a "businessman". Taylor Swift is definitely better known, and you could also make a solid argument that she is a better "businessman" as well.

The thing people do no appreciate about professional and Olympic level sports is just how far the male athletes are beyond the athletic ability of the average man.

There seems to be a notion that just because someone is a male they get to compete at the highest level of sports. This is simply not the case. The vast majority of male athletes will never even come close to reaching a professional level. Even an above average male college athlete has a snowball's chance in hell of making it in a league like the NFL.

When we are talking about women competing with these men, we aren't talking about competing against men with average or even above average ability (professional female athletes would mop the floor with men in the 60% percentile) we are talking about competing against the top .000001% of male athletes.

Women not only have a biological disadvantage, they have a population size disadvantage. Far more boys and men compete in sports and games. I don't care what game or sport you are competiting in, if you have population A containing 100 randomly selected competitors and population B containing 1000 competitors, you don't have to be a statistician to figure out that your #1 competitor and probably your entire top 10 are going to come from population B.

Simple solution to all this: We don't have divisions based on gender. We simply measure testosterone and have a high-T and low-T division. Anyone can compete in the high-T but high-T can't compete in the low-T division.

⊙﹏⊙

There is a very logical progression of basic human needs. Without oxygen, a human will die in less than an hour. We need clean breathable air. Without water, a human a will die in less than a month. We need clean drinkable water. Without food a human will die in less than a year. Shelter is trickier because people can die of exposure and hypothermia in a matter of hours, but may be able to survive without it.

• Air for profit
• Water for profit <- This exists
• Food for profit <- We are here
• Shelter for profit

He should definitely be wearing orange, just not Netherlands Orange...

Not to take anything anyway from the Olympic athletes who are incredibly talented at their sport, but their sport doesn't resemble the practical shooting of real guns.

There are actual competitons for that, such as the International Practical Shooting Confederation (IPSC) world shoots. The U.S. is much better represented in these: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPSC_Handgun_World_Shoots

I would say some of them are, but some are just funny observations. Like the current issue: https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/olympic_sports_2x.png

Zero science in that either.

This is like survivorship bias, but in reverse. Obviously almost everyone who killed themselves with a gun had access to a gun, but this doesn't mean that they wouldn't have committed suicide by some other means if they didn't have access to a gun.

This is something that is impossible to determine scientifically. If everyone in this study group killed themselves with a gun, how many of them would have not killed themselves if they didn't have a gun? They can't un-kill themselves and let us take away their guns so we can determine the effect.

What this study shows is that a gun is likely the first choice of gun owners who are trying to kill themselves. It cannot determine how much less likely they would have been to kill themselves had they not owned a gun, if at all. Intuitively I do believe that it would be less, because other means are likely more difficult, slower, or less effective. Whether this would result in slightly fewer suicides or much fewer I do not know, but this study doesn't prove either.

How is it that legislatures can pass tax law which use %s that automatically scale with income/sales/property values, but they can't figure out a way to pass wage laws that use %s to automatically scale with COL/inflation? Imagine hardcoding a taxable $ amount, and then not updating it for 30 years...

22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name...23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’ Matt 7:22..., 23 NIV

It has been my experience working with FOSS that if you really want a bug fixed, or a feature implemented, it is best to take the following steps:

1. Fork the repository
2. Implement the feature or bug fix in your fork
3. Open an issue (if one does not exist already) in the upstream repository describing the feature or bug
4. Submit a pull request with your implemented changes as a solution to the issue

I have had a 100% success rate with these steps.