skeletorfw

I'm sorry, I'm confused here. I'm obviously all against race science and greenwashing, but I was talking about the quoted study in my post.

That aside, it definitely is good to have more people talking about the inherent subjectivity and impermanence of science though!

Honestly (and I see you do recognise this in your comment) but this really seems like a kinda crappy study that I'm surprised made it into plos.

For instance I couldn't find any evidence of them considering that the dietary choices of the guardian may affect the attitudes of the guardian to vetenarians (and thus the self-reported health of those animals). To take this further, in the scenario that a cat guardian believes their choices make their cat healthier, especially when going against vetinary orthodoxy, the guardian is probably less likely to take the cat to the vet for minor issues. This confounds the analysis of "healthiness" as performed by the authors.

Furthermore any cat that is not an indoor cat is likely also not fed a purely vegan diet (as they do hunt), so they should possibly account for that via a sort of bootstrapped approach. Generally the stats were okay though, and don't make super strong claims from some pretty weak data. Though GAMs were a pretty odd choice and I'd have preferred some sort of explicit model fit with Bayesian fitting or NLLS.

In the end all of this points to the sort of thing where they should really have been doing perturbational research. I.e. feeding cats different diets in a controlled lab space. This is not the sort of research that lends itself to surveys and that seriously impacts the actual practicality of its findings.

Also as an aside, I really cannot abide anyone who includes a questionably inspirational quote that they said themselves in the fucking French Alps on their own website. That's just pure wankery. The only people I usually see doing things like that are scientists like Trivers, which is not company one should wish to be in.

Best bit is with those colours you could create an infinite number of bro-bordered pool segments with each bro-bordered segment sharing a side with no other segment of the same colour.

Informal tenancies seem to be state-dependant from what I can find (more concrete in california and florida), though I'd be fascinated to see if this has been legislated or litigated upon more generally. Of course verbal contracts are valid contracts, but that's the sort of thing that would probably have to be sorted out in court.

In the end as advice for OP, I stand by the opinion that "they can't kick you out without notice" is not a good idea to base one's decisions on. You could be kicked out, whether it is legal or not, and the legality of such a no-notice kick out on a verbal and informal contract is certainly not an entirely non-disputed concept in all states.

OP could get kicked out, and maybe they could take their mother to court to try and get that solved eventually, but in the immediate they would end up houseless and in a pretty dire situation.

Fair indeed.

Point still stands (at least depending on state) that without a residential lease agreement in the US then generally you would be considered a guest in your family's house if over the age of 18. As such OP could be fairly easily evicted.

Depending on where OP is, that's not strictly true. If you are in a situation such as this, at least within the UK, you are not strictly entitled to the rights of a tenant if you do not pay rent nor do anything in lieu of rent.

Basically in the UK if you do not have a tenancy agreement, cohabitation agreement, or license to occupy, then it can start getting very complicated. If they were named as a property owner, or had a common understanding of financial interest in the property, they might be able to fight for a stake of the house, but that isn't really the point here. In the end whether they can be kicked out legally is a complex issue (at least in the UK) and not really a question we could answer here.

Roland CS-10-EM are excellent binaural mics for a very low cost :)

To be fair though, the people who fund the research are not the people who lose out if the publisher isn't paid their £30. They are very often governmental or inter-governmental research agencies and programmes. Realistically it is rare for anyone except from the publisher to care about free distribution. The publishers are however pretty vicious (e.g. Swartz's case).

Right, some advice from an allo person with an ace family member:

1. Dating and meeting people is hard, I'm sorry to say. Same as making friends, sometimes it just happens but most of the time it takes putting yourself out there in a meaningful and deliberate way.

2. Liking someone and being interested in dating them does not usually hit like a bolt from the blue. It often grows over a while. You'll often have to build a friendship with someone before you build a relationship.

3. If you find someone tiring and boring, don't date them. If you find everyone you meet boring and tiring after very little time then you have two options, either really challenge that preconception internally or consider whether you actually want to date.

If you want to date but aren't ready to actually put in the time and effort to get to know people then you are really going to struggle. Are you going to want to date someone long term when you don't even want to be connected to them for more than a few days?

There is also no guidebook, as much as it would be easier that way. People are individuals and dating requires you to see another as a person, not a puzzle to be solved. The only piece of advice that actually applies as a blanket is "be interested in them". You need to actually take an interest in who they are, what they do, how they feel. Ask the questions and listen to the answers.

Good luck, truly. Learning how to do friendship and relationship stuff is fucking hard. But getting interested in people is the most rewarding approach to take (at least in my experience, and that of my close friends).

Yup, it depends on the person but at least in my life many male friends are physically affectionate. Admittedly some of these are affectionate via general sparring, which started in our teens and never went away.

My personal view is that trying to find one single measure of cognitive capacity is a fool's errand. Modern IQ tests are battery tests (ie multiple tests in one), but still end up mapping to a single dimension in a normally distributed manner. That is my major problem. In my opinion IQ tests tell us something but I have not seen compelling evidence that particular thing is in fact intelligence.

So short answer: no; long answer: we shouldn't be looking for one single measure.

Fucking "dysgenics"? What in the actual scientific racist eugenicist 1920s bullshit is this?!

I mean there's the fact that he's attempting to use IQ as his response variable without acknowledging that it is pretty flawed and heavily environmentally influenced.

Secondly... I mean come on, he's trying to relate intelligence to population genetics via admixture. It's kinda paradoxical to try and make a non-racist argument for intelligence differing significantly and across populations by genetics.

Thirdly specifically the phrasing "human biodiversity" is often used as a pretty strong dogwhistle by current scientific racists alongside ranting about replacement. We are really not at the risk of major genetic bottlenecks across the world right now. (Also biodiversity is a term used specifically to mean the richness and abundance of disparate species, it's fairly nonsensical when applied to a single species)

Bonus point for the quantitative biologists around: if you're resorting to pcas, you probably either don't understand the mechanisms behind what you're trying to show, or it is an effect only visible by considering the small effects of many other variables. Usually it's first worth some plotting followed by a glm (in this case a spatially explicit glm).