Exactly. XY is not at all a hindrance to lactation. Because XY and XX nipples are the same. It’s just hormones (usually while pregnant) that make them function.
Exactly. XY is not at all a hindrance to lactation. Because XY and XX nipples are the same. It’s just hormones (usually while pregnant) that make them function.
You’re not viewing cunt cells in ultrasounds people share. You’d be viewing a fetus, uterus, placenta. But that’s all internal. Not external.
You call called them vagoos. I’m not sure you have much room to judge.
You can’t see the baby without the ultrasound. It’s not like you could grab a speculum and get a good look in person.
That’s more adult slang for vagina. Little kid euphemism would be something like hooha or twinkle.
The problem is “a candidate dem voters want” doesn’t have any obvious choices.
Like Harris isn’t that popular, but the optics of skipping over a black woman when the VP would typically be the heir apparent? You think Gavin Newsom would be a good choice? Californians don’t have a lot of good things to say about him right now. I haven’t seen a lot of other names floated.
Would dropping out have done anything? Biden got over 50% of the vote. Burnie and Warren together were only around 33%.
More like “hand-crafted” or “rustic” for a similar positive vibe.
I think we have a different understanding of ranked choice.
In your example, you have 3 candidates, and candidate 3 isn’t very popular. He isn’t many people’s first choice. At the end of round 1, candidate 1 has 45% of the first choice votes, candidate 2 has 46% of the first choice votes, and candidate 3 has 9% of the first choice votes. Candidate 3 is then eliminated, and those who voted for him have their votes go to their second choice candidate. That should leave either candidate 1 or 2 winning. The only way he wins is if he had more first choice votes than one of the other candidates.
If someone who is everyone’s second choice but no one’s first choice wins, that sounds like approval voting or something similar, not ranked choice.
Edit: Looking at the referenced election, it looks like he was the most popular among the people who didn’t want the 2 popular candidates. The first round was 8 candidates and a simple ballot. The second round was a runoff election with the 3 most popular candidates and a ranked choice ballot. He won the first round of that. No one had 50%, so instant runoff, but he also won the second round of that.
To avoid that situation, you would have had to change the run-off rules to only allow the 2 top people instead of the 3 top people. But it still was an in person run off that gave you the result you dislike.
You know the alternate name for ranked choice? Instant runoff.
In your opinion, why does making everyone come out a second time produce better results?
And more expensive than flying a good chunk of the time!
The thing is, placebos can actually be pretty effective. Hell, they’re effective even if you know they’re a placebo. And the more elaborate and similar to what you think would be involved in curing you, the more effective. So people going to chiropractors might actually be getting real results even if the things they’re doing are junk.
They’re the exact same mistake. Since the commenter you were responding to wasn’t the one to originally make the mistake, but instead was arguing with someone who’s premise relied on that mistake, it’s weird to only get on them about it.
The reason people go to “No relationship with reality” is because many people use the polls to say “will” instead of “favored” or conflate “will” and “favored.” When that’s the standard you are often presented, of course you are going to come to conclusion polling doesn’t have all that much to do with reality. Because it isn’t that predictive. Especially when you’re looking at things where we take this somewhat fuzzy number and turn it into a binary yes or no while the cloud of possibilities comfortably encompasses both outcomes.
So when talking to some making definitive statements about the outcome of an election based on polls, how they are using polls only has a tenuous relationship to reality.
This is a thread where someone made the statement “Trump would win if the election was today.” based on polls. You said yourself, that’s not what polls are for. Take it up with the person who is misusing the poll to make definitive statements like that rather than the person saying you can’t trust the polls for that.
I’d honestly rather the switching than ending up on standard time year round.
I think it depends on where you are in your timezone if you prefer DST or standard time. But most people seem to not like changing the clock. It just turns into a fight if we should stay on DST or standard time year round.
Of those 62% that indicated they would like to get rid of the practice of changing the clocks entirely, exactly half of them prefer the option of later sunrises and sunsets, as in year-round daylight-saving time, compared with 31% preferring year-round standard time.
https://www.businessinsider.com/daylight-saving-time-polling-shows-americans-utterly-divided-2023-3
If we abolish DST, I think we should tweak some of our timezones. With dst, where I’m at the sun is currently rising before 5. If we kept standard time, it would be up before 4. Sun rise at 3 something and sunset at 7 something is really out of whack with how most people want sun allocated to their day.
Why do you think of vulvas as pointy?