ThomamelasOnly one man can kill this many Russians. Bring his guitar to me! Registered Userregular
I am so glad I never had that talk with my mother. I'm pretty sure she would have told me that having sex before marriage would kill me. And I would have been giggling on the floor knowing I wasn't dead yet.
Isn't that a myth though? I dunno birds are creepy.
Birds are monogamous at a higher rate than basically any other clade, however, a lot of the data on it was performed by relatively stuffy old men who would willfully misinterpret things that went against their narrative (I am reminded of a (possibly apocryphal) anecdote of some scientists observing a male orangutan giving oral sex to another male orangutan, and concluding that he must have needed nutrition), and as far as I know, a lot of the monogamous birds are monogamous because they pair up for one mating season.
That said some birds are totally monogamous, and I'm pretty sure way more are than mammals (I think mammals are at like 5%)
I think a lot of it is the distinction between sexual monogamy and social monogamy.
But genetic testing of songbird nestlings, even in socially monogamous species, shows that the father who sired them isn’t necessarily the one who is helping to rear them. In other words, a socially monogamous female songbird sometimes “cheats” on the male with whom she has a bond. And her socially monogamous mate may have fathered eggs in other nests.
Sometimes a female bird carrying an egg fathered by her bonded mate, will lay that egg in a different nest of the same species. So when you happen upon a songbird nest full of eggs — even of a socially monogamous species — you can’t be sure who is the biologic father — or mother — of those eggs.
In other words, socially monogamous birds are not necessarily faithful partners, but they care for each other and for the young of their nest. Rearing young together does not imply sexual fidelity. Studies of eastern bluebirds have found that nests with mixed parentage — that is, they have eggs by more than one father, or more than one mother, or both — are not uncommon.
Between one in 10 and one in three eggs in a female cardinal’s nest has genes that don’t match her partner, and less commonly, they don’t even match her own. But because of that pair bond to rear the young, they are considered socially monogamous.
According to The Birder’s Handbook, “It is perhaps best simply to consider monogamy as a social pattern in which one male and one female associate during the breeding season, and not to make too many assumptions about fidelity or parentage.”
So the model people use for monogamy in mammals is the prairie vole.
This model uh, isn't... isn't sexually monogamous. The are socially monogamous, but if someone who isn't their partner shows up and their partner isn't around, they'll fuck like prairie voles.
There are models of monogamy that are both. The California mouse, for example, is sexually and socially monogamous.
I used to be kind of irritated that people studied prairie voles to get insights into monogamy because... they aren't, really, but then I realized that social-but-not-sexual-monogamy is probably closest ish to how humans operate naturally, so...
(I'm still annoyed. USE THE MICE.)
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
I didn't think the quakers were puritans. They were superficially similar (plain dress, very devout, left england to practice faith more freely) but the quakers were total bros about almost everything while the puritans were holding witch trials and shit.
The Puritans killed, branded, mutilated, and/or banished a bunch of Quakers in Massachusetts so the Quakers weren't the biggest fans of the Puritans.
0
Options
SixCaches Tweets in the mainframe cyberhexRegistered Userregular
Isn't that a myth though? I dunno birds are creepy.
Birds are monogamous at a higher rate than basically any other clade, however, a lot of the data on it was performed by relatively stuffy old men who would willfully misinterpret things that went against their narrative (I am reminded of a (possibly apocryphal) anecdote of some scientists observing a male orangutan giving oral sex to another male orangutan, and concluding that he must have needed nutrition), and as far as I know, a lot of the monogamous birds are monogamous because they pair up for one mating season.
That said some birds are totally monogamous, and I'm pretty sure way more are than mammals (I think mammals are at like 5%)
I think a lot of it is the distinction between sexual monogamy and social monogamy.
But genetic testing of songbird nestlings, even in socially monogamous species, shows that the father who sired them isn’t necessarily the one who is helping to rear them. In other words, a socially monogamous female songbird sometimes “cheats” on the male with whom she has a bond. And her socially monogamous mate may have fathered eggs in other nests.
Sometimes a female bird carrying an egg fathered by her bonded mate, will lay that egg in a different nest of the same species. So when you happen upon a songbird nest full of eggs — even of a socially monogamous species — you can’t be sure who is the biologic father — or mother — of those eggs.
In other words, socially monogamous birds are not necessarily faithful partners, but they care for each other and for the young of their nest. Rearing young together does not imply sexual fidelity. Studies of eastern bluebirds have found that nests with mixed parentage — that is, they have eggs by more than one father, or more than one mother, or both — are not uncommon.
Between one in 10 and one in three eggs in a female cardinal’s nest has genes that don’t match her partner, and less commonly, they don’t even match her own. But because of that pair bond to rear the young, they are considered socially monogamous.
According to The Birder’s Handbook, “It is perhaps best simply to consider monogamy as a social pattern in which one male and one female associate during the breeding season, and not to make too many assumptions about fidelity or parentage.”
So the model people use for monogamy in mammals is the prairie vole.
This model uh, isn't... isn't sexually monogamous. The are socially monogamous, but if someone who isn't their partner shows up and their partner isn't around, they'll fuck like prairie voles.
There are models of monogamy that are both. The California mouse, for example, is sexually and socially monogamous.
I used to be kind of irritated that people studied prairie voles to get insights into monogamy because... they aren't, really, but then I realized that social-but-not-sexual-monogamy is probably closest ish to how humans operate naturally, so...
(I'm still annoyed. USE THE MICE.)
Buy two mice, make child watch them do it, then feed them to a snake, got it.
0
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
I pieced together the mechanics of sex with biology class, health class, and peppered in some porn.
If you put the porn first you're gonna have a bad time.
I think porn was the only way I learned about mechanics, really.
0
Options
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
Also, so many reviews are "its good I guess" or "I kinda sort of dont like it but maybe someone will" and the scores for those two reviews are 100 and 0, respectively.
You never see a newspaper give "Age of Ultron" an 85%.
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
0
Options
ShivahnUnaware of her barrel shifter privilegeWestern coastal temptressRegistered User, Moderatormod
Isn't that a myth though? I dunno birds are creepy.
Birds are monogamous at a higher rate than basically any other clade, however, a lot of the data on it was performed by relatively stuffy old men who would willfully misinterpret things that went against their narrative (I am reminded of a (possibly apocryphal) anecdote of some scientists observing a male orangutan giving oral sex to another male orangutan, and concluding that he must have needed nutrition), and as far as I know, a lot of the monogamous birds are monogamous because they pair up for one mating season.
That said some birds are totally monogamous, and I'm pretty sure way more are than mammals (I think mammals are at like 5%)
I think a lot of it is the distinction between sexual monogamy and social monogamy.
But genetic testing of songbird nestlings, even in socially monogamous species, shows that the father who sired them isn’t necessarily the one who is helping to rear them. In other words, a socially monogamous female songbird sometimes “cheats” on the male with whom she has a bond. And her socially monogamous mate may have fathered eggs in other nests.
Sometimes a female bird carrying an egg fathered by her bonded mate, will lay that egg in a different nest of the same species. So when you happen upon a songbird nest full of eggs — even of a socially monogamous species — you can’t be sure who is the biologic father — or mother — of those eggs.
In other words, socially monogamous birds are not necessarily faithful partners, but they care for each other and for the young of their nest. Rearing young together does not imply sexual fidelity. Studies of eastern bluebirds have found that nests with mixed parentage — that is, they have eggs by more than one father, or more than one mother, or both — are not uncommon.
Between one in 10 and one in three eggs in a female cardinal’s nest has genes that don’t match her partner, and less commonly, they don’t even match her own. But because of that pair bond to rear the young, they are considered socially monogamous.
According to The Birder’s Handbook, “It is perhaps best simply to consider monogamy as a social pattern in which one male and one female associate during the breeding season, and not to make too many assumptions about fidelity or parentage.”
So the model people use for monogamy in mammals is the prairie vole.
This model uh, isn't... isn't sexually monogamous. The are socially monogamous, but if someone who isn't their partner shows up and their partner isn't around, they'll fuck like prairie voles.
There are models of monogamy that are both. The California mouse, for example, is sexually and socially monogamous.
I used to be kind of irritated that people studied prairie voles to get insights into monogamy because... they aren't, really, but then I realized that social-but-not-sexual-monogamy is probably closest ish to how humans operate naturally, so...
(I'm still annoyed. USE THE MICE.)
Buy two mice, make child watch them do it, then feed them to a snake, got it.
Do this, but I disclaim responsibility for giving your children a furry/scaley vore fetish.
+1
Options
SixCaches Tweets in the mainframe cyberhexRegistered Userregular
I'm actually curious to see what movies score within that range via Rotten Tomatoes. I know there's been a time or two where a movie I liked didn't have a high RT score. Not that I can cite specific examples off the top of my head, but I know it's happened.
+1
Options
ThomamelasOnly one man can kill this many Russians. Bring his guitar to me! Registered Userregular
I didn't think the quakers were puritans. They were superficially similar (plain dress, very devout, left england to practice faith more freely) but the quakers were total bros about almost everything while the puritans were holding witch trials and shit.
I didn't think the quakers were puritans. They were superficially similar (plain dress, very devout, left england to practice faith more freely) but the quakers were total bros about almost everything while the puritans were holding witch trials and shit.
The Puritans killed, branded, mutilated, and/or banished a bunch of Quakers in Massachusetts so the Quakers weren't the biggest fans of the Puritans.
A brief history of New England:
The Puritans piss off a group. Said group goes off and founds another colony in New England. Thus to this day, the rest of New England hates Massachusetts.
0
Options
TL DRNot at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered Userregular
The Quakers were mostly pretty cool bros, but also participated significantly in Indian boarding schools, which is decidedly not cool.
Forced assimilation, beating kidnapped children for speaking their language or practicing their religion, and erasing the history of native people: not cool.
I didn't think the quakers were puritans. They were superficially similar (plain dress, very devout, left england to practice faith more freely) but the quakers were total bros about almost everything while the puritans were holding witch trials and shit.
They were fairly conservative.
For the time they were free wheeling liberal hippies
but yeah, for today they were super conservative about things like sex
"The only way to get rid of a temptation is to give into it." - Oscar Wilde
"We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
wow it is almost like review scores aren't a precise science and some movies that are scored badly can still be enjoyable and good while the majority are still being accurately scored
(lmaps at suicide squad's metacritic 40%)
Shameful pursuits and utterly stupid opinions
0
Options
ShivahnUnaware of her barrel shifter privilegeWestern coastal temptressRegistered User, Moderatormod
yesssss I think I finally got python's Basemap to cooperate with me
fucking genius
most importantly I can demonstrate that I can already read+plot this data so I don't get assigned the undergrad to 'help' with this task
ok, he's not an undergrad but he's like 22 and I don't want help...
Steam, LoL: credeiki
0
Options
ThomamelasOnly one man can kill this many Russians. Bring his guitar to me! Registered Userregular
I didn't think the quakers were puritans. They were superficially similar (plain dress, very devout, left england to practice faith more freely) but the quakers were total bros about almost everything while the puritans were holding witch trials and shit.
They were fairly conservative.
For the time they were free wheeling liberal hippies
but yeah, for today they were super conservative about things like sex
Most of their liberalism comes from the fact that they didn't have clergy. So their marriage was two people saying we're married now. Note that they still hated pre-marital sex, adultery and anything that looked immodest.
ShivahnUnaware of her barrel shifter privilegeWestern coastal temptressRegistered User, Moderatormod
OH MY GOD
Chitosan (positive charge): As the name implies, it is composed of chitin, which is the structural element of the exoskeletons of crustaceans, such as crabs, shrimp and other shell fish.
@ARCH I CAN BASICALLY PUT GROUND UP CRAYFISH IN MY WINE TO MAKE IT BETTER
+3
Options
DemonStaceyTTODewback's DaughterIn love with the TaySwayRegistered Userregular
The Quakers were mostly pretty cool bros, but also participated significantly in Indian boarding schools, which is decidedly not cool.
Forced assimilation, beating kidnapped children for speaking their language or practicing their religion, and erasing the history of native people: not cool.
My high school sports mascot was a Quaker.
This is 100% factual.
0
Options
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
videogame review scores: often graded in a way that gives nuance, 0-100 makes some kind of sense and under 70% usually means there are a lot of flaws.
movie review scores: occasionally done in a star format (1-5), but often just given as good (100) or bad (0).
If the score is greater than 50% assume more than half the viewing critics liked it, which means the odds are in your favor.
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Chitosan (positive charge): As the name implies, it is composed of chitin, which is the structural element of the exoskeletons of crustaceans, such as crabs, shrimp and other shell fish.
ARCH I CAN BASICALLY PUT GROUND UP CRAYFISH IN MY WINE TO MAKE IT BETTER
This sounds like a terrible idea.
+2
Options
Donkey KongPutting Nintendo out of business with AI nipsRegistered Userregular
Meta scores on movie reviews are weird because a lot of use a stars system or a thumbs up or down system. I believe on metacritic, three stars gets mapped to 75% which, inherent stupidity of all ordinal rating systems aside, is probably not what three stars means. Had you asked a movie reviewer to give a letter grade (e.g.: A, B, C, D, F) I bet that would map more closely to stars, four through zero. Then using the standard 90,80,70,60 school percentage mapping from letter grades to numbers, movies and games would have similar distributions.
Thousands of hot, local singles are waiting to play at bubbulon.com.
I don't think anywhere except review aggregation sites show marks out of 100 for movies. I guess 46% means they got slightly more 2/5 than 3/5. And is therefore probably a bad movie, or at least a deeply mediocre one.
5/5 = great
4/5 = very good
3/5 = OK
2/5 = probably bad, or at least uninteresting
1/5 = terrible
Expanding this out to a scale of 100 and making it 46% or something adds a shading of scale that just isn't useful. Reducing reviews down to scores is barbaric anyway.
Sir Landsharkresting shark faceRegistered Userregular
I mostly just go by word of mouth these days for both movie and video game recs
Please consider the environment before printing this post.
+3
Options
TavIrish Minister for DefenceRegistered Userregular
video games reviews are all horrible fucking garbage
+4
Options
TraceGNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam WeRegistered Userregular
Stephen Hawking is going to go to space.
The cosmologist and physicist will leave the Earth on board Richard Branson's spaceship, he has said.
Professor Hawking told Good Morning Britain that he'd never dreamed he'd be able to head into space. But "Richard Branson has offered me a seat on Virgin Galactic, and I said yes immediately", he said.
Posts
Since when is Dead Space 2 merely good
That was bar none the best console port of all time, best sequel of all time
That game was a fucking revelation
So the model people use for monogamy in mammals is the prairie vole.
This model uh, isn't... isn't sexually monogamous. The are socially monogamous, but if someone who isn't their partner shows up and their partner isn't around, they'll fuck like prairie voles.
There are models of monogamy that are both. The California mouse, for example, is sexually and socially monogamous.
I used to be kind of irritated that people studied prairie voles to get insights into monogamy because... they aren't, really, but then I realized that social-but-not-sexual-monogamy is probably closest ish to how humans operate naturally, so...
(I'm still annoyed. USE THE MICE.)
The Puritans killed, branded, mutilated, and/or banished a bunch of Quakers in Massachusetts so the Quakers weren't the biggest fans of the Puritans.
Buy two mice, make child watch them do it, then feed them to a snake, got it.
man in what world is a score of 59 great?
I think porn was the only way I learned about mechanics, really.
You never see a newspaper give "Age of Ultron" an 85%.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Do this, but I disclaim responsibility for giving your children a furry/scaley vore fetish.
He also said I'll buy you condoms if you need them, please don't knock anyone up.
They were fairly conservative.
A lot of porn is really bad times for the ladies though, unfortunately. The amateur stuff is good though.
46?! Whatever happened to 47?!
Switch - SW-7373-3669-3011
Fuck Joe Manchin
People were a mistake.
A brief history of New England:
The Puritans piss off a group. Said group goes off and founds another colony in New England. Thus to this day, the rest of New England hates Massachusetts.
Forced assimilation, beating kidnapped children for speaking their language or practicing their religion, and erasing the history of native people: not cool.
For the time they were free wheeling liberal hippies
but yeah, for today they were super conservative about things like sex
"We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
(lmaps at suicide squad's metacritic 40%)
Not the porn I watched, I guess? I dunno. I didn't internalize anything weird.
*strokes whip with nails in it*
fucking genius
most importantly I can demonstrate that I can already read+plot this data so I don't get assigned the undergrad to 'help' with this task
ok, he's not an undergrad but he's like 22 and I don't want help...
Most of their liberalism comes from the fact that they didn't have clergy. So their marriage was two people saying we're married now. Note that they still hated pre-marital sex, adultery and anything that looked immodest.
sure but uncomfortable topic or not, he could've handed you one of those books that actually explains all that shit.
like this or something (I dunno which books are any good in the US)
@ARCH I CAN BASICALLY PUT GROUND UP CRAYFISH IN MY WINE TO MAKE IT BETTER
My high school sports mascot was a Quaker.
This is 100% factual.
movie review scores: occasionally done in a star format (1-5), but often just given as good (100) or bad (0).
If the score is greater than 50% assume more than half the viewing critics liked it, which means the odds are in your favor.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
This is a strange and unprecedented opinion, well done
5/5 = great
4/5 = very good
3/5 = OK
2/5 = probably bad, or at least uninteresting
1/5 = terrible
Expanding this out to a scale of 100 and making it 46% or something adds a shading of scale that just isn't useful. Reducing reviews down to scores is barbaric anyway.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
They don't have like gallon jugs of water or anything so I can't do that. Papertowels I can do once a year so what's the point. Hmm.
Idgi
This wasn't supposed to be a hot take