I love how memes (in the Dawkinsian sense) work. Lots of people have enjoyed this, but I can imagine this being quoted as the original is lost to the sands of time.

Young people everywhere thinking that Aquaman was someone who just bought failing assets from everyone.

I know this is a joke thread, but I think this is a great example of a poorly designed survey question that charitable people would say ‘generates discussion’. I would say it enables confirmation bias and just creates animosity amongst people looking for reasons to dislike an imaginary other.

My instinct when I first saw reporting of this was, yeah I probably could. But that’s because I read the question as me being able to play until I won a point. If I even won one, even by a double fault, I win. When I said as much on social media people jumped on me. But here’s the thing, I think theres like a 99.8% chance that the world’s best Female tennis player wins any given point against me. I’m just expecting one shanked return from 500 efforts.

Then uproar. Because it’s only because she’s a woman. Except… Well there isn’t an equivalent question for Novak Djokovic! So people are jumping to conclude reasoning, and YouGov is formenting that by reporting on a shoddy question with no control to give us a benchmark. For the record I think on average I’d have to wait longer to win a point against the worlds best male tennis player, because they serve so much faster, but I don’t think I’d be waiting forever.

So people read the question and assume both that the question refers to a one point shoot out, and they already think the greater portion of men are misogynists. Well then that’s the explanation! It cannot be an ambiguous question interpreted differently!

And I’m not denying that for some people the worst explanation is unfortunately the correct one. But I do have an issue with people dismissing or ignoring fairly rational objections to the survey or interpretations of it because of their pre-existing biases.

Not true either, someone has linked the survey question above 12% of men said yes, 3% of women

I’ve just gone and copied the wording from the link…

Do you think if you were playing your very best tennis, you could win a point off Serena Williams?

I’m not sure this is fair. I don’t think this is in lieu of such a conversation, but about some ideas on how to pitch the conversation. If you don’t have any friends in similar circumstances, it’s worth finding out what other people do.

That said, the range of suggestions here is so broad that I’m not sure it’s going to help!

There was a period in my life when I had to remind people frequently that NoSQL stood for ‘not only SQL’.

I’m hardly a biblical scholar, but that interpretation doesn’t feel like it fits with the rest of the passage…

38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’[h] 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

It says turn them the other cheek also, after ‘do not resist’. So it’s about offering even to the worst, rather than resisting.

There’s another issue too. In perfect conditions, self-driving cars are a lot safer, but they aren’t 100% safe. So when an incident occurs it’s newsworthy. (In the same way that we hear about plane crashes anywhere in the world, but won’t necessarily hear about someone getting run over in the next city).

My hypothesis is that adoption would be throttled in even near perfect conditions. Just because we’ve internalised the risks of driving, but haven’t for the risks of being driven by a computer.

All that, and you may have left out the most damaging of all… Trump will likely pull the US out of Copenhagen, leaving no chance of limiting temps below 2C let alone getting anywhere near 1.5C. The excess deaths from this will likely dwarf COVID.

The point seems to have gone quite a long way over your head. The person above is advocating for a system where transit/active travel is the easy option. Not one where you have to up your commute by 500% to do the right thing.

It’s not, “just use transit”, it’s “please make it easier to do so”.

I was certain this link would already be here! https://www.theverge.com/2024/4/2/24117976/best-printer-2024-home-use-office-use-labels-school-homework

Does nobody else find the framing of this article a little weird? I thought the argument for boosting the economy, was because it correlated well with people’s well being. (Not that I personally but that, but I understand the line of thought). Now instead we’re suggesting that human outcomes are important because it boosts an arbitrary measure? I feel like the cart is now dragging the horse along the ground.

I have it on android! It’s been a trusty travel game for me. I do find the upgrade pathways a little narrow though. Maybe I haven’t quite got the knack for it yet, but I find that I don’t have enough agency over if a run is successful. That is to say, I lose and too often can’t point to something I could have done differently.

I’ve spent an outrageous percentage of this year playing the poker solitaire/deck builder/roguelike that is Balatro.

I didn’t like roguelikes until dicey dungeons came along, and since then my favourite games have been that, slay the spire, Hades (haven’t played 2 yet) and now this.

If you like deck builders, I highly recommend it. A very smart twist on the solitaire genre.