psycotica0

Sometimes even worse, which is to collect a raft of data testing one hypothesis, and then realize it all came up empty, and so go looking for any data you can form a new hypothesis from that matches the data you already have.

Hmm, I think all of your examples were examples of the teachers during prep, which is interesting, but not what I would have called "in the classroom". I got the sense the article was talking more about it being in the hands of students, but maybe I'm wrong about that?

You know what's the worst? I read this headline and thought "oh yeah, I forgot they did that..."

What a fucked up timeline.

"May be doing more harm than good" but, honest question, is there evidence it's doing any good in schools? I know I'm probably not going to get a balanced opinion here, but is the bad outweighed by good, or is the bad outweighed by neutral at best?

I've been sad lately, watching the creaky old mice shuffling around my yard, so it's nice that there's something coming down the pipe to help them regain mobility.

No no, those are fife drums

Fair fair, very important. What's also important is that we get our prostate checked, and/or get some mammograms done.

Vaguely, because having 2 or 4 models that are static and always look good is actually a lot easier to design and test than a body that can be lots of sizes and shapes. Like, it's more work to make an outfit 4 times than 1 time, but it's also kinda easy work. Whereas making an outfit that can be any size and shape and still looks right and natural and doesn't clip through itself, etc is harder.

But not impossible, so I agree if your game is going to have sliders anyway, and those sliders are going to allow extreme adjustments and not just "length of torso, circumference of boobs", probably you're going to have to take a lot of that into account anyway.

Even still, though, having a "bunch" of sliders can sometimes still not be enough to get from one body type to another. Like, the fact that you can't start with the male body in most of these games and adjust your way to the female one, or vice versa, means there are properties that would need to be made adjustable that currently aren't, in order to actually get you smoothly from one to the other.

Science is great, and gathering data on things that confirms what we already believe isn't a waste, but I think this paper is presenting itself as more surprising than it ought to...

The study shatters the outdated myth that vaginal penetration is the primary driver of female pleasure.

Literally my entire life I've heard this. From, like, everyone that talks about sexuality at all. And we already have studies that say only like 30% of women orgasm from penetration (quoted off my recollection, I don't have a citation handy). So this is fine, more different data is fine, but this myth has been beaten dead for like 50 years.

I did like the part where they talked about how more orgasms with a partner is more satisfying, but more orgasms solo is instead a symptom of less satisfaction. And similarly, more variety in activities with a partner is a positive sign, but more variety solo is instead a sign of "desperation" almost. That makes intuitive sense, I'm not surprised by that, but having data to back up the intuition is nice.

I think the real novel value here is the part where they talk about women having trouble with partners where they feel pressured to perform, and so much more relaxed and comfortable by themselves. Not surprising, makes sense, but that feels like interesting insight that could have further study.

I'm pretty sure the DJs in my area record a bunch of inserts and bits ahead of time, those get edited and sliced up, and then put into the playlist at the correct positions. So I don't think they're sitting in the booth listening to the music live, and then talking in between, like they used to anymore. So that's probably how they don't get bored, they didn't even hear the music last Friday when they laid down the week's schedule.

Wow, I had no idea! I just looked through the list of World Cup balls, and they only used that design, like, twice. But what an impact! I assume they had to get fancy afterwards because every ball started to look like that, so now it looked almost boring. Wild!

I've always liked them as a set. I think neither of them on their own are as good as the two of them contrasted against each other.