"Notably, Navy Federal approved a slightly higher percentage of applications from White borrowers making less than $62,000 a year than it did of Black borrowers making $140,000 or more."

I don't know man. Like, I agree that data is missing, but the data they did pull is very damning. Like how is there a higher approval % of white applicants making less than half the yearly salary of black applicants?

In that case, there may be a flaw in argument. Your anecdotal story doesn't disprove their point. The moment you started powerlifting training for 3 months, you've already became stronger than the average male. Most men on Earth don't do any sort of strength training, and it's not unreasonable to think that these men are not much stronger than the average woman.

I don't think I'm arguing against your evidence. It's your idea that this difference in men and women's strength is simply explained by a difference in testosterone. This claim does not nullify the questions posed in the article.

Both biology and the environment play roles in defining people's personality and physique. Higher testosterone is only a piece of biology's role, but it's only loosely related to environment's role. It's not an unreasonable hypothesis to claim society's artificial rules placed on women might have had an effect on women's physique through things like sexual selection. This is why scientists still explore these things.

Estrogen is also a hell of a drug... It's actully a point in the article that people give testosterone too much credit and estrogen not enough credit when it comes to how they affect the physique.

Your argument being founded on the effects of testosterone is not a good one...

I actually dont think testing this hypothesis is as easy as you think. You can't just control for social biases when analyzing marathon data because these social biases are longitudinal. At a young age, women quickly learn from modern society that they are physically inferior to men. Because of this, the best bet for testing this hypothesis is to look at ancient societies, because these societies are largely independent from our modern society.

Not with that attitude.

Remember when you had to get your friends and family to use Facebook? I do. Most (may be all) social media platforms are opt in. People are not born with a Facebook account.

This is not a reason, but rather a means to absolve yourself from engaging with a platform you know is toxic.

I think we really gotta stop lying to ourselves when we say "it's a good way to stay in touch with people". It's a way to stay in touch, but most of the shit you see on Facebook these days have little to nothing to do with the people you actually care about.

There are much better ways to stay in touch with others. For example, friend or family discord communities is a far superior way when compared to any Meta platform.

On point. Everytime these kind of studies are posted, the bros always have some low key sexist comments which try to explain why the study is wrong... It happens a lot in the scientific community as well. Yet, all you need to do is speak to a few women in the field to understand just how hostile some of these Stem communities can be towards women.

Yeah, that's my suspicion too. If more gen z are using the internet compared to boomers, then it makes sense that more of them would fall for scams.

It's hard to claim the nuclear bombs were a major contributor to their surrender when Japan was trying to surrender before the first bomb dropped. What made the surrender difficult was the ally's demand that the Japanese emperor be stripped of his power. This was a big ask at the time, since the emperor was directly tied into Japanese religion.

In addition to this, the American military were committing war crimes before the drop of the nuclear bombs. The American military was killing more japanese citizens in there multiple night time carpet bombing runs than they did with the nuclear bombs.

The nuclear bomb was not "to end the war" because the war was already over when Truman decided go ahead and use then. The nuclear bomb was to show the USSR our military capabilities to scare them once the war ended.

It's a good theory, but...

A) these gems won't be on eternal so those characters are going to feel rough.

B) those new will be obsolete at the end of season 1

Because of these two points, they really shouldn't be balancing the game around these temporary season exclusive items.

Curious.

What are the incentives for the drivers to pull this time saving maneuver rather than doing it the right way?

There are alot of people who are pissed off about the current system here. Makes sense, since these would be the people who are willing to push through the growing pains of the fediverse to remove themselves from corporate centralized sites.

For example, I'm not necessarily a communist, since I am not convinced it's the best alternative to our version of capitalism in America; but I will agree with the communists when they say we need to replace our broken system with something better.

I really hate when people make this claim that humans are inherently greedy. I usually find that the people who believe in this are greedy people who want to believe that it's natural. It's a way for them to feel less guilty about a quality that can be deemed unsavory.

It doesn't take much to find evidence that goes against this claim. Buddhist monks who take vows of poverty, teachers who teach to help children despite low salaries, family members who spend money to help other family members, true Christians who follow the footsteps of Christ, and the list can continue.

In addition, consider this, almost all of animalia on Earth takes only what they need. Lion prides aren't hunting prey to the brink of extinction. Bees take only what they need to maintain a healthy hive. Historically, most Native American tribes only took from the land what they needed to live.

No, humans are not inherently greedy... Humans are inherently adaptable. This is something all animalia shares. And currently, our societal systems rewards those who make and hold onto the most money that they can. What this means is most of the "successful" people in our society are likely somewhat greedy. This causes some of us to believe that greed is necessary to survive, but most of us focus on being happy and having enough money to maintain that happiness. Money promises security, and security helps keep people happy; but you don't need to be a multi-millionaire in order to be secure.

Yes, like you stopping to peddle your bike...

A simple force diagram and application of newton's 2nd law predicts the bike should accelerate to the left while it's velocity is towards the right. This means the bike should slow down.

As a high school physics teacher, if this is the hill you're willing to die on, then you neither understood the content in your high school physics class nor your university physics class. Newton's 2nd law is generally accurate in most scenarios even without simplifications.

Yeah, I don't know if the issue is the FTC's choice of battles. I think Europe's success is due to a system that is less beholden to big corporations. FTC's failure is due to a failure within the American government.

The judge for the Microsoft vs. FTC legal battle made a decision based on the idea that 10 years is a long time... To me, this is a comical statement. 10 years is a blink of an eye. What do we think is gonna happen once ten years has passed?

Saying "coincidence" is basically claiming there is no reason for an observed pattern. This is really more of a last resort when considering explanations for certain patterns, because it's probably the weakest claim someone can make.

Generally, patterns are not coincidence because if an outcome is truly a result of randomness, then there is an extremely low chance that there would be a pattern.

Also, 12 is not the whole data set. The whole data set should include the people who weren't hired during the hiring process. This is unknown to us.

Consider the flipped version of the same question: "Was Earth the only planet in the universe that was able to conceive life?"

If the answer to this question is "Yes", then our universe would not be fit for life, and we wouldn't exist either.