gbzm

Really? Again? I already disproved that take of yours in another thread, and you’re still on about that bullshit even though your own source disproves your claim literally in its first sentence?

The citation you’re contradicting is from an actual real-life, respected biologist who wrote peer-reviewed scientific articles. Who are you? Where are you getting these facts from, since they’re nowhere to be found in your source? Are you really that deep in the Dunning-Kruger valley? or are you trying to hide some sort of message in ignorance too solid to be genuine?

Please, being mistaken isn’t a crime but at least try to learn

Edit because I can’t reply to a comment that was moderated out: Saying “again” when you’re spouting the same nonsense again is not a tactic, it’s just frustration. What is a tactic is cherry picking the parts of an article to present only one side of a debate, in order to refute another argument than the one put to you.

I didn’t speak about the offensiveness or not of the term DSD here. I can at most think I would be or not, but I’m not qualified to know whether I would be offended. What I am talking about is reading, which I am qualified to do. There are three definitions of biological sex mentioned in the very first sentence of the article, none of which refer to gamete size which is a fourth one. I could also add the part where not all the DSD listed can be said to be male or female, and the ones who can actually use the chromosomal definition.

But I guess consistency is only for true believers, actual truth seekers like you neglect all that and keep repeating bad approximations as if they were facts because it feels good when the world is simple.

It’s ok: you only get this value every two years. That way, even though it’s a decrease from the previous year you have actually no idea whether the figure is higher than two years before

The tweet is a lie, the photo is from a novelty shop (thx falcunculus@jlai.lu)

https://www.reuters.com/article/world/fact-check-knife-concealed-in-baguette-is-from-french-novelty-shop-not-weapon-c-idUSKBN2781KE/

Merci pour Le fact-check

“Une graine dans le bocal piment” ?

Unfortunately not. Quantum teleportation is an awful name: it’s called that way because it implies “destroying” a quantum state somewhere, and “recreating” it identically somewhere else, effectively transmitting information. However, the process also requires a classical information transfer at some point, and is absolutely not instantaneous . It’s only useful for cryptography because it’s mathematically impossible to listen in on this information being transferred without disturbing it.

It’s one of the most unfavorable coolness-of-name vs. coolness-of-actual-thing ratio in physics.

I don’t know about this Milhouse business, but he did have some very salient point: that time he gushed blood uncontrollably from bis neck and died has raised serious doubt in my previously staunch anti-gun disposition. Now I have to manually remind myself that most gun violence victims are unfortunately not Charlie Kirk.

Maybe one of them performed their spell over the dark web, with bitcoin as sacrifice.

Tolerance is not an absolute principle, it’s just a social contract. People who breach it aren’t protected by it; end of paradox.

That and making, in what should be seen as the sole crowning jewel upon a veritable turdwagon of a life as a professional waste of carbon, the best argument in favor of gun violence since Brian Thompson

At least he died doing what he loved