eXLNam2gv4

Good. Fuck Rush Limbaugh, and let the celebration about his death be a reminder to the rest of the racists and bigots that we\u2019ll happily dance on your graves too.
— Chris Kluwe, Irredeemable Pudgy Nobody (@ChrisWarcraft) February 17, 2021

More from Society

Noah Smith
@Noahpinion

Krugman is, of course, right about this. BUT, note that universities can do a lot to revitalize declining and rural regions.

One thing I've been noticing about responses to today's column is that many people still don't get how strong the forces behind regional divergence are, and how hard to reverse 1/ https://t.co/Ft2aH1NcQt
— Paul Krugman (@paulkrugman) November 20, 2018

See this thing that @lymanstoneky wrote:

And see this thing that I wrote:

And see this book that @JamesFallows wrote:

And see this other thing that I wrote:

Kirsti Miller
@KirstiMiller30

@LaurenMurphyMMA @_Miatonin @AOC There is no no differences in strength between men and women are seen when normalized for muscle cross-sectional

@_Miatonin @AOC It is reductionist (and wrong) to suggest the performance gap is all about biology (e.g. testosterone).

@_Miatonin @AOC Based on the present evidence, it is reasonable to suggest that biological, psychological, and sociocultural factors contribute to the range of gender gaps observed across sports.

@_Miatonin @AOC Men and women exhibit similar relative responses to resistance training, with no gender-specific responses noted after 10-weeks of resistance

@_Miatonin @AOC A number of other gender-‘independent’ factors contribute to the regulation of adult muscle mass, including genetics, race, adiposity, training, diet, and birth

el gato malo
@boriquagato

global health policy in 2020 has centered around NPI's (non-pharmaceutical interventions) like distancing, masks, school closures

these have been sold as a way to stop infection as though this were science.

this was never true and that fact was known and knowable.

let's look.

above is the plot of social restriction and NPI vs total death per million. there is 0 R2. this means that the variables play no role in explaining one another.

we can see this same relationship between NPI and all cause deaths.

this is devastating to the case for NPI.

clearly, correlation is not proof of causality, but a total lack of correlation IS proof that there was no material causality.

barring massive and implausible coincidence, it's essentially impossible to cause something and not correlate to it, especially 51 times.

this would seem to pose some very serious questions for those claiming that lockdowns work, those basing policy upon them, and those claiming this is the side of science.

there is no science here nor any data. this is the febrile imaginings of discredited modelers.

this has been clear and obvious from all over the world since the beginning and had been proven so clearly by may that it's hard to imagine anyone who is actually conversant with the data still believing in these responses.

everyone got the same R

this methodology is a little complex, so let me explain what i did.

a few EU countries provide real day of death data. this lets us plot meaningful curves to show rate of disease change.

what struck me is how similar all the curves were.

everyone got the same shape. pic.twitter.com/bN0hILzoSl
— el gato malo (@boriquagato) May 30, 2020

Hollywood
@J_MoAGoGo

Overall I think Labour will be a bit disappointed with how the ‘relaunch’ has started. Labour have given themselves a mountain to climb anyway through a year of inaction but the speech today lacked coherence, purpose and distinction from the government.

Starmer is (funnily enough) making a lot of the same mistakes Corbyn made in 2019. He is listing a ‘bold’ set of policy proposals that come across as disjointed and lacking connection to Britain’s priorities.

The policies themselves were basically good, I wouldn’t argue against them. But I would cringe whenever Labour came out with spending proposal after spending proposal in 2019 without any rationale or connection to a larger economic strategy. That’s what Starmer did today.

The questions that voters will have about Starmer’s speech are the same ones that voters will have had about Corbyn’s 2019 manifesto: why are these policies your priority, how can we afford them and why aren’t we doing these already?

The first one needs to be answered by diagnosing Britain’s problems and their causes. He doesn’t have to diagnose all of them. For the purpose of today he could have picked three that feed off each other: inequality, stagnant income growth and stagnant productivity.

sexnotgender.info
@Sexnotgender_

Hi @officestudents @EHRC @EHRCChair @KishwerFalkner @RJHilsenrath @trussliz @GEOgovuk

The Equality and Diversity section of your job application has 'gender' in what appears to be a list of the protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010.

However...

1/15

However, 'gender' is not a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010 and is not defined in the Act.

https://t.co/qisFhCiV1u

Sex is the protected characteristic under the Act, but that is not on your list.

2/15

You then ask for the 'gender' of the applicant with options:

Male
Female.

3/15

Again, 'gender' is not a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010 and is not defined in the Act.

https://t.co/qisFhCiV1u

4/15

Sex is the protected characteristic and the only two possible options for sex are 'Female' and 'Male' as defined in the Act and consistent with biology, but you don't ask for that.

https://t.co/CEJ0gkr6nF

'Gender' is not a synonym for sex.

5/15