Except to join Bibliotik you need to have really specific friends :(

Shblivd 😭😭

So the funishment for being sinful is vore?

They meant not you the natural person but you the legal person.

Which d though? The distributed or the denial?

More like a cat looking into your eyes before pushing a vase down.

Oh, I don’t. Because of my aformentioned laziness.

If I were committed enough to use those symbols the increased effort from creating a sleeper network of alt accounts wouldn’t be too significant.

Hell, I’m almost tempted to start doing it myself.

Not because I want to see those symbols returned but exclusively for annoying people.

Alas, I am too lazy.

It’s satire. Satire is meant to be hyperbolic. No comparison of current events with past events can ever be fully accurate.

The message is fairly straightforward. Trump’s peace negotations with Putin are exclusively for splitting Ukraine up between the US and Russia. Not necessarily in the sense of occupation (for the US parts) but in terms of exploiting Ukraine’s resources for the sole benefit of Russia and the US. That’s it.

The connection is two powerful countries splitting up a third one to its detriment. What other well-known historic German event could this be compared with except Molotov-Ribbentrop?

It says Hitler-Stalin-Pakt 2.0

This is the (German) name of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, or to be more precise, the additional protocol specifying the partition of Poland.

No you don’t.

Looking constantly up is REALLY bad for your neck. Don’t place a monitor making you look up.

Could it make testing less conclusive? Part of testing is to see whether people actually enjoy the game. And I’d conjecture immersion-breaking placeholder assets could lead to worse testing reviews.

correlation is obvious

If a correlation isn’t immediately obvious, should it not be studied?

The abstract - if it can be even called that, seems more like a technical summsry to me - is useless btw, my quote is from the introduction. It’s more readable and goes a bit into the motivation of the research, which is roughly (if the citations are in order):

Women with endometriosis tend to have a certain phentoype. This phenotype shares traits that correlate with attractiveness. The research question follows: Are women with endometriosis more attractive than those without?

And the researchers were split evenly into men and women (assuming their gender from their names). Perhaps the three women happen to be bisexual or lesbian but I’d argue the chances of them trying to get laid are… very low at best. Do researchers even get laid from doing any studies? I couldn’t think of anything less attractive than analyzing someone’s attractiveness on paper.

Fair points, though I will say chronic illness is usually classified by being resistant to treatment. Cancer (generally) isn’t chronic because either it kills you or you kill it. HIV is chronic because you cannot get rid of it (except for a handful of cases which underwent a risky bone marrow transplant but that’s ‘cheating’ – it’s like ‘treating’ chronic knee inflammation with an amputation).

One of the studies with chronic illness in the title I now read the abstract from mentioned Alzheimer and Parkinson so I doubt they referred to curable diseases currently.

Also, I wouldn’t be so quick to judge research as ableist if the results are ableist. Provided the studies are neutral, wouldn’t it generally be beneficial to know how much people suffering from certain illnesses are affected by ableism? (Also the study found people suffering from endometriosis were more attractive, which could at worst be mysoginist instead of ableist I believe).

As to your last point, I agree - to limited extent. My main gripe is: Who gets to determine what research is wasteful? Should someone studying a super niche math topic with no real world use case (like ultrafinitism) not get funding? And how do you determine whether something is worth exploring (or not) if you don’t yet know the results? Hell, even showing there is no correlation between two things can be useful data because it allows researchers to rule stuff out.

I picked the first results with meaningful amounts of citations. Not an ideal metric but at least correlated with relevance.

It should be self-evident why those two things are related

But that’s the entire point? Correlations that seem obvious MUST be proven by data. Also, why isn’t it obvious that endometriosis may affect attractiveness? From the retracted study itself:

Multiple studies have contributed a general phenotype associated with the disease (3–12). Intriguingly, such an emerging phenotype appears to be indirectly linked with attractiveness, because several of the physical characteristics studied, including body size, body mass index (BMI), and pigmentary traits (4, 5, 7, 8, 11–13), have an impact on perception of beauty (14, 15).

I haven’t actually read any citations or further. Still, this reasoning seems plausible to me. If endometriosis does actually correlate with a certain phenotype - which I don’t know is true or not, as again I haven’t read the citations - then this relation becomes self-evident just as much as the studies I quoted.

Also, I don’t see why quoted studies must be about the same exact topic. “Caucasian” [why does English even use this outdated term still] female sexual health and its relation to attractiveness sounds like one of these hyperspecific topics where finding relevant studies requires knowledge about which keywords to look for. Knowledge I don’t have.

And I have no clue about what other “junk science” there is in human health research. How would I even be able to point to any other topic there? Besides I am unable to determine whether any study in a field I have zero experience in is junk or not. From Wikipedia:

Junk science has been defined as:

• “science done to establish a preconceived notion—not to test the notion, which is what proper science tries to do, but to establish it regardless of whether or not it would hold up to real testing.”[5]
• “opinion posing as empirical evidence, or through evidence of questionable warrant, based on inadequate scientific methodology.”[6]
• “methodologically sloppy research conducted to advance some extrascientific agenda or to prevail in litigation.”[4]

If you have experience in that general field and can point out why it is junk, please do so.

So all these studies mentioned above shouldn’t have been made? Chronic illness, severe mental illness and alcoholism are all very difficult (if at all possible) to treat. Many treatments are just symptome reduction - important, yes, but far from a cure.

Also, if I had to guess, most money does go towards finding treatments. Studies investigating effects are - I believe - many orders of magnitude cheaper. They can be as simple as a survey with 100 or so participants. Now compare this with the cost of a clinical trial for some treatments.

Genuinely don’t see the issue with either.

Attractiveness of people suffering from illnesses is not a rare study really.

Quick Google Scholar search revealed for example these three:

Physical attractiveness and mental illness

Physical Attractiveness and Maladjustment Among Psychiatric Inpatients

Body image of children and adolescents with chronic illness: A meta-analytic comparison with healthy peers

I don’t see any sociologists ever working on finding a cure or a cause of illnesses.

Similarly, the mental health effects of illnesses on their partner is also not a rare study:

Quality of Life: Impact of Chronic Illness on the Partner

The Impact of Partner Alcohol Problems on Women’s Physical and Mental Health

My Illness or Our Illness? Attending to the Relationship When One Partner Is Ill.

I have not read any of these studies btw because neither sociology or medicine is a field I’m studying.

Still, I don’t see the issue with funding such studies. It doesn’t take away any resources whatsoever from researchers attempting to find cures/causes. (Partially because academia is so underfunded, you’d be hard pressed trying to find something to even take away)

Could this be staged by burning a bread and then putting a yellow LED/lightbulb inside?

Even though this isn’t C, but if we take from the C11 draft §6.8.5 point 6 (https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n1570.pdf):

An iteration statement whose controlling expression is not a constant expression, that performs no input/output operations, does not access volatile objects, and performs no synchronization or atomic operations in its body, controlling expression, or (in the case of a for statement) its expression-3, may be assumed by the implementation to terminate

“new Random().nextInt()” might perform I/O though so it could still be defined behavior. Or the compiler does not assume this assumption.

But an aggressive compiler could realize the loop would not terminate if x does not become 10 so x must be 10 because the loop can be assumed to terminate.