Leaderboard

No, I do not have a link. However, if you knew me even a little you would know that I have references. No, only if the ratio actually impact the outcome we are investigating. Otherwise you are biasing the analysis by assuming an advantage (after all this is the very question we want to establish in the first place). Especially if other factors, like, say the horse may be more important factors. So what you need to do before assuming that the advantage plays a role, you'll have to look whether the effect is present in the first place and also whether other, potentially more influential confounding factors are present. In other words, you are doing the exact mistake that many are criticizing. Without first establishing whether your factor has an actual effect you just assume it in all and demand that it has to be incorporated into the research design. And again, this is would be a classic example of bias in the study design. Rather, you would need to first figure out what factors influence race horse performance and then look whether gender is among those and how strong it really is, relative to the system we created around this assumption. For example if we have a huge gender difference, just looking at number of wins really only tells us about how many of each gender are participating, and not that whether is a physiological effect. If experience is a huge contributor and for whatever reason one gender does not stick around for the sport, it does not mean that there is a physiological reason either, and so on. So the challenge here is of course that a perfect data set would have exactly the same race conditions (including same horses) just with the gender swapped (and having an otherwise comparable cohort) in exactly the same races . Since there is not such a data set, one way to one needs to adjust external variables (i.e. physiology independent parameters) that may affect for example the likelihood of receiving higher rated mount (or being able to race at all). When adjusting for these factors the conclusion was that https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1527002520975839 Now there are other papers out there looking at the performance of the horse and the impact of the jockey. After all, the horse does the running. And here a fairly recent study suggest that the gender does of the rider does not seem to impact horse performance. In the same paper they also just calculated winning ratios based on UK and Australian data and here they found that in the UK the winning-rate (again, adjusted for the fact that fewer women are competing) to be not significantly different between men and women. In Australia there was a difference but which vanished if one considers the money spots (i.e. top three positions) in the races. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-1341860/v1 So if the numbers do not immediately show a strong gender-based difference in outcome if one adjusts for the system (in contrast to sprinting, for example) why would one start off with the assumption of a difference and then try to frame the study from a flawed position? And this exactly is the issue with many of these assumptions. We know there are gender differences, but then we immediately jump to the conclusion they must be pervasive in everything we are looking for. And if we look with these blinders on, unsurprisingly we miss other aspects. This is one of the big reasons why there have been so many studies claiming to show that for some reasons folks with darker skin colour are less intellectual or that in general we only find the effects we are looking for (see the replication crisis) or why we have pervasive myths in the medical field. I.e. we first need to establish that there is an effect, then eliminate potential sources until we find the determining factors. In other words, we need to apply the scientific method also for those questions and should not start with a strong preconceptions.

The drawing on the right molecule is wrong. We have here mesomerie behaviour, the aromatic System is broken in the left Ring. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/27/Methylorange_Indicator.svg/480px-Methylorange_Indicator.svg.png

Proximity

Because that’s a different label and not equivalent to calling black citizens “colored.” It doesn’t matter. I can’t force you to be more aware of or empathetic about how your words affect people.

That was short lived: Explosions rock Kyiv again as Russians rain fire on Ukraine | AP News

Just to add "cautionary tales of evolution" to what @Phi for All said, The male praying mantis is, in terms of evolution, very successful. Yet, he does it by providing the female with a delicious romantic dinner after sex in which he is the main and only course. Think about the implications of this. Evolution only cares about reproductive success. Doing well for yourself doesn't necessarily matter so much. Fig wasps are an even more extreme example. There are more examples of reproductive champion = individual loser in Nature. In tournament species, successful males are tipically short-lived.

Peterkin has all the facts, but can't seem to draw the proper conclusion from them. That is correct. And especially in the Southern US, the term 'colored' was associated with black people, and eventually came to be seen as a racisl slur. This is all explained in INow link, if you are so interested. That is also correct. But in Canada the term still refers to People of Color, or anyone who is visibly not a white Caucasian. It does not refer only to Black Canadians, and I suspect, the situation is similar in other parts of the World that don't share US southern history. The conclusion he draws, that the border is 'porous', and we slowly embrace American characteristics, is false. I don't own a gun, even though every American TV show depicts gun use. We don't project power ( and attitude ) around the world, mostly because we have no equipment for our Armed Forces, but we do watch a lot of American war movies. Almost half of us don't think D Trump's Presidency was the 'second coming', and almost all of us Canadians think he's an idiot, even though Fox News is available in Canada. And even our Prime Minister, who likes to 'signal virtue', ( but then wears black face make-up ) has used the term 'coloured' ( notice the Canadian spelling ). Are you trying to 'out-signal' Justin, Peterkin ?

Nonsense to the first statement highlighted, and from your link..... "A drop in the country's crime rate in part explains why the Netherlands' prisons are emptying. A 2016 government study on capacity also noted that a focus on sentencing, with both an increase in shorter sentences and examining how crimes impact society, have helped reduce the prison population, says Wiebe Alkema, spokesperson at the Ministry of Justice and Security. The Netherlands now has just 61 prisoners per 100,000 people in the general population, ranking among the lowest in Europe. In comparison, the United States has more than 10 times that figure (655 per 100,000), the highest in the world, according to data from the World Prison Brief, an online database hosted by the Institute for Criminal Policy Research at the University of London. The Dutch justice department predicts that by 2023, the total prison population will drop to just 9,810 people". :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Yep there doing OK compared to other societies and I congratulate them, even for a 2022 estimate population of 17,714,900. Still though the fact remains that even if they close all their prisons, does not mean that thieves, etc and other wrong doers do not exist. And their attitude towards social tolerence while to be commended mostly, is still controversial, particularly on drugs. Still, you need to remove your rose coloured glasses, as things are not as perfect as you want them to be......"The country has Europe's third-lowest incarceration rate, at 54.4 per 100,000 inhabitants. According to the justice ministry's WODC Research and Documentation Centre, the number of prison sentences imposed fell from 42,000 in 2008 to 31,000 in 2018 – along with a two-thirds drop in jail terms for young offenders." So quite good, but not perfect as I keep telling you. and of course......"Willem van Eijk (13 August 1941 – 19 June 2019) was a convicted Dutch serial killer known as "Het Beest van Harkstede" (The Beast of Harkstede). He was convicted twice for a total of five murders"https://www.google.com/search?q=the+netherlands+and+criminals&rlz=1C1RXQR_en-GBAU952AU952&oq=the+netherlands+and+criminals&aqs=chrome..69i57j33i160l2j33i22i29i30.9639j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 Anyway thanks for highlighting exactly what I have been telling you. 😉 I don't believe that. You need to live by what you have posted dimreeper, or cease making statements that can be interpreted in many ways, similar to that ancient obscure book they call the bible. And I didn't say you did or had responded. I said......"You may ask the next obvious question, as to why. I cannot answer that one". 🙄 Sorry, I didn't know this was a history lesson, otherwise I would have named many more...Idi Amin of course is another. There have been and still are war mongers, and Putin is obviously one as well as a war criminal, as of course was Hitler. Are you casting some doubt on Hitler and what history tells us? I mean I remember this phyco nut on another forum, trying to convince the members that the holocaust didn't happen. 🤮 No, the law requires peaceable men and woman to do their duty in times of conflict. If they have a genuine conscientious objection to fighting, there is always other non combatant regions to do their duty.eg: paramedics/catering/ chaplins/ etc etc......"Non-combatant is a term of art in the law of war and international humanitarian law to refer to civilians who are not taking a direct part in hostilities;[1] persons, such as combat medics and military chaplains, who are members of the belligerent armed forces but are protected because of their specific duties (as currently described in Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions, adopted in June 1977); combatants who are placed hors de combat; and neutral persons, such as peacekeepers, who are not involved in fighting for one of the belligerents involved in a war. This particular status was first recognized under the Geneva Conventions with the First Geneva Convention of 1864."https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-combatant I didn't actually say that. I said words to the effect that war is/was wrong and evil, as are individual wrong doers and criminals in a society.

Wow! Fucking Hell! A first, Russia actually hit a legitimate target for the first time in two months.

Except just today they bombed Kyiv. Liar.

Evolution is changes in allele frequency within a population over time. It would be your children and their children that continue to evolve.

France and Germany are also in close proximity toward each other. Doesn't mean one gets to dictate toward the other how the others language works. Whether or not PoC or coloured is an acceptable term to use, is off topic. It offends me that when you use it, you leave out the U in coloured but I didn't come down on you for that. It is also outrage via proxy. MigL isn't the problem when it comes to racism. He's an older dude, he has biases sure but I dont think he means anything offensive when he describes a black person as coloured. I think in general this is one of the problems people have with PC culture. Most of the effort goes into forcing accountability on the people committing the least of offenses as opposed to forcing it onto the people who truly embrace racist and supremacy type ideologies and go on to commit crimes. Ultimately I understand what it is all in aid of and what it is for, but there needs to be room for us to be critical of the ways and means, if for no other reason than making real progress. I mean if we are going to come down on older Canadians for using the term coloured, why not come down on Spanish speakers when they say this "tomaré un café negro"? I don't know, maybe you could try to explain exactly why the term is not appropriate. By that I mean, why is it considered a pejorative term now? Keeping in mind I'm asking that even though I don't use the word in that context myself, and that on the KBJ "pre-announcement" issue we are in total agreement with each other. Wait until you hear someone go to a butchers and ask for some "faggots". Which is literally also a meat product in the UK. Tom Stade, an American comedian does a bit on that. Pointing out that in the US you can't say that and you certainly can't have a bag full of them either. Ahhh linguistics ngl I love this subject and hope we can all have a calm, open minded discussion about language. Fair enough. I'll leave that alone. But they do contain different languages, dialects and cultural attitudes and differences. Not even with just national borders but within county, state and regional borders. If it ought to all be one way, who decides which way? Suspicion of malice gone. I know you did not intend it now. I take that back. What do you mean by "essentially everyone?" It's also not happening near your front door. It's a different country, with different laws, languages and dialects of English. Where I'm from, I could call you and MigL a Sound Cunt. And it would be a good thing. A sound cunt is a good cunt. Cunt also means buttocks in Dutch. Now, if we are talking about crimes of moral turpitude, then I'm with you 100%. Vague and unexplained differences in language use and whether or not a certain word is okay to use and where, those don't veer into moral turpitude territory. Murder and rape are illegal in both places. Free speech isn't. If it is a pejorative term with truly harming consequences for the black community, then you need to explain how and why.

If you can counter the biological claims you are free to do so. No, it's crap. It lack the support you were demanding of CharonY

Dark matter is dark because it lacks these things. If it had them we'd be detecting it. If the dark matter is detecting baryonic matter because of the electric or magnetic field, then it interacts electromagnetically, which we have concluded that it doesn't do, because we'd be able to detect it.

This is also a pet peeve of mine. I also don't like it when dialectical differences are ignored. Nor do I like Americans trying to dictate to me how to speak English. My Nana still says colored. Considering that she works for, ministers for and tends to the homeless of all descriptions, I'm pretty sure she isn't racist. I'd only really have a problem if she started saying the N word. Which tbh, I feel as if some of the outrage directed towards people who use old words or dialectical colloquialisms but without in combination with bigoted behaviors, is as proxy for the people who do have those behaviors but are usually underground or not around us very often. So quite often we see this phenomenon in language use where a word, isn't considered a pejorative in usage until someone refuses not to use it upon request or demand. In conclusion; ALUMINIUM! 😆 Only by the ignorant and hateful? You've obviously never met my grandmother. 😆 I agree with the second paragraph, not the first. Also did I detect a hint of anti-canadian animosity in your first sentence? Might want to check yourself a little iNow. Lest you veer into hypocritical territory.

1963 called. They want their misused labels back, but say you can keep the hoses and the dogs.

So Jeffrey Epstein wasn't criminal for molesting young girls, because he certainly wasn't poor. And Donald Trump shouldn't be considered a criminal for his part in the Jan 6 insurrection, or all the people he has taken advantage of ? Not all criminals are thieves because of poverty, Dim. Very few steal simply because they are hungry, otherwise bakeries and delis would be getting robbed as often as banks. Some steal because they are greedy. You're making less sense than usual; but I did not downvote you ...

It is hard enough to understand the culture we are born into without shouldering the responsibility of understanding the train wreck that is the Russo Soviet counterpart. It is hard to imagine they have had much of a free choice up to now Maybe they would like to share their misery around.

The structure you have drawn for 4-nitrophenol is not quite right. You can't show 5 full bonds from nitrogen, as the n=2 valence shell has only 4 orbitals in it (s + 3x p.) It is often shown as as a resonance hybrid of a pair of structures with a double bond to one O atom and a single dative bond to the other. This gives the 2 O atoms a partial net -ve charge and the N atom a +ve charge, which is what gives the nitro group its electron-withdrawing properties on the benzene ring. Sometimes it is drawn as a mix of the 2 structures, with a single solid line to each O atom plus a dotted line to each, giving a bond order of 1 1/2 to each, for example in this Wiki article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitro_compound. The polarity of the nitro group, resulting from the dative bond, is crucial to understanding its influence.

@CY Maybe, since you obviously won't cite anything suggesting the physical requirements of a jockey aren't demanding, you can brief us on how you might use scientific method to prove that power to weight ratio of a jockey is an insignificant or minor concern? Or perhaps you don't think it needs to be considered because you believe, or would like to believe, there is no difference between men and women in that regard? Or hasn't been proven? Biological women may not be all equal, but they deserve their own categories in sports, especially at elite levels. There is nothing progressive about depriving them of that. Remember the US women's soccer team demanding equal pay? They wouldn't be making a dime if the only category was "open". While there had been some requirement for trans women at elite levels to reduce testosterone to levels in the female range, this is not true at all for high school athletes (nor should it be) and even at elite levels the minimum targets are well above. There has been an attempt to strike a balance been fairness for competition and the health of trans athletes.

You're being deliberately obtuse. How old are you?

In what version of English is the term 'colored people' different from 'people of color' ? Or does the abbreviation make it more palatable ? Please explain.

Circumstances have changed. These currencies have become unreliable.

+1. Kind of harshly stated...but unfortunately accurate.

Three non-nuclear missiles bombed the whole of Kiev. ha-ha They hit the Artem plant with three missiles. A military factory, a legitimate target.

Comments like CharonY’s are ridiculous and grotesque, borderline same level of ridiculousness that comes from the extreme right entourage. But the fact that this political brainwash dressed in science comes from a bilogy PhD is just plain scary.