Lord Antares

And it is exactly as baseless and lacking evidence as my mock alternative, (which I don't, in fact, consider to be any less likely than the original) yet the original one is being discussed seriously. Since when is it acceptable to accuse someone of racism without any evidence whatsoever? How the fuck should any of us know what the real reason for that was? ''Something something happened and I'm not sure but I think it's for this reason but I can't give you any evidence for this anyways what do you guys think?''. There is nothing to think.

And it's also funny because actual, legitimate theories can be hundreds of pages long.

You mean the same science-based, cutting edge organization which would apparently swap said black man for a hispanic woman because they are all inherently racist? Do you not see the irony? The premise of the thread was that NASA pulled a black man out of an operation; therefore NASA is racist. I am not saying anyone (including the OP) openly believed this but it was not dismissed as crazy by anyone and it is being discussed and addressed seriously. Then I made this satirical post claiming the exact opposite trying to prove how people on this forum are willing to jump someone who claims that something bad might be an act of liberalism but would be perfectly willing to accept that something bad might be an act of conservatism. How exactly does my scenario sound more delusional and far-fetched than the opposite, original scenario? Why is it acceptable to suspect someone of racism simply because the man being pulled away from the mission was black? Would NASA be mysoginists if the opposite scenario happened where the hispanic woman was swapped for the black man? I agree with you entirely. That also goes for the side who are claiming racism.

Why do you think so? This is not a rhetorical question.

What do you mean? It happened exactly because they are trying to be politically correct. They figured a hispanic woman (which is, like, double oppression, man) is going to be a more liberal choice than a black man (which is only single oppression). In their attempt to be too anti-racist, they appeared racist. They didn't think it would backfire (and neither would I, because I would assume that a woman from a minority is going to be proggressive enough to blot out any perceived bigotry) but it did. Of course, I have no evidence for this claim, but this is my most likely scenario.

Well that was stupidly easy.

I don't see what this has to do with video games. It's simply as if you were asking ''what if there's an afterlife, but it isn't hell or heaven?'' Also, the answer depends on what the afterlife is.

But couldn't you just get the smaller one closer to you so the text size would be the same as if you had a 24'' monitor slightly further away?

I am about to get a new monitor. I am stuck between a 22'' and 24'' Dell monitors. They are the same quality and resolution, the only difference being the size. Now, everyone is suggesting I get the bigger one because it's - bigger but I don't quite get it. Can't I just buy the smaller one and bring it a bit closer to me? That's why I don't get it when people buy 30+ inch monitors and keep them far away from their eyes. Everyone seems to smirk at that remark, the argument being - ''well it's bigger''. Can anyone give me an actual reason why a bigger monitor would be better?

No shit Sherlock. Next you will be telling me we have no evidence for life after death. What is it really that you are contributing here, except for your abrasive attitude towards those more knowledgeable than yourself?

Yes, wall sockets usually have a female plug, but ironically, it is used to extend the existing coax cable to the TV That's what I'm talking about. I know the definition of an extension cable is that it has one male and one female connector, but you cannot use a male to male cable to plug an antenna into the TV because the antenna either has the short cable ending in a male IEC connector or it has a female F-connector on it. So a male to male IEC cable wouldn't help. But in most cases, the male to female cable is going to be needed. My store sells dozens of different lenghts and types of antenna cables, and none of them are male IEC to male IEC. I exaggerated. Male to male cables might be needed sometimes. But my point was that those were also used to extend the existing cable. The male to female cable is an extender cable only by definition. But practically speaking, it is not any more of an extension cable than the male to male one. You started this. Yours was the first comment that didn't help the OP.

I apologize. I wasn't being clear. Antennas which have the cable sticking out of them have the male connector, so you need a male to female connector. I guess technically it is an extension cord since you could plug the one from your antenna into the TV just the same. However, the point is that there is no other useful variant of the IEC cable. Female to female serves no purpose and the few things you could use the male to male one (like the antenna amplifier) always come with the male to male adapter, so again, you will buy the female to male cable. No one calls it the extension cable since it is the only variant of the cable you're going to be using. By your logic, the only non-extension antenna IEC cable would be nothing to male, right? But that one isn't being sold... Why did you go out of your way to point out that it is an extension cable (even though you might be technically correct) if it's the only kind of that cable which is being produced? EDIT: Studiot cross-post: Yes, I agreed that, by definition, it is the extension cable but it was redundant to point that out. As far as your plugs are concerned, I agree that they are likely damaged as they should be standardized.

You aren't listening. It's not an extension cord. The tv (receiver) typically has the female plug while the antenna has the male plug. Male to female is the standard antenna cable. Male to male or female to female would be extension cables, although those are quite rare. Just type in "coax cable iec" and you'll see that all results show the male to female cable.

No it doesn't. One of the connectors is typically male and the other is female It's not an extension cord. At least where I'm from.

He provided pictures of the kind of connectors, but not his connectors. On his picture are the standard IEC connectors (which are mainly used in Europe) but I'm curious to see how he has two different ones. P.S. I just realized you were probably sarcastic with the first sentence. What I meant was, if both are the same kind of connector (IEC), then they shouldn't be different sizes, regardless of how old or where they're from. That was what I intended to say.

What you are saying has nothing to do with what you are saying. He's talking about IEC connector sizes, while you're talking about DVB-t and DVB-s receivers. One has nothing to do with another. He is interested in the connector on the coax cable itself. That's quite wrong. I mean, you're right but you're also wrong. The US and EU use different types of connectors. But these are simply different TYPES of connectors, not that the same type of connector differs. The USA uses the F-connector (the screw-on one, from Sensei's photo above), while EU uses the IEC (Belling-Lee) connector, the one from Studiot's picture. Studiot seems to be talking about the IEC connectors in both cases. I sell these connectors, the cables and all that and I've seen pretty much all types of them. I'm reasonably sure that there aren't multiple types of the same connector, they're all standard. The IEC (Belling-Lee) was made somewhere in the early 20th century and has not changed since; not that I'm aware, anyway. They shouldn't differ. Maybe in the external case, not the pin or the ''circle'' itself. Are you sure one is not the F-connector and the other IEC connector? Can you take a picture of both? As far as I'm aware, they shouldn't differ if they're both the same thing.

Still, politics is one of the least productive popular activities you could dabble in. Objectively speaking.

I've never enjoyed discussing politics. It almost always gets heated and hostile at one point or another and there is simply no point to it. You could spend a year talking about politics non-stop or you could spend 5 minutes, it won't make a difference. You won't achieve anything. This is why I have 0 interest in politics. My opinions don't amount to anything in the end and I am a minuscule fraction of the voters. The odds that my vote will be the one that tips things to my side are laughable. Also, it almost always comes with annoyance, rage, fighting, arguing, name-calling etc. It is simply not worth the time to debate. The only ones who I can understand that dabble in politics are famous and otherwise influential people, simply because they can affect many people's votes. Also, the reason why political discussions seem to be so drawn-out and hostile is that there is no right or wrong side. There is no ''correct'' or ''incorrect''. You cannot even reach an objective conclusion. You're a smart kid. Your time could be spent better learning more about science or doing something fun or productive, rather than arguing with people from the forum.

As others have noted, it depends on your definition of ''proof''. As studiot has noted, if you exclude mathematics, you really can't say whether something has been ''100%'' proven or not. For example: Gravity. Do you think it has been 100% proven that everything you toss on the earth will fall down in the direction of the surface? Every time we have tested, it has held true. But maybe once every 2424^5653 tosses, an object will fly up in the opposite direction of the earth instead of falling down, and we haven't had enough of a sample size of things falling down for that to happen yet. Do you see what I mean? So, practically, I would say it has been proven that things fall down, but mathematically speaking, it's not technically proof. There's just a great deal of evidence that objects will fall down every time you toss them. (also, I'm excluding trickery like helium balloons etc. Think, rocks).

But that just brings me to the point that gender (as opposed to sex) is a social construct and doesn't really mean anything. By the same logic, they can certainly state they are the other gender and you can't disprove it since there is no hard science behind ''gender''. It reminds me of those discussions about whether time is real or not. I don't think it's ''real'' or ''unreal''. It just is, whether it's a property of nature of our convenience. It simply depends on how you define it. In the same regard, transgender might or mot not be legitimate. Depends on the semantics. But it doesn't necessarily mean anything concrete. I apologize if I oversimplified your argument.

I've never understood the point of these things. What difference does it make for you to go out of your way to identify as the opposite sex? What do you gain from that? After all, these people very strongly feel that gender is a social construct and a particular gender shouldn't impede one's desire to do things which the opposite gender ''likes to do''. So it is ironic that one wants to ''shift genders'' so that they may enjoy ''male activities'' or ''female activities''. He did. You may or may not be correct, but that's what he said. Whether the phenomenon is observed to exist or not is independent of what he said. So I may be wrong but that doesn't make him right, not in those words he used anyway. Of course it doesn't, but what I feel is often overlooked is that the fact that transgender might actually be legitimate doesn't mean that all of those people who claim to be transgender are transgender. That's my point. That's why I said ''fad''. This has been observed earlier in history but even though people have identified themselves as that in the 20th century, they were FAR FAR less prominent. Now all of a sudden, everyone is transgender. Does the fact that many autistic people are geniuses necessarily mean that all autistic people are geniuses? Absolutely not.

Really? Because he did. His quote: And I suppose ''because they feel like it'' is all the scientific evidence you need. I did say that gender (at least in the context the others bring it up) is a social construct and therefore, evidence doesn't exist because gender itself doesn't exist. Therefore, there is nothing to talk about here. As I said, there are people who feel like they are the other sex. I believe them 100%. But it doesn't make them the other sex.

I agree with you entirely here. I don't see political corectness having to do anything with this. I don't even understand the OP. As far as I can tell (and translate to English), it asks whether there are other groups of people apart from twins and non-twins. I would say no. Identical twins and not identical twins pretty much covers the entirety of humanity.

You would be the last one I would expect to say that. ''I feel like it so it must be true?'' And you've only heard about this after this transgender fad that's been going on. The boy would not even think about this if his parents hadn't been, presumably, bombarding him with this. But I guess it comes down to how you define gender. I've always thought it was the same as sex. But apparently not. If gender is some arbitrary societal term, then it is nonsensical because gender doesn't exist and therefore transgender doesn't exist. When you say you're transgender, all you are saying is ''I feel like a woman''. There is no evidence against you feeling like a woman. But it doesn't make you one nevertheless.

They're supposed to be for when someone makes an insightful, informative post about science. Although they are gained this way, it is unfortunately much easier to earn them with humor, politics or general banter. I typically appreciate (and upvote) teaching and well explained posts the most, the kind that Janus writes for example.