swansont

Are these rating systems purported to be used for betting purposes? And for soccer? Sensei's link says Glicko is for "games of skill, such as chess and Go" You use the tools that are best suited to the job. It's much less useful to complain that your hammer sucks at tightening a bolt.

Also the "time isn't a real dimension" argument

You're addressing a different point. These sports were already segregated, which you seem to be agreeing with, meaning the segregation didn't exist in order to facilitate equality. It means equality of opportunity was achieved (or progress was made toward it) which is a different issue, and not the one I was addressing. I chose 1920 to show that the segregation in sports dates back at least that far. Giving more recent data is moot in that regard I strongly suspect that women just started doing these sports on their own, in defiance of men telling them the shouldn't (or couldn't) and they only became accepted on an institutional level after much effort. But all you have are square and round, and the law says (or at least morals should say) that you can't exclude anyone. Whoah. Where did I suggest there should be no gender categories? I did the opposite. I specifically pointed out that AFAICT nobody has suggested this. I think we've been talking about both, which may be part of the problem.

Yes, I agree. I was focused on what I quoted - the part about sacrifice not being a necessary part. (especially if you don't have the money, or connections, or opportunity, etc. that others might be leveraging)

I don't see how this follows. There's innate ability and there is practice/honing of skills. As you say, skills are learned. So sacrifice is going to be part of that. If you aren't willing to put in the time to get better, there's a limit to how much better you will get.

It's not a matter of "need" If there is a difference in ability, there will be a hierarchy. Because someone realized people would pay to be entertained/distracted

Thank you ___ So this is about a rating system, and somewhat related to applied math. Well, it is probably true that any rating system is flawed, for reasons/examples that have been pointed out (they will all assume something about the competition, and usually can be gamed)

! Moderator Note I will say what I've said several times before, and something I grow tired of saying: establish that your premise is true before launching into a discussion based on it being true. Not made-up, or based on cherry-picking the data. I'm confused by this. If it's an "unmistakably disproven myth" what's the myth? i.e. who are you going after - the people who said vaccines were bad, or the people who were blaming it on the left?

Yes, it does. The order matters. The claim was "Some sports though have been segregated specifically to ensure Women do have an equal platform." which is past-tense, so what happened in the past is relevant here. That's the historic reason for segregation was not equality of opportunity, and it's not like that system was torn down and then re-instituted. I'm not ignoring that. I'm trying to make sure that we're discussing fact and not fiction. One of the huge (social/political) issues here is that we are stuck in a binary classification for a not-binary reality (biology) and that has been with us for a long time. But that classification was not about equal opportunity, since that equal opportunity did not exist. How are they diluted? They are the reason we have the classifications in the first place. You have round pegs and square pegs, and round holes and square holes. But this ignores the triangular peg (and convincing some that triangular pegs exist), and deciding which hole it goes in. I don't think anyone has suggested we go from two classification to one.

How is that not "Treat transgendered women as women and let them compete in women’s sports."? I'm not seeing a distinction here. (Technically it's not "end program" because what they support is legislation that would "explicitly prevent discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity" so it goes beyond sports, but that's moot owing to the topic of the thread) The segregation does not equate to opportunity. That's falsified by a simple glance at history, as I pointed out earlier: women were not permitted to compete in most sports, period. The segregation was part of inequality of opportunity. e.g. IIRC the 1920 Olympics had 22 sports where men competed, and 6 where women competed. Explain to me how this segregation makes 6 = 22

Sports have been segregated in this fashion for a long time. In many instances it started out as "men only, no women at all" That's hardly an equal platform. Ensuring women have an equal opportunity to participate is a much more recent event, and was not an example of the segregation being created.

Particles cannot be contained?

Yes, it’s another term for the main group (but also includes the noble gases) and has the property I described. They are also the most abundant of the elements https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main-group_element

The elements in each column have similar behaviors, because they have the same shell-filling.

No. When you let go of a ball, you haven’t given it energy. If you throw a ball you impart energy to it, but gravity affects the ball whether or not you gave it energy.

What?

You calibrate a length, of say, one meter, on some transportable item. Let’s call it a “meter stick” I measure the rod by comparing it with the meter stick. Why do you think there is a temporal component to this? The length is independent of time.

A lack of explanation is simply that. It’s not evidence. I don’t have to show what can cause such sightings. I’m simply pointing out that it’s not evidence. Not being able to draw a conclusion means aliens is one of the things that you can’t conclude. edit: I invited people to post supporting evidence earlier. No takers.

There’s the negative proposition - eliminating the possibility, which you can’t do. But there’s the positive proposition - establish that it’s aliens, which AFAICT nobody has come close to doing. The former does not own the burden of proof. The latter does.

The reports aren't being "handwaved away" - it's just being pointed out that a phenomenon without explanation does not count as evidence. And this "prodiditious" (prodigious?) amount of evidence is basically nil, if one uses the same standard as in science. Which is what we want here, being a science discussion site. IOW, "we can't explain this" or "something triggered the radar" ≠ "it's aliens"

The universe is 3-D. The solar system is approximately 2-D, with far fewer moving parts.

I would suggest using a search engine for such inquiries https://lmgtfy.app/?q=Open+Command+Prompt+as+administrator

We've done and we do that, so...

Makes sense to me that recognizing patterns would be helpful in survival, and being better at it would give a selection advantage. Especially for a medium-sized species that lacks innate "weaponry" and can't run particularly fast. Run that into a feedback loop, and being able to figure out where food will be, how to hunt more effectively, where predators will be, etc. and how to fashion weapons and tools, and be the first to effectively exploit that niche, and you get us. Yes. One of the drawbacks is seeing patterns that aren't there, but then again, discretion is the better part of being devoured by a predator.

Or predictable but in subtle ways, i.e. more than one or two variables. I think prediction is the key here, in ways that go beyond a Pavlovian response. The world still follows rules, but the rules might not be simple, which limits the accuracy of prediction (or reconstruction of past events/patterns).