I generally tell people the only reason to do it is if your career pursuits require it, and even then I warn them away unless they’re really sure. Not every research advisor is abusive, but many are. Some without even realizing it. I ended up feeling like nothing more than a tool to pump up my research advisor’s publication count.

It was so disillusioning that I completely abandoned my career goal of teaching at a university because I didn’t want to go anywhere near that toxic culture again. Nevertheless, I did learn some useful skills that helped me pivot to another career earning pretty good money.

So I guess I’m saying it’s a really mixed bag. If you’re sure it’s what you want, go for it. But changing your mind is always an option.

The bunnies in my neighborhood appreciate this very much.

For better or worse, my local/state government doesn’t consider them noxious weeds because they’re so firmly established that we can never get rid of them.

I’m pretty sure the age and gender in that table is just showing the frequency of the ages in the sample, not a crosstab of age or gender with personification/anthropomorphism.

So that’s saying their autistic population skewed younger than their non-autistic population. Which isn’t unsurprising, it’s a lot easier to get a diagnosis as a child, and generally easier to get diagnosed now compared to a few decades ago. So people over 35 or so are going to just be less likely to have had the opportunity for diagnosis. The authors do address differences in gender representation between the samples but I don’t see age addressed specifically. It could just be that younger people tend to personify/anthropomorphize more, so since the sample of people with autism skewed pretty heavily towards the 16-24 group the results could instead be displaying differences by age. I don’t think they quite have the sample size to delve into age too much. I think they’d only be able to get away with doing two groups at 34 & under and 35+. That would be a good start though.

This is also a heavily self-selected population, apparently largely from social media. I’m always automatically skeptical of social media sampling.

I would’ve liked to see a little more detail about exactly which tests and assumptions they were using. The gender difference looks like they did a t-test, but it’s left to the reader to assume they ran a two-tailed t-test. They could easily have bolstered their numbers by reporting the one-tailed test.

The ways of compression artifacts are mysterious.

deleted by creator

As I said in another thread where this was posted, that original post has the distinctive voice of ChatGPT. Could be another similar model, but I’d bet money that was written by an LLM.

How are those the same? You need to define “religion” and “sport” rigorously first.

Since you haven’t provided one, I’ll just use the first sentence on the wiki page:

Religion is a range of social-cultural systems, including designated behaviors and practices, morals, beliefs, worldviews, texts, sanctified places, prophecies, ethics, or organizations, that generally relate humanity to supernatural, transcendental, and spiritual elements.

“Atheism,” without being more specific, is simply the absence of a belief in a deity. It does not prescribe any required behaviors, practices, morals, worldviews, texts, sanctity of places or people, ethics, or organizations. The only tenuous angle is “belief,” but atheism doesn’t require a positive belief in no gods, simply the absence of a belief in any deities. Even if you are talking about strong atheism (“I believe there are no deities”), that belief is by definition not relating humanity to any supernatural, transcendental, or spiritual element. It is no more religious a belief than “avocado tastes bad.” If atheism broadly counts as a religion, then your definition of “religion” may as well be “an opinion about anything” and it loses all meaning.

If you want to talk about specific organizations such as The Satanic Temple, then those organizations do prescribe ethics, morals, worldviews, behaviors, and have “sanctified” places. Even though they still are specifically not supernatural, enough other boxes are checked that I would agree TST is a religion.

I have no idea what you’re on about with not golfing being a sport.

My experience (bachelor’s in math and physics, but I went into physics) is that if you want to be clear about including zero or not you add a subscript or superscript to specify. For non-negative integers you add a subscript zero (ℕ_0). For strictly positive natural numbers you can either do ℕ_1 or ℕ^+.

Idk, that was someone else’s comment. I just install.packages() and library().

I guess I must’ve saved my IT department some headache when me and my colleagues just asked for RStudio IDE. Everything runs perfectly well, no need for any of the garbage you just described. I literally just need an IDE to write scripts in. I’d say I don’t even need the IDE, except I do use rstudioapi::getActiveDocumentContext()$path to set the working directory and work with relative paths. Plus I just like it, barebones as it is (and dark mode).

Sorry for the nightmare you clearly had to go through. :(

What’s nightmarish about the installation? Is it because medical stuff is still on like Win XP?

Installing on more modern Windows systems is pretty simple. Install the R distro from CRAN + almost certainly RStudio from Posit. Should be pretty plug-and-play. Not nearly as fiddly as LaTeX installs are.

I barely even write base R anymore, I mostly use it for data wrangling these days so my code is almost entirely tidyverse. Every once in a while I get to bust out some statistics, but rarely.

Surprised no one else is saying this. It sounds exactly like an LLM, especially ChatGPT.

I get the joke in the image and the reference in the title, though not the connection between the two.

Running water never grows stale, so you gotta just keep on flowing.

Sunny days just after a rain are even better. The plants are happiest, the birds are out hunting worms and bugs. Plus you just got a free car wash*.

*Pollen not removed, just caked on further.

Almost all of this would be true if we celebrated a day (or two) each year that were outside of the months and weeks, except events tied to points in our orbit would stay put a lot more. We would still have the same calendar every year. In your version we have a full extra week every 6 or so years, in mine every year we have a dedicated New Year’s Day that isn’t in a regular month or a day of the week, and every 4 or so years (same rules as now) we have 2 New Year’s Days.

Though I would argue for Sunday being the 1st day of each month/year. IMO weekends should be like bookends, one on either side.

Edit: your Wiki link contained a link to the International Fixed Calendar, which I’ve been inadvertently arguing for. This is almost identical to what I’ve been proposing, except they put the leap day at the end of June. But it fixes the major disadvantage of your system: that a year isn’t a year. In your system 1/1 is never one year away from 1/1. In mine it is within leap day drift, just like the current calendar.

Isn’t that what I said?

Lmfao, that would totally be the solution the US would implement. “How can we do this in the most complicated, error-prone way?”

Ahh, that makes sense. Here I was thinking it would be fun to have a day or two every year that weren’t any day of the week.

The leap week is a little bit of an unsatisfying solution since it means solstices and equinoxes will shift around a lot more. Also not as likely to get governments and employers to be willing to treat them as holidays.

I highly doubt we’ll move from our current calendar anytime soon. Its flaws aren’t bad enough to justify the effort, but I would really love a more symmetrical calendar. And payroll folks would probably love it too. Hourly and salary structures would be a lot more in sync.