[-] Pinklink@lemm.ee 0 points 4 months ago
[-] Pinklink@lemm.ee -3 points 6 months ago

Wrong. And using big words when they are not necessary does not make you right or sound smart btw. “to the knowledge of current science which in its current olfactory capacity” could be summed up as “currently, science”. Brevity and quality of content can show more intelligence than big words like “olfactory capacity”. Now onto my long winded explanation of why you are wrong:

Everyone has a micro biome on their skin. Each type of bacteria will give off a specific smell. While the populations of bacteria will change over time, the major populations will stay fairly constant, leading to a recognizable smell that each person has. In addition, an amazing amount of chemicals are secreted in sweat. These chemicals not only have their own scent and are determined by genetics, but which chemicals and at what concentrations will encourage/discourage certain populations of bacteria to flourish or not. All of this does produce a fairly static “odor print”. ”Fairly” being key as you are right in that it is not as static or unique as fingerprints (interesting research has suggested that fingerprints aren’t as unique as we once thought but that’s for another Ted talk).

As for the research, most of the modern research has suggested that it’s actually mostly immune-related genetics that compliment your own (would make a stronger immune system if combine with with yours in an offspring) that your nose is looking for, not just DNA that is dissimilar to yours, which is what it would be if aiming for purely expanding genetic diversity. If this research continues to hold up, you are absolutely wrong in saying it doesn’t play a role in choosing a significant other, and the fact that research is suggesting this at this time makes you completely out of line to just say “this just doesn’t happen.” It does make sense on a genetic compatibility level, as it does in that finding your partner’s smell appealing will factor into your attraction to them. Sorry you don’t find it believable or whatever, but your beliefs do not dictate science.

[-] Pinklink@lemm.ee -1 points 7 months ago

His silence speaks volumes…

[-] Pinklink@lemm.ee -1 points 7 months ago

Wrong. Comedic license: you can joke about ANYTHING, as long as the joke is funnier than the thing is fucked up to joke about. Things you don’t seem to understand: who decides if your joke is funny? The audience, aka literally anyone/everyone but the joke teller. How do I know if my joke is deemed funny? If a large portion of the audience, preferably over 50%, deem it so.

[-] Pinklink@lemm.ee 0 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

But that if both are negative not one pos one neg like the previous commenter gave in their examples, so the true formula has an absolute value in the numerator: |q1Xq2|

[-] Pinklink@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago

There are 331.9 million people in the US. How many people need to be randomly selected for each issue? Okay I did look this up, approx 385 would do, with 5% margin of error. Which actually seems like a lot. Bump that to 97% confidence and it jumps to 1309. Idk seems like a lot of people to randomly select for each issue or even for each short term whatever we deem that to be. Plus then they need to vote, are we just looking for a standard majority?

[-] Pinklink@lemm.ee -1 points 1 year ago

Only when it’s funny

[-] Pinklink@lemm.ee -1 points 1 year ago

Wait, is Halo releasing a new season rn?

[-] Pinklink@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago

Taking umbrage is a helluva drug

view more: ‹ prev next ›

Pinklink

joined 1 year ago