I read it the same way, but he is quite pretentiousness.

I love this podcast. One of the hosts (Michael Hobbes) used to be on "you're wrong about" which also dispelled common myths and misinformation. They look at bad science and epistemology in airport-type books, like Malcolm Gladwell or right wing nut jobs, etc.

the data collection process was too time-consuming

Just to show how time-consuming this process might have been, it consisted of two people doing google searches and assigning the names them to a handful of categories.

1 - I copied the list of signatories from their website. 2 -Gina Stuessy and I searched the internet for “(name) lawsuit”, “(name) crime” and also looked at their Wikipedia page. 3 -I categorized any results into “financial”, “sexual”, and “other”, and also marked if they had spent at least one day in jail. 4 -Gina and I eventually decided that the data collection process was too time-consuming, and we stopped partway through. The final dataset includes 115 of the 232 signatories.[2][3]

I learned this in the Jack Reacher books - elbows are harder to break and have more impact.*

• I have not tried this

Bowling Alone stats: slightly higher scores than bowling with other people stats.

I confess that I had to google the guy. Richard Lynn was a self described scientific racist. I mean, what in the actual fuck.

LOL. One board member is in the CIA "milieu" because of her college major, another has a husband who played Edward Snowden, and they both "presumably" voted to oust Sam Altman. With that kind of rock-solid fact pattern, you just know the reasoning is going to be airtight.

Thank you very much for this. It left me wondering how closely correlated polyamory is with the EA / TESCREAL scene. Or perhaps Harry Potter fan fiction.

I'm old and should not give dating advice but I wouldn't think that words like 501 (c) (3) or Technorati would be in a dating profile.

Sometimes I believe 5 impossible things before breakfast, but they are always serious.

The resulting book review is 28,776 words. It's 71 pages long in 12 point Calibri with normal spacing.

I have to admit, for a brief moment i thought he was correctly expressing displeasure at twitter.

Same here. I think that it also works as a defense of Twitter - reframing the trauma that you experienced by reading Nazi tweets as "learning the wrong thing" from them.

When I see "pica" I think of a typeface, but from context, the author is using a different definition. Do men who want to fight find themselves craving the taste of dirt?

You cannot understand much of modern culture until you've recognized that the state's blunt suppression of the male instinct for glory has caused widespread symptoms of pica that dominate our politics, media, and online interactions.

*pica (usually uncountable, plural picas) (pathology) A disorder characterized by appetite and craving for non-edible substances, such as chalk, clay, dirt, ice, or sand. *