See, I did the whole “leave the leaves” thing last year and it completely killed the vegetation under my big maple tree. It was kind of nice since it gave me a chance to replace that grass with clover, but now I don’t want the clover to die.
It’s been a year and we still have maple leaves from last year that haven’t decomposed. Not quite sure what I’m supposed to do.
“Ualabis”? Is that supposed to be “wallabies”?
As best I can tell from searching, that’s kind of the Spanish word for “wallabies” (translate gives “ualabies”). Seems like a weird choice.
A favorite for me is “That’s not a good prize!”
Yeah, man. I’ll gnaw your face off.
- Teh C.
I said consummate Vs. Consummate!!
We had that light switch installed for you so you could turn the lights on and off. Not so you could throw light switch raves!
Gen Z slang really pushes my descriptivist tolerance.
Sorry. Age gets us all! If it’s any consolation, depending on when you started reading we may not be more than ~10-15 years apart. I remember the 2004 ones being new and I’m in my early thirties.
I’ve been reading them for something like 2/3 of my life based on the first one I remember reading new. I feel old.
The user always lies. Or even if they don’t, they can’t intimidate the ghosts in the machine like you can.
I agree with your first paragraph, but unwinding that emergent behavior really can be impossible. It’s not just a matter of taking spaghetti code and deciphering it, ML usually works by generating weights in something like a decision tree, neural network, or statistical model.
Assigning any sort of human logic to why particular weights ended up where they are is educated guesswork at best.
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.
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^+.
It’s one big maple in the front yard, and it only killed the grass in a circle under the thickest part of the canopy. Come spring we had a brown circle that only dandelions were growing in with grass doing just fine outside the circle.
I do think part of the problem could have been the extremely wet fall & winter we had. Felt like the rain never stopped.