This isn’t per capita, so it’s primarily a population graph. US population growth is stalling, immigration is already the only reason we’re still maintaining any growth, and it’s easy to guess why that might be slowing down now as well.

I am a man and I’ve been roofied in public. It happens far more frequently than you would like to believe.

I cannot blame any woman who doesn’t want to take that risk with a stranger.

You seem to think I’m targeting men here, but that’s foolish. People are unpredictable, and anyone has the capacity to be dangerous. The only reason to respond to mild caution with such excessive hostility is your own insecurity. Nobody is calling you a rapist here man, it’s not about you, it’s just a precaution.

Do you all have a different idea of what a date is than me or something? The point is to get to know someone you don’t know yet. I guess if you were communicating for weeks beforehand this might seem weird, but that’s making some big assumptions. You’re acting like this woman has requested her friend accompany her for every moment of their ongoing relationship. It’s wild to me to get so insecure about someone not fully trusting you this first time you meet. Trust is built over time, and it’s not a slight against you if someone wants to protect themselves.

call it a crazy thought, but if i were premeditating sexual assault, i probably wouldn’t choose someone who has my name, photos, phone number, and a history of correspondence to show motive. lol

And yet, a casual examination of history shows that it happens all the time. And more often than not, charges never get brought up.

Now certainly the perceived frequency is far higher than the actual likelihood, but I don’t blame anyone for not wanting to roll those dice.

Sorry, but you’re coming from a place of ignorance here, but I do get it. I used to feel that way, but I’ve known too many women in my life who’ve experienced assaults in public places to pretend it’s not a real issue. I’ve been roofied in public myself (wrong target, presumably) and have the privilege of only really having to worry about some scrapes and bruises. But the holes in my memory and understanding that that night could have easily gone far, far worse if I had been someone’s target is something that will always stay with me.

If you develop a phobia of men that is so bad that it prevents you from interacting with men, then that is YOU problem and you need to work that out.

This is stupid bullshit. Nobody has suggested anything like this and bad faith nonsense wastes everyone’s time. Grow up. It’s obvious you’re taking this woman’s caution as some kind of personal slight. It’s not, and you should really examine where those feelings are coming from.

He shouldn’t, and the fact that that idea doesn’t even cross most men’s minds is an enormous privilege.

I don’t know about you, but I generally take a little time getting to know someone before I decide to trust them. Why on earth would you not?

What you don’t seem to consider is the risk involved. When the consequence of misplaced trust is potentially rape or death, a small amount of caution is plainly warranted.

Nobody is out here assuming all men are rapists, that question is as irrelevant as it is idiotic. The point is that any man could be a rapist, and those odds sure as hell aren’t small enough to just roll the dice on some rando you’ve never met.

It’s easier for us (I’m assuming you’re male too). I don’t really have to care. The worst consequence we can reasonably expect is what? A too attached girl who won’t leave you alone? When was the last time you went on a date with someone who could physically restrain you? It’s not the fucking same, no matter how much you want to pretend it is.

deleted by creator

Why should they trust some random dude they met on a dating app?

You act like that’s some crazy fear, but it happens all the fucking time.

If you’re that dismissive of other people’s concerns, maybe you shouldn’t be online dating at all.

Most women don’t make a habit of going out to bars alone, for good reason. It’s a very real risk.

As a guy who’s been roofied (presumably by accident, still don’t know what happened) I sure as hell don’t blame them.

What results? Being wealthy? Tons of people before him have accomplished the same thing. There’s always a wealthiest man on earth, Musk isn’t the first.

He hit a new high number for wealth, which is a normal expectation with continued economic growth and higher than expected inflation.

To me, results would be Telsa or X actually being profitable and having fundamentals that would support their wildly overvalued stock prices.

Buy or print a contour gauge: https://www.printables.com/model/57209-lockable-contour-gauge

Get the contour you need, trace it onto paper, then get whatever measurements you want, or take a pic and bring it into your modeling program.

Good to know there’s some context available if you want it. Thanks for taking the time to reply!

Is there though?

I know this sounds sarcastic, but I’m genuinely curious as I have never used TikTok at all. It there any way to verify the stuff that’s being shown? Do news accounts link to articles or any supporting information?

All I’ve ever really seen from people sharing stuff has been new typical meme stuff and AI generated crap that people keep sending me thinking it’s real.

How can you tell if what you’re seeing is real?

That’s kinda bullshit though. There are plenty of cheap, and free concerts. There are other options, one company does not own every event venue in the country.

It’s like claiming Nabisco has a monopoly on cookies cause you can only buy ‘Oreos’ from the Nabisco company. Just buy a different cookie!

You absolutely have to get the fuck off the internet to get an idea of what people are actually like. Most of the shit you’re seeing isn’t even written by humans anymore, and even what is real tends to be the craziest 1% of the population, because they say the crazy things that drive engagement and feed the algorithm.

There’s no one way people are, there is more diversity and variety around you than you can possibly imagine. It’s not necessarily easy to find somebody you’re going to gel with, but I promise you they are all over the place.

Maybe it’s just cause I didn’t get to it till this year, so I skipped the janky stage, but holy shit that’s one of the absolute best games ever made IMO.

You got me with better ragebait than OP.

Reboots and remakes are the oldest complaints in Hollywood. I’m way more sick of seeing this ancient criticism rebooted every week as if there was ever a point in history in which Hollywood was full of original ideas.

Hint: it wasn’t. Even the early days of movie making were absolutely dominated by movies made from books. Everything is a remake, rehash, retelling of some kind. That fact has no bearing on the quality of the media created. There are just as many shitty original films as there are shitty remakes, and plenty of sequels, remakes, reboots, and reimaginings that surpass the original inspiration.

Of course! It’s always refreshing to engage with someone with good intentions.

So, this would only be a misrepresentation if the authors were claiming to look for causes of Autism.

Good science is based on testing a hypothesis. ‘What causes X’ is not a testable hypothesis, it’s too broad, the variables aren’t defined. ‘Does Y effect X?’ is a testable hypothesis, and a solid basis for initial research.

The question of ‘what causes autism’ is a huge one that can’t be answered by a single study. Each potential factor needs to be evaluated on its own merit, and this study does exactly that (with admittedly questionable results).

However, something like the recent HHS report is exactly the place where it’s wildly irresponsible to present only one potential hypothesis as a ‘cause’. That’s where we would expect a high level view of a range of established factors (since obviously there is no one ‘cause’).

I understand your passion here, but it’s a little misguided.

The goal of this study is not to try to determine a singular cause for autism. That’s some outside political bullshit that’s relevant in a broad sense, but not the stated purpose of this study.

They set out to look at a potential link between Tylenol and ADHD, so they look at studies involving Tylenol and ADHD. It’s pretty straightforward. P-Hacking would be selecting only studies that did show a positive correlation between Tylenol use and ADHD.

Your climate change metaphor is just wildly off base, I don’t know what to say here honestly.

As others here have pointed out, the study is mildly flawed but the real issue is that the inconclusive results are being wildly misrepresented.

A search for those terms returns any study that looks at those terms, regardless of whether or not a link is indicated. How else do you expect to determine the validity of a hypothesis if you don’t look at studies that test that hypothesis?

Jail is often used as a scheduled punishment for lesser crimes. Severe traffic violations, minor possession charges, that kind of thing. You might get sentenced to a week of jail time, but you can have it scheduled around work/custody visitation/school. So you might serve a day or two at a time over the course of a couple weeks.

These kinds of punishments can easily be postponed in unusual circumstances.