Funny Events of the "Woke" world

[Cicada 5]

Valerie D'Orazio and Spike Valentine share some not so pleasant memories of Marvel editorial. This includes the former being pressured to come out as a lesbian (even though she isn't one) and the latter being hired just to write Mexican cliches about Spider-Man because he was Mexican.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

I mean, Marvel had an editor how got a secret second job with them by pretending to be Japanese. They made him editor-in-chief a while back. He still works there

No surprise that place is *deeply weird*

 

[Phoenixmgs]

No. The procedure involved in the original study undeniably involves self-evaluation. That's core to the entire study. That is literally impossible to do with subjects that are incapable of self evaluation, such as numbers.

In response to this being pointed out, the only thing you've done is endlessly repeat and insist it was the same procedure. Absolutely zero explanation for how to square that circle.

So no, you don't get to just say "oh well I'm right, bye". Either explain how random numbers could self-evaluate, or admit the procedure was not the same. Those are your only two intellectually honest options.

The fact that you can't understand how using random numbers to replicate such a study isn't so fucking damning means you're either trolling or have some kind of learning disability/blindspot. Not to mention, mathematicians even pointed out how the math was done wrong on the original study.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

There's a "backlash" over Audrey Plaza's hilarious wood milk video...

The Aubrey Plaza ad for Big Dairy that may have violated federal law, explained

The milk wars are heating up.

www.vox.com

 

[Silvanus]

The fact that you can't understand how using random numbers to replicate such a study [...]

This did not happen.

All you're doing is repeating over and over and over again that it happened. It's been pointed out each time that a fundamental part of the original procedure was self-evaluation, and that that cannot be done with random numbers. And each time you've just failed to explain how you can reconcile it, and gone back to blind insistence.

 

[Absent]

There's a "backlash" over Audrey Plaza's hilarious wood milk video...

Because it's overly long for a joke that we get from the forst minute, and because it misses the point (you can't make a drink out of a tree, but you can out of some plants) ?

I don't consume soja "milk" or various vegetal versions of animal-produced aliments, and I find their naming silly (okay they are supposed to taste like these other things, but it still sounds odd). And yet, I find this commercial perfectly stupid and trying way too hard to be funny. Even as a comedy sketch, it would be a bit of a failure. As a commercial, with an actual message ? Pathetic.

(Also, even as a ravenous devourer of flesh and cow milk drinker, I do appreciate the ecological rationale and intent behind alternatives, so making it a side-vs-side "fight" for the milk industry and against these alternatives would feel really nasty. If people enjoy more than I do the taste and idea of, like, "soy milk" or whatever, all the better for them and the planet. Trying to deride them and push them to cow milk consumption, especially on the behalf of an industry's profit -advertisement- is beyond lame, ideologically. Now if these alternatives raise other actual concerns, they should be criticized on these genuine grounds. Not some braindead "you wouldn't milk a stone, lolol".)

 

[Silvanus]

Because it's overly long for a joke that we get from the forst minute, and because it misses the point (you can't make a drink out of a tree, but you can out of some plants) ?

I don't consume soja "milk" or various vegetal versions of animal-produced aliments, and I find their naming silly (okay they are supposed to taste like these other things, but it still sounds odd). And yet, I find this commercial perfectly stupid and trying way too hard to be funny. Even as a comedy sketch, it would be a bit of a failure. As a commercial, with an actual message ? Pathetic.

(Also, even as a ravenous devourer of flesh and cow milk drinker, I do appreciate the ecological rationale and intent behind alternatives, so making it a side-vs-side "fight" for the milk industry and against these alternatives would feel really nasty. If people enjoy more than I do the taste and idea of, like, "soy milk" or whatever, all the better for them and the planet. Trying to deride them and push them to cow milk consumption, especially on the behalf of an industry's profit -advertisement- is beyond lame, ideologically. Now if these alternatives raise other actual concerns, they should be criticized on these genuine grounds. Not some braindead "you wouldn't milk a stone, lolol".)

I'm not a vegan, and I do drink (cow's) milk, but I have to say that oat milk in coffee is delicious. And almond milk in cereal is delicious as well.

Soy milk I never got along with though. Seems... thin.

 

[Dreiko]

I like tofu but soy milk is weird. Tofu is only good if you cook it with greasy or spicy things anyways cause it soaks up all the flavor, so milk is just that but uncurdled and bland.

I don't put any milk in my coffee though, black all the way.

 

[EvilRoy]

I'm not a vegan, and I do drink (cow's) milk, but I have to say that oat milk in coffee is delicious. And almond milk in cereal is delicious as well.

Soy milk I never got along with though. Seems... thin.

I got curious and went digging, and you should probably keep living that cows milk life up because you're living in one of the very few places that is doing great for lactose intolerance. The US is at an estimated 35%, and Canada is almost at 60%, but the UK is sitting at only 8%. That said, lactose malabsorbtion, which is I guess a version where you don't get the runs but you also don't really get anything out of milk, is sitting worldwide at 75%.

I've been hearing about people not drinking enough milk anymore, but its really looking to me like people either can't drink milk because it gives them difficult shits, or they shouldn't drink milk because it does little more for them than water. I'm trying to find out if this is a thing that has always been the case and we're only now picking up on it, or if it is steadily getting worse over time.

One thing I noted while reading is that is can be genetic - apparently if you're from Africa or Southeast Asian you have a really good chance of carrying a gene that means right after you're done breastfeeding your body just flips the switch and that is it. Another is that apparently if you don't drink enough milk (and cheese and yogurt don't count because they don't carry enough of the lactose) you lose the ability to digest it. I want to find out if there are any studies done on lactose tolerance/malabsorbtion by generation because I'm wondering if heavy formula use among babies in the 80s/90s/00s has caused an issue.

 

[Baffle]

I'm not a vegan, and I do drink (cow's) milk, but I have to say that oat milk in coffee is delicious. And almond milk in cereal is delicious as well.

Soy milk I never got along with though. Seems... thin.

Same, soy seems to coagulate in the tea/coffee and it's grim-looking. I don't mind it with cereal, but it doesn't mix well with hot drinks.

 

[Ag3ma]

I want to find out if there are any studies done on lactose tolerance/malabsorbtion by generation because I'm wondering if heavy formula use among babies in the 80s/90s/00s has caused an issue.

I doubt it. Firstly, it's probably surprisingly tricky - a lot of time and effort to do well, risks a lot of confounding issues. Secondly, it's not very "interesting" (by which I mean it's not going to enthuse the people who hand out research grants).

 

[Schadrach]

No. The procedure involved in the original study undeniably involves self-evaluation. That's core to the entire study. That is literally impossible to do with subjects that are incapable of self evaluation, such as numbers.

In response to this being pointed out, the only thing you've done is endlessly repeat and insist it was the same procedure. Absolutely zero explanation for how to square that circle.

So no, you don't get to just say "oh well I'm right, bye". Either explain how random numbers could self-evaluate, or admit the procedure was not the same. Those are your only two intellectually honest options.

You're acting as though the agency behind the numbers is central towards determining if a survey instrument is good at measuring a thing accurately. The whole point here is that taking the survey instrument and applying the same method of processing the answers reveals the same result whether taking data from actual people actually answering the questions or just randomly generated answers. Which means it probably isn't actually measuring anything, at least not without a huge margin for generating false positives.

Imagine I was claiming I had found space aliens by running telescope data through my special program scanning for patterns that might be life, but if you fed literal white noise images into it it also claims to see signs of life in those. That the white noise isn't authentically from space doesn't devalue the notion that my special program is likely not accurately detecting life.

but I have to say that oat milk in coffee is delicious

If I recall, isn't oat milk the one that requires the most doctoring to it to make it a salable product, like a whole bunch of additives relative to soy milk or most nut milks?

you can't make a drink out of a tree

I've seen people take shots of maple syrup, so you might be wrong on that one.

One thing I noted while reading is that is can be genetic - apparently if you're from Africa or Southeast Asian you have a really good chance of carrying a gene that means right after you're done breastfeeding your body just flips the switch and that is it.

This is actually typical for mammals in general. Short version is if your ancestors had the right selection pressures then the odds of you carrying the mutation that makes your body keep making lactase after weaning are higher. People losing the ability to digest it after going a time without are basically just triggering a change that's supposed to happen when you are weaned, and thanks to genetics has a higher bar for the switch to flip in them. Lactose tolerance patterns in domestic dogs and cats mirror those in humans, because we share our food with them and even what we don't is linked to prey availability for them (larger harvests attract more pests).

It's kinda like how Europeans are more likely to have the mutation that makes you resistant to the bubonic plague. Or Africans being more prone to sickle cell, because sickle cell also confers malaria resistance so it's more common in people whose ancestors came from regions where malaria was a more prominent threat.

 

[Silvanus]

You're acting as though the agency behind the numbers is central towards determining if a survey instrument is good at measuring a thing accurately. The whole point here is that taking the survey instrument and applying the same method of processing the answers reveals the same result whether taking data from actual people actually answering the questions or just randomly generated answers. Which means it probably isn't actually measuring anything, at least not without a huge margin for generating false positives.

Imagine I was claiming I had found space aliens by running telescope data through my special program scanning for patterns that might be life, but if you fed literal white noise images into it it also claims to see signs of life in those. That the white noise isn't authentically from space doesn't devalue the notion that my special program is likely not accurately detecting life.

In which case, the criticism would be on the threshold for considering a relationship meaningful or not. But that's very much not what Phoenixmgs is saying. He's saying the study itself, procedure and all, was replicated, with the same result.

What they did was apply the survey's data analysis model to sets of randomly generated numbers. What they got out was significantly weaker than the outcome of the original study. So if he did want to change tack and specifically just focus on the threshold for a meaningful relationship, it still wouldn't apply, because the original study reached a higher bar.

 

[Absent]

I have skipped quite a few posts, but, just to be sure : you people are not still talking about dunning-kruger, right ?

 

[Silvanus]

I have skipped quite a few posts, but, just to be sure : you people are not still talking about dunning-kruger, right ?

Of course we are. Y'think a mere 244 pages is enough for Phoenix to concede a simple point?

 

[Absent]

Of course we are. Y'think a mere 244 pages is enough for Phoenix to concede a simple point?

 

[Absent]

Aaaand once again I've been unwittingly destroying the planet :

Cocoa planting is destroying protected forests in west Africa, study finds

Global trade in chocolate, worth more than $1tn a year, is leading to widespread deforestation in Ivory Coast and Ghana

www.theguardian.com

(yes, I put it in the "woke" category, because I'm mostly categorized as "woke", and I am guilty of 73% of the world's consumption of chocolate)

 

[Phoenixmgs]

This did not happen.

All you're doing is repeating over and over and over again that it happened. It's been pointed out each time that a fundamental part of the original procedure was self-evaluation, and that that cannot be done with random numbers. And each time you've just failed to explain how you can reconcile it, and gone back to blind insistence.

How can you not understand how re-doing the same study with random numbers and getting the same results makes the original study literally pointless? Also, funny you leave out the fact that mathematicians said the math was done wrong to begin with.

Because it's overly long for a joke that we get from the forst minute, and because it misses the point (you can't make a drink out of a tree, but you can out of some plants) ?

I don't consume soja "milk" or various vegetal versions of animal-produced aliments, and I find their naming silly (okay they are supposed to taste like these other things, but it still sounds odd). And yet, I find this commercial perfectly stupid and trying way too hard to be funny. Even as a comedy sketch, it would be a bit of a failure. As a commercial, with an actual message ? Pathetic.

(Also, even as a ravenous devourer of flesh and cow milk drinker, I do appreciate the ecological rationale and intent behind alternatives, so making it a side-vs-side "fight" for the milk industry and against these alternatives would feel really nasty. If people enjoy more than I do the taste and idea of, like, "soy milk" or whatever, all the better for them and the planet. Trying to deride them and push them to cow milk consumption, especially on the behalf of an industry's profit -advertisement- is beyond lame, ideologically. Now if these alternatives raise other actual concerns, they should be criticized on these genuine grounds. Not some braindead "you wouldn't milk a stone, lolol".)

I couldn't care less if people merely complained that it wasn't funny, but that's not what the backlash is about. Milk doesn't have to be bad for the environment, that's not inherent to milking cows. Also, other "milks" are worse for you than normal milk and stuff like oat milk is just horrible for you. Even skim milk is worse for you than whole milk.

 

[Elijin]

Ohhh, more dietary advice from pheonix! That's one of my preferred topics to spectate, because the stakes are so much less depressing.

Shame he's still caught on "If it can be replicated with random, it's useless." Completely failing to understand random.

 

[Absent]

Milk doesn't have to be bad for the environment, that's not inherent to milking cows.

As for many of these things, it's merely a matter of scale, overproduction and overconsumption, which makes it a real genuine global issue. That's why we should welcome trends that scale it back.