Even if I could help you, I wouldn’t because stalkers post these sorts of threads.
You need to take this to the police. You’re not going to get fined. You’re entitled to ask for help tracking him down, not least because you would need to in order to divorce him.
Don’t call him a missing person though. It’s been years. No one waits years to report someone missing if they are actually missing.
I mean, yeah. All of this. Absurd.
But, FWIW, offloading cheap tat onto charity shops is not going to work well. It costs them money to put it on a shelf and it probably takes up more space than it is worth. Plus, they very likely can’t sell electrical equipment that has had its cord chopped up and repaired, or at least not without spending more on having it tested than they could sell it for anyway.
Next time, find a friend with small feet who would like to take it off your hands.
DOIs are forever. It’s why they exist.
The data showed that the chance of scoring rose when teammates showed their support through touch. The effect only appeared after a failed first shot, which makes sense because such a scenario is likely to spike stress levels.
Of course, the data is not shown. And the study is not able to draw causal conclusions. In this case, they’ve hunted around and found a subset of shots (second shots after a first failed shot) where it’s true. And it’s easy to make up reasons after the fact why that might make sense.
It does seem very reasonable to hypothesise that supportive team mates make it less likely you choke on the second shot. But they haven’t shown this is down to touch (they just used that as a proxy for supportive team mates). Nor that the percentage of successful second shots after a failed first shot would be improved by more touching regardless of whether team mates are genuinely supportive or quietly seething…
I think our current monetary system is more than only slightly useful.
That has nothing to do with the quote you’re responding to, about economic models that don’t reflect reality. The problem is economic models built without an adequate understanding of the current monetary system.
Many trillions of words have been written about this since the crash. This is a useful short summary which links to some of them.
You’re nitpicking the headline while agreeing with the article.
“What is striking is that the uncool, mean standards of FOSS conduct that many of us have decried for years, and that many defended as authentic, tough, etc., ended up not just being exclusionary loser behavior, but a significant attack surface.”
There’s only 23 players in a squad and, traditionally, only the numbers 1-11 used on the pitch. There are no good reasons for 44, let alone 88, to exist.
“Ban” is a clickbait word. Adidas has decided not to make any more of them because it doesn’t want to be associated with Nazis. Oh noes.
The age of consent in Washington is 16.
This is classic abuser behaviour, and classic escalation of abusive behaviours.
He is escalating now because he knows you’re trapped. He’s threatening suicide because he knows it will trap you further.
Start working on an escape plan. Where would you go? What money would you have? Would it be wise to leave while he’s out? Who can be with you to help you leave safely?
Someone else linked you to the Lundy book Why does he do that? I recommend you read it, especially if you are not yet sure that you need to leave.
Good luck.
The study is massively confounded. Did exercise cause good sleep, or did good sleep provide enough energy to do exercise?
They have not found evidence that doing exercise even when you are exhausted from a lack of sleep and are struggling to do everything else that has to be done will cause you to sleep better. They haven’t done a study which can find causal effects, only associations.
I don’t think it is bad advice; for people who are struggling to sleep well enough to keep up with the demands of daily life, trying to find the time and energy for more fresh air and walking is very unlikely to do any harm.
But, it is harmful to imply that people who are struggling are struggling because they’re lazy when it may well be that they appear lazy because they are struggling. Doctors are already fucking terrible for this kind of thing and doctors who do research should not be presenting it this way when, if they are qualified to do the research, they know they have not defined the causal pathway or even the direction of the causal arrow.
“Someone else will do evil if I don’t agree to do evil so I might as well do evil myself” is a bullshit argument. And your point is directly addressed in the article:
By resigning publicly, I am saddened by the knowledge that I likely foreclose a future at the State Department. I had not initially planned a public resignation. Because my time at State had been so short — I was hired on a two-year contract — I did not think I mattered enough to announce my resignation publicly. However, when I started to tell colleagues of my decision to resign, the response I heard repeatedly was, “Please speak for us.”
The publishers do not write any part of the paper.
They do not include the peer reviewers in their list of people who missed it. Which means that either the peer reviewers did pick it up and for some reason it didn’t get addressed (unlikely) or this was a straight up pay-to-play and whoever runs that particular bit of the racket for Elsevier fucked up.
Yes, yes it does.
That’s why you need the appendices, so that you can check the details behind what is in the paper.
Journals have word limits, due to the restrictions of print, and because a 200 page paper is too much for most readers. But some of them will need some or all of those 200 pages (which is usually a shed load of tables and figures, not much text apart from protocols etc).
The quality of the research, and the way it was written up, cannot be assessed by those readers unless all the information is published. And the research cannot be implemented in practice unless it is described in full. There are thousands of papers out there that test a new treatment but don’t give enough detail about the treatment for anyone else to deliver it. Or develop a new measurement scale but don’t publish the scale. Or use a psychometric instrument but don’t publish the instrument. This research is largely useless (especially if the details were never archived properly and there’s no one still about who knows how to fill the gaps).
We don’t (or should not) publish papers for CV points. We publish them so that other researchers know what research has been done and how to build on it. These days we don’t just publish all the summary tables and all the analyses, we ideally make the data available too. Not because we expect every reader to want to reanalyse it but because we know some of them will need to.
As it should be. There’s no point doing research if you don’t publish all the relevant information. Now that journals are electronic, you can and there’s no excuse not to.
If you don’t know why the appendix exists, try reading it.
Yes, it’s important that governing parties view women as sex objects rather than human beings. Fun, fun, fun all the way.
3/14 is much weirder, only around 5% of the global population instantly know what date it refers to. The rest of us have to realise that a USian is the author to make any sense of it.
But it does give you a pi day, so there’s that.
The fact of higher protein content appears to be true (without going back to find and critique all the original studies). Explanations are much harder to ‘prove’ for questions like this.
We can’t do experiments on the evolution of tears, so all we can do is come up with plausible theories and look at how they fit with the body of evidence. With enough evidence, from enough different angles, we might one day be able to say which proposed explanations fit the facts (and which don’t). It’s how we (eventually) proved smoking was killing people (another question we cannot do experiments on human beings to prove one way or the other) but not all questions are as important as smoking was and there isn’t necessarily a neat, single factor explanation to find even if someone was willing to fund all the necessary research.
Not my area but, for example, I recently saw a study claim that sniffing women’s tears makes men less aggressive. That’s an angle that might help build some support for, or knock down, the theory that emotional tears are useful for social communication (ie help get women killed slightly less often). Did those studies use sad stories or onions? Did any study compare sad stories to onions? If we’re seeing hints of differences between sad stories and onions, that would tend to support the social communication element of the explanation. Unless we think there’s a difference between sad tears and frightened tears, which there probably is, so we should check that too. And the rest of the literature on tears, if it’s considered important enough to get the theory right. And we need to remember that sticky tears are not the same thing as smelly tears, so can we do experiments where non-emotional tears are made sticky, and non-sticky tears made to smell frightened?
Etc etc.
Explaining things we observe but cannot directly experiment on is a process, a process which typically takes many years and dozens of research groups. And a lot of funding. And decades of exhausting battles, if there is a lot riding on the answer (as it did with Big Tobacco vs Public Health).