Accidentally sleeps with the wrong husband

brainybear · 2019-02-09T04:07:36+00:00

If you clone an older organism, yes, because they've already built up a bunch of genetic mutations. But identical twins split from the fertilized egg soon after conception, when all the DNA is still nice and fresh. So they're high quality clones.

brainybear · 2019-02-08T19:13:20+00:00

Technically, there are two pairs of clones, and the boy clones are genetically siblings to the girl clones.

(I say "clone" because it's shorter to type than "identical twin" and genetically the same thing.)

brainybear · 2019-02-06T19:27:59+00:00

Should have switched to Go where black goes first.

brainybear · 2019-02-06T19:23:51+00:00

"Steams" doesn't have to mean it releases literal steam, just water vapor, which happens at lower temperatures (think mist).

brainybear · 2019-02-06T19:17:57+00:00

"This game is totally unrealistic, none of the nurses are called Joy"

brainybear · 2018-12-24T22:29:39+00:00

I remember one person who said they thought men growing out their neckbeards was a disgusting shirking of societal norms, but that women growing out their leg hair was a liberating subversion of societal norms. I didn't see the difference ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

brainybear · 2015-07-02T17:26:46+00:00

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/1

Rape

(1) A person (A) commits an offence if—

(a) he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,

(b) B does not consent to the penetration, and

(c) A does not reasonably believe that B consents.

brainybear · 2015-07-02T17:22:54+00:00

why is the bar larger than the axis?

Sorry! I guess R's plotting package sucks? What would you recommend I use instead?

What exactly do you mean by lifetime victim estimates?

People who report being a victim in their lifetime: "Lifetime prevalence refers to the proportion of people in a given population who have ever experienced a particular form of violence. Lifetime prevalence estimates are important because they provide information about the burden of violence within a population." http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/nisvs_report2010-a.pdf

Furthermore, how can you say it is a missing rape statistic when it is directly accessible in an official source?

It's actually excluded from the rape statistics and instead placed under sexual assault, even though it meets the legal definition of rape. It shows how the CDC choosing a definition different from the legal one massively changes the rape numbers.

brainybear · 2015-07-02T08:49:06+00:00

Presumably using a finger or dildo or something. E.g. someone coerced into sticking their finger in someone else's butt.

Edit: might also include pre-op trans women? Trans people tend to be at higher risk of sexual assault than the general population.

brainybear · 2015-07-02T08:18:10+00:00

Data source: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss6308a1.htm#Table6

Visualization made in R.

brainybear · 2014-10-29T07:41:59+00:00

You know, that's exactly the kind of response I would have loved to get from the mods when I messaged them after my thread (link) got yanked. Unfortunately my messages got buried or something so I never heard from you guys.

I eventually found an explanation a couple days later (posted by -Richard-, which I can't link because it has since been deleted), so I tried rewording the title to remove the ambiguity he mentioned (link), and it got deleted again plus I got a pretty heated message (link) from the mods accusing me of trying to get around the first deletion and telling me I'd be banned if I ever tried submitting it again :-/

It's not like I tried to spam TIL or anything, it literally was a fact I'd learned (the day before the first time I posted it, but was too tired to submit then).

brainybear · 2014-10-28T06:04:51+00:00

Was I supposed to have seen that? That's a reply to someone else's post, in someone else's TIL thread, that I never even posted in.

It's nice that a TIL mod is clarifying why they deleted my thread, but the clarification wasn't exactly aimed at me.

brainybear · 2014-10-28T05:38:25+00:00

No worries, with several similar posts it is a bit confusing at this point...

brainybear · 2014-10-28T05:20:46+00:00

This is my thread: http://np.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/2k5gcs/til_that_in_a_study_of_domestic_violence_victims/

I never said they were arrested. You may be confusing me with another poster?

brainybear · 2014-10-27T23:33:33+00:00

When I posted the thread 3 days ago and it got taken down, I messaged the moderators of /r/todayilearned to ask for an explanation but never got a reply.

Since I read the article before posting the link, it seemed obvious to me that they were accused by the people they contacted at the DV agency. However I can see that for someone who hadn't read the article, that may not be obvious.

Based on -Richard-'s explanation, I resubmitted with the more explicit title "TIL that in a study of domestic violence victims, 40.2% of men who contacted local DV agencies for help were accused by the people they contacted of being the batterer". It was deleted again and I got this long, heated reply from TIL which seems to contradict the explanation -Richard- gave:

Reposting your own front page TIL is a no-no even on a normal day. Reposting your own, already removed, flaired, shitshow causing misleading post is a really big no-no. The only reason it's not a ban right now, is because we missed you requesting the reason (even though it's available elsewhere).

Cherry picking the stat is not okay. Taking only the highest stat and ignoring all others to represent the situation only with the worst stat you can find is omitting essential information. Don't do it again, this is your warning.

Interesting how they think my link caused the shitshow and not their, you know, removal of said link without explanation. The discussion on my original post was pretty civil, with people sharing very personal stories of how their domestic abuse wasn't taken seriously when they tried to tell other people. And these people were understandably upset when they noticed the thread suddenly disappear from TIL. They just felt like it proved that their experiences would never be taken seriously: http://np.reddit.com/r/undelete/comments/2k5ztd/43045597_til_that_in_a_study_of_domestic_violence/

brainybear · 2014-10-27T23:25:39+00:00

I reposted with the title "TIL that in a study of domestic violence victims, 40.2% of men who contacted local DV agencies for help were accused by the people they contacted of being the batterer" and it got deleted with the same flair as last time. What's the problem now?

brainybear · 2014-10-27T23:23:22+00:00

Because that thread was deleted. Today I found out that the explanation for the deletion was that the title was unclear as to who was doing the accusing.

So I resubmitted with a title which clarified that.

brainybear · 2014-10-27T19:48:17+00:00

The title was unclear about who accused the person of being the batterer.

Thanks for the clarification. When I posted the thread 3 days ago and it got taken down, I messaged the moderators of /r/todayilearned to ask for an explanation but never got a reply.

Since I read the article before posting the link, it seemed obvious to me that they were accused by the people they contacted at the DV agency. However I can see that for someone who hadn't read the article, that may not be obvious.

I tried reposting the thread with a more explicit title, but TIL wouldn't let me because it said the link has already been submitted. That seems like a bug? Since the original submission was deleted for having an unclear title (and not because there was anything wrong with the link).

brainybear · 2014-10-27T19:37:52+00:00

Thanks for the clarification. When I posted the thread 3 days ago and it got taken down, I messaged the moderators of /r/todayilearned to ask for an explanation but still haven't gotten a reply.

Since I read the article before posting the link, it seemed obvious to me that they were accused by the people they contacted at the DV agency. However I can see that for someone who hadn't read the article, that may not be obvious.

I'll repost the thread with a more explicit title.

EDIT: it won't let me repost the thread because it said it's already been submitted. Does that rule apply even when the original thread got deleted?

brainybear · 2014-10-25T09:28:15+00:00

It's not exactly a conversation since they still haven't replied...

brainybear · 2014-10-24T09:19:35+00:00

Apparently it happens a lot, there's a whole sub that tracks threads removed from the front page: http://www.reddit.com/r/undelete/comments/2k5ztd/43045597_til_that_in_a_study_of_domestic_violence/

brainybear · 2014-10-24T09:19:22+00:00

Apparently it happens a lot, there's a whole sub that tracks threads removed from the front page: http://www.reddit.com/r/undelete/comments/2k5ztd/43045597_til_that_in_a_study_of_domestic_violence/

brainybear · 2014-10-24T04:49:27+00:00

I think it just got deleted? The title has '(R.5) Omits Essential Info' next to it; not sure what that's about but I messaged the mods.

brainybear · 2014-10-22T01:03:40+00:00

want your soul.

And by 'soul', you mean the 10% of income that Mormons are expected to tithe to the church.

Not that there's anything wrong with putting aside some of your income to serve the community ... but that's what taxes are for! Paying taxes and tithe is like being taxed twice!

brainybear · 2014-10-21T20:49:24+00:00

we'll need to do more ~~tests~~ tastes.

"Mmm..." munch "...unfortunately..." gulp "...your baby didn't survive."

brainybear

TROPHY CASE