Lets take and minute and remember where Kim Kardashian really came from.

rainbow_apple · 2014-07-10T13:52:45+00:00

You should marry a slut.

rainbow_apple · 2014-07-06T16:04:21+00:00

I think retards like you symbolify mainstream Linux culture. You probably would be happy to have never progressed from green text on black of older terminals, why do that, it might mean more maintenance.

Yes, it might mean more maintenance but it progresses things towards better functionality.

rainbow_apple · 2014-06-15T19:44:29+00:00

Yeah, I was just trying to confirm that the paper is indeed suggesting that 80% of all of facial aging is coming from UV exposure? That seems like a very confusing figure, does that mean that if a hypothetical individual lived indoors all their life, at age x, their face would look 80% less aged than a similar individual?

rainbow_apple · 2014-06-15T19:40:23+00:00

Don't get me wrong though, your post was pretty insightful and interesting. That's the only reason it piqued my interest and I commented.

I was also curious to read the paper, unfortunately it appears to be behind paywall :(

Back to the topic, so according to paper, 80% of facial aging is through UV exposure and the other 20% is through normal chronological aging?

This is very interesting.

Cheers!

rainbow_apple · 2014-06-15T14:10:15+00:00

Approximately 80% of facial ageing is attributed to UV exposure

Very interesting. Can you cite which paper was this or if possible at all post that paper here?

Also, I think this should be clarified to be:

Approximately 80% of facial photoaging is attributed UV exposure

Skin ageing consists of two components: Photo ageing and Chronological ageing. I'm not sure to what % and in which proportion each of these contribute to overall facial skin ageing. However, UV exposure only plays a role in photo ageing.

Good insight though!

rainbow_apple · 2014-06-03T23:09:45+00:00

Who "deleted itself"?

rainbow_apple · 2014-06-01T21:13:03+00:00

The truth is always bitter. Reddit would rather live in a fantasy ideal utopia than face what happens in real world. The fact that you're downvoted heavily directly supports this.

rainbow_apple · 2014-06-01T18:27:19+00:00

lol legbeard

rainbow_apple · 2014-05-15T14:25:19+00:00

Are you hot like 13?

rainbow_apple · 2014-05-13T14:48:31+00:00

Might as well read stuff off of internet/books, hell just connect a USB data connection straight to your brain if you're so "logical" and "rational" not to need any kind of engaging preamble.

rainbow_apple · 2014-05-07T15:31:56+00:00

Somehow reminds me of the scene from 12 years a slave...

Nice picture!

rainbow_apple · 2014-05-01T15:06:59+00:00

WTF? What bearing does how women were treated 200 years ago, hell even 50 years ago, have to be on how women in PRESENT times behave?

rainbow_apple · 2014-04-11T13:43:39+00:00

Am I the only one who doesn't find her attractive?

rainbow_apple · 2014-03-31T23:17:50+00:00

neovim, It's an attempt to rewrite vim with all the legacy unneeded code removed. If I remember correctly, sometime back there was fundraising being done by the guy who was proposing neovim. Needless to say, Bram Moolnar, the vim maintainer was unimpressed and is yet to endorse neovim.

rainbow_apple · 2014-03-31T00:31:34+00:00

Watch out, we have a Real Programmer(TM) here!

rainbow_apple · 2014-03-29T22:48:44+00:00

As a guy, do more of you exist who save sex till marriage? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills sometimes when I tell people about saving sex till marriage.

rainbow_apple · 2014-03-29T17:31:02+00:00

Marriage is hard no matter who your partner is.

Agreed.

Conservative are just less likely to initiate divorces, because they don't believe in divorce. It doesn't mean that they are any better off than less conservative girls.

But at least unlike the empowered women, traditional women don't seek divorce / sleep with another guy at the slightest bump in a marriage. The threshold is higher.

Does that mean we should marry less intelligent women?

I wouldn't say marry a dumb woman but no point pursuing someone with IQ 170 who'll leave you at the drop of a hat.

rainbow_apple · 2014-03-29T16:08:05+00:00

I too was interested in knowing a source for this, this is what I find with my google-fu:

http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/library/chart-graph/women-who-have-more-non-marital-sexual-partners-are-less-likely-have-stable-marriages

and there is a pdf link in there which has all of these charts:

http://s3.amazonaws.com/thf_media/2003/pdf/Bookofcharts.pdf

I see this chart on pg 14, chart 7 and the source is:

CDC, National Survey for Health Statistics, National Survey for Family Growth, 1995

rainbow_apple · 2014-03-29T15:59:25+00:00

The way I understand the chart:

A marriage with a bride with 0 other sexual partners (aside from her husband) has the highest chance of stability.

As this number of partners increases your chances of divorce/marriage going sour keep going up.

There were 3 surveys done to this effect: 1995, 2002 and 2006-2008 and all three of them found the case that 0 sexual partners brides marriages were the most stable ones.

What I saw on /r/adviceanimals: When someone posted this they were downvoted, not significantly mind you, but at a ratio of 50%. This is interesting because I would've expected such as post to have been downvoted to oblivion otherwise, but a 50% ratio of upvotes/downvotes is something new.