Random Nonsense Thread

@Dex Stewart  
I swear I’m reading an old JTHM interlude comic.

You want us to put water on the crops? Water? Like out the toilet?

@UrbanMysticDee  
yes

@Acres  
Well I’ve never see no plants grow out of no toilet.

@UrbanMysticDee  

 

 

@ANoobis  
… … I really hope that’s rocks or wood chips or whatever in that last one.
 
@Acres  
But now how are you going to get home?

@Acres  
Oooooooooooooh, that was you? I was wondering where my free waterlogged car components came from.
 
I just assumed that the merfolk had become communist and where trying to inflate their economy with an automotive industry they had no use for.

Let’s see, the last time I studied calculus was 2005, so how do you calculate the area under a curve?
 
It’s an integral, and…
 
Screw it, I’ll just draw boxes under the curve and estimate.

I’ve been working on some numbers and came to some tentative conclusions about human attractiveness. If we’re being realistic then we start from the premise that attractiveness follows normal distribution. If we’re being realistic.
 
Online surveys show that men are realistic in rating attractiveness:
 

 
Women are off in La La Land:
 

 
I’m going with the realistic men’s perspective, since it follows normal distribution, but this should work the other way too if we’re assuming women pre-Internet had realistic expectations of men since they were limited to the men who lived nearby. That’s why I was drawing boxes under the curve, because A. I don’t know what the equation is, and 2. If I did I don’t know calculus to make sense of it anyway. So I took a normal distribution curve someone else drew and drew boxes under it to estimate.
 

 
It’s fairly accurate out to 3 standard deviations (on my chart that’s between 1.0 and 9.0).
 
I’m rounding the total population to 8 billion, 1 billion of whom are children. There are roughly equal number of men and women, so 3.5 billion each.
 
Now I created that chart on the assumption that the 0-10 scale is evenly distributed across the curve. IF that’s true then 50% of everyone falls between 4.1 and 5.8.
 
If my scale is true then only 0.1% of people are 9.0 and above (about 3.5 million men and 3.5 million women). Anything above that is just me guessing, with about 70,000 at 10.0 (about 4 sigma; with 6 sigma being a hypothetical 12.6/10, which should be technically possible given the size of the population, with about 7 men and 7 women at that level).
 
Looking at this it seems wrong. Either people are using a different scale, and the numbers aren’t evenly distributed, or higher and lower numbers are being over/under reported (too many people (too many women) are being given scores 8+ for instance (also, too many men are being given scores below 3). The curve might be flatter, with longer tails, I don’t know.
 
What do you think? How often do you think someone realistically encounters a 8+? Have you?

@UrbanMysticDee  
I’ve never actually unironically rated people like that and I wouldn’t even know how to. Thinking about it now, 1-4, 5-7 and 8-10 are all just three big blurs of “ugly”, “normal” and “hot” to me.

@UrbanMysticDee  
to be honest…. guys do be pretty ugly. and no will not change my stance on it

@Aru-wu  
You aren’t wrong, but I still feel compelled to issue a “no u”.

@Aru-wu  
True. Still, even accounting for males evolving for utility first and attractiveness second it’s a bit odd to look at how imbalanced it is. Just because you’d expect for females to have complementarily evolved.

@Officer Hotpants  
thats a bold talk from someone who is ugly lmao XD
 
@EverfreeEmergencies  

@EverfreeEmergencies  
@Officer Hotpants
 
That’s an absolute crock of horseshit. If 60% of men were ugly (not just okay looking but genuinely ugly), and 25% of men were hideously ugly, then that would mean that only a handful of super studs were inseminating all the women, and they would only go after the attractive women because they’re super studs and can get anyone they want, so ugliness would breed out in a few generations because ugly people wouldn’t be having any kids. Decades of brainwashing have made most women delusional.

@UrbanMysticDee  
How am I supposed to go about life without projecting everywhere? Next you’ll be telling me most people don’t take routes that involve as few unprotected left turns as possible.

@UrbanMysticDee  
Ah, but women aren’t so shallow as to only hook up with men based on their appearance! There’s also money to consider, social status, general utility and whether the man has a criminal record. And big muscles don’t necessarily make you look better, but they do appeal to women.

@AlsoSprachOdin  
Women on the Internet are shallowness incarnate.

This has to be just about the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard of. Of course Darwin and Matthew line up. If they didn’t, it would be because Matthew was wrong. Replication is part of science, and parallel construction exists. Is Gregor Mendel now a plagiarist, just because his book was published even later?
 
In order to prove plagiarism, there would have to be evidence that Darwin read Matthew’s book. There isn’t, but there is evidence that he hadn’t. After becoming aware of the plagiarism accusations, Darwin ordered Matthew’s book, and added Matthew to his already extensive list of citations as of Origin’s second edition.

@ANoobis  
That’s right. To prove plagiarism we have to show that the person involved either is now or was at some point Joe Biden.

@Aru-wu  
As a straight man, I agree.

@Havoc  
Being straight is gay.