I think the number of people who care deeply about privacy and cannot tell the difference between an sms or signal message is minimal. There were plenty of ways signal could have highlighted DANGER UNSECURE CHANNEL if they had wanted to, or made it an off-by-default option, rather than drop SMS entirely. For myself and many other people it meant that family members dropped Signal rather than have an extra messaging app, and so I'm still stuck with WhatsApp on my phone...
Absolutely. Words change, and it's not an unhelpful term, but we already had a word for 'ruled by the best', aristocracy. Over time it became very apparent that aristocracies did not promote leaders who were objectively 'best' or often even 'adequate', so it began to mean a small group of privileged people who used their power to keep that privilege for themselves and their peers.
So although meritocracy started as a joke, it could be used sincerely. But unless it's pretty clear how 'merit' is assessed its hard to take it more seriously.
In cities I'd agree, but when I lived in a closeknit rural area it was probably majority women. As the rest of the commentors are saying, I think it's mostly a perceived safety issue for a lot of women. But if you're likely to know the name, address and family history of everyone who gets into your taxi, it's less of a concern.
I'm two decades older than you, but growing up in rural Britain had similar experiences. Even after moving to a big city, with lots of progressive / hipster friends there was an undercurrent of biphobia. I was used to lots of guys being weird/violent if they found out I was bi, but it took me a long time to realise that girls might be cool with gay friends, but absolutely would not consider a relationship with a bi guy.
Naively I never hid it with girls, thinking that it showed I wasn't the typical sexist, macho guy. But I eventually found out they assumed I was just gay and in denial, or were creeped out by all the stereotypes (unfaithful, stds, etc). I realised there's a big gap between people saying "there's nothing wrong with being queer!" and actually meaning it.
Same with gay guys, I thought that the fact I was kinda 'straight' would be a plus, because 'turning the straight boy' was a common gay fantasy. But mostly it just meant gay men ignored me, or assumed I was repressed and 'in the closet' or insincerly flirting with them for attention. And despite all the statistics about biphobia and suicide, it's basically treated as a joke by lots of straight and gay folks who think bi people have it easy / best of both worlds / promiscuous / etc.
I hope you can find some people who accept you and help you live your identity. If it gives you any hope, I had a pretty unsuccessful and frustrating lack of romance / sexual relationships in my teens and twenties, and then somewhat unexpectedly, in my 30s, I ended up hooking up with a guy for a very casual thing. After a few years of telling ourselves we were just "friends with benefits" we realised we were deeply in love with each other, and have been together almost a decade now and even got married last year. When I was younger I never imagined marrying a guy (maybe a little internalised homophobia from myself) but we are so happy together and have a wonderful life. I see young people online saying stuff like "if I don't have a partner by 25 I might as well give up and becoming a monk" but life is long and you never know what will change.
I'm not sure about your visual interpretation, but I completely agree that the two scales don't translate directly, and that if something is rated 7/10 I'd assume it's better than something rated 3.5 stars / 5.
As to the reason? I wonder if the scales five different senses of the middle value? In a five star system, 3/5 film is the middle value, and not especially good nor bad, but I'd probably give the same "totally average, not good not bad" film 5/10. Similarly, it seems weird to translate "Awful, 1/5" into "Awful, 2/10". So maybe the difference comes from a lack of clarity about half stars, it's okay to give 0.5 / 5? But not 0? Or 5.5?
And that doesn't even start to address the modern "if it's rated less than 4.6* it's probably awful" issue...
Jolt Cola, "All the sugar, twice the caffeine!"
Totally agree.
As the other commentator says, medieval Europe was mostly early twenties. Studies of stone age remains suggest a first birth age average of 19.5 and contemporary hunter gather societies have a comparable average. Sexual activity generally begins earlier, during adolescence, but the most "reproductively successful" age for beginning childbearing has been shown to be around 18-19. Also, this age at first birth isnt "Average age of a child's mother" as many women would have multiple kids over their life, so the average sibling would have a much older mother at birth than the firstborn.
Its important to remember that puberty has shifted massively since industrialisation, "menarche age has receded from 16.5 years in 1880 to the current 12.5 years in western societies". So the post-puberty fecundity peak, that use to happen 17-19, when women are fully grown enough to minimise birth complications, now happens at a disressingly young 13-15. Not only is this a big social yuck for most western societies, but it's reproductively unideal, because of the complications linked to childbirth at that age.
That's a self fulfilling cycle. If more institutions and organisation left and made a public statement of not wanting to be associated with fascism, then it would push another bunch to have to defend why they didn't think nazi salutes were a problem, and they'd leave too.
Whether it makes enough of a wave to push major groups to leave is a question of public pressure, but that public pressure is expressed through "costly signalling" that show organisations have values and are willing to take a hit to live by them. And non-profits are exactly the groups who can afford to take a symbolic stand, and make things more difficult for those that remain.
Cool idea. I still use imdb to check stuff but that site is bloated as hell, I'd love a clean alternative.
That's a very good point! So that crazy desire to try and give a bear a cuddlewuddle isn't just a crazy deathwish, it might actually confuse the beast so much that he doesn't try to eat you!
Looks cool! I'd definitely try it out! Does it have options to change the key?