It’s also a compiled blob, which is wonderful news if you were developing closed source software. You don’t have to work around javascript with pesky obfuscation tricks to protect your intellectual property anymore! ♥️

1/4 to 1/3 of WD-40 is a petroleum base oil, and they make claims about its lubricating properties on their website and marketing material today.

Do I trust Sexy cockroach, +_+, et. al, or do I trust wikipedia?

Yes I have forgotten to cover my sneeze more than once in the last thirty five years. Yes I still think it is not a good thing to do. What kind of a question is this man. Do you think that as soon as you break any social norm you relinquish your right to object to any normalization of this stuff for the rest of your life 😔

I’m not gonna be convinced to conflate corporate skepticism with spreading foot cheese over the subway seats man 😭

👁️👁️

That’s how plans usually form, from what I understand.

Sure, if they were designed that way, I would not call them defects either.

Just because all defect stock are routed to the US inventory, doesn’t mean that US inventory is made up of all defect stock.

Bad reading of the author’s intent and you ignore the immediately preceding sentence which provides context for your cherry picked quote

It is the subtitle in its entirety, as the author of the article intended. That sentence didn’t grow legs and and walk all the way up to the top of the article by itself.

That article (or rather, the article linked in that article) doesn’t contradict your intuition, just a specific interpretation of that intuition. The randomly generated data puts everyone around 50%, which is indeed what you would expect from randomly uniformly generated data. So the similarity that the generated data presents is supposed to imply the conclusion that “everyone thinks they’re about average, so their judgement is no better than randomly guessing (assuming that the guesses are uniformly distributed)”, which is a subtle difference from “dumb people think they’re smart” - the latter attributes some sort of “flawed reasoning” to one’s self-judgement, while the former specifically asserts that there is absolutely no relevant self-judgement going on.

edit: You would also be correct that this doesn’t disprove the previous explanation, it just offers an alternative explanation for the observed effect. The fact that data matches up with a generated model definitely does not prove that it is not actually caused by something else, which is one of the criticisms of that viewpoint. It is obviously easier to rigorously demonstrate a statistical explanation than a psychological explanation of course, due to the nature of the two different fields.

Carhartt WIP is a fashion focused side brand separate from the original carhartt, for people who want to pay extra to cosplay as a laborer.