Great subject for the is this a butterfly meme.

There are some interesting cases. It took a long time for men to break into synchronized swimming, where women typically have the advantage. Archery still has some strength elements that could be relevant, but shooting should be pretty egalitarian and is still split, as far as I know.

I have never been particularly into sports, and stopped watching the Olympics very much when the amateur requirements were relaxed (when hockey was dominated by NHL stars). There may be some nuances I’m missing, and there is also the aspect of making a sport/competition more welcoming to women, such as women’s chess. While those are interesting social/cultural aspects, they have much less bearing on capabilities of a given sex/gender.

We already have that. Men can join the men’s sport, which is usually open, like the NHL, but a restricted group can join the women’s sport. So women already have two choices - join a group where they are statistically unlikely to win, or compete against a group which is a better representation of her peers.

If you want more restricted groups, sure, why not? But the more groups there are, the more most sports will be diluted.

Oh, not to worry. The most likely pickups for pedestrian and bicyclist fatality in the U.S. are all allowed, for now.

There’s only one reason the cybertruck is banned in the UK that isn’t easily fixed - the requirement for rounded edges that are thicker than the panels on the thing. Changing the indicator color, getting a special drivers license, and going through the import process are all surmountable hurdles if one wanted to, but not that first one. Fortunately, the F150, which kills far more pedestrians due to it’s populatlrity, is an easy substitute if driving vehicles that are dangerous for everyone around them is high on your criteria. Thankfully, the corners on that behemoth are rounded!

I have never seen the inside of a Tesla, yet I can recognize them from a block away. The door handle may be something their owners notice, but it isn’t what makes them recognizable to passersby. This is like saying people recognize iPhone because of the triple tap functionality. It’s unique, but isn’t what makes people recognize them at a glance.

There are perfectly good reasons to not like Teslas, safety and giving money to Elon among the top. Don’t dilute your message with irrelevance and inaccuracies.

On top of that, he puts all the blame on her, and not an iota on her security guards, who one would presume, in a country where assassinations are all too common, are there to protect her from all forms of assault, not just sexual assault. They failed badly at their job, and if there’s a woman who should have felt confident this wouldn’t have happened, it would be her.

That is a design issue, but it is not a cosmetic design issue. Having never been in a Tesla, I don’t know if the fundamentally flawed interior door handle has any great impact on aesthetics. That said, Teslas, even cybertrucks, are very distinctive. Their esthetics have little bearing on the quality of the build (this is the entire philosophy behind knock-off brands).

So, while I don’t thing you’re wrong, that has no relevance to the OC’s statement.

For all you know he’s a future Hitler. Just tell him his art looks nice.

I’m not sure if it’s an admirable trait to double down on your ignorance, but I’m kind of impressed by your willingness to do it in front of everyone.

Individuals ruin society, just like bad apples ruin the bunch. Dealing with the problems maintains good health in both cases.

Now, let’s talk about unrestricted free speech…

First, if there’s a good reason, it isn’t arbitrary. Second, at an elementary level, data points that are within a standard deviation of each other are statistically similar. There are obviously variances and edge cases, but it does reinforce the point I was making, which is that expected behavior for someone at 115 IQ and someone at 100 IQ are more or less the same (and may be the same person who did or didn’t have a good night’s sleep).

I was thinking about this the other day, and due to the bell curve, 68% of people are average intelligence, with only 16% being below (or above) average. I don’t know if that makes it better or worse, because a lot more than 16% of the population is making pretty poor choices.

The staunchly atheist government of the USSR killed off tens of millions of people, too.

Not if we aren’t American.

While that is the ideal, it hasn’t been true in practice for a couple decades, at least. Due process was negated by basically saying an incantation during arrest due to the PATRIOT Act (“this crime was an act of terrorism”). Edward Snowden sacrificed his freedom to make everyone aware that the Fourth Amendment was being ignored by the NSA for pretty much anyone who knew someone who wasn’t an American, and they later got rid of even that pretense. Now it’s the First Amendment which has had an asterisk added, noting Americans only, and people still have the audacity to act surprised.

But it’s always concerning when foreign material crosses the blood-brain barrier. It may not be a problem, but as far as I’ve seen, it wasn’t even a consideration a decade ago.

Some Canadians are bothered (I’m indifferent), but i think it’s more on a moral level rather than from a personal or immediate impact.

How different is it than ladybugs and aphids, except for we (think we) have the will to do better than our nature demands? Also, I think I made it pretty clear that I don’t think that stance does our species credit. But I would say the outcome is very natural, even if natural isn’t exactly desirable.

If you consider people as part of the natural order, then it is in fact natural selection. This isn’t a commendation of our place in nature.