Pericolo Paradiso

@AD90346705 @SaP011 Obviously not italian by the way he pronounces his words

@SaP011 Just because this Buzo called him iracheno doesn’t make it so…

Italy 🇮🇹: An aggressive, threatening immigrant blocks the traffic. An Italian steps in to clear the road. Too bad for the immigrant, it’s Giuseppe Barboni, Italian Master Champion in the 100kg category, both Freestyle and Greco-Roman wrestling.

@Cathchad45 @colejaczko You are drinking with the wrong people

@colejaczko Bullshit. People take advantage of such idiots. I've bought rounds for people only a few reciprocated. Never again. Buy your own shit

Buying the first round of drinks for your friends or people you meet is such an underrated high ROI activity

@eMburrst @venturetwins Tips are for good service, why would you tip in advance? This person does not deserve any sort of tip judging by their behavior.

@venturetwins This guy sucks, but also youre way less likely to get this type of person if you left an okay tip.

Universal food delivery robots can’t come soon enough

surprise math question: if emily is eating 3 pizzas a day why is emily wearing a crop top

@NinoVanin @jeffisrael25 That’s the away kit.

@jeffisrael25 Croatia’s look is unique and unmatched. Not sure how I feel about them going with the blue checkered look this World Cup though.

There’s no reason the USMNT shouldn’t adopt red stripes forever and just modify them the way Croatia does

If I had Musk's trillion, I'd actually spend it on something useful, like developing reusable rockets to make space travel cheap instead of just hoarding it all.

Cristiano Ronaldo in tears of joy. 😭❤️ He is 41-years old and he still CARES SO MUCH about this beautiful game.

The only possible scenario in which I would grow you some food is if you paid me for doing it

#PopeLeo: Abortion is “deplorable” and surrogacy “distorts the family” Direct words from the pontiff today in his address to ambassadors to the Holy See, widely regarded as his most political speech of the year.

TRUMP SAYS ONLY HIS “OWN MORALITY” LIMITS U.S. POWER: NYT

@theojframe I slipped Rivelino is human

Thomas Sowell on how to solve poverty without politics.

A profound comment on the metaphysics of beauty. Even a building can be redeemed by a beautiful death.

This saddest thing about these "child-free" people is that none of them are doing anything interesting with their lives at all. It's true that not having children gives you a lot more free time and far fewer responsibilities. And the best that you can think to do with all of that is go to brunch, watch TV, and buy more candles? Tragically pathetic.

@vantagept_ @lavitalenta He is a communist

@lavitalenta Can you explain your views based on the meme for me? What does it deeply imply?

Sam Hyde Show: This is You

@MateZeravica195 @Vide_Rapula Sta oces rec

Idem spavat, vidimo se na bojištima uskoro, svi skupa.

Novo ruho, ista želja

The Atlantic (@TheAtlantic) does not seem to have fact-checkers, or at least they're very lazy and perhaps incompetent. Briefly: They recently claimed I was "cited" by the New York Times. This is false. I was the intermediary for data for a story; I was never cited. This is an important distinction. They claimed I am "best-known for compiling charts on the 'Black-White IQ gap'." This is false. The largest sources of my followers came from stories about 1. Teeth 2. GLP-1RAs 3. Data posting not concerning the Black-White gap, which has never been even 3% of what I've written about. They claimed I am "convinced that any [Black-White IQ] differences are the result of biology" and that I have "shot down other possible explanations." This is a tricky claim, but as they interpret it, it is false. I have only ever shot down specific explanations that have been ruled out by evidence, or implausible explanations, and this should be apparent to the author of this false claim, because they cited me doing exactly that, alongside my justifications! When I have quantified the genetic and environmental contributions to the Black-White IQ gap, I have never found any evidence that the gap is 100% genetic. In the most recent dataset I've assessed this in, I found that the contribution was 63% for 10-year-olds in the U.S. circa 2016. The claim is "tricky" because the gap being "biological" is a fact to the same extent that within-race differences are "biological". That is because measurement invariance holds, and thus the sources and interpretations of test score differences between groups are the same as those that operate within groups. This fact is known to the Atlantic author, so they should not have been confused here. If you believe test performance is driven by biological factors—which it clearly, to some degree, is—within groups, you're forced to concede that they also contribute to differences between groups. So, for example, we know that differences in neural speed drive differences in timed test completion rates. Of course other factors are involved, like strategy use, but biology is still involved. What makes this claim especially silly is that invoking "biology" does not inform us about environmental or genetic differences, which are what people generally care about. If lead exposure drives differences in test performance, that is a biological effect. It is environmental and biological, and is not mediated through, say, biasing tests, except in so far as it impacts the upstream acquisition of the strategies and information required to perform on the test. If the author had read my work, they would understand this and not have used the word "biology" so carelessly. They claimed that I said "crime is genetic". This is false. You simply cannot come away from anything I've read concluding that I think "crime is genetic" is a claim that even makes sense. The liability to commit crime is heritable, but as I've made plenty clear, that's largely vertical pleiotropy: people inherit a batch of upstream traits and behaviors and whatnot, and this leads to genetic influence on crime. The Atlantic is incredibly careless. They both misstated my beliefs in a way that makes no sense, and they should have known better given the source they linked literally shows me saying that "Violent crime perpetration is roughly 35-50% heritable and 5-20% attributable to the shared environment." Does that sound like saying "crime is genetic"? Because it shouldn't if you can read. "Evidence strongly identifies environmental factors as primarily contributing to racial disparities." This statement cites an article that was debunked within hours of its publication and has not held up to empirical scrutiny. The author claimed that I go out of my "to communicate that [my] interest in linking biology with race is not actually racism, but just an attempt to more completely and accurately understand the world." Where I have said this? You should be required to provide citations for claims such as this, which currently sits unsourced. Where I have explained my interest, I have always been clear: it's about biotech, and if you can't understand that, then you should not be writing about this subject, since you're not even cut out to do it accurately. The piece is ironic. Near the end, it says: "They often avoid directly claiming that white people are genetically superior to Black people. Instead, they pump out charts and imply, C’mon, what else could it be?" If this author had the wherewithal to do their background research, they would have found that the people interested in these topics consider claims of 'genetic superiority' to be nonsensical. If you have a higher-IQ sibling, are they your genetic superior? You would hope the answer would be 'Maybe on that dimension, but it's more complicated than that!' and then the questions about people being "genetically superior" would end. The ironic part is the part begging that we believe his implication, that I must be racist because of something I've said. The fact is, there is far better evidence of my anti-racism than of my racism. I have strongly and consistently opposed discrimination, the use of biased assessments, preferences on the basis of race, and so on. But I have never supported racist policymatter, been hostile to members of any race for reasons of race, or anything that genuinely qualifies as racism. No—discussing IQ differences doesn't qualify; this isn't 2020 anymore so everything you dislike is not automatically racism. If you think I'm "simply asking questions" instead of having genuine interest, given what I'm doing, given all I've post about, then you are deluded, plain and simple. The Atlantic needs fact-checkers and journalistic integrity. Currently, it effectively has none. I hope it revises and becomes a trustworthy outlet for the news once again. Sources: cremieux.xyz/p/brief-data-p… x.com/cremieuxrecuei…