The OP article said the same thing, and like this article, it provides no evidence for the statement. I looked for some numbers, and for world bests, men had better performance in every category I found. The study linked below looked at speeds over decades and in every case men had better performance. Both men and women have improved over time, and as a percentage the difference is getting smaller, but in absolute difference it appears the same. It is an admittedly brief search, but I can’t find evidence in the form of measured times (not conjecture about estrogen) indicating at all that women perform better in ultra marathons. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3870311

I bought Tillamook because their cheese is good and I thought they’d make other good dairy. It seems like a rip off though. It’s fluff, so it weighs nothing. A serving of Tillamook has 30% less ice cream than a serving of regular stuff - 95 grams in 2/3 cup compared to 136 grams in 2/3 cup. The ingredient list isn’t as bad as others, but it’s got some odd stuff. In comparison, the Aldi stuff is just straight ice cream.

That’s disappointing.

Tillamook has a weird fluffly texture and would be good otherwise. I haven’t had Breyer in a while, but recall that is used to be good. The Ultra Premium, or whatever dumb name it has, at Aldi is good.

I haven’t used this in a bit so I thought I’d check it. They somewhat recently updated the desktop program and nothing works at all now. It appears to be just Edge pretending to be another program. It’s literally just a browser, so surround sound doesn’t work now.

It’s a weird thing for them to do. Why would anyone download a copy of edge that can only watch Netflix? You’d just use a browser.

I attach a computer to a TV and open streaming Web sites in a browser. There aren’t much benefits of the streaming devices compared to that unless you’re using surround sound. The Netflix desktop program has surround sound, but that’s the only service I know of.

The second paper gives evidence that that is epigenitic, but it’s not Lamarckism. I was wondering what view people have of Lamarckism that anything epigenitic is Lamarckism. Reading the Wiki article I found this excerpt:

Also in 2015, Adam Weiss argued that bringing back Lamarck in the context of epigenetics is misleading, commenting, "We should remember [Lamarck] for the good he contributed to science, not for things that resemble his theory only superficially.

If someone is gestaded during a famine state, their metabolism is altered. They have higher risk of hyperglycemia. That is not use of a trait and it is not something passed from parent to child. It’s none of Lamarckism, genetics, or epigenitics. It’s response to environment.

Lamarckism is the idea that a parent passes traits to its offsprings based on use or disuse of the trait. There is no support for this in genetics or epigenitics. Epigenitics deals with stably heritable traits based on by a mechanism other than DNA. It doesn’t pertain to whether a trait is used or disused.

People had similar responses to the ideas of negative numbers and irrational numbers when they were identified. There’s a story that a follower of Pythagoras was drown for identifying irrational numbers. I suspect it’s not true, but certainly it seems people had a hard time grasping the concept.

I doubt it accounts for much, but a lot of authors pay up front now for open access. If the majority of authors did that, then subscriptions wouldn’t make sense for most people. I don’t think it’s anywhere near the majority of publications now though.

You have no idea what your talking about. It is not and never was a compound word of wife and man. The word wif meant the same thing as the modern day word woman. The word wifman was a compound word that would be translated into modern English as woman-person, with the exact same meaning as woman is used to today. It had nothing at all to do with being married. I’ve read the comment chain, where you say, repeatedly, that the word woman originates with a meaning related to marriage. It doesn’t, at all. You do not understand what you are reading.

“Wif = wife / man = mankind. Literally the wif of men”

It meant no such thing, ever. Wif didnt mean wife when this word was created. It meant what we now mean by the word woman. And the word wifman in today’s language would mean woman-person. It’s right there in the article you linked that you are unable to understand, or quite possibley, chose to misunderstand.

Yeah buddy. That doesn’t say it means or has ever meant wifeman. Woman has always, from its first use up to now, meant a female human. So you read things and then interpret them as having whatever meaning you like?

I like that you call some nonsense about woman meaning wifeman an “exchange of ideas”. It’s utter nonsense, so in what sense is it an idea - that you thought of it? Or have you been reading “A history of English words for people with preconceived notions”?

The article points out that there are not large differences in leniency between judges appointed by different presidents, and that, if anything, judges appointed by Republicans are harsher.