This one’s not quite CS but oh well. Spell check - After a series of unfortunate accidents at the magical university, all novel spells must be submitted to the administration in writing to ensure their safety before first casting.

Root access - Access to the Underdark druid communication network, which is transmitted through a continent-wide system of interconnected tree roots.

Command: Line - A creative use of the command spell that forces an affected creature to spend their turn forming or waiting in an orderly line.

Neural net - The system of control used by an elder brain to control and coordinate illithids under its influence.

Other than the Iraq war I’m not aware of any of this and I can’t really find any information, you don’t have any links by chance, do you?

So are you just speculating here or is there some evidence for this?

It’s certainly not true that the government produces conflicting reports on every topic.

My time to shine! Most have already been posted but here are a few more niche ones.

!treehuggers@slrpnk.net

!nolawns@slrpnk.net

!foraging@lemm.ee

Have you tested your soil pH? Blueberries often won’t grow well except in very acidic soil. Sulphur can help at the margin but it won’t turn a fully alkaline soil acidic. They also prefer good drainage, which it sounds like you may not have. Adding organic material to the planting hole can make drainage issues worse because the good drainage in the hole simply becomes an underground puddle when the water reaches the un-amended soil below. It’s better to cover the soil with organic material and allow it to incorporate naturally (or you can do light tillage to work it in at the beginning, but this doesn’t work well after things have been planted. It also damages the existing soil structure). I would add some compost over the whole planting area, then a thick layer of wood chips (at least 4 inches deep, but less at the base of the plants) to help keep the soil moist and cool. Also, remove those weeds since they are competing with your plants.

The other plants should be OK as long as they have enough moisture and drainage. It’s possible you aren’t watering enough as the soil looks fairly dry to me. You said you water once per week–how much volume? Newly planted things generally need more consistent moisture until the roots establish. It won’t matter if the deep soil is moist if the roots can’t reach there yet. Alternatively, it’s possible if you live in a wet climate and have poor drainage that once a week is too much. You want the soil around the roots to be moist but not soggy or drippy for more than a short period.

The first thing I always tell people when troubleshooting is the probe into the soil and get a sense of how wet or dry it is. Almost all plants prefer moist soil–not too wet, not too dry. Often too much moisture and not enough can cause similar symptoms, so it’s important to get a sense of what’s happening below ground before you change your watering strategy.

I mean… maybe. So was she? What did she accomplish between her presidential bids?

I recently heard a phrase I really like: “Vote with your protest boots on”. Because let’s face it—the Harris campaign will not do the right thing on their own. They need to be pressured until they have no other option. So vote but make sure that’s the least thing you are doing.

Trump will not do the right thing no matter what. It’s just not in his character, and his political coalition won’t allow it anyway. I expect attempts to pressure him will be met with extreme violence.

What’s the story here?

I agree. It’s technically true but intentionally misleading. That said, I think there are other, better examples to label as lies that don’t get into this gray area.

Climate change. Climate change. CLIMATE CHANGE!

Wake up, you stupid mother fuckers.

Biden wasn’t a sitting president though.

I mean technically all of human behavior is an automatic response of the nervous system. That doesn’t mean it’s not influenced by culture or personal experiences. What constitutes a threat is highly modified by your past experiences, and people can learn to behave differently in stressful environments. We don’t just completely turn off the brain when frightened, that’s nonsense.

I’m not sure this is generally true but if there was a difference it’d likely be due to social conditioning.

I read that but it also seems to indicate that she’s a third generation monarch in her family. Maybe it’s not officially hereditary but it’s a bit sus. Not to mention that monarchies are bad for reasons beyond their (typically) hereditary nature.

I also think the presidency is a harmful institution but I know most people aren’t there yet.

On the one hand, awesome to see young women having a role in leadership. On the other hand, monarchy is pretty much the worst form of government.

I just don’t think the evidence that supports this idea is very strong at all. Like maybe men on average did more hunting than women, but I haven’t seen any evidence to support this framing that women only hunted in times of need.

Unfortunately, it’s very difficult to know much for certain about the culture of prehistoric humans. But there is strong circumstantial evidence, like women buried with hunting implements, etc. which suggests that female hunters were prominent in at least some cultures.

I wouldn’t consider 9% to be that large in this context. Certainly a difference that would be overshadowed by individual variation.

Even if we assume women are physiologically 9% slower at persistence hunting (which that statistic is far from proving) it still suggests they could and likely were successful at it, albeit maybe not the very best.

No. They’ve got a really nice and chill leftist who just wants to help everyone that they’re repressing.

But that leftist, they’ve got an even smaller nazi inside of them.

I can’t believe so many people upvoted this comment. Do they just assume because there are lots of words and you referenced the original paper that this is a good critique? But I guess a lot of people just turn off their brain when they feel cognitive dissonance.

Do you know what a survey is? It’s not meant to be comprehensive, it’s supposed to be representative. Furthermore, it is based on existing ethnographic data, so it’s obviously not going to include data on tribes that are currently uncontacted, because there is little or none. The reasons why are obvious but since you don’t seem to understand, we can spell it out.

Conducting anthropological research on these tribes typically involves going to the tribe and living with, observing, and interviewing them for an extended period to fully understand their culture and way of life. This is not advisable with uncontacted tribes because it is dangerous for researchers and dangerous for the tribe which may lack exposure to endemic diseases in the rest of the world. It’s simply not done and I guarantee no ethics board would approve such research today.

Furthermore, it’s hilarious to suggest that the authors deliberately omitted cultures we know little about to reinforce their own agenda. How would they even know which tribes the exclude? And, as others have pointed out, even if all of these uncontacted tribes had only male hunting (a fact which would be highly surprising), it would barely change the conclusion here that in most forager societies, women engage in hunting.

Overall, this seems a very bad-faith critique. It’s good to delve into the science and examine whether a given paper was conducted in a sound way, but you need to approach it with an open mind, not just seek to undermine it with the simplest and most superficial criticism you can conceive of that supports your pre-existing position.

I agree that they overstated their point there. But regardless, I think it’s fair to say that any differences between men and women in these sports are fairly small, so I don’t think it changes the overall conclusion.