People will keep having kids even if most of them will die

“even if”? Biologically, knowing that most of your offspring are going to die is a reason to have as many kids as possible.

Never skip wheel day

I’m anti-imperialist and pro-metricist.

How did you manage to mix Putin into this one?

It’s PHP - no matter how you’d learn it, the code would still be awful.

Maybe you haven’t met the right cream yet?

No. You love cream. That’s a different thing.

These are not good boys

You are being excommunicated for resisting excommunication!

That’s the beauty of religion - if our gods and prophets did not materialize to contradict what we are saying in their name, that means they approve.

I see you take after your dad.

Downvoting in order to bring it below @whynot’s comment.

Counterargument: Luke Skywalker.

Sounds like English vs Vikings all over again

Looney Tunes fans looking at Bugs all day

I don’t think you quite grasp the meaning of the word “focus”…

No. Japan is a democracy now. This lil guy is just a figurehead.

Just because you refuse to learn anything from this doesn’t mean there is nothing to be learned. I, for one, have got one important actionable insight from these replies: they prioritize having a strong president more than having a president that aligns with their values.

Trump radiates strength. You may say it’s fake strength, that it’s just the aggressiveness of his narcissism, but it doesn’t matter - he is perceived as strong, and that’s his main weapon, his number one selling point. Look at his his announcements and listen to what his supporters say - the main focus is on depicting him as strong and his opponents as weak. Policies are an afterthought.

Republican voters wanting a strong Republican president is a no-brainer, but the thing that really surprised me is Democrat leaning voters (Democrat enough to vote for AOC, at least) preferring a strong Republican president because he’s strong. I find it counterintuitive - if you’re going to have to live under the opponent party’s rule, shouldn’t you prefer a weak president that would be less forceful when implementing these policies that you disagree with?

This insight does shine a new light on some well known points. For example - Biden and Harris received lots of fire for supporting Israel. This always seemed weird to me - wouldn’t Trump, if elected, support Israel so much harder? But this new insight make it all make (twisted) sense. If - or, actually, now we can say “when” - Trump as a president will support Israel it will be an act of strength because it aligns with the Republican values he represents. When Biden did it, it was against Democratic values and therefore perceived as weakness - as surrendering to pressure.

Or, more importantly - I keep seeing (mainly here on Lemmy) claims that the Democratic party lost these elections because they did not go left enough. With this new insight, I think the problem is not that they didn’t go left enough, but that they didn’t go hard enough. It doesn’t matter where on the political spectrum you are aiming to be - you should be as forceful and as assertive as possible when going there. This is something Obama had in spades. This is what the Democrats need if they want to win the next elections.

Still more regular than randomized data.

Okay, but since real menstrual cycles are typically highly regular - wouldn’t it be fairly easy to filter out the fake ones?