Hi, I’m Shauna! I’m a 37 year old transgender woman from Ontario, Canada. I’m also a Linux enthusiast, and a Web Developer by trade. Huge Star Trek fan, huge Soulsborne fan, and all-around huge nerd.

  • 0 Posts
  • 47 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 15th, 2023

help-circle

  • I’ve watched Sabine for awhile, she’s a really great science reporter who keeps things simple and pretty brief. Just a note though, I feel like she sometimes takes very skeptical and conservative views on some subjects where she doesn’t really have any expertise. It also makes me kind of uncomfortable how she seems to be obsessed with Elon Musk, she mentions him in basically every video.

    Despite all that, she’s pretty great, check her out, just keep in mind she talks about a lot of things she isn’t an expert in.





  • “These oddities keep getting swept under the rug, but the more we find, we’re going to have to come face-to-face with the fact that maybe our standard model needs rethinking,” said Lopez. “As a minimum it’s incomplete. As a maximum we need a completely new theorem of cosmology.”

    I find this line really funny. Anyone familiar with cosmology knows that most cosmologists agree that our current models are lacking. After all, that’s what dark matter and dark energy are, unknown variables in the current cosmological model. It seems odd to me then that they’re acting as though they’re a minority when most cosmologists agree, it’s just that the current model is the best one we have, so if you don’t want it “swept under the rug” then don’t just prove the old model wrong, make a new model that fits every observation.















  • Not only do I think this study is complete non-sense, but 3 other professors at the same journal published their comments and concerns with this study and how it’s being spread around as though it’s fact when in truth, the “science” in it is rubbish.

    Here’s a link to the article in PubMed: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37726582/
    PubMed unfortunately doesn’t have a transcript, but you can read the transcript here (or click on the link next to DOI in PubMed that I linked above): https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40279-023-01928-8

    Here’s TL;DR from the conclusion of the comment on the study is that the original study’s scientific basis is dubious at best, it hasn’t been properly peer reviewed, despite not being properly peer reviewed this article is being shared and used as a basis for shaping policies.

    And besides, even if the original study were true, wouldn’t transgender athletes would be winning at a rate higher than their prevalence in sports? Considering about 1% of people are transgender, they should win 1% of the time, but that doesn’t happen, because any advantage is entirely fictitious.

    And even if there was an advantage, there are lots of people who have a biological advantage. That’s just a part of sports that’s impossible to eliminate because we’re not all robots running on the exact same hardware and software.