Sheepy

aye

Option E: all dogs.

I know, I was joking. However, it would be a great way of showing people why "trans people" should be used instead. "Oh, you don't like being called cispeople? Feels demeaning? So please use trans people, thanks."

How about "trans people" and "cispeople"?

And all the conservatives who "own guns to prevent guberment tyranny and fight oppression!!!" are also doing squat all.

The US is a bit FUBAR ain't it?

Now, what made you think a com dedicated to shitposting would be a place to ask for help with your attempt at vibecoding?

At least you didn't post it in FuckAI.

While there's definitely a distance at which you could teleport a durian at which it would form a cute micro-comet, it would be practically invisible. Comets are huge things, 100s of meters to kilometers across. The only way you'd be able to appreciate the durian micro-comet would be if you were right next to it. Conveniently, you'd also be able to appreciate the "you" micro-comet you'd form.

Are you winning so- oh. Uhh, would you prefer daughter, or maybe just child? Mom and I will still love you no matter what.

Oh yes, absolutely, that's another conclusion to draw from this paper. Exercise is still good for you, but it's not a means of losing weight.

And this is why I linked the article first instead of the paper.

The line you're quoting is the authors explaining they have a large enough sample size to detect differences. They could detect a 4.2% difference in their sampling of women with 97% confidence, at a 5% significance threshold. They are saying they are extremely confident they would be able to detect a difference, but didn't.

Well, the "vaguely summarised studies" were the answer to the exact issue you are raising. If that article was too long, then here's the paper itself:

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0040503

As it is even longer and even less approachable than the article, I will condense it even further: A group of Hanza, who are hunter-gatherers, had their metabolism measured. Under the commonly held assumption, group of people who spend their whole day travelling on foot, foraging and hunting, would consume more calories.

However, the study found they used and consumed the same amount of calories as any other group. They weren't more "efficient", they burned the same amount of energy walking as any other group. Even through the average distance the men travelled daily was 11km.

So yes, they do burn hundreds of calories every day walking, with a total daily calorie expenditure no different than somebody in the western world that has a 30 minute jog in the morning.

Oh buddy, if there's anyone that needs to "read up" on anything, it's not me.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-exercise-paradox/

The human body burns a set amount of calories every day. Your average man burns 2600 kcal a day, your average woman 1900. You exercised and burnt an extra 300 kcal? Great, your body will slow down in the evening to make up for it, or decrease its energy expenditure on random inflammations. Granted, if you're not active, and active in this sense is a very very low bar, you do burn less calories, about 200 less. So if you want to catch me on a technicality, go ahead.