I suppose that's a good enough hand wave explanation.
I thought though, just purely for curiosities sake, that neurotransmitters are released by a voltage potential difference over some sort of gate caused by a flood of sodium ions (a chemical signal), and it's not just a matter of conducting current. That means the cyberware has to somehow attach inside the axon and on the outside, across the gate to create that voltage difference. And that's for one gate.
I feel like the more one thinks about this the more the name should be changed to 3077.
Jesus, that's the official Grokk AI persona that Musk surely personally approved of?! The one that has motifs that is supposed to invoke a very, very questionable age such as cheerleader-esque outfit, and pig-tails?
If someone told me that he was a PDF file, I wouldn't bat an eye at this point. No wonder he accued someone of being one during that Thailand cave ordeal.
I don't think so. It seems like a specific case that creates a guidance for courts to follow US agency's enforcement of a law, and that's no longer the case, but IANAL.
I'm using stare decisis in the general sense in that it's a quality of most western law systems, particularly US - past decisions and higher authorities take precedence.
But what happens when the highest authority makes bad-faith decisions?
That's the part that soooooo many people underestimate. There's a huge list of formerly "loyal" people who Trump tossed aside without a second thought. It's not political maneuvering after you put a crown on the man's head.
Also, these Lone Star Ticks have probably unironically had the most impact towards mitigating climate change than anything us humans have voluntarily tried so far.
This is like telling people that they are doing something wrong when they don't "buy low and sell high" when they're trading. Obviously. Issues with browser parity are born from a difficulty of the how and the when, not the what.
It's ironic that I use Firefox personally but unfortunately we prioritized Chrome when I did more front end work too. Firefox would often render views differently compared to Chrome (Safari was also a shetshow) and we had to prioritize work ofc, especially for legacy stuff.
The thing is, as a pure guess, I would bet that it's Chrome that's not adhering to the web standards.
Honestly I've come around more and more to bypassing the Democrat party.
Every time after we get ice cream hasn't changed the fact that our choice will always be between ice cream and driving off cliff until we eventually drive off the cliff. Either we drive off the cliff now or later, so maybe we should probably try to stop getting ice cream.
Well the claim was your's and I'm of the opinion that comparing who's hornier isn't a worthwhile endeavor.
Even if you take horniness to mean session frequency, why frequency, and why only that when there are also duration and intensity. There are also hard to quantify variables like met and unmet satisfaction. It could very well be that the integral of the product of all those variables over dt for all time ends up being close for all groups of people.
Differences are fine, but if those differences are a result of a very specific meaning, you should just that then than to potentially perpetuate an outdated and unhelpful stereotype.
I feel like you haven't provided any reasoning and evidence to support your opinion besides, "This is what I see from my perspective so that must be true at large."
It seems to me that you're implicitly defining horniess with a narrow interpretation of sex drive: how often people think about sex, which men very well may. To that I go back to my original point that using that to make claims is an outdated, overly simplistic, and lazy generalization. It's one that isn't very insightful and one that offers little utility.
That's an outdated, lazy, and inaccurate generalization.
Women are just as horny as men but straight women experience higher risks engaging in dating than gay men experience resulting in more caution and selectivity engagement.
Straight women who are able to have as much sex as they want tend to be those who are in stable, long-term relationships. The bottleneck is safety as a hard requirement for sex.
I suppose that's a good enough hand wave explanation.
I thought though, just purely for curiosities sake, that neurotransmitters are released by a voltage potential difference over some sort of gate caused by a flood of sodium ions (a chemical signal), and it's not just a matter of conducting current. That means the cyberware has to somehow attach inside the axon and on the outside, across the gate to create that voltage difference. And that's for one gate.
I feel like the more one thinks about this the more the name should be changed to 3077.