It is true that women are more likely to report sexual assault(these days) than men. But the differences aren't tremendously dramatic. Google scholar is being awful and not helping me find the study, but I seem to recall it was in the neighborhood of 30% for women and more like 20% for men.

That's a dramatic enough difference to be quite concerned about how we treat male sexuality, but not so much as to cover the differences seen here.

And that's a recurring problem in these discussions. That the sexists will imagine a strawman version of the methodology in order to dismiss it. Strawmanning these kinds of concerns is one of two tools in their toolbox. The other is "ignore this, there's [other vaguely comparable problem] so it's balanced" as if the correct thing to do isn't addressing both issues.

No, it's the fucking denialism makes you guilty.

"Oh they must be mismeasuring, because the results challenge my assumptions!" is not a hallmark of rationalism.

Well, the real truth is that some of the best predictors of adult success, as far as parenting practices are concerned, is simply time spent together in infancy and early childhood.

Those other things are almost all certainly good ideas, but it mostly comes down to parental engagement.

(sufficiently disengaged parents are thought to be one of the primary causes of psychopathy)

It helps if you don't live in some sprawled out suburban hellscape devoid of both nature and culture, like the kinds of places people who think minecraft is good for kids think is good for raising kids.

Hell, I just did some newly published online "training" for my giant employer, and they made direct reference to their second life island in the AD 20 fucking 14.

Uh, yes, it's totally creative. It doesn't actively encourage creativity, but it still lets you make things, and you absolutely see children making "roller coasters" or interesting architecture, or sometimes even some light pixel art.

It's like calling legos "not creative" because you can use your imagination with action figures too. It's not radically creative, but it's a little more creative than most games.

Creativity is one important skill children need to develop. I think this kind of effusive praise willfully ignores that sometimes these activities can and do take the place of other important childhood activities in some cases.

And that brings me to how I kind of lament the lack of textual information in modern games. I learned a rather large amount of reading(and vocabulary) skills by trying to understand what games were saying as a child.

The universality of voice acting harms how much children can develop by reading.

Way back in the now closed Sarkeesian thread, you made the claim that she made up the threats and that there was no police report.

Since this has now been proven to be a factually incorrect statement... I want to know if being objectively wrong about Sarkeesian causes you to reevaluate your views. Or whether you'll just drift over to a new excuse.

It almost seems like an accident, though. They need to move to HTML5 because Microsoft supports its technologies like high school students support their relationships.

It's just a coincidence that HTML5 also broadens deployment targets a little.

They'll go back to DRM because they can make it so they have the only music store on many peoples' phones and tablets. No choice in vendor, helping insure they get their music from apple, then no choice in players so they must buy apple devices to listen to iTunes music. It's not a cornered market, but purposeful vendor lock-in isn't exactly unheard of.

I have no idea where you might live where there is no only one, but multiple, local hardware stores. I remember when the last non-Bigbox hardware store in the county I grew up in vanished.

And I don't even like tools.

Well, considering the two of them ran all the small local hardware stores out of business, enjoy shopping at Lowes, instead.

Some people associate autodiadicism with overconfidence that proper education doesn't cause to same degree.

If I have a problem with US intelligence organizations(and I do), it's that their mission transformed from being pragmatic and getting useful, accurate assessments to military and law enforcement branches in the US to being paranoid about the theoretical possible threats that might exist to US interests in some way shape or form.

That paranoia fuels some of the worst excesses, like universal monitoring, or toppling democracies that might potentially ally with other nations.