Only slightly smaller than a regular pigeon, or at least the specimens I've seen are. Though one can never be certain with taxidermy...

Wise words.

It's obvious you've never actually ridden a bicycle in a busy city. I have to deal with drivers making lethal mistakes every single day I commute on two wheels. Given the number of idiotic drivers yacking on their phones I'd take my chances with half a pound of silicon any day of the week.

Incorrect.

My theory is they don't go into STEM because of asshats like you. When they do, they go into fields where asshats like you aren't welcome. For example, my workplace has a firm "no asshats" policy, and, guess what, lots of STEM women.

Not really, no. Gosh, I must be very silly.

Funny thing is, most UK cops I know are all set for this because their biggest problem is bullshit allegations against them, all of which must be investigated.

And your evidence for this is?

It's certainly true that a huge amount of repression of women is done by women (especially mothers). I'm sympathetic to arguments that there is a natural component to gender biases, but I really struggle to believe that they cause differences as large as those actually expressed. And we're certainly nowhere near understanding where nature stops and socialisation begins.

Do you have any evidence that men find it more appealing? Because I can find lots of evidence that women don't like putting up with your shit and frankly that seems a much simpler and likelier explanation.

No. Please take a couple of statistics courses, in particular something that covers a Bayesian approach, then come back and explain what's confusing you.

Well, because that would be making an assumption without any credible data to support it, whereas there is avast amount of accumulated evidence showing that women are treated like shit in most walks of life.

women^H^H^H^H^H people

FTFY

That has already happened in a number of places, including the London Met's trials, and is one of the main reason many rank and file officers are 100% in favour of cameras.

>> Take one set of data and produce two diametrically opposed answers and have them both correct?

You missed the point of the lesson. The point was that you didn't have enough data to demonstrate that your model was valid. That's all.