 | YouTube is the number one video-sharing platform in the world with more than 95% of the internet population using it. It provides videos ranging from silly pranks, heartwarming stories, news about the latest global issues, people's personal interests, information about cutting edge science, genuine debates between people who disagree but want to understand each other, lies to serve a political agenda, the ramblings of mentally ill people and everything in between.
YouTube has an algorithm that focuses on overall audience satisfaction, over providing people with a neutral, objective or balanced perspective on the world. It suggests videos based on how users with similar viewing patterns to your own reacted. It personalizes its recommendations based on channels to which you’ve already subscribed. This poses a risk of limiting people's access to information, that they didn't know they would have wanted to know.
I created this topic to exchange informative and educational videos with other people, who might have been algorithmically limited to other content than I am myself. I do suggest to limit this topic to informative and educational content, because there are already enough other topics for fun and questionable stuff.
Although politics and climate change can be categorized as informative and educational, there are already enough other topics debating politics and climate change. Science in general isn't political, neither is (or should) philosophy. Religion is associated with politics, but honest debates on this topic are not political, in my opinion. If you think these subjects are all terribly boring, I don't agree, but then this topic is not for you. That's OK. |
but it saddens me more that I must agree.
I hope to never need it either, but the future isn't bright.
creates a self-fulfilling prophecy.
I see you live in the US, but in The Netherlands, people who become fascinated
by gun videos would be a source of concern to their families.
I just learned the reason wood is pinching my blade, the rising plate is missing! i rebuilt both of my table saws from salvage units and didn't realize it was missing. off to ebay i go to find 1.
Personally, I don't have a table saw. I let the Hardware store cut the wood for me, or I go to my brother, who has a professional table saw, for fabricating frames, doors and furniture.
But anyone who touches one, should watch your video first, at least.
The most important safety instruction for table saws, is to never lose your focus
on what you are doing. If you are too sleepy, sick or stressed out, better not use it, because that's when accidents happen.
"Don't get shot!" is knowledge that most people have.
Educational new article:
Has the Anthropocene Been Canceled?
by Ian Angus
Ian Angus illuminates the politics behind the decision by the International Union of Geological Sciences not to recognize the Anthropocene as a formal geological epoch. In recounting the debate, Angus explores how the organization undermined the conclusions of top scientists to oppose the establishment of the Anthropocene, and its implications for the public debate about the planetary crisis.
Link
only registered users can see external links
YouTube link
only registered users can see external links
--------------------------------------- added after 38 seconds
typo: written should be WIDEN
For billions of years, we had ice ages and warm ages. The holocene and pleistocene were just the last ones. We should be heading towards an ice age, but the earth is warming. That is now called the Anthropocene. Denying it is political, not scientific.
I have to be unbiased.
/ˈanTHrəpəˌsēn/
adjective
adjective: Anthropocene
relating to or denoting the current geological age, viewed as the period during which human activity has been the dominant influence on climate and the environment.
"we've become a major force of nature in this new Anthropocene epoch"
noun
noun: Anthropocene
the current geological age, viewed as the period during which human activity has been the dominant influence on climate and the environment.
"some geologists argue that the Anthropocene began with the Industrial Revolution"
Yes, we know. There were interchanging ice ages and warm periods, that scientists have several levels of evidence for. I will not go into all the evidence now, I will just mostly talk about the periods.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The first hot period of earth was 2 billion years long. That's when the earth was formed and after a collision with another planet, leaving it extremely hot, and creating the moon from the rubble in orbit colliding. The average temperature is estimated to be 160–210 °F (70–100 °C). It had intense volcanism, frequent asteroid impacts, and a dense greenhouse atmosphere (mainly CO₂, methane, and water vapor).
[The earliest signs of life are chemical signatures, microbial fossils, and geological structures, aging between 3.5 and 4.2 billion years ago. The earliest widely accepted, or "strong" evidence for life comes from microbial fossils found in rocks in Western Australia that are approximately 3.48 billion years old. This evidence consists of fossilized structures called 'stromatolites', which are layered rock formations created by communities of microorganisms.]
[Before the Great Oxidation Event, the sun was significantly less luminous. The planet was kept warm by an atmosphere rich in methane, a greenhouse gas many times more powerful than CO2.]
During the Great Oxidation Event (about 2.4 to 2.1 billion years ago), the emergence of photosynthetic cyanobacteria introduced free oxygen into the atmosphere. This triggered a chain of events that drastically reduced atmospheric methane concentrations. This resulted in the first ice age, during the Paleoproterozoic Era, called the Huronian glaciation "Snowball Earth".
During "Snowball Earth", there were less bacteria able to use photosynthesis, but there were already bacteria that could use oxygen. There was even some more complex life, like sponges. The periods of low oxygen, then the influx of oxygen from photosynthesis devastating anaerobic life, then ice covering the oceans and making photosynthesis hard, and the ice cap closing off the oceans lowering oxygen again, all forced life to constantly evolve.
After 300 million years, in local pockets of oxygen-rich water, newly adapted aerobic microbes, early eukaryotic cells and methanogenic microbes (converting hydrogen and carbon dioxide into methane and water), together with volcanic activity, the ice melted. It exposed darker surfaces (ocean and rock) that absorbed more solar heat, further accelerating the warming. This created a runaway greenhouse effect that rapidly ended the deep freeze.
The geological record immediately following the glaciation is marked by distinctive cap carbonates, layers of rock that indicate a sudden and drastic shift from extreme cold to a period of intense greenhouse warming. This "hothouse" phase was short-lived on a geologic timescale, as the increased weathering from the newly exposed land eventually helped draw down CO2 levels, allowing the climate to stabilize once again.
The end of the post-Huronian hothouse marked the beginning of a long period of planetary stability known as the "boring billion," which lasted until about 720 million years ago.
Life was then still mostly confined to the oceans and still consisted mostly of microscopic organisms. Life existed only on the edges of land near water, as bacteria and algae formed extensive mats in shallow marine environments. There was some forms of complex life, such as seaweed.
Then the Earth completely froze over again, the second "Snowball Earth" event, called the Sturtian glaciation. It was likely caused by a combination of factors. Continental breakup (the supercontinent Rodinia began breaking apart around 750 million years ago). This triggered large-scale erosion of newly exposed continental rocks. Weathering processes consume atmospheric carbon dioxide. A period of unusually low volcanic activity, further reducing the amount of CO2 being released into the atmosphere, contributing to the cooling effect.
Life continued to exist in deep ocean hydrothermal vents and possibly in meltwater pools or thin areas of sea ice.
The Sturtian glaciation, which occurred from approximately 717 to 660 million years ago, ended due to an extreme buildup of volcanic carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Weathering of rock was suppressed, because of the ice.
The CO2 concentration reached extremely high levels, perhaps as much as 350 times present-day levels. This trapped an immense amount of heat, eventually overwhelming the ice's high albedo (reflectivity) and causing the planet to thaw.
Afterwards the CO2 plunged Earth into a period of intense heat. The post-Sturtian hothouse, was caused by a "supergreenhouse" climate. Earth's average global temperatures were extremely high, with some estimates suggesting average global temperatures soared to around 122°F (50°C). This period was eventually brought to an end by accelerated silicate weathering, which removed large amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere. The climate did not settle into a long, stable warm period but eventually slipped into the next major "Snowball Earth" event.
Marinoan Glaciation (around 650–635 million years ago).
Then Ediacaran Period (635–541 million years ago): A warmer, more stable period followed the Marinoan glaciation, allowing for the diversification of the first complex, multicellular organisms.
Paleozoic Icehouse (around 450–420 million years ago): A brief but intense glacial period during the Ordovician and Silurian periods, likely caused by a combination of continental drift and plant evolution pulling CO2 from the atmosphere. This the first time that life on land acted on the climate, instead of only the land (silicate weathering) itself.
Devonian Period, a "greenhouse" period (420-360 million years ago). The continents were first colonized by small plants and arthropods, but by the end of the period, the first forests had appeared, and the first vertebrates began to emerge from the water. The iconic Archaeopteris, a progymnosperm, grew into large trees with conifer-like trunks and fern-like leaves. It formed the first forests, with some trees reaching heights of 30 meters (98 feet). Other significant groups that appeared included lycophytes (clubmosses), horsetails, and ferns. By the end of the period, the first seed-bearing plants had also evolved, enabling them to reproduce more easily away from water. The increasing plant life, with its new root systems and decaying organic matter, created the first true soils, fundamentally changing the landscape. Animal fossils from this period include mites, spiders, scorpions, and myriapods (relatives of centipedes and millipedes). The oldest known insect fossils also date to the Early Devonian.
CO2 levels dropped steeply throughout the Devonian, partly due to the expansion of land plants, which sequestered carbon.
Late Paleozoic Icehouse (around 360–260 million years ago): This long icehouse included the Carboniferous and Permian periods and was characterized by lower atmospheric CO2. Unlike the "Snowball Earth" events of the Cryogenian period, the Late Paleozoic Icehouse was not a period of complete global glaciation. Regions closer to the equator, such as what is now North America and Europe, remained moist and tropical. These areas were dominated by vast rainforests, which later became the coal beds for which the Carboniferous period is named.
Mesozoic Hothouse (around 251–66 million years ago): A warm, ice-free period, primarily caused by high levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, which trapped heat and drove global temperatures approximately 11 to 16°F (6 to 9°C) warmer than it is today. It was the era of the dinosaurs.
Approximately 66 million years ago, a 10-kilometer-wide asteroid struck Earth in the Yucatán Peninsula, creating the 200-kilometer-wide Chicxulub crater. The impact contributed to the mass extinction with global wildfires, massive earthquakes and tsunamis and extreme acid rain. The immediate effects were devastating, but the longer-term environmental consequences proved fatal for most life on Earth. The impact ejected immense amounts of dust, debris, and ash into the atmosphere, creating a thick, planet-encircling shroud. This blocked sunlight from reaching Earth's surface for months or even years. The blockage of solar energy caused global temperatures to plummet. Some studies indicate that average global temperatures dropped by as much as 47°F (26°C). It's important to distinguish this event from the long ice ages driven by changes in Earth's orbit and atmospheric gases. The impact winter was a brief but catastrophically intense event that happened over years, not millions of years.
After the devastation, life entered a new era of opportunity and recovery, leading to the rapid diversification of surviving groups. The disappearance of the dinosaurs left many ecological niches vacant, which paved the way for mammals and other organisms to flourish.
Cenozoic Icehouse (around 34 million years ago to present): Earth's current climatic state, characterized by polar ice sheets and glacial cycles. It was initiated by tectonic shifts that caused the formation of the Antarctic Circumpolar Current and the uplift of mountain ranges, increasing weathering and pulling CO2 from the atmosphere.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I now described the whole of Earths history in which the climate fluctuated over billions of years, hundreds of millions of years and tens of millions of years, due to geological effects on greenhouse gasses, combined with very long term effects of primitive life that did not evolve into a stable ecosystem. The climate of Earth was dominated by those early geological effects, that have mostly come to rest now.
Today's biosphere plays a powerful role in regulating the climate through the carbon cycle. Plants and soil act as important carbon sinks, taking in CO2, while other biological processes release it.
In summary, the transition from geological to biological dominance of climate was a long, complex, and chaotic process. Early life repeatedly caused catastrophic climate changes, showing a lack of stabilizing feedback. It was the evolution of more complex, integrated ecosystems over billions of years that led to the kind of biological balance we see today, though this balance is now being rapidly disrupted by human activity.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modern Ice Ages (last 2.6 million years to present): A series of glacial and warmer interglacial periods driven by Milankovitch cycles (Earth's orbital variations). We are currently in a warmer interglacial period. Those periods are not measured in billions of years, hundreds of millions of years and tens of millions of years.
These cycles of glacial advance and retreat have occurred approximately every 100,000 years.
Last Glacial Period (c. 115,000 to 11,700 years ago): The most recent major cold period saw massive ice sheets cover much of North America, Europe, and Asia.
Current interglacial: Holocene Epoch (11,700 years ago to present).
This is the warm, stable interglacial period we live in today, following the retreat of the last great ice sheets.
The whole evolution of humans into a civilization has been going on in this stable interglacial period. All of the history, with extreme cold and extreme heat has been occurring at a pace of about 1000 times slower than the 'Modern Ice Ages', which
by itself are 10 times slower than the complete history of human civilization.
Still, our effect on the Earth increased, due to our CO2 emissions. The population around 1600 AD was approximately 545 to 579 million people. Then around around 1610 AD, there was a sharp, short-lived dip in global CO2 levels, called the "Orbis spike" caused by the Great Dying, the massive depopulation of Indigenous peoples
in the Americas due to European colonization, disease, and conflict. The resulting reforestation of former agricultural lands absorbed significant amounts of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
Scientists can measure this very accurately, with Antarctic ice core sampling,
because it's such recent history on a geological timescale. The CO2 concentration dropped from 285 ppm to below 275 ppm. This effect is pinpointed as the start of
the Anthropocene epoch, because it allows science to clearly measure the effect
of human activity.
only registered users can see external links
Scientists can also clearly measure the effect of the Industrial Revolution, starting around 1800 AD. The Ice core analysis clearly shows the massive CO₂ increase from fossil fuels. The global average CO2 concentration in 1800 AD was approximately 280 ppm. By 1850 the CO2 concentration was 290 ppm and by 1900 it was 295.7 ppm. By 1950, the CO2 concentration start to accelerate. It was 310 ppm on 1950, but the next 50 years it rose to 369 ppm. We are now in 2025 and the CO2 concentration today is 426.24 ppm.
The last time the CO2 concentration was over 425 ppm was roughly 3 million years ago during the Mid-Pliocene Warm Period. Humans created that in 75 years.
Humans are a biological organism. If we emit CO2, which is changing the climate,
that is just as valid of an 'epoch' as when primitive microorganisms emitted O2, causing the Great Oxidation Event (about 2.4 to 2.1 billion years ago).
There is nothing political to any of this, this is just science.
If there are now pressures to cancel the Anthropocene as a recognized epoch,
that in my opinion is political, which is why I cannot discuss it here,
because I would be violating my own terms of this topic.
I honestly don't know what he means by normal and honestly don't find articles like this complicated. All you need is English reading skills and ability to concentrate for a few minutes.
But TOO complicated? For what? It's not 'rocket science'.
This is what ChatGPT says about its complexity.
Elementary School (Grades K–5)
Level: Basic conceptual understanding
Focus: Observations and simple cause-effect ideas
Explanation Level: Students can understand that the Earth’s temperature can change over time.
They learn simple ideas like “the Sun warms the Earth,” “plants and animals depend on certain temperatures,” and “pollution can make the air dirty and affect the planet.”
Teachers might introduce the greenhouse effect as a “blanket” that keeps Earth warm.
Middle School (Grades 6–8 )
Level: Intermediate understanding — introduction to systems
Focus: Earth systems and feedback loops
Explanation Level: Students can begin to understand greenhouse gases (like CO₂ and methane) and how they trap heat.
They’re introduced to the carbon cycle (how carbon moves between air, water, plants, animals, and rocks).
Geological history can be introduced as “Earth has had warmer and colder periods in the past” — e.g., ice ages, volcanic activity, and asteroid impacts.
Can handle simple charts showing CO₂ and temperature correlations over time.
High School (Grades 9–12)
Level: Advanced — systems-level understanding
Focus: Quantitative and process-based reasoning
Explanation Level: Students can study the greenhouse effect in detail (infrared absorption, radiation balance, albedo).
They learn geologic time scales and how events like volcanic eruptions, continental drift, and mass extinctions affected global climate.
Biological feedbacks (e.g., photosynthesis lowering CO₂, ocean acidification) can be explored.
Students may look at data analysis: ice core records, CO₂ trends, isotopic evidence of past temperatures.
College Level (Undergraduate Earth Science, Environmental Science, or Geology)
Level: Full systems complexity
Focus: Interdisciplinary, modeling, and quantitative analysis
Explanation Level: Students learn about climate modeling, paleoclimate reconstruction, plate tectonics and CO₂ cycles, Milankovitch cycles, and biogeochemical feedbacks.
They can integrate geological, chemical, and biological processes to understand Earth’s long-term temperature regulation.
Understand how greenhouse gases, biological productivity, and tectonic activity jointly determine Earth’s average temperature.
What we are discussing is at maximum High School level.
How often does a person use Shakespeare in daily life for example? Or i could fart in a jar and eat tofu and drink spring water and the air i breath will still be polluted from Canadian forest fires. nothing i can really do for it so why worry about it or study about it?
You know,something useful,like how to build a better bridge or something?
Everything you link to is complicated literature or words that folks have to google to just know what they mean.
Moreover, I posted a good Bridge, as you call it. I repeat it:
---
Ian Angus illuminates the politics behind the decision by the International Union of Geological Sciences not to recognize the Anthropocene as a formal geological epoch. In recounting the debate, Angus explores how the organization undermined the conclusions of top scientists to oppose the establishment of the Anthropocene, and its implications for the public debate about the planetary crisis.
---
This says it all. It's about a geological period, the current one, and how some people don't recognise it. When you read this blurb you immediately recognise what the article is about. When you read the article you get more information. Pretty straightforward.
Also, you have the option not to read.
'How It's Made', 'MythBusters', 'Dirty Jobs', car shows, creativity competition shows, many home renovation shows, cooking and baking shows, some traveling shows, some gameshows, a little bit of sports occasionally (Formula 1, snooker, darts) and some business shows (mostly on BNR radio during commuting). And on Youtube, several gaming channels.
I just like a lot of things that might be less 'normal' for most people, like discussions
on religion, politics, economics and philosophy (specializing on logical reasoning)
and developments in science in many fields, but not all.
I just want to know how the universe and the world works.
It's also goal of self improvement, and to improve the world around me.
it's like he has no curiosity adventure seeking in his gut. Has poor ol leo ever changed a light bulb or does he call his landlord at 2 am?
I haven't had any adventures in a long time. and like i mentioned before, i don't know if i can trust anyone to ever go that far again after my past experiences. i know i am missing out and i am sure leo would fill me in on what, but some of our discussions here are NOT sex related and that was where i was going with my statement.
this is a application i am glad to see 3d printing used for.
The Insane Influencer Logic That Tricked Millions of People
only registered users can see external links
Another class in learning how to recognize when people are lying to you.
It was a treasure trove of logical reasoning errors.
I only like carrots raw in farmer salade. It's what we call bread salade with thin strips
of white cabbage, carrot and celery.
--------------------------------------- added after 3 hours
I'm not allowing that political discussion here. This topic is about science and education, not about politics.
Estofado de carne is a dish of meat and vegetables cooked in a closed pot over low heat until tender, allowing flavors to meld. The meat is seasoned and browned, then covered with soup and water and simmered with vegetables for at least 25 minutes. Some say the neck and pecho (breast) cuts are ideal for estofado because they become tender and juicy during slow cooking. To make the meat even more tender, you can add a bit of aguardiente to the estofado
but the next one is more effective in manipulating people, with more damaging results:
"Cancer is the body's healing mechanism"
only registered users can see external links
For phart: the carrot nonsense debunking was level 1.
This is level 2, in helping you 'understand how folks steer YOU'.
It makes me so angry when I find people like this jerk using their influence to make his money/ fame on the shoulders of those clutching to any hope at all.
Chemo, if i was at that point,after seeing it's affects on quality of life, i am not so sure i could go thru with it, i would ask for quality time,not longer time.
No one at the distance from your life as we are, even if we might think we got to know you pretty well, has the right to tell you how you should deal with this situation. I can't imagine what you are feeling, but I'm here to listen or offer some input/ideas from a logical problem solving perspective or some medical/scientific knowledge.
There are a lot of snake-oil salesmen and disinformation peddlers in the world, and they are causing great damage to humanity. My parents were one of the many people who were victimized by big banks, who used their credibility to push share lease constructions. These were fraudulent products that could never benefit the customer, but created big profits for the banks. My parents lived in financial hardship and stress for a decade, but they finally won their class action lawsuit and were compensated.
I was too young when they got scammed into it, but I helped them with the legal research. I even found a contract violation that the lawyer overlooked. It's was a factor in their favorable judgment. This has been part of my political development and taking an interest in recognizing deception. I'm always harping about fallacies, because I see the damage of deception to society. If I knew about your sorrow, I would have picked another example.
She looks hot in that 'uniform'. Still, the name of the restaurant is a bit misleading.
It doesn't really deliver on what it's advertising.
which is also related to their attractiveness.
It seems to be your opinion that all women should be willing to monetize their looks,
at least to some extend, if they have the assets to do so. Am I correct?
Do you think that there is something wrong with them, if they don't like that?
Do you think that women are defective somehow, if they don't like attention to their
sexual attractiveness, from customers or co-workers? That would be strange for me, considering you come from a country full of extremist Christians, with very puritanical beliefs, who are generally more allied with your side of politics than mine.
Or is it your opinion that all employers should be able to monetize the looks of their employees, by picking a dress-code that enhances their sexual attractiveness?
Personally, I'm not a fan of prudishness, but I think that a society should respect personal beliefs, as long as people don't force them onto others. In the case of women, that is related to their own choice in how much they want to advertise their sexual attractiveness. They should not be forced to do anything else than what they choose for themselves. If women want any attention to their sexual attractiveness in the workplace, they should have the freedom to chose from multiple employers, to dress the way they want, within reason. Employers should of course be free to have standards for employees being representational, within a broad societal standard.
“True freedom is a balance between all our individual desires and the common good.”
A woman cashing in on her looks to me should be a option if they so choose and I am glad not all are snobs.
And frankly, instead of women hollaring they can't get a job, perhaps they need to look in a mirror and realize, hey, i look good, people want to see me, i can make money, instead of whining and pissing and moaning and wanting governemtn help.
a purpose. If they don't, the demands should be minimized to employees being representational, within a broad societal standard. Many employees are not dealing with customers. As long as employees maintain collegiality, there is no reason for employers to take even more of our personal freedoms away.
Are only women "hollaring they can't get a job"? Do only women need to look in the mirror? Are only good looking people allowed to make money? Why would women more than men be whining and pissing and moaning and wanting government help?
They are already better educated than men in the US. They want to be useful.
They want to be valued for their skills and actions. Their body is not for everyone.
The funny thing is that if a woman actually does achieve something, you accuse them of having used sex to get what she has. They need to walk a tight rope, to please you.
I'm expecting some MAGA chick to suck and fuck herself to the top and you happily voting her in for president.
The video is illustrating women can improve their personal wealth with little to no $ investment, by wearing scant clothing accenting their natural assets. In turn allowing them to afford and consume goods and services.
Biology, the study of living organisms, divided into many specialized fields that cover their morphology, physiology, anatomy, behavior, origin, and distribution.
Her scant clothing will encourage males to alter their behaviors to gain access to her anatomy for further study, which could affect reproduction and distribution of humans.
Sociology, the study of the development, structure, and functioning of human society.
Her scant clothing could lead to human interaction and eventual reproduction, in turn changing the structures and functioning of human society.
But why would they let there employer use their sexual attraction for their employer's advantage? Is it mutually beneficial enough for them to agree to that? Is it beneficial to women in general, for them to want employers to benefit from benefiting from their sexual attraction?
Men are at a disadvantage here. There are way less jobs for men to use their sexual attraction to their advantage. I would expect you to not like that.
Personally, I see it as a freedom of expression. However, that freedom of expression should be actually free. If there are only a few places like Hooters, with specific branding, that provides enough freedom for women to chose, but I am against allowing this dress code for all restaurants, or for women's sports. It should not be exploited and it should not limit women in doing what they want to do, if they don't want to market their sexual attraction, or have it exploited, simultaneously.
I'm not against prostitution or porn either, as long as women are free to chose
and they are not exploited.
I'm not sure if Hooters, prostitution or porn are contributing to 'reproduction and distribution of humans', because it could also just encourage solitary relief, but I'm indifferent to that effect, because I think that there are already more than enough humans on this planet. It's possible that the population of humanity has exceeded
the long-term carrying capacity of its environment. It's resulting in the collapse of the environment's life-support systems, followed by a population crash. To microbio-
logists this is known as the death-phase.
I'll give you a chance to argue against anything I said here, but let's not make it too political. I think it's still just bordering on sociology.
You made an educational point out of a good looking woman saying she doesn't mind working for an employer that asks her to wear revealing clothes. OK, lots of other good looking women don't mind shaking their booties on Onlyfans or even getting their holes torn apart and their faces covered in seminal fluid on Onlyfans.
I hear it can be very financially rewarding. Is it therefore required?
Other women prefer to be respected for their minds and don't like wearing revealing clothes. It was a stretch to make something educational out of these sociological issues.
you can't change that aspect of women, they can be the meanest ,evilest beings on earth during that time. their mind is in orbit
I think your personal experience with women are clouding your judgment.
In my experience, women are not much different than men, to deal with.
Also in leadership. One of the worst supervisors I ever had was a woman,
but the best I ever had too. I had good male supervisors and I had bad male supervisors. In the end, I learned just as much from my female supervisors
as from my male supervisors. I work just as well with female coworkers as males.
I have had more arguments with stupid men, than with stupid women.
If you look at damage to humanity and causing suffering, men have women beat by miles. Their selfishness, narcissism, aggression and cruelty makes men more evil than women in my opinion. Because women have evolved to care for children, they are more selfless, empathic and gentle than men.
New Comment Go to top