psycotica0

Science is great, and gathering data on things that confirms what we already believe isn’t a waste, but I think this paper is presenting itself as more surprising than it ought to…

The study shatters the outdated myth that vaginal penetration is the primary driver of female pleasure.

Literally my entire life I’ve heard this. From, like, everyone that talks about sexuality at all. And we already have studies that say only like 30% of women orgasm from penetration (quoted off my recollection, I don’t have a citation handy). So this is fine, more different data is fine, but this myth has been beaten dead for like 50 years.

I did like the part where they talked about how more orgasms with a partner is more satisfying, but more orgasms solo is instead a symptom of less satisfaction. And similarly, more variety in activities with a partner is a positive sign, but more variety solo is instead a sign of “desperation” almost. That makes intuitive sense, I’m not surprised by that, but having data to back up the intuition is nice.

I think the real novel value here is the part where they talk about women having trouble with partners where they feel pressured to perform, and so much more relaxed and comfortable by themselves. Not surprising, makes sense, but that feels like interesting insight that could have further study.

Similar to others here, but slightly different: start with what you’re most excited about. There’ll be some shitty parts where you’re confused and frustrated, and if you feel like you’re just doing something you’re “supposed to do”, it can feel like a job for no pay. Pick something you have an inner thrill for, and maybe that fire can carry you through the dark.

Well, I do other stuff, like I’m riding my bike in the park, and this policewoman says, “Oi! You can’t ride your bike on the grass.” And I go, “Oh no?”, and her uniform falls off, and she goes “Aaaah!”, and she’s trying to cover up, but I’ve seen everything anyway, and I get on my bike and ride off. On the grass.

Sure, but now we don’t do that, so we’re better. The best, in fact! We solved discrimination! Good job, boys and girls! (But just those two…)

/s

Yeah, like other people covered, it’s unfortunate but also very important. It’s easy to tie “visible wifi networks” to “surprisingly precise location on globe” in many places, so the permission is named for the worst case scenario. Yes, the app might just be looking for a wifi, but it also could use that same information to locate you, so it’s the location permission. Sensible.

If they wanted to support just this one feature without requiring a location permission, they could maybe have an API that is “are you currently connected to this opaque token” API where the app can ask “am I connected” and is just told “yes” or “no”. That’s probably safe enough. And then I could register the app with my wifi without the app even knowing what my Wifi is, it just gets a unique but random string.

The same is true of bluetooth. If I can list nearby bluetooth, I can see that speaker and this TV and guess location. But there could be an API that hides that, there just isn’t currently

Someone could format it into essentially static pages and publish it on IPFS. That would probably be the easiest “decentralized hosting” method that remains browsable