Hooray two tiered legal system, huzzah!
/s/s/s
sp3ctr4l
joined 4 months ago
Autism is my superpower rofl.
Also good lord, 7 foot tall woman, sheesh.
I can only hope she doesn't have some kind of debilitating form of gigantism, I know a lot the all time world record holders for height had all kinds of horrendous health problems and died fairly young.
The average dude, by all global heights, not location/ethnicity specific...
Is 5' 10", 178cm.
Anna is still taller than 99.98%-99.99% of adult men.
She is literally off the charts by female metrics, she is one of the tallest women alive.
...
Yes, the photo is obviously done to play up the anomaly factor, but she is still a giant, even compared to an average man, nearly a whole foot taller.
Oh come on now, Quentin would certainly appreciate her feet and be more excited than that.
Actually, this OP image is interesting in another way:
Despite their massive height difference... I think 'short king's feet are still larger.
For Americans who have the height mode of their brain stuck in "Freedom Units":
Anna Smrek is roughly 6' 9"
'Short King' is roughly 5' 3"
...
For data nerds:
Going by total data for the whole globe, all people:
https://www.gigacalculator.com/calculators/height-percentile-calculator.php
Anna is ... off the charts, one of if not the actual tallest adult women in the world, literally breaks the calculator.
Anna would be at... the 99.9(8/9)% percentile of men by height, which means that if you use 8.2 billion as a world population, there are at most approximately 1.6 million men as tall or taller than her.
EDIT: I forgor to divide by two, women vs men, so uh, 800k.
===
'Short King' is under the 1st percentile of men (0.77), he is shorter than 99.3%+ of adult men.
'Short King' would be at about the 25th percentile of women by height, which means he is actually still as tall or taller than 25% of women, approximately 2 billion.
EDIT: I did the same forgor /2, so, 1 billion, thanks to FundMECFSResearch for catching my error!
===
Average global male height ~= 178 cm / 5' 10"
Average global female height ~= 165 cm / 5' 5"
...
Possibly also relevant:
https://www.gotquestions.org/how-tall-was-Goliath.html
If you use a more reasonable and realistic measurement of cubits and spans, and go with the Septuagint version of the Old Testament/Torah...
Goliath, the mythical warrior felled by David and his sling, whose name is now just a common euphemism for 'giant'...
Yeah he was only about 6' 6", or about 198 cm.
So...Anna could probably roughly rest her nose on the top of Goliath's head, without bending her neck (or at least not much).
...
Another fun addendum, for I guess dating data nerds?:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886913000020
(If someone can find a more recent study that specifically looks into this, I'd appreciate it!)
Broadly speaking, women prefer taller men more strongly than men prefer shorter women, by a factor of roughly 2.625x.
Women prefer, on average, a larger height difference between themselves and their partner (i.e. males being much taller than themselves) than men do. This effect is even more pronounced when examining satisfaction with actual partner height: women are most satisfied when their partner was 21 cm taller, whereas men are most satisfied when they were 8 cm taller than their partner.
In Freedom Units, thats roughly women being most satisfied with a man 8 inches taller than them, men being most satisfied with a woman about 3 inches shorter than them.
This means a 5' 10" average guy will tend to be well satisfied with a 5' 7" woman's height, but she will tend to not be well satisfied with the man's height, herself on average, ideally, looking for a 6' 3" man.
Even if it was a 5' 10" man and an [EDIT: Whoops, too many numbers, too fast, this would actually be a somewhat shorter than] average 5' 3" woman, she'd still tend to ideally prefer a 5' 11" man, on average.
So, to more accurately assess 'Short King's realistic dating pool, we actually need to find women who are 8 inches shorter than him.
And that works out to women 4' 7" or shorter.
Which is the 0.02 percentile... meaning that 'Short King's realistic dating pool is at worst, just as small as the number of men who are as tall or taller than Anna.
Or, perhaps both Anna and Short King need to find partners who simply accept them and are satisfied by them via being uncommonly partner-height indifferent.
Good luck to both of them!
Not intentionally, but, accidentally once.
Computer froze, stupidly tried to just unplug it instead of flipping the PSU switch, ended up grabbing the prongs while they were still mostly plugged in.
That caused my heart to skip a few beats, literally, gave me an arrhythmia for about 15 minutes.
Again, do not recommend.
Yep, same here, just 'hrm... i... wonder...'
I actually did this, tasered myself with my ... friend who is a girl but was not my girlfriend... with her self defense contact taser.
In summary:
Ho-Lee Fuck.
Yeah, that shit hurts quite a fucking lot.
I mean, I was laughing as well, but mostly out of being zapped into, ahem, a state of shock, full adrenaline dump on that much sharp, specific pain.
Up to that point in my life, I'd never been electro zapped beyond one of those plasma ball things or the ole rub a balloon on your hair thing...
Yeah, yeah, a loooot more voltage and amps in a taser, do not recommend, unless you just are an actual masochist.
Alternate plot based on similar concept:
Mr Garrison goes back to being Trump for some absurd reason, and then Stan and Kyle make a comic mocking him, Cartman basically becomes Steve Bannon/Alex Jones and leads an insane campaign against Stan and Kyle for making the comic, and ...
...now there is a whole conspiracy, invented by Cartman, about horrific secret encoded messages in a supposed secret vault or collection of all the student's doodles and comics and passed paper notes...
... and after not too long, Cartman stops talking about Mr Garrison being any kind of related to this supposed 'naughty vault', focuses instead on an insipid profundity of CSAM kept from the public...
... and then it turns out (revealed to the audience but not any characters beyond Garrison) that there is actually a 'naughty vault' of confiscated student messages and drawings and such (nothing beyond schoolyard insults from tem), but the only detailed, explicit CSAM is from Mr. Garrison himself, who has beem uh, doodling his own comics, and keeping all this in a vault in the school office somewhere that only him and the janitor have access to...
... janitor dies in a suspicious manner, Mr. Garrison wishes his wife well, janitor wife ends up being convicted of producing CSAM doodles, Cartman is now screaming for the entire 'naughty vault' to be released, Kyle and Stan think this is all I mean, yeah, bad, but Cartman is kinda going off the rails
Part (Episode) Two:
Summer break montage, which involves a bunch of rednecks breaking into a random pizza joint, trying to assasinate Garrison, and also then breaking into the school and largely destroying it... one or two of them are looking for the naughty vault, but mostly they're just angry for nonsense reasons, such as 'they took erh jerbs!'...
... somehow, Cartman becomes some kind of official school liason/resource officer/investigator, who is now formally/informally leading an outright pogrom, sentencing any students he thinks may have their works in the naughty vault to onerous amounts of after school detention, including Kyle and Stan.
Kyle and Stan are beyond fed up at this point, as Cartman has 'assigned' them to make a formal apology video for their involvement in the naughty files, so they just do the thing, make the callback reference to 'we're sorry' in the most sarcastic and insincere way possible...
... but basically half the town thinks its real.
Then, uh, somehow, Cartman gets Garrison's key to the naughty vault, and finds copious amounts of CSAM that is obviously drawn by Mr Garrison, while Mr Garrison is busy for the weekend judging a school beauty paegent.
Cartman has a mental breakdown, jams the contents of the naughty vault into a ... trapper keeper... then b-lines to the beauty paegant to confront Mr Garrison in real time.
During some kind of lunch break or something, the confrontstion occurs between Garrison and Cartman.
Garrison points out thar Cartman's own doodles and horrid missives are in the naughty vault, Cartman and Garrison begin brawling over all the documents, the fight stumbles into the girls changing room, the trapper keeper is ripped in half, documents comically go flying everywhere, Cartman is dazed, Garrison laughs maniacally and says he wrote all his stuff on flash paper thst easily combusts.
As the girls are now all scrambling to get dressed and flee, while Garrison pulls out a lighter and tries to burn everything that he can, but this literally blows up in his face, Garrison runs out of the girls changing room, past a bunch of crying half dressed girls, with his hair (toupee) literally on fire, hands red from his own blood from injuries sustained fighting Cartman, all infront of the paegant attendees returning from the lunch break, and a local media crew with camers rolling, getting b roll footage / interviews.
-end scene, roll credits-
I mean...
Looking at mic_check's figures...
Lets say we are just talking straight, hetero people.
We got all straight men at 43:55 Dem to Rep, thats a 22% higher chance of a woman randomly picking a Rep instead of a Dem.
Meanwhile you can just, as a woman who is looking into dating a man...
Just pick a random, single, never married dude.
Bam!, now its 61:37 Dem to Rep, a 65% higher chance a random, never married dude will be a Dem than a Rep.
...
We are talking about these stats in the context of dating, right?
Where people like, talk, get to know each other?
Not just being randomly assigned partners from a slot machine?
Do dating apps not like, allow you to filter by something like this, or... talk/chat to a person, and ask them questions before you meet them...?
Its kind of silly to paint individual people with a broadly accurate brush... when the ostensible whole point is to get to know a person individually.
Sure, use broad stats to form a broadly accurate general worldview, but realize its limitations.
Disclaimer: Please consider this a sort of fork of your discussion so far, I only mean to say anything about the parts of your comment I actually reference.
...
Why would women seek out a women-only app? And inversely, why would men seek out a men-only app? The answer to each will be fundamentally different, which means the user bases will be fundamentally different as well.
To a significant degree, yes, but I think you are overstating that degree.
Tea is imo more like a gossip app, ala Nextdoor, just specific to dating.
Tea isn't a dating app, it is... I guess you could call it ... dating-app-meta-review app, from a technically minded standpoint?
A supplement to a (or many) dating app(s).
~~But it doesn't actually directly link to~~
[(EDIT: whoops I accidentally a sentence there.)]
It is named 'tea', as in gossiping, the deets, the low down, the real story, etc.
Literally this is their own marketing:
https://www.teaforwomen.com/about
It is literally just a replacement for Facebook 'Are we dating the same guy' groups, but better, if you pay, because the Premium account allows you to run background / criminal / sex offender records.
...
So, a rough equivalent for guys would probably be named something like MPH, officially Miles Per Hour, unofficially, Miles Per Hoe, I dunno, something edgy for the manosphere crowd, where guys would gossip about cheating girls/women, and also be able to run background checks on them for a premium.
I can guarantee you that men would be broadly interested in such an app if it existed.
...
Now imagine the inverse. Most guys probably wouldn’t even think of using a men-only app for safety reasons. Like it’s not even on their radar, because safety while dating isn’t something they’re concerned with.
Maybe not as much in the safety sense of immediate physical danger, but absolutely in the sense of... is this person financially abusive, emotionally manipulative, do they have kids, or a massive amount of debt/bad spending habits, an STI, etc, that they don't mention untill they've been dating you for some time, do they have a history of acting like they're committed when they've in the past cheated whilst acting like they were monogamous?
These kinds of things apply to both men and women, and are far more common to occur in a dating/relationship than physical abuse.
Yes, women are more likely to be the victim of physical or sexual violence or stalking...
But its not like this doesn't happen to men.
I can personally tell you that I, a guy, have been so lucky as to have had all three of those happen to me, done by women.
But lets not just use myself as an anecdote, here are the stats on that from the CDC, last updated before the Trump Admin got into power, doesn't look like they've fucked with this page.
https://www.cdc.gov/intimate-partner-violence/about/index.html
IPV is common. It affects millions of people in the United States each year. Data from CDC's National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS) indicate:1
About 41% of women and 26% of men experienced contact sexual violence, physical violence, or stalking by an intimate partner during their lifetime and reported a related impact.
Over 61 million women and 53 million men have experienced psychological aggression by an intimate partner in their lifetime.
We could quibble about the exact stats of what sex/gender the partner was, and they do cite some studies directly, but uh, oversimplifying to pretend only heterosexuality exists...
About half as many men have been seriously, violently victimized or stalked as women, and I'd be willing to bet the psychological abuse numbers are at least a bit closer to equal if you account for men being unwilling to admit to being victimized in that way due to internalized machismo, 'shut up and deal with it', whatever you want to call it.
...
Point of me saying all this is to throw numbers toward countering your claim here:
Most men probably wouldn’t think of seeking out a men-only app at all. So the pool of men who would be willing to go out of their way to engage with a men-only app is going to look vastly different. The average user likely won’t reflect the average man, because the average man wouldn’t even think to seek out a men-only app.
I agree that it wouldn't represent the average man, but we've got a potential user pool of 50+ million men in the US who've been through a bad relationship and would probably also not want to go through that again.
Again, yes it is absolutely true that women more often experience a more severe form of relationship than men, no argument there.
But I don't think you can just say that a man version of tea would only appeal to blackpilled manosphere men.
Yes, that would likely be a large proportion of the user base, but there are tons of men who are not misogynists and also would like to avoid being played or abused.
...
Also, uh:
You say that,
The active engagement is seen as a positive thing, and she’s willing to jump through a few hoops (like uploading a photo ID) to get there.
But what I am seeing is:
To access Tea, women have to verify their gender by submitting a selfie, which is then verified by the app’s team.
The rest of that quote is that the picture is 'verified by the Tea team', but I think we both know that almost certainly means they just use an AI face scanning tool.
Anyway, point is: taking a selfie is a way, way lower bar to entry than taking a picture of your driver's liscense... basically every dating app already does the former, this is totally normal now, whereas the latter is... so uncommon I cannot think of an example.
So....taking a selfie is not that much of a trifle, not a strong potential blocker, for a guy who's already used a dating app in the last 5 ish years.
...
EDIT 2:
Occured to me on reviewing this:
... Yeah, an AI face recognition to verify gender?
How... does that work for trans folks, or even probably just non white women, and are women who are maybe bald or have more typically masculine coded shorter hair cuts, with less stereotypically/heuristically feminine facial features?
AI has fucked up this kinda shit in the past quite badly.
Wow that was fast.
I did not even know this app existed untill about 8 hours ago.
Already comprimised.
EDIT: Also, lol, this arguably is not even largely a hack.
These idiots just had everything stored in a fucking publically accesible firebase bucket... amazing.
They didn't delete anything they claimed to.
Either way you look at it, anywhere on the spectrum from:
A ] A bunch of women reasonably concerned for their safety
B ] A bunch of gossip mongers
... well, they've now all been doxxed, ironic from each angle.
What a fucking disaster.
The 21cm vs 8cm is the mean, and their sample size was large enough to be statistically valid.
I did specifically quote the part that includes 'best satisfied'.
Ie, the 'ideal' partner height.
Many people often choose partners that are ... close enough to many ideal traits, weighting them in different and complex ways, often not even entirely fully concsious of the nature of how they weight or order their preferences, but thats all way outside of the scope of this paper.
Yep, its possible the uh preference differential changes as you approach extreme ends of height, but the problem is that, being a statistically representative sample, it doesn't include many people who are very short, or very tall.
Anyway:
https://annas-archive.org/md5/50413a744e4887cff238a542b59b19b2
Here's the whole paper!
Yeah, that seems to be my take away as well, they don't go into precisely that in the paper.
Apologies for shit tier resolution, I am on mobile:
'Female' meaning, the male-preferred height of a female partner, 'Male' meaning the female-prefered height of a male partner, so that... may be backwards depending on your inution for reading graphs.
Also these are 2 SD bounds, 95% CI, I kinda cropped out half the text that explains that, whoops.
So, yes, this effect you mention does exist... but they do not seem to focus on it in the paper.
Unfortunately, I am not seeing a visualization that or equation that more specifically and precisely answers your question of whether or not very tall or short men or women are less uh, height-choosy.
Perhaps I am missing it?
....
Here's another way they visualize their data:
Now, here, 'Men' means men, 'Women' means women, and the x axis is [male height - female height].
So, very broadly, yeah you see that the sort of mutual sweet spot of both partners being decently satisfied with the height difference is roughly a man being 13ish cm, roughly 5 inches taller than a woman.
So, from that, maybe 'Short King' has a realistic shot with 4'10" women, not 4' 7"?
???
...
We can also see that women's satisfaction with a male partner's height uh, nose dives as a women is asked about a man who is going from 13 cm taller than them, to the same height as them... but then does rebound once the heights are just inverted.
This is also the only situation where the man is less satisfied with the pairing than the woman, on average, (untill you get to men being about 18cm taller than the woman, then its roughly the same gap as the height difference increases) but the men have huge CI intervals in this instance, indicating many men actually don't mind this much, and some men mind it extremely.
Meanwhile, women generally dislike being taller than their man, with a yes, expanded CI range, but far less than that of the man, indicating that this is a less variable and more common ... anti-preference for most women, in general, than it is for men.
...
Somewhat oddly, to me at least, we also have this pattern:
The maximum gap in partner height satisfaction between men and women seems to be around a man being just about 3cm, or about 1 inch, taller than the woman.
For women broadly, this is the least desirable possible pairing, while for men, it would basically be nice if they were about 2 inches or about 5cm taller..., but its not that big a deal to them, they are not that far from their maximum satisfaction.
Meanwhile, this situation is the lowest scoring situation for women.
It is actually worse than the woman being taller than the man.
In case you have not guesed, I am a guy, and I find this ... fairly confusing/interesting.
Basically this means there is a huge mismatch where guys are generally pretty ok with being just a bit taller than their gal, but women find this to be the worst, the lowest possible score they would broadly assign to a partner height difference situation, to such an extent that they'd actually be on average happier if her man was just actually shorter than her.
...
But anyway, yeah, unless I am missing something, it doesn't look like this paper actually answers your question precisely.
What you mention, the uh, height-choosyness tapering off for tall women and very short men does occur to some extent, but we... don't really seem to have that detailed to us, I am not seeing a way to mathematically compare the magnitude.
Also again worth noting, my 'Short King' scenario was kind of a worst case scenario, as it assumes all women would only go for their ideal partner scenario.
Some women do do this, but obviously not all, and some men also do this, but obviously not all... and numbers on the absolute or relative prevalence of that do not seem to be in this paper.