#because since we're taking anecdotal evidence

[rose-tinted-kalopsia]

i promised ... and i owe ... so many of you thoughts on xavier's "no restraint" card..... SO HERE IT IS, UNDER THE CUT !! i ramble a lot so it's very long 🫶🫶

(this was so hard guys. this card was a whole entire shock factor.)

first of all...... please delight in this reaction image i can offer you. because. any of you who are reading this rn know exactly which part of the card i'm referring to when i say:

(in conclusion, my legs are open)

.. ANYWAY !!!!!!!!! CLEARS THROAT

things we're going to talk about? well, it's me, so (A) character development, (B) relationship development, but also (C) WHATEVER THE HELL WENT ON IN THAT KINDLED MOMENTS SSCENE <3

(A-1) Character Development; Xavier

over the past few cards we've been having of him, i think it's safe to say that we're familiar with a number of his mannerisms, and i've also talked about a lot why that is and what goes into that.

but a lot of it changes in this card. and it's so much more than just the moment of realization he has in 21 days, too. enough that—aside from what we know eventually takes place—we can safely assume that all this occurs after that card chronologically.

exhibit a; tendency to do things on his own.

this is something that i may not have talked about as much, but i'm pretty sure we all know it's there—that xavier has always carried this tendency to do things all on his own. there's multiple examples of this, and it goes way way way back to his anecdotes.

i.e. with "passing by" and "when shooting stars fall", we already have prime examples—

"Whether it's tasks assigned by the higher-ups or senior members, Xavier always completes them quickly and methodically. He works until they're done, but nothing more."

"Xavier stands alone amidst a circle of fallen bodyguards. In the corner, Lawrence is tied up with bed sheets, his neck at an odd angle."

"I notice the wounds on his hands and face. Catching his breath, he holds out his hand, showing me a small, glowing Protocore. This is the first time he's looked at me with desperation in his eyes. When he moves closer, I notice a ring of light around his neck. It's a striking, suffocating red."

in his lightseeker myth, too, he's also the one to take the initiative and look for an alternative to philos' sacrifice. he leaves mc behind, and he leaves jeremiah behind—it isn't until later that he's able to enlist the help of others and form the backtrackers, and even then, they all recognize that he's the most capable one among them. in fact, it's also evident in "from the stars" from world underneath:

"As the leader of the Backtrackers ... Asteroids, turbulence, and the collapse of wormholes couldn't tear Traceback ll's team apart. With Xavier there, they managed to break through the universe's most impregnable spacetime barrier."

"It seems like everyone had a reason to give up and leave halfway except you. Well, you did too, but you wouldn't because no one could replace you. We all thought that you'd still make it to the end, even if you were the only one left."

in the main story, we're also faced with multiple scenarios of xavier going off on his own to do hunter duties, or otherwise a little extra in order to find the protocore that he needs—"heartstring symphony" is also proof of that.

and lumiere's myth is no different, nor is the whole legend behind lumiere in the first place.

"Xavier is missing. He didn't show up on the set, and there was no sign of him at home either ... Since then, I've never received a Wanderer alert on my watch again. Just like Xavier predicted, the dark clouds gradually dispersed, and the heavy rain slowly became a gentle drizzle until it ceased completely. Breathtaking evening clouds replaced them. Dusk falls, accompanied by millions of glittering lights creating a spectacular meteor shower. Long streaks reminiscent of contrails are etched across the sky. Meanwhile, the newest updates are being broadcast repeatedly on the massive screen in the heart of Azure Square. The previously rampant Wanderers have disappeared overnight, leaving behind only some suspicious Protocores ... The doomsday panic, which overtook the city like an inflating balloon, shatters silently as if pierced by a pin."

"Right on cue, my watch loudly sounds the alarm, and I hear the roars of Wanderers from the flames. At that moment, Xavier vanishes, and a beam of light with as much force as a rainbow piercing through sunshine cuts through the collapsed, burning factory. In the blink of an eye, he leaps out of the raging fire, his sword still coated in Metaflux that has yet to dissipate."

"'Threat levels are at least A. I have to go—' 'Stay here. I'll be right back.' Xavier pushes down my shoulder, and a strange red light around his neck is quickly concealed by his collar."

"The red light on Xavier's neck flickers wildly. He swings his weapon, sending out a lightblade to kill the remaining, struggling Wanderer. Smoke created by the dissipated energy rises in all directions. He leans against the wall, trying to steady his wobbling form after the intense battle. 'Abnormal vital signs have been detected. Excessive use of Evol. Disengage from combat immediately and receive treatment...' Xavier turns off the annoying warning on his watch and lifts his gaze to the entrance of an alley, where several shadows are closing in on him."

moreover is the fact that from world underneath, we also know that his collar acts as a suppressor:

"'...Light Evol has been detected. Evolver's Evol limit cannot be defined.' 'Any attempts to probe its limit triggers a special neck suppressor, which prevents the Evolver from using their full power.'"

and yet despite that, he still continues to do what he does, anyway.

a lot of things play into it, and i talk a lot about how his upbringing as a prince must have largely contributed to habits like this. he's used to doing things on his own, and he's expected to, in a way—all the burdens and duties placed upon him the moment he was born, when he bever had any say in it. already in his "when shooting stars fall" anecdote, he's isolated from everyone and constantly surrounded by bodyguards, and mc acted as his only source of freedom by reaching for him past that barrier.

it's also worth noting that most (if not all) of this that he's been doing, is all and always for mc, too—as if it comes back full cycle. it's how he shows his love for her, because it's really the only way he knows how to.

which also brings attention to his always and ever highlighted communication issues—because common in all of these examples up until this card, is that he's been vague about it.

never giving the full answer.

never truly explaining what he's been up to.

and it's something that mc knows; he keeps his secrets well, and they've never really truly talked about these things.

but "no restraint" plays this out a little differently.

"Even though I still want to ask him about where he went, it's only a matter of time before more of Henrik's men arrive. Escaping is our main priority."

And yet;

"I realized I was being followed, which is why I didn't contact you. I managed to shake them off, but I was concerned they might catch up to me. That's why I searched for the Protocore by myself."

—"Why are you suddenly talking about this?"

"...No reason."

xavier willingly explains.

mc doesn't particularly ask—yet he says it anyway. to clear the air, to maybe make it known that he is putting in an effort.

in this situation, he hasn't derived from his habit of going off on his own, but he provides a good explanation of it. there's mediation; he's saying that he trusts her, and he wants to ensure that there is nothing for her to be worried about.

"I just wanted to say I'm not the kind of partner who would leave you behind... I'm also not one of those young people who take things for granted, either."

and he further willingly explains when she does probe him, replying with a reflection of the excuse she gave one of the bodyguards just to be able to get information out of him.

BUT, MOSTLY—

"i know you know" is xavier directly addressing the fact that their relationship has been curated around this trust that they've been starting to build with each other—he knows that mc was not exactly doubting him, yet he wanted to reassure her anyway, as if speaking it out loud makes it official.

sometimes you don't ask for reassurance because you know in your heart that your doubts aren't real. but receiving it never hurts—and that's how this plays out.

xavier has always known that communication has always been an issue with him.

he's willing to fix it, and willing to take that extra step to make sure mc doesn't feel unloved with him. he doesn't want to leave room for doubts.

"i know you know." i know you know i will never leave you, i know you know that i love you. i know you know, but i'll say it anyway. because i mean it. and you don't have to worry.

(LIKE DO YOU GUYS GET HOW IMPORTANT THIS LINE IS? 😭 HOW MUCH IT SAYS FOR THE EXTENT TO WHICH HE TRULY LOVES HER? 😭)

exhibit b; aloofness.

we also know that, while xavier can be pretty intense with regards to the previous point, he's always had this calm, easygoing, aloof nature to him. as if he could fade into the background, as if he's simply floating around like a little cloud—there's this aura around him that simply wants to just... be.

but, again, it's almost as if so much more hides underneath that. like it's not totally 100% inherently him. like it's not entirely natural, like the part of him that's like this is maybe somewhat a façade that he's been putting up for so long, so it's just ended up... becoming part of him, by force of habit.

there are so many subtleties to the way he seems to try to express himself—the little things. microexpressions. involuntary emotional leakage. they last for a fragment of a second, but they're there, and with xavier, they seem to always convey so much more than whatever words he can muster.... because he always finds himself short of doing it in the way he wants to.

again, it goes back to his communication issues.

he's used to being isolated. used to speaking eloquently as he does only when required, but never really quite knowing how to express affection. or, again, how to express himself in general.

"it's like he's just so used to being princely, that he can't let go of it even if he isn't a prince anymore. he wants to, but old habits die hard—he hides so much beneath that exterior still, and it's mc who's able to help him tear down those walls, mc who's able to make him want to try harder to."

and it's why we've always seen this push and pull with him. he has trouble being honest about his feelings, difficulties in telling mc he loves her, difficulties in being direct to the point with her. he'd dodge her questions, be vague about things... hints of directness, but never really pushing forward with it. he'd tease, but it falls short—mc doesn't know if he's being genuine or not. he doesn't know how to convey that. so a lot of their previous cards and previous moments have been very vague. so, so many examples, a very prime one being his lightseeker myth, because their communication issues very sincerely stuck out with that one. and the last intimate card they had—"tender nights"—and in fact, "heartstring symphony" too, very blatantly display how difficult it is for him to convey his feelings the right way.

but... again, "no restraint" plays that out a lot differently.

"If I had known, I would've kept you company until the mission ended."

"When you said no, they said— 'You're a special person. Won't you reconsider?' ... Did you reconsider?"

"'It's just a scratch. It'll heal in no time.' ... Xavier shakes his head, stands up, and leaves the room. When he returns, he's holding a box filled with bandages that have red foxes on them."

"He gets down on one knee and covers my knee with a bandage. The dim light blurs the outline of his hair ... After smoothing out the bandage, Xavier puts slippers on my feet. And then he stands up and leans against the edge of the table, shoulder to shoulder with me."

"He seems to casually glance in my direction. Noticing how I'm wearing a bathrobe, his gaze lingers on me for a second longer..."

"Does that mean you only like the bandage?"

"Before I realize it, his hand that's on the table slides over. He hooks his pinky over mine. 'I'm curious. The cupcake you mentioned—is it your favorite?'"

and...

he's more intentional with his words and his actions this time. he wants to show her that he loves her, he wants to show her that she means a lot to him. and they're still little things, not too major, but there's a certain confidence in the way that he does it. there's sureness. it's less of those awkward moments of "should i, shouldn't i?" and there's way less hesitation.

he's insistent on holding her and taking care of her wounds. he's insistent on having her say her side of things, because he wants to know what she really thinks, too. small staps towards clearer communication—and though the tension may still be high with them in this card in general, it's a kind of tension where you can feel that they're more comfortable.

it's a stark contrast.

this is the xavier that's more than just learning, more than just realizing—he's doing.

you can really see how he's grown as a person.

(A-2) Character Development; MC

BUT it's not JUST xavier who's grown. because like in all relationships, effort comes from both sides. and the main point here, is that mc has learned to trust him a little more, too.

this part is a little shorter, but i really wanted to bring attention to two scenes and how they both play out—and i'd also like to point out the very start of the card.

the card starts off very general and sets the scene quite well, but it also starts off with mc and xavier separated. this becomes largely the topic for discussion as the card goes on, because mc does wonder where he is, and why he isn't saying anything to her.

but it's not implied anywhere that she's particularly upset about it.

in previous cards/interactions, there's always a sense of exasperation behind her words—sometimes, like in "heartstring symphony", she's upset about it. she chastises him, she sometimes makes it known that she doesn't like when he does those things—

but this time there's none of that.

she allows the mission to move smoothly, doesn't react as much once she does hear xavier contact her again... and even if it shows that she keeps wondering where he is and what he's doing, and later on what he has been doing, it's founded on curiosity instead of frustration.

"Even though I still want to ask him about where he went, it's only a matter of time before more of Henrik's men arrive. Escaping is our main priority."

this is the mc that trusts him.

this is the mc that knows she doesn't particularly need reassurance from him, and she can do without it, because she knows what no matter what, she can trust what he's been up to.

and now;

if it wasn't obvious yet previously, this should make it.

because she's not upset—in fact, she's fond.

she recognizes that her own feelings stem from her own desire to have him with her at all times, too, but most of all, she recognizes that there's nothing to be concerned of, anyway.

she knows that in the end, the person that xavier loves is her. the person that xavier wants to protevt the most is her. the person that xavier wants to be with, as much as he can, as much as the circumstances let him—is her.

she's content with that.

she smiles at the bandage, because it's proof of it—he's just treated her wounds, so insistent on taking care of her even if she knows it's nothing but a scratch and that he doesn't even need to dote on her.

but he does.

he goes the extra stew to get a cute little bandage because he knows it'll make her smile more, too.

she knows that, and she's happy.

"You have your secrets too, but you're different from them."

in a stark contrast from the mc we've been used to before that seems a little on edge and unsure and so doubtful of so many things because there's a lot about xavier she doesn't know yet—this time, she accepts it. because they're both working towards communicating more, and being more affectionate... and there's just no reason and no need for be to be concerned.

it's a big step for her to take, and this is a surprisingly big amount of trust she's putting on him, but it's further proof of how much she—they—have grown.

"You're like.. a cupcake I tucked away so I can have you all to myself."

this is also a line that holds so much in it.

it's really struck out to me, and for a number of reasons, too— (1) it further emphasizes how content she is with him and how much she trusts him; (2) it further emphasizes her own growth with relation to how she shows affection; (3) it says a lot about the kind of special treatment she gives xavier, too.

starting with point #2—the mc we see with xavier has always been bold, always the one to initiate things.... but never truly reciprocates.

like the xavier before, mc never really follows through with what she starts. she'll tease, then pull back; initiate, and then abruptly leave him hanging. she's not much better than xavier in terms of showing affection, because although she may seem like the bolder one, the truth is that she's always been scared.

it goes back to the level of trust she has in him.

because she doesn't know too much about him, it prevents her from truly acting on her feelings—she doesn't know what to expect, doesn't know how far she's allowed to take things.

teasing remains teasing.

not this time.

we also see the level of sureness she has in her actions with the way she initiates their more intimate moments later on; she might have started out as coy, but not once did she back away from it... if not for the fact that she encourages it, even.

"I tug at his sleeve, unable to figure out whether I'm meaning to be flirty or not."

she says this, but she still continues. because she knows what she wants, and she trusts him with it.

then you bring that all together with point #3—the allusions to her own personality.

"You're like a cupcake I tucked away, so I can have you all to myself."

to me it feels less about her reciprocating his more possessive nature, and more about her views on how she's been cherishing him.

tucked away.

she uses past tense.

she could have very well said "a cupcake i tuck away"; which would imply that she frequently wants to hold him close to her to save for when they're alone.

but this is a cupcake she tucked away.

and to me it feels like she's held on to him so long... without actually appreciating him for who he is.

it's like having a pretty dessert with you, one that's too pretty to eat, so you keep for yourself for a while. and you... don't eat it. even if you're supposed to.

it's like getting a precious jewel, but you're too concerned about it being stolen from you, because it's just that precious and beautiful—so you keep it. you don't wear it, whether outside or wherever. you don't. wear it. even if you're supposed to.

and that's not appreciating them for what they are.

to me, it feels like that's how the change in tense makes mc's words appear.

a cupcake she tucked away—hasn't eaten at all. like how, with xavier, for all that she's been fond of him, she's never onve bridged the gap between them on her own, either. she's kept him at arm's length, doubted him, and everything else that comes along with all the communication issues they've always had.

this time, she recognizes it—and i'd like to think that in a way, she's also apologizing for it. she admits, out loud, to herself and to him, that she's been pretty selfish. she hasn't been treasuring him and cherishing him the way she needs to be. she hasn't been reciprocating when he's affectionate. she's been only shying away when he initiates something. she knows she's been like that, and she's saying—i'm not going to be like that anymore.

and again, it goes back to trust.

she trusts him.

and because she can trust him, she can love him how he is, for who he is.

"so i can have you all to myself" feels a lot more like, "so i can finally love you."

and then we get to this scene.

for one thing, she doesn't deny their relationship at all; for another—their conversation on "love" feels very striking to me, too.

"but he can be a little mischievous sometimes."

"isn't that just love?"

and then...

"you're not wrong."

it's like a very direct jab at xavier and his way of being affectionate; the teasing that he does, and the way he's sometimes a little vague, sometimes a little awkward—but he's trying, and he's becoming more sure of himself, too.

and xavier's way of showing affection is truly reserved for her, because there's really none of that awkwardness with anyone else—he doesn't try so hard.

mc seems to be, here, descriving that nature of him as "mischievous".

it is, in a way.

but she also knows that it's love.

that it's his way of showing love.

she recognizes it. she accepts it.

she's learned things about him, too, and she's thinking... all of it can be compiled into this little word called love.

there is love between both of them.

and we can say that at this point, they're pretty far into their relationship.

they've gotten quite comfortable with each other—they're being touchy, the playful banter is light and easy... and they're definitely working to strengthen the bond that they have. their communication has improved SO much... i'm so proud of them 😭

it's definitely not a fully developed relationship; they're still a little shy around each other, there's still a lot of tension that's hard for them to navigate. it seems they've also yet to cross the " i love you" barrier, or at the very least, that it's difficult to say—plus, mc is exceedingly embarrassed to find xavier had overheard her conversation with the receptionist.

yet... when we move on to when they start to get intimate, it's also very interesting to me that it goes so smoothly—and it's definitely not their first time.

but it's a first something.

and it doesn't make the moment any less full of emotion.

this particular sequence honestly had me so INCREDIBLY confused at first, because why on earth would he be trapped right;

but then you look into who xavier is and how he's been with mc, and it goes back to that—he has so, so much love for her that he simply doesn't know how to deal with it.

he's pleading her.

he's saying that if she continues drawing him in like this, what with how much he always feels for her, he's not going to be able to hold back.

it's a trap, in a way.

xavier is still trying his best to discern what it means to show love to someone—because all these years, he hasn't been able to learn that properly. and yet now that mc has fully grasped her end of the stick, now that she's confident and sure of what she wants and how much she feels for him, it's bringing forth a bubble of emotions that he can't seem to describe.

it might not be their first time, but i don't think that xavier ever moves on from what it feels like to be wanted by her like this.

it's scary, because he doesn't know how to navigate things like this.

"It's almost as if tiny flames are flickering in the depths of his gaze. They're faint yet ready to ignite my soul at any moment."

xavier, who's been raised with the notion that he has to know things, to be able to potentially lead his people as the future king of philos...

this is something he doesn't know.

and like how mc was always afraid of how uncertain she was with him, right now, he's afraid because he has so much emotion ready to burst forth that he doesn't know what to do with it.

there's an aura of disbelief that makes it so hard for him to grasp.

it's always been "i will love you in every universe"—for the both of them.

and now, he's having the full realization, maybe for the 928482857th time since they've become official, that she's saying those words back to him. that if he can love her in every universe, as every version of himself... then she can do the same for him.

she wants to do the same for him.

she is doing the same for him.

"she loves me."

"she wants me."

he's pleading with her to take what she wants, because she has all of him.

and then we go back to mc's confidence—because she realizes he wants this to proceed in exactly the same way she wants it to, and she's willing to become his undoing.

and even if he technically switches and takes charge in the next second, it comes to fruition that her giving him consent in this way is what breaks him free of that bubble.

"don't hold back", is all that this is, really.

and he doesn't.

and it's just, not really just about the tension they've built up to get to this moment—the coy excuse of using the protocore's supposed effects—there's so much that goes into it, with the way they feel, with how their desires are so blatantly displayed just like that, with how their love fuels how much they need each other.

it's almost funny, in a way, because it's as if both of them are saying "take me, i'm yours." at the same time. and then it becomes less about possession... and more of a complete and utter surrender to each other.

and i think that's beautiful.

(which also. BONUS? but if this doesn't signify how focused xavier is on giving pleasure and at the same time how easy it is for him to lose himself in the moment and feel good because you're feeling good—i don't know what else will ✋)

(also like. the aftercare... the morning cuddles.... the hickey mc left on him 😭 i love them so much..........)

IN CONCLUSION . . . . THIS CARD MADE ME FEEL MANY THINGS.

THANK YOU FOR COMING TO MY TED TALK 😭✋

[tyrannuspitch]

Odinson twin manifesto

Part one: EVIDENCE

Look at Thor and Loki as children, imagine you don't know anything about them, and tell me who's older. Can you tell? I'm willing to bet you can't.

No-one in the films ever actually says that there's an age difference. There's no "little brother", no "elder son", no "when I was your age" or "just because you're older". They only ever say "brother", and, once, "firstborn". But of course one of them had to be born first. All siblings have a birth order. That's not the same thing as an age gap.

We do, however, get one (1) implication of an age gap. Infinity War has Thor say that he is 1500, while Thor 1 established (pretty tangentially, through an on-screen time and date for the Jotun war) that Loki is around 1000.

...But Ragnarok explicitly says that there is NOT an age gap. Thor says that the snake anecdote happened "when we were eight". Since Ragnarok comes directly before IW, it seems unlikely that IW is deliberately retconning Ragnarok here, and more likely that the subtle age implications of Thor 1 were just forgotten about. So if IW calls Thor 1500, we're meant to assume that Loki is also roughly 1500.

Proof by contradiction, for the unconvinced: If Loki is 1000 and Thor is 1500, forget being twins - how can they have grown up together? This means that Loki is currently roughly two thirds of Thor's age; what age gap does that translate to?

You could say that Loki is roughly 20 and Thor is roughly 30 - but those kids definitely don't look like, say, a 5-year-old and a 15-year-old. You can play with the numbers as much as you like, but there's just no way to make the ratio work.

You could also say that Jotuns and Asgardians mature at different rates, so the brothers are very different chronological ages but similar relative ages - but wouldn't Loki being so different have been a major giveaway of his heritage? And if they already looked the same age as children, why hasn't Loki overtaken Thor yet?

And you could say that Jotuns and Asgardians mature non-linearly, so they grow rapidly to adulthood and then slow down for a near-eternal youth - but then you have to retcon every single piece of evidence relating to the brothers specifically being children together.

Essentially: These two canon ages are very, very difficult to reconcile. You can take either of them as canon individually, but together, they cause major problems which are much more easily explained by... "someone forgot".

Finally: Why is the succession even in question to begin with? Yes, you can argue that only Loki believes it is, while Thor sees it as fixed - but even then, why does Loki always make it about who Odin favours and who Odin thinks deserves the throne? If the official line were really that Thor was chosen for his age, don't you think Loki would comment on what a terrible qualification that is, and how he would be the obvious choice otherwise?

So. Now that we know twinhood is a distinct possibility, what can we do with it? Stay tuned for part two.

[batmanisagatewaydrug]

Hi Makenzie

I'm sorry for bothering you, but as I followed your blog for over a decade now and this is the first time I need to deal with questions around sexuality, it seemed to me like the best way to get good and trustworthy input was to ask you.

There's a lot of context to this, but the TL;DR is that I (a trans masc) used to staunchly believe I'm aroace (which I'm still not sure of that I'm not) until last month this person swaggered into my life and basically upended my understanding of myself by somehow making it so we're in a relationship together. That means that for the first time in 23 years I have to think about the downstairs equipment and, worse, use it.

Now, my partner is absolutely lovely, don't get me wrong, but I am very much not into sex at all. Or like, it's fun, but it's also a chore and while I like the intimacy of it all, I just... don't like sex. It's extremely painful and since my partner has been circumcised it takes so long to get them off (over 4 hours!), even on their own- the closest we've come to me being involved at all when they do is my letting them come in my mouth by some last-minute manouvering- and even so, after two times I physically cannot bring myself to do it again, which puts them off too.

I know one of your mottos is that orgasms aren't the end-all-be-all of sex, but it seems to be the only thing to make the whole ordeal worth it at all. It's like we're stuck in a feedback loop where I only put up with sex because I want them to enjoy themself, and they need to see me enjoy myself to enjoy themselves, but with them having a really hard time getting of and me being physically unable to (even on my own: I never feel anything, even if the muscle-spasms indicate something happened).

I'm very worried about the strain this will put on the relationship, since they told me on the very first day that they do need to get their rocks off, and while I'm fine with them watching porn to get off and the occasional comment that they would prefer me have the body of one of those actresses, I'm not secure enough in this whole relationship yet to just set them free sexually. Not in the least because a part of me doesn't want to lose the way our sexuality works atm. It's dysfunctional and painful, and there is practically no benefit to it at all, but it's fun having them so close. If only the rest of the deal didn't exist.

It's basically a lose-lose situation where I was wondering if you could tell me if I should be worried about the sheer amount of pain I experience with penetration (also with tampons: the two times I tried putting one in, I ended up crying on the bathroom floor because of the pain) and if you maybe have any advice regarding the rest of the whole shitshow.

Thanks in advance and have a nice day!

hi anon,

oh my god there's a lot to unpack here

before we get into the important stuff I just want to open by saying your partner's four hour plateau period is maybe not an outright medical marvel but is definitely unusual, and both scientific and anecdotal evidence indicate there's no particular reason why that should be linked to circumcision. I have no idea what would actually be causing that, but it's probably not a lack of foreskin! just wanted to point that out, because it's interesting.

anyway, and much more importantly: you two should not be having sex with each other and maybe need to just break up entirely.

literally every single thing about how you are talking about sex indicates to me that you don't want to be having it, you don't like it, it's painful, you don't see the point, you can't bring yourself to do it... literally stop doing it. stop that right now. there's literally nothing but trauma that's going to come from repeatedly forcing yourself into something that sucks this bad for you.

okay, so, where does this leave your partner? well, in grand sex witch style I am humbling suggesting that they either put up or shut up. sex is important to them and that's fine, wahoo yay sex, but they've chosen a partner who Does Not Want To Do Sex At All and that has consequences, namely that they do not get to have sex with that partner.

if you're uninterested in opening the relationship up (which is fine!) that means they either need to cope or y'all need to break up, which frankly sounds like it might be awesome for both of you based on everything you're saying here. no one is necessarily at fault here, but this is a major lack of compatibility that seems like it's only going to keep eating at both of you. there are lots of different ways to be intimate in a relationship, and you both deserve to find someone operating on a more similar frequency.

also, hey, this?

I'm fine with them watching porn to get off and the occasional comment that they would prefer me have the body of one of those actresses

you shouldn't be fine with that. talking about anyone's body like that is shitty, let alone an intimate partner. I would hit somebody with a car for that, personally.

also hey PS if tampons suck that much there's a chance you have vaginismus, a condition that causes the vaginal muscles to reflexively and often painfully tighten to prevent penetration. it's a fairly common condition that's often caused by anxiety or trauma, and in many cases the easiest solution is to Stop Putting Things In Your Vagina.

[purplesaline]

Something that's a red flag for me when using online sources is if the site uses identical copy as at least one other site (though it reality there tend to be far more sites that do this).

It doesn't mean the information isn't valid, but it does indicate the sites haven't done any fact checking whatsoever and are just copy/pasting content from elsewhere.

This means you cannot consider any of these sites additional sources and must treat them as a single source in need of verification—preferably verification from a primary source.

It's been awhile since I've had to deal with this because I've got Google trained to deliver scholarly articles in the first page of results but what I've done when I did encounter this a lot was try to find at least three other sources (using different language) that said the same thing. I tried to make sure each of the three sources were different. For example if I was looking for information on whether something is safe for my dog to eat one source might be a pet blog (low reliability as the expertise of the author is unknown and likely to be a hobbyist), a veterinary practice (average reliability as the expertise is known but it's from an individual or handful of individuals hired by the owner so there may be bias present), a large veterinary organization like the American Vetrinary Medical Association (high reliability as these types of organizations tend to require the consensus of a large number of people who are more likely to voice dissent when they disagree. In my experience it's usually a miracle to get a consensus at all.)

Keep in mind that just because something has high reliability does not make it a primary source. In this case the primary source would be the scholarly articles and studies the organization used to shape their opinions. Not all primary sources are reliable either. It's harder for us to identify if the method is sound but one indicator that's easier for us is sample size. If something has a small sample size it's best to find at least one corroborating study with a larger sample size, or two or more studies with small sample sizes.

Anecdotal evidence is tempting to believe but it's about as reliable as eyewitness testimony. Even if we're right about something happening we're not necessarily right about why it's happening. Anecdotal evidence requires a very large sample size to be reliable, and even then take it with a grain of salt.

[hourlymbti]

can cognitive functions become scientific? is mbti?

If anything, Scientific research is primarily about statistics, and thus trends (i.e. general rules). I’ll start by saying while there is some subjectivity on how much is enough evidence to call something scientifically true, this is largely a matter of data. Science doesn’t care about subjective/qualitative aspects of the world. To make something scientific, it needs to have a lot of data to back it up across multiple rigorous studies. Without data, it would merely be a theoretical paper at most. Qualitative data, on the other hand, is mainly viable as a supplement to explain the quantitative results. Science needs to quantify everything, which would make it difficult to do studies on cognitive functions and a big portion of psychology (since it's hard to quantify all of it), but something like the dichotomies or big 5 will be simpler for empirical research. Overall, science is statistical discrimination. There will most often be cases in which the general trend doesn’t apply, because anomalies will exist.

Mbti was looking for what traits -correlated- the most with the dichotomies they came up with (which, while having the same terms as how Jung titled or described the functions, went far from the actual concept because they associated them with certain traits). Just to be clear, MBTI does actually use cognitive functions (they have their own simplified descriptions you can find in some of their resources), just that they are left in the background. They diluted them down into letters based on what they believe to be common behavior/traits. Mbti is founded on Jung's theory, it would've gone something like "oh based on my interpretation of Jung's descriptions, as well as my surface behaviors and mannerisms of the people around me, I think this guy is this type and that guy is that.", Then later on "based on those anecdotes, I think this trait is correlated with this letter". Based on what they have read and associated with the types, they'll use the letters to make questions that give you scores (one large goal of theirs is to make the theory quantifiable in order to have potential for scientific backing). MBTI designed a self-input type indicator so that people can be typed quickly and on large scales. To make a concept catch the interest of the general public, it often needs to be made simple. Not just the test, but often the theory as well.

A more noteworthy reason for correlation-seeking is that for a personality theory to seem reliable, it needs to seem “scientific”, which in psychology (and general research) tends to mean statistically true. Reasoning alone does not matter without any quantitative data to back it up. Statistics seek to quantify (though not necessarily with full certainty, especially in research). Psychology is naturally subjective, many categories will be qualitatively distinct and it is difficult to extract abstract experiences without simplifying them. Only focusing on general truths (e.g. majority, average) and quantitative data would be a limited view of the human mind (then again, typology is meant to simplify), but that’s necessary. And to be fair, as a categorization system for personality, most applications and discussions will utilize generalizations. We're speaking about a type, not every individual within that type. Of course, many will take generalizations to an absolute, but always keep in mind that whenever the theory is used or talked about, people are referring to a concept based on what they perceive to be the general rule — they're following a probabilistic mindset. You can argue if they're taking the generalization too far or if the generalization can be improved, but you shouldn't expect it to represent all individuals (sometimes the majority may even be just 30% in cases where there are more than 2 options)

While published scientific studies naturally do not encompass the whole being of truth (as they need to form rules rather than absorb the data as it is), it is arguably (one of) the most acceptable form of evidence or validation (besides your -own- direct observation and personal experience) in a sense that the word “scientific” holds weight great enough to make concepts seem -completely- good or bad. After all, proper procedures and peer review for the data and methods will be more likely to bring us to the right conclusions (in theory, it is a delicate process) as compared to the blabbering of anyone with an opinion. Common & specialized knowledge today is built on layers of scientific research from the past (not to say that scientific research alone is what constitutes these). It has gradually supported the development of society in fields such as medicine, infrastructure, and technology. Misinformation is a large issue, and the title of being "a study" is extremely valued. While there are sometimes other motives/interests involved (from the researchers/writers, reviewers, and/or the publisher), for quality and integrity, scientific journals have the responsibility to be strict with what they publish and ensure that the paper provides substantial details about their methods (for reproducibility and also critique/ to assess limitations). Mentioning the scope, limitations, or potential conflicts of interest of the study is also common procedure. But rather than look at science before forming conclusions, a similarly common occurrence is when people form conclusions (that are not grounded scientifically; internal reasoning or personal experience/assumption/belief) and in the event that it happens to be somewhat backed by any research, they are quick to portray that as absolute evidence… that their claim is indisputably true, then use the value of science to easily claim that the other side is preposterous…rarely acknowledging limitations unless the study contradicts their personal conclusions (“science” has become a word people use to say “my claim is true and indisputable, anything else is completely false”).

In other words, people are often nitpicky about data, and concepts that are not backed up by science are rarely convincing to those whose initial conclusions/perspectives are opposing or undecided. If something is commonly considered as scientific, it will be seen as common sense to believe it is true. If it is commonly considered as unscientific, it will be seen as basic intelligence to deem it false (you are not allowed to question whatever people claim as science, even though science is fluid and the development of which relies on exploring other/new ideas). The importance of scientific validity is one reason correlations are often sought by typologies (there’s also theory development). Although MBTI acknowledges that there is more to people than their type, many tests have been conducted by Myers to show what types are best for certain careers, this is to help institutions assess who to hire with the use of her type indicator. Is research worth considering when assessing the typology framework? Yes. Is it the only thing worth considering? No. Is it a simple matter when it comes to whether it is scientific or not? As a general rule, confidence should scale with the quantity and quality of existing studies. Scientific right or wrong is not always black-and-white. Statistics do not seek to claim absolutes. Also, the process of validating typology is not as straightforward as you'd imagine. This problem requires some form of correlation with type, so the question becomes what can/should you use as the variable to compare the typology's personality types with? If you test enough variables, you'd at least have a few unless your classifications are random. So what variables would be considered relevant?

Now: Could cognitive functions be well-supported by research? Do note that for something to be well-supported, there needs to be a decent amount of publications on it (as a general rule, a single or few studies is not sufficient for science), especially ones with rigour.

It's not simple for something to become scientific. Scientific communities are supposed to be skeptical, even to things they agree with or things that do not trigger their internal alarm. Aside from the many physical limitations (e.g. resources, nuisance/extraneous variables, sample vs population, quantitative measurements to act as simplifications for subjective or qualitative entities), research is conducted and reported by mere humans. It can often be problematic. A few issues with the study can be detrimental. These include: Methodology: limits of sample collection method (e.g. how are people found, selected, and asked to participate), sample size & demographics, data collection method (e.g. experimental design, research instruments, variables, leading questions) Analysis/Interpretation: biased or narrow attention to details (overlooking or overemphasizing), overinterpretations which lead to conclusions not necessarily implied by the data Documentation/Report: lack of fullness/transparency/ poor or biased writing/methods (e.g. p-hacking, limited statement of: details of method, contradictory data, and study limitations). It's not exactly simple for peer reviewers to hold people accountable, to monitor the researchers' every move in the process to fix minor errors (e.g. miscalculation or mistabulation, misleading or vague wording), and to ensure that the report is complete and accurate to what actually occurred and was found. Dont expect it to be easy to detect and prove bias and any sort of misconduct. Even when it comes to fabrication, falsification, and modification. Seemingly minor issues with the study can have significant influence in the reported findings and conclusions. For obvious reasons, individual studies will also have to be compared to other studies. The findings need to be consistently reproducible and applicable to various contexts. Meta analyses and systematic reviews are valuable for a reason.

It seems unrealistic as of the moment for there to be published studies on cognitive functions theory with scientific rigour. Aside from the fact that proper research literature won't necessarily be published in journals, it is not simple to type people using cognitive functions. Self-input tests (e.g. big five, the perceived stress scale) are the easiest for research since they lead to faster sample collection plus require no interpretation for the test result to be final (If we're purely relying on the questionnaire, then the results, assuming they present the entire population, will reflect the reliability of the questionnaire. If we're relying on a person, there's the matter of potential bias, limited view, or the unknown extent of how much of the results are due to the person and how much due to the theory itself). The other option is for there to be some sort of ‘expert’. How do we choose the expert/s? Especially in a way that is convincing on paper. Those who subscribe to the theory have various contradicting interpretations of it. People like to say that they're ways are completely aligned with MBTI or Jung, but the reality is that each person's system differs and is a mix of various things they've read alongside their own thoughts. The lack of consensus is one of the reasons it’s a bit less simple to assess the theory…because how the theory works is not solid but fluid (this is mainly referring to cognitive functions). We need to know what exactly we are proving in order to test its validity. We probably can't get something fully consistent, but perhaps it would be enough to avoid the theory's developments (since it has branched out a lot) and for the supposed basis to be Jung's works (not that they're perfect). If we were to use an expert, we need some sort of status that is "universally" valid (at least good enough for those without much knowledge of the theory). The most probable solution seems to be to gather a certain number of certified Jungian Analysts (for additional credibility, hopefully with a degree on psychology, neuroscience, etc.), who will type people based on the 8 psychological types in Jung’s book (even Jung acknowledges the importance of the auxiliary but we likely cannot go for 16types unless you want to test MBTI. Unless, of course, you prefer the other option: a self-input cognitive functions questionnaire which is probably a simpler option that acts as the first step in validating the theory scientifically). This way, they are following the same version of the theory and are also credible in this aspect (though they may not necessarily know how to type people since theory differs from application, plus the psychological types is only one of many ideas/theories of Jung. Not to say that they don't go through any sort of training or application, just that it may be unlikely for psychological types in particular since it is not as meaningful as other teachings).

Now, assuming the typing method is reliable and credible, how do you prove that the categories hold meaning and that these types are quantitatively distinct (also qualitatively but this is more difficult to prove and not as important in terms of scientific validation)? This can be done in many ways. The best would likely be to compare the brain scans of each type (e.g. consistent brain patterns in function groups). Other things you could compare the typings to are well-supported questionnaires that measure traits. If the researchers only care about proving its validity, it may be compared to the big 5 (which is considered somewhat scientific). Something you may or may not consider an issue is that these parts will overlook the unique qualities within each type, and is likely to lead to more generalizations based on type (e.g. ascribing behavior to function). If enough research is published regarding the original theory, it may become a stepping stone for cognitive functions to be a more acceptable topic, thereby letting people be able to test the validity of also 16-type cognitive functions. Now…do I believe all of this will occur? No. Chances are, it'll never be scientific, but does it actually matter outside of using it as proof? Can this be beneficial when it comes to the self-discovery aspect of the theory? No, at least not during the validity testing phase, beyond that, it is still likely to encourage generalizations. But it may also provide new insights to develop the theory and better understand type differences (especially when neurology is involved).

[1ddotdhq]

🎤 Sat Aug 29 🧬

LP Act 2!!! How well did LIAM do?? He KILLED IT!! Once it was finally able to start, that is! The Veeps website crashed about an hour before the show started, and was not able to start running again until over an hour after it was supposed to start. I don’t know about you guys, but I’m having flashbacks to the anniversary website (as well as every other website the One Direction curse seems to have contact with). 

Highlights of the show include him performing What a Feeling, which is the first time anyone from One Direction has ever performed it, ever! There were also pictures of his band (One Direction? Maybe you’ve heard of them?) in onesies and dressed as Mario Kart characters (in case you’re wondering, this would have been from that one Mario Kart interview, yes). Some ~ super fun (old) behind the scenes facts ~ include that the boys got in trouble for the onesie picture because “a cool band -  like Westlife - would never have done that”. Uh, fuck you, said Westlife, who promptly took a picture in onesies one week later. Love that for them. 

Say what you will about these guys, they do really listen to their fans and deliver. Louis was clearly taking careful notes on our merch requests, and is delivering, and Liam really came through with the song selections, opening with the seemingly forgotten songs from his EP, to singing more One Direction songs - I’m not over the What A Feeling performance, and I never will be. The chat, meanwhile, “play Little Things!”. Seriously, what the fuck guys? 

Other notable moments from the show include Liam singing Night Changes and Best Song Ever (I love this song!), and his opening act Mae Muller, who sang her newest single, as well as a song called “Therapist”, in which she crooned “you don’t need a girlfriend, you need a therapist”. Also, on the topic of One Direction (were we on that topic? We are now.), he said, “wow, ten years, so much has happened, I’ve got a mustache now!” (Harry can relate :{D!). He mentioned that it was hard to play these old songs without the boys (“I did ask, though!”). And, perhaps most surprisingly, his show did feature ...cage dancers? I wasn’t expecting that one either, to be honest.

Following the show came Afterparty. This was, in a word, awkward. There were some zoom games that mostly consisted of technical difficulties, Liam standing around awkwardly, and participants who mostly failed to answer the questions correctly. The prizes for participating in this game consisted solely of Liam’s used shirts, which he joked were from his depop store! There were also video messages wishing Liam a happy birthday, notably from artists he’s worked with including Niall (!!!!). 

The funniest moment of the show was definitely the costume of a cow he promptly put on because “why not? It’s not the worst thing I’ve put on during a show”. It’s no banana suit, but it did give him the opportunity to make penis jokes. And, guys, he took it! The second funniest moment was when asked what his favorite part of going solo was, he promptly replied, “finding out that people don’t know my middle name”, in reference to a failed zoom answer. 

If you were looking for an update to YESTERDAY’s headline story, well, so was I, to be honest, but, as Liam said (when talking about birthday wishes), “I’m sorry, I’m going to have to keep some information close to the chest”. I think that’s that about that, to be honest. But Liam did have special guests on hand: childhood friends - Not Maya.

None of the other boys had any notable events today, but Harry made Daily Mail headlines for, uh, making a friend? Someone call the press! Oh, wait - Someone already did! Emma Corrin, the “pal” he seems to have made, will be playing Princess Diana in the upcoming season of the Crown. So, you know, some queens do need a crown (not Harry, though, obviously). Most notably, though, the article makes a point of explicitly telling us that they are not romantically involved.

Louis continues to be making fandom rounds for his merch, which is a topic of heated debate. What is behind the DNA strand? Yesterday, I called it a wall, but some have said that it looks more like a baby gate, while others brought their professional medical opinions to bear to tell us that it was in fact an artery wall. Which is it? Place your bets now!

[tanadrin]

TBH after reading the first paragraph of your latest post I thought the rest of it was going to be "and here's why all of that is laughably retarded and my take on how our institutions are captured by lysenkoists" - entire fields are badly wrong often, especially nutrition, why do you buy it?

I buy it because the science is reliable.

I don't know how you could characterize nutrition science as "captured by lysenkoists" in any form, unless by "lysenkoist" you just mean to generally disparage science you think is politically motivated. "X field is Lysenkoism" seems usually to be a lazy critique by people who want to dismiss politically inconvenient research without engaging with the substance of why they think a field or sub-field is wrong, which is the least interesting kind of critique.

The human body is complicated, so nutrition is hard to study. That sounds quite simple on its own, but it's very difficult to underrate the complexity of systems developed by random mutation and selection. I remember an anecdote I read once about circuits designed via genetic algorithm, which produced results that were difficult to understand. Individual elements usually had multiple overlapping functions, and there was one that had a closed loop totally unconnected to the rest of the device--but if you removed it it totally stopped functioning. Only after some serious investigation did the experimenters determine this was because of some kind of weak electrically-induced effect that this loop produced, which was nonetheless critical to the circuit's function. Most biological systems are designed in a similarly infuriating way, and the algorithms that produce them have been running for millions of years. On top of that, it's difficult to observe the human metabolism in action, and we're still not equal to the task of simulating it at any kind of realistic detail.

I think like a lot of biology, nutrition and food science has done quite a lot of impressive stuff given those restrictions, but "what are the causes of fatness in general, and the obesity epidemic in particular" are narrower questions that we've focused on intently only for a few decades. The obesity epidemic is recent, and for most of its history the science of food and nutrition has been concentrated on more pressing issues like how do we feed a rapidly growing world population, and prevent dietary diseases like rickets and pellagra, and not "what is the precise relationship of fatness to various health conditions, and what factors most directly control fatness."

The stuff you refer to as "laughably retarted" is what falls out of the evidence as soon as you start looking at it in any detail. These aren't controversial or difficult-to-replicate results--they're out of step with the common medical wisdom in some ways, but only because the common medical wisdom is often laughably retarded. Some doctors still get taught as fact that black people feel pain less acutely than white people, and until COVID hit and forced us to reexamine the evidence, common medical wisdom totally misunderstood how airborne particulates worked, based on a single totally misinterpreted study from a hundred years ago, even though any air pollution scientist could have set them straight. Because of a single anecdote by one researcher (I think Kinskey, but correct me if I'm wrong), a lot of gynecologists seem to think the cervix feels no pain at all, meaning IUDs are commonly inserted using sharp-tipped forceps to hold the cervix--and while this is fine for some, others find it excruciatingly painful, because it turns out that the sensitivity of the cervix to pain varies wildly among individuals. And these areas--pain, airborne disease, and gynecology--are comparatively tractable to study.

We have known since time immemorial that if you starve, you get thin and eventually die. Since 1761, we've had calorimeters that can give us a rough guess on the energy contained in food; and with those two tools you can rough out at basic CICO model. You could stop there, and treat all subsequent developments in the area as Lysenkoism because they didn't conform to your prior assumptions on what fatness is and means, but then you'd have no tools to understand questions like why obesity began rising toward the end of the 20th century, long after wealthy industrialized countries moved to a more sedentary lifestyle, how appetite relates to actual food consumption and exercise, what the metabolic effects of different foods are, the role of gut bacteria in health and how they're influenced by diet, and lots of other interesting questions. And, well, that would be laughably retarded.

[local-hellhound-steals-spaghetti]

Okay I think I've made it pretty clear that there has been no independent welfare assessments on these orcas. That said, there is a lot of footage of orcas at this facility either participating actively in shows (eg. not constantly leave stations), resting and socialising.

To understand how these animals spend their day to day, we would need extensive behaviour data and time budgets. However, what I am doing while posting these videos is not "defending." I am pointing out good enrichment that is clearly working to provide mental and physical stimulation. Because I like seeing orcas in human care actively participating in enrichment.

There's a few things to address here. And that is that you are making a lot of assumptions about these animals' welfare based on hearsay and biased sources.

If you worked at a cetacean facility, you would know that a "track record" is not going to always indicate poor welfare states. There will always be management changes, staff changes, protocol changes - unless we're seeing repeated violations/welfare issues (MSQ is a great example of this), we can't assume that it's a poor welfare situation. And just because China's animal welfare standards aren't ideal, it doesn't instantly mean that the orcas are in poor welfare.

I also prefer to evaluate welfare objectively, based on what information I have in front of me. Welfare is a constantly changing state - positive and negative welfare states can occur in the same day in an animal's life. The video shows positive welfare states, that's all it's conveying here. Ideally, the balance should be overall in favour of positive welfare.

Wild Capture as a welfare variable?

Wild capture is always going to be stressful, no one can dispute that. There are many records of whales and dolphins that simply didn't survive the capture process, refused to eat and/or died on arrival. The Annual Survival Rate is lower on wild caught orcas in the SeaWorld population, compared to the captive born. This is also why smaller dolphin and porpoise species were not able to live in captivity and why the attempt to capture the Vaquita for conservation breeding purposes failed.

However, to support yourself here, you're using a white paper, written by lobbyists, that is poorly cited and heavily criticised by the scientific community. Rose's AWI is a lobby group and "The Case Against Marine Mammals" is not peer reviewed or published in a reputable journal - it's a white paper for policy makers and makes a lot of assumptions without cited evidence. For example, the chapter you referenced has citations for stress of wild capture but the page it has it's cited source on is inaccessible and also has references to the Onion (a literal fake news site), the Humane Society, media sites and incessible papers from the 80's) Citing obviously biased sources and deliberately omitting the current welfare science because it doesn't align with the narrative being presented is just bad science.

There are papers on stress response in wild capture since we still do wild capture and release to assess health of wild cetacean populations (luckily we are moving closer to non invasive assessments thanks to drone studies done in human care). However, there has yet to be any sort of recorded "trauma" from capture. That would look like chronic stress and carry markers like high cortisol ect.

Interestingly, early notes on wild capture of orcas remarked at how well they took to captivity, despite the dismal and appalling conditions they were kept in. But early sources and people like Ted Griffin also had no idea what they were doing, so I take that with a grain of salt.

As a bit of anecdotal evidence - when working in dolphin welfare, I worked with offshore bottlenose dolphins that had been wild captured in the most horrific way possible - they were from Taiji. If they carried any memory of the traumatic event, it was hard to tell. They were alive, they were healthy and they were breeding and giving birth to healthy calves (which stressed and sick animals can't do successfully). This is based in months of ongoing observations. Sadly, I couldn't go back in time to reverse what had been done to them, but I could try to make their lives as enriching and positive as possible. There were welfare issues caused by poor management but that was resolved with enrichment programs and better social and programming.

Does this mean that capture is okay or has no implications for welfare? Absolutely not. But assuming long term detrimental effects of wild capture without evidence and using that as the basis of your argument that welfare is poor in Chimelong orcas doesn't work.

Now we need to talk about your citations and sources

You seem to just be mad about marine parks in general and also China's animal welfare. That's fine, you can do that. But a lot of what you have cited is irrelevant, biased, poor research or just simply untrue.

I went through all the sources you have provided - you seem to have provided sources unrelated to orcas/cetaceans, something about Chimpanzees in commercials and just general issues with animal welfare in China. I'll focus on the published papers since the rest are from animal rights organisations and are clearly trying to push an agenda.

Chin-Ee (2017) discusses Chimelong's facility design but it has nothing to do with the new orca facility since it only opened last year (2024). The report on Chimelong has nothing to do with the orca facility either. The China Cetacean Alliance report seemed to take issue with mild rake mark coverage on the bottlenose dolphins but the apparent lack of enrichment could be a concern. It's hard to take it super seriously when the people writing the report clearly don't know what good welfare looks like.

Jiang et. al (2008) uses the Humane Society and the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society as sources of poor welfare instead of ... actual welfare data. They also use this image of an orca with very mild environmental scrapes as an example of "wounds". Embarrassing.

Their paper has a very small sample size but still use their limited data to make very big assumptions about the impact of zoos on guests (also just general moral judgements on people based on preconceived biases so it's more of a philosophical paper rather than a paper with actual science being considered)

There's since been several papers to counter this 2008 paper that conclude the following:

Results indicate that learning does occur after a zoo or aquarium visit. A zoo visit has educational benefits for children, but to maximize this benefit an educational intervention should be offered.

The results prove the positive influence of a very simple environmental education program (in a zoo), even for people with a preexisting high level of connection to nature and positive attitude towards species conservation.

A survey of 1,546 visitors to 13 zoos and aquariums found that although visitors gave highest priority to entertainment aspects of the experience, they also considered the provision of conservation education to be an important aspect of a zoo or aquarium visit.

More correct answers were given post-performance compared to pre-performance (in theatrical animal shows). Family theatre can effectively deliver animal information and raise awareness of conservation efforts within a leisure setting.

Visitors formed a feeling of attachment to the dolphins in a Swim with Dolphin program, there were no negative welfare implications for the dolphins

Experiences with animals and educational elements can increase zoo visitors' motivation to take conservation action. By also using social marketing based motivating techniques and removing barriers to action, zoos can effectively promote and support conservation behavior.

There is a constantly evolving body of evidence to support the value of zoos in conservation. The zoos and aquariums that will continue to function will follow the advice in the papers cited to enhance their ability to educate the public.

Chimelong's spaceship design isn't my favourite but it does set out a lot of education and conservation pieces in an engaging and interesting way. Education and entertainment can co-exist. But my interest is in the welfare of the animals - that's the first priority. Because in my mind it doesn't matter if the conservation value is extremely high. If it's at the expense of the animals' welfare, it's not worth it.

Anyway, this is getting way too long but I can see you have gone done a lot of rabbit holes based on the sources you're using. Keep in mind that these are websites and articles designed to convince you that marine mammals shouldn't be in captivity. That means lying to you about what is actually scientific fact.

They won't talk about:

The C-Well Dolphin Welfare Evaluation - a way to objectively evaluate welfare in dolphins and the recent improvements in assessing dolphin welfare

Bottlenose dolphins in US facilities are living as long or longer than their wild counterparts

The massive improvements in survivability in marine mammals as an indicator of increasing zoological advancements

Habitat characteristics was found to have minimal effect on cetacean energy expenditure and movement

The lack of scientific evidence that sea sanctuaries are better for cetacean welfare

That captive orcas can actively adapt their vocal repertoire and their individual signatures to communicate with each other, which conflicts with the pushed narrative that captive orcas can't understand each other.

If you read any scientific papers that I've linked here, I recommend you start with Distinguishing Personal Belief from Scientific Knowledge for the Betterment of Killer Whale Welfare and Bias and Misrepresentation of Science Undermines Productive Discourse on Animal Welfare Policy: A Case Study.

5 minutes of Chimelong orca family wave machine enrichment!

This is definitely by far my favourite form of enrichment for cetaceans, along with the live fish enrichment that SeaWorld San Diego is doing at the moment.

Lots of natural behaviour on display here - surging, surfing, synchronised group swimming.

And a lot of innovation and adaptation of behaviour is very obvious too: several orcas have figured out if they they slide out and wait for the wave, it'll sweep them off the slide out, which adds a whole new dynamic to slide out play.

While we can all acknowledge that taking these orcas from the wild was unethical, it is good to see signs of positive welfare in this dynamic enrichment use.

Natural behaviours, behaviour diversity, active participation, learning and innovation, social and affiliative behaviours, physical and mental exercise - these are all incompatible with a poor welfare scenario.

When animals are in poor welfare, chronic stress has a significant effect on their brains and bodies. Stress impairs their ability to learn, to innovate and navigate social interactions. A heavily criticised paper by Marino et. al claimed that cetaceans in human care have impaired brain function due to chronic stress. However, it was poorly cited and had zero welfare data to support their hypothesis. It also just doesn't match up with what we currently observe in accredited modern facilities.

If these animals were truly suffering and stressed, we would not be seeing them learning new behaviours, we would be seeing regular refusal to participate, we would see frustration related behaviour occurring regularly and a lot more aggression and social issues.

I make a conscious effort to research and track down as much footage as I can. I have seen accusations that I cherry pick this footage but you are more than welcome to go and look at all the videos on Youtube.

[mariacallous]

hi sean - forgive me if this ask isn't appropriate, i'm just navigating a situation with my partner and have no one i can talk to about this irl. i am a cis guy, my partner is a trans guy, and he has yet to receive a Covid vaccine because he's terrified that it will cause uterine bleeding. i can't say for sure how founded his fear is because i don't think the research on covid vaccines and menstrual changes is there yet for trans guys (at least not last time i checked); but he's found enough anecdotal evidence online of other trans guys having spotting/menstrual cycles after their jabs to scare himself to death. at first, last year, i gently tried to persuade him to get vaccinated, but to no avail - this is the one thing he's really dysphoric about, and he's said he'd rather take his chances with covid then with possibly having bleeding. (i think this is a horrible calculus, but then again, i'm cis - who am i to say he should just "get over" his dysphoria?). i dropped it for a while and rationalized it bc he works remotely, doesn't go out into crowded high-risk places, and always wears a mask whenever we're indoors with anyone other than just the two of us. whenever anyone in my life asks why he's not vaccinated, at his request i lie and say he can't get it because of a PEG allergy. it's really starting to take a toll on me though, especially with omicron raging through our state. not only am i worried sick about him, but i'm having to significantly modify my behavior to help keep him safe and i'm getting resentful. i just wish that he'd take this damn shot so we could at least ATTEMPT to rejoin normal society and take the same reasonable amount of precautions as the rest of our social circle. i'm sorry for this message - i just can't talk to any of our mutual friends about this, and i feel like i'm going nuts and could really use another human being's perspective on this situation. i love him and just want him to be safe, but this is killing me. ugh 😞

I'm sorry both of you are going through this, because I'm sure it's not easy on either of you.

But I also think he's being incredibly foolish and selfish and is risking both you and him, since him being unvaccinated makes him a higher risk for all the covid variants as well as to spread it, and with omicron having incredibly high transmission rates, the masking and other distancing measures are less effective without vaccinating. The lying about why he can't get it is also worrying and offensive.

Him saying he'd rather risk covid than the possible side effects of the vaccine is a horrible risk calculus, because, to be blunt, many of those issues are able to be dealt with and responded if/when they occur. Dying from covid, or, if you survive, being severely disabled and hindered in your life options that is very much less the case.

Has he talked to his doctor (either primary care or gender specialist), or to Planned Parenthood about his concerns and issues? Has he spoken to a therapist (if he has one)?

I had concerns when the vaccines were first coming out, about whether they would negatively impact my transitioning and whether they would fuck me up, and i weighed it and debated it a lot. And I decided I'd rather live and survive without having my lungs scarred or having serious hindering health conditions and deal with whatever side effects and impacts to my transitioning might arise.

[economicplus]

USA We've been flooded with thousands of reader questions on coronavirus. We're answering them.

USA CLOSE

An epidemiologist answers the biggest questions she's getting about coronavirus. Wochit As the coronavirus pandemic continues to shut down daily life across the globe, thousands of our readers across the nation have asked us questions about COVID-19. And we're answering them. For basic facts about the virus – what it is, how it spreads and where it's located – you can get caught up by reading our in-depth explainer here. We've also debunked some viral coronavirus myths.  But you're curious and continue to ask important questions via our newsletter, Coronavirus Watch. (Not a newsletter subscriber? Sign up for it here!) So below, you can find answers to questions such as: Is it OK to be outside? How old are people who are dying in the U.S.? Is it safe to get carry-out food? If you don't see an answer you're looking for, check out our newest Q&A where we talk about UV radiation, antibodies, cats and more.  What else would you like to know? Ask us by filling out the form you can find here.

USA Can UV radiation from the sun kill the virus?

– Charlie from Dade City, Florida Experts have advised against using concentrated UV light to prevent or treat the coronavirus and do not recommend going in the sunlight to kill the virus. Only levels of concentration of UV light much higher than what is found in sunlight can kill viruses, the experts note, and the levels that are able to kill viruses can cause irritation to human skin and should be avoided. Neither sunlight or UV light is listed as a preventative measure on the websites of the World Health Organization or the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Fact check: Sunlight does not kill the new coronavirus

USA My primary income is from rentals. If my tenants are unable to pay their rent, what kind of relief is available to me?

– Vicki from Santa Rosa, California Trump in March signed the largest economic stimulus package in U.S. history. The stimulus provides forbearance on mortgage payments for up to a year but just for federally-backed loans. Some states and banks are also issuing relief for other types of mortgages. Once forbearance ends, borrowers would have to work out a repayment plan or loan modification with the mortgage servicer, the National Housing Law Project says. Still, several states are granting moratoriums to renters but not owners, potentially forcing owners to pay their mortgage, utilities, taxes and other costs even though they have less rental income.

USA Is it true that everyone who is on unemployment due to COVID-19 will receive an additional $600 a week as part of the stimulus package?

– Hannah from Canton, Ohio  The stimulus package expands unemployment insurance benefits. If you've lost your job because of the outbreak, you will see your weekly state insurance benefits – which average about $400 – increased by $600 for four months. And if you are still unemployed after state benefits end, you could get an additional 13 weeks of help.

USA What are the results so far with the tests of the Z-Pak and malaria med, hydroxychloroquine?

– Pat from Alexandria, Virginia There are no approved therapies or drugs to treat COVID-19. Anecdotal reports suggest that a known anti-malarial (hydroxychloroquine) combined with a common antibiotic (azithromycin, sold as Zithromax and Z-Pak) may offer some benefit in the treatment of hospitalized COVID-19 patients. A very small study in France of just a couple dozen patients found some evidence that the combination was effective in fighting COVID-19. A subsequent study of 80 patients in France found clinical improvement in all but one. Studies in China have suggested similar results. Researchers have warned that the drugs can have risky side effects and could cause subtle heart changes and increase a person's risk of developing arrhythmia.  Clinical trials of the drug combination began in New York on March 24, and the FDA on March 29 granted emergency use of hydroxychloroquine by hospitals. Several other clinical trials are in the works, according to ClinicalTrials.gov. But it's still too early to say whether the drugs are effective.

USA How many people have recovered from the virus?

– Stephanie from Mt Pleasant, South Carolina More than 191,000 people worldwide have recovered from the virus as of Wednesday, according to data from Johns Hopkins University. Most of the recoveries have been in China, followed by Spain, Germany, Italy and Iran. Of the more than 203,000 confirmed cases in the U.S., more than 8,000 have recovered.

USA Will families who receive food stamps be eligible for the stimulus check?

– Renda from Miami, Florida Yes, families who receive food stamps are eligible to receive a stimulus check! The $2 trillion stimulus plan includes one-time payments of $1,200 per adult and $500 per child, $367 billion for small businesses, $500 billion for loans to larger industries, $100 billion for hospitals and the health care system, and $600 more per week in unemployment benefits for those out of work.  Here's how you can calculate the amount of stimulus money your household can expect.

USA Is the virus a DNA molecule protected by a thin layer of fat that will disintegrate if that fat layer is removed outside your body?

– Rita in Las Vegas, Nevada SARS-CoV-2 particles are spherical bundles of genetic material (RNA) surrounded by a fatty outer layer (lipids) with proteins called spikes protruding from the surface. These spikes latch onto receptor proteins on human cells in the lungs and other tissues and change the structure of those human cells, allowing the viral genes to enter the host cell to be copied, producing more viruses. Viruses need a host to "survive," and the fat layer breaks down when it is out on its own in the environment. Preliminary researc h suggests that the virus is stable outside the body for different periods of time, depending on the climate and surface. You can "kill" the virus using soap, extreme heat and ultraviolet light, and each attacks a different part of this virus structure. Soap breaks up the fatty outer layer. Heat breaks up the protein spikes. And UV light breaks up the genes inside.

USA Has anyone with preexisting conditions gotten the coronavirus and survived?

– Dee from Arlington, Texas Yes, many people have. While the risk for serious disease and death from COVID-19 is higher in people who are older or who have certain preexisting conditions, thousands have survived. Data from the CDC published Tuesday found that, as of March 28, the U.S. reported 2,692 patients who had one or more underlying health conditions. Of those patients, 173 died. This limited data suggests that thousands of people who have one or more underlying health conditions have not died. Moreover, a February WHO study of more than 70,000 coronavirus patients in China found that people with preexisting conditions had higher fatality rates than those without preexisting conditions: 13.2% for those with cardiovascular disease, 9.2% for diabetes, 8.4% for hypertension, 8.0% for chronic respiratory disease, and 7.6% for cancer. However, those figures suggest that large percentages of people with preexisting conditions survived.

USA Can coronavirus be transmittedthrough secondhand smoke?

– David from Columbus, Georgia "It’s not the main mode of transmission. There's probably some component of airborne, but I don’t think secondhand smoke would be a compounding factor," said Tania Elliott, clinical instructor of infectious diseases at NYU Langone. If the smoke irritates your lungs and causes you to cough, that poses a greater risk of transmission since the virus is thought to mainly spread through respiratory droplets when someone coughs or sneezes, Elliot said. Smokers are likely to be more vulnerable to COVID-19 as the act of smoking means that fingers and possibly dirty cigarettes are in contact with lips, according to the WHO. Smokers may also already have lung disease or reduced lung capacity which would greatly increase risk of serious illness, the WHO says. While data is still evolving about how long the virus may remain alive, a recent study found that viable virus could be detected up to three hours later in the air.

USA Is cross-country road travel advisable to destinations outside of COVID-19 'hot spots'?

– Roland from Albuquerque, New Mexico The White House is asking Americans to stay home as much as possible to slow the spread of the virus, and some states and local governments have issued "stay home" and "shelter-in-place" orders. "I don’t think now’s the time to do it," Elliott said. "If you have a house somewhere else, that's fine. But I wouldn’t recommend being in hotels or crowded public settings. If you want take a road trip and go camping, there's risk associated with that."

USA Can you catch the virus from people who've died?

– Nikki from Albany, Georgia The main way the virus is thought to spread is through respiratory droplets produced when an infected person coughs or sneezes, and this is not a concern after death, according to the CDC. But people should consider not touching the body of someone who has died of COVID-19, the CDC says. There is no known risk associated with being in the same room at a funeral or visitation service with the body of someone who died of COVID-19, the CDC says. Kissing, washing and shrouding should be avoided before, during and after the body has been prepared, if possible. But holding the hand or hugging after the body has been prepared for viewing may pose less of a risk, the CDC says. CLOSE

Reviewed editor-in-chief David Kender shares creative ways to keep your kids engaged while you're stuck at home. USA TODAY

USA What is the value of testing for the coronavirus if there is currently no treatment?

– Linda from Brevard County, Florida There is value to getting tested because there are many reasons why someone would seek medical care for their symptoms, and ruling out the coronavirus is helpful in seeking other causes, said Jason Christie, chief of pulmonary medicine at Penn Medicine. "The biggest problem is we don’t have a quick and reliable test right now. Without that, we have to be smart and ration the testing to those people that need them most. So don’t go out and get tested right now unless you’re sick," Christie said. Testing also helps health officials figure out how prevalent and contagious a virus is.

USA Is it safe to get groceries during senior shopping hour?

– Pamela from Wellsville, Pennsylvania Acknowledging that older adults and persons with underlying health conditions are more susceptible to COVID-19, a growing number of stores are dedicating time or opening earlier for senior shoppers and other at-risk groups. But Elliott says she doesn't advise it. "That gives a false sense of security," she said. "By encouraging older people with chronic diseases to go out at a dedicated time, you're still exposing them to a bunch of other people, and if one person in that crowd is infected, then the virus will spread." Elliott said she'd rather see stores limiting the number of people who can enter during a given time period so that there are fewer people in the store. She also encourages healthy people to do the shopping.

USA Can the virus be transmitted through the mail? Should I stop sending greeting cards?

– Pam from Seven Lakes, North Carolina The chances of transmission through your mail is very low, Elliott says. "Parts of the virus can fall on surfaces and survive on surfaces for up to 72 hours. But you have to have pretty good conditions for that to happen. So the likelihood would be very small, even with no precautions," she said. Elliott advises people to put their mail down on a plastic plate instead of directly on a counter top or table, to use a letter opener, and to wash hands thoroughly after touching the mail. Research on how long a virus may live on surfaces is evolving. The CDC has said there is likely very low risk of transmission of COVID-19 from products or packaging that are shipped over a period of days or weeks "because of poor survivability of these coronaviruses on surfaces." A recent study found that viable virus could be detected up to three hours later in the air, up to four hours on copper, up to 24 hours on cardboard and up to two to three days on plastic and stainless steel. But a subsequent report from the CDC found that genetic material from the virus can live on surfaces for more than two weeks.

USA Are plastic grocery bags considered the plastic that you have to wait hours to touch?

– Elizabeth from Greenfield, Indiana You should take precaution with any containers, Elliott says. "The plastic grocery bags I’d throw out right away, wash your hands and then clean your food. Chances (of infection) are low," she said. "But better yet, bring your own bags! It’s better for the environment anyway."

USA They keep saying stay isolated for two weeks. But what happens after the two weeks?

– Al from Topeka, Kansas Officials suggest self-quarantining for two weeks if you've had exposure to somebody with the virus and might be infected. It's a way to monitor if symptoms develop and, at the same time, avoid any possible spread to others. Since the incubation period for the virus is up to 14 days, you're "cleared" for the virus after two weeks, Elliott said. After that, you still need to practice social distancing.

USA Is it advantageous for a younger healthy person to get the coronavirus to build immunity to it?

– Danny from Sundance, Wyoming No, for several reasons, says Peter Hotez, dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine. While a protective antibody is generated in those who are infected, scientists are not yet sure whether that immunity will last for a short period of time, for years or for life. Some say the possibility of reinfection is very likely. Moreover, a new federal health report says Americans of all ages have faced serious health complications amid the outbreak. Data from the CDC show that among the roughly 12% of COVID-19 cases in the U.S. known to need hospitalizations, about 1 in 5 were among people ages 20 to 44. Anywhere from 14% to 21% of adults ages 20 to 44 with COVID-19 have been hospitalized, the CDC data estimates. Two to 4% of cases led to ICU admissions, and less than 1% were fatal. Finally, it's important to avoid getting and spreading the virus. While the young may not be the most at risk, they're carrying the disease to those who are more vulnerable, such as older people and those with underlying conditions.��Dr. Deborah Birx, a member of the White House coronavirus task force, on Wednesday urged "the millennial generation" to take special precautions. "You have the potential to spread it," she said.

USA Does getting pneumonia shots given to elderly people help if you get this virus?

– Linda from Hendersonville, Tennessee Vaccines against pneumonia, such as pneumococcal vaccine and Haemophilus influenzae type B vaccine, do not provide protection against the new coronavirus, according to the World Health Organization. The vaccines simply guard against those specific bacterial infections. The COVID-19 virus can, in fact, cause pneumonia, but the vaccines cannot prevent this pneumonia.

USA I see people in my neighborhood out running, riding bikes and walking their dogs. Is that OK?

– Patti from Carmel, Indiana Yes, that's OK! Just be sure to maintain distance from other people. The CDC recommends a distance of about 6 feet. Even in states and counties where residents are being asked to stay home or "shelter in place," it's still fine to go for a run, hike or do other outdoor activities, as long as proper social distancing is observed. Just don't be like Chicago, where city officials closed trails and parks after crowds of hundreds of people were seen congregating along the city’s lakefront. Remember: The White House recommends that you should avoid social gatherings involving more than 10 people, as well as all non-essential travel, shopping trips and social visits. Social distancing: Why it's so important to stopping the spread of coronavirus  CLOSE

Social distancing matters. Here is how to do it and how it can help curb the COVID-19 pandemic. USA TODAY

USA Are there any projections to estimate the spread of COVID-19 and a timeline of its passing?

– Dennis from Las Vegas Yes, there are many projections, but scientists say they all hinge on how people behave. That's why it's essential to social distance and do what you can to prevent spread. A conservative USA TODAY analysis based on data from the American Hospital Association, U.S. Census, CDC and WHO estimates that 23.8 million Americans could contract COVID-19, leaving almost six seriously ill patients for every existing hospital bed. Another analysis finds that America’s trajectory of community spread is trending toward Italy’s, where circumstances are dire. One researcher at the Global Center for Health Security estimated last month that as many as 96 million Americans could be infected. The U.S. population on March 27 is estimated at 329 million. The Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security estimated that 38 million Americans will need medical care for COVID-19. The CDC's worst-case-scenario is that about 160 million to 210 million Americans will be infected by December. Under this forecast, 21 million people would need hospitalization and 200,000 to 1.7 million could die by the end of the year. Outside the U.S., leaked British documents projected that a coronavirus outbreak could rage until spring 2021. German Chancellor Angela Merkel said 60% to 70% of her country's population could eventually become infected. USA TODAY analysis: America's coronavirus 'curve' may be at its most dangerous point

USA Is it safe to get carry-out food?

– Debby from Omena, Michigan The CDC and WHO have not issued formal guidance on carry-out food. While the CDC says that there is no evidence to support transmission associated with food, a person may get COVID-19 by touching a surface or object that has the virus on it and then touching their own face. The virus can, for example, survive on cardboard up to 24 hours, according to a recent study. The issue of carry-out food also raises concerns about the risk couriers are facing by interacting with customers during their shifts. That's why some companies are now offering "contactless" delivery options that help people maintain social distancing by allowing couriers to ring the doorbell and leave the package outside. Study finds: Coronavirus can live in the air for hours and on surfaces for days CLOSE

It's vital to clean surfaces you touch every day amid the coronavirus outbreak. Here are mistakes to avoid. USA TODAY

USA How soon after exposure can you test positive?

– Pam from Easton, Maryland There's no specific data on this question yet, according to Gregory Poland, director of the Mayo Clinic’s Vaccine Research Group. However, we do know that someone infected with the virus may begin showing symptoms anywhere between one and 14 days after catching the virus, most commonly around five days, according to the WHO. "The peak viral shedding occurs during the first five days after the onset of symptoms. My guess is that within a few days of being exposed, these patients are beginning to shed virus," Poland said. A recent report from the CDC studying an outbreak at a care home in Washington State found that among 23 residents who tested positive for the virus, 13 were asymptomatic. Within a week, 10 of those 13 developed symptoms, with onset at 3 days.

USA Do the symptoms for COVID-19 come together or can you have separate symptoms showing up at different times?

– Carlos from Los Angeles The most common symptoms are fever, tiredness and dry cough, according to the WHO. Shortness of breath is also among the most common symptoms, according to the CDC. In most cases where symptoms present, those symptoms come together, Hotez said. "Usually it presents with fever and cough, or fever, cough, and shortness of breath," he said. "It might present with one of those symptoms first, but then it rapidly progresses to the others." Some patients also have aches and pains, nasal congestion, runny nose, sore throat or diarrhea. Some people do not have symptoms at all. A New York neurosurgeon is warning people against looking out for fever as the first tell-tale symptom of the virus. His symptoms began with a little bit of congestion and only later progressed to a fever, body aches and chills. More on testing: Coronavirus test swabs aren't your standard Q-tips, and they're running out as testing ramps up

USA How do you actually die from the coronavirus? What happens?

– Catherine from Carson City, Nevada In some cases, the virus ultimately damages tiny air sacs in the lungs, restricting oxygen to the bloodstream and depriving other major organs – including the liver, kidney and brain – of oxygen. Severe cases of coronavirus: Some result in brain damage, inability to walk In a small number of severe cases, that can develop into acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), which requires a patient be placed on a ventilator to supply oxygen.  However, if too much of the lung is damaged and not enough oxygen is supplied to the rest of the body, respiratory failure could lead to organ failure and death. Here's what that looks like inside the body.

USA What is the age range of U.S. deaths from COVID-19?

– Becky from Bentonville, Arkansas In the U.S., ages range from an infant less than one year old to people in their 90s, according to state and local health departments. The Illinois Department of Public Health said Saturday that an infant coronavirus patient younger than one year old in Chicago had died. An investigation was underway to determine the cause of death. "There has never before been a death associated with COVID-19 in an infant," department Director Dr. Ngozi Ezike said. This week health officials also reported that a 17-year-old teen in New Orleans died after contracting the virus. And a 2-month-old in Nashville who tested positive for the virus could be the youngest patient in the nation, officials say. However, this range is not conclusive because health officials have not released the specific ages of several other patients, and new deaths are being reported each day.

USA If a person is sick with the coronavirus and gets tested for the flu, would the flu test be positive?

– Antonio from Patchogue, New York No, the presence of the coronavirus would not turn a flu test positive. However, it's possible to have both the coronavirus and the flu at the same time. In that case, the flu test would be positive. The opposite is also true: Presence of the flu would not result in a positive coronavirus test. It's important to note that, even if someone tests negative for the coronavirus, they still may be infected with the coronavirus. CLOSE

We answer the often searched question: "What are the symptoms of coronavirus versus the flu?" USA TODAY

USA I was told I should be tested if I could not easily inhale a large breath and hold it for at least 10 seconds. Is this good advice?

–Ted from Scottsdale, Arizona No. While shortness of breath is among the most common symptoms of the virus, according to the CDC, that diagnosis does not necessarily involve holding a large breath for 10 seconds. Medically known as dyspnea, shortness of breath is often described as "an intense tightening in the chest, air hunger, difficulty breathing, breathlessness or a feeling of suffocation," according to the Mayo Clinic. If you think you may be sick, call your doctor and follow CDC guidance.

USA Can masks be reused by an infected person or used only once?

– Debra from Dayton, Ohio The longer a mask is used and the more damp it becomes, the less effective it is, Poland said. "But it is definitely better than the alternative of no mask!" Contributing: Molly Stellino, Adrianna Rodriguez, Dalvin Brown, Marco della Cava, Jayme Fraser and Matt Wynn Follow Grace Hauck on Twitter @grace_hauck Autoplay Show Thumbnails Show Captions Last SlideNext Slide Read or Share this story: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2020/03/19/coronavirus-reader-questions-death-age-flu-symptoms-food-timeline/2863776001/ Read the full article

[mongoose232323]

#TrumpShutdownIsComing!!

Sadly You Cannot Make This Crap Up..

Donald Trump Loves To Give His Guests Nasty, Crude

Tours Of The White House And Brag About What Happened In All The Rooms That It Holds..

It Is Now It Is Found That He Loves To Tell Visitors

That Barack Obama Was Lazy And Watched Too Much TV..

From The Article...

The Washington Post published an interesting report today on one of the things Donald Trump does that his presidential predecessors did not: he apparently likes to give White House tours to his guests. "Other presidents have been varied in their reception to guests," the article explained, "but most did not give many elaborate tours, presidential historians and aides say."

The tours apparently include crude jokes -- Trump reportedly likes to point to the locations of sexual encounters between Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky -- and boasts about the ways in which he believes he's improved the White House since taking office. The portrait that emerges is that of a president who has very little actual work to do, and who enjoys showing off his temporary home as a trophy.

This, however, stood out for me.

The president has also claimed to guests, without evidence, that his private dining room off the Oval Office was in "rough shape" with a hole in the wall when he came into the West Wing and that Obama used it to watch sports, according to two White House officials and two other people who have heard him discuss the dining room.

"He just sat in here and watched basketball all day," Trump told a recent group, before saying he upgraded Obama's smaller TV to a sprawling, flat-screen one, the four people said.

There are a few angles to this that seem notable. The first is that Trump's claims, like so much of what he has to say, appear to be made up. The Post's article added, "An Obama White House official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because Obama does not generally respond to Trump's remarks, said that there was no hole in the wall and that Obama rarely worked in the room and did not watch basketball there."

Taking this a step further, I won't claim to be a sports expert, but I'm reasonably sure most basketball games are aired at night. The idea that Barack Obama "watched basketball all day" seems ridiculous on its face, but unless we're to believe the Democrat recorded a bunch of games for afternoon viewing, this is awfully difficult to take seriously.

What's more, given everything we know about Donald Trump and his attitudes on race, it's hardly unreasonable to wonder about the not-so-subtle motivations behind him reportedly telling White House visitors that the nation's first black president was lazy and sat around watching basketball all day.

And the idea that Trump has focused on comparable screen sizes, as if that were an important metric, is very much in keeping with everything we've come to expect from him.

But what I find especially interesting about the anecdote is the underlying point: Trump wants his visitors to think Barack Obama spent too much time in the White House watching television.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/trumps-complaint-white-house-guests-obama-watched-too-much-tv/amp

[stephmolliex]

When to expect Apple's October event and what we're expecting to see

Once again, only Apple knows for sure when -- or even if -- it will hold an event this month, but it does seem very likely that Apple will want to capture the minds of consumers for two consecutive months. AppleInsider reveals why it's harder to predict a date for this one -- and what we can expect to see when it comes. Two things happen the moment Apple's regular September event is over. Outside the company, we all wonder when or whether there will be another in October. And inside Apple, someone starts work on the next typically cryptic invitation. What we all like when looking forward is hard evidence -- and there is some. There's strong reason to believe Apple will hold an event this month even though it didn't last October. There's also interesting historical evidence for when the event might be. It's just that the same historical evidence makes it more difficult to predict a single date than we did with the September one. History in the making Steve Jobs died on October 5, 2011, the day after that year's October event where Apple had revealed Siri and the iPhone 4S. Since then there have been four October events in the seven years to date. Three of those have taken place in the fourth week of the month and the only exception is 2014 when it was in the third week instead. From 2011 to 2014, Apple ran these October events on a Tuesday; since then it's been on a Thursday -- if it's happened at all. The two years that skipped having an October event were 2015 and last year, 2017. That 2015 omission is interesting. This was the year that the 4K Retina iMac was updated. That was on October 13, 2015, and at the same time we saw the Magic Mouse 2 and the Magic Trackpad 2. Two weeks later on October 26 we got the fourth generation Apple TV. If the peripherals and the TV are reasonably small announcements, still Apple brought out that iMac refresh with just a press release like it did in 2018 to the MacBook Pro. Then last year, there wasn't an October event and there weren't any October product launches either. Trying to pick a date Apple did famously drop out of the old Macworld conference because the company didn't like being held to another firm's annual schedule. It just segued into having its own annual schedule instead. At least, though, Apple can pick whatever date suits it and its manufacturing chain -- except no, it can't. Samsung is launching a new Galaxy device on Tuesday October 11 so you can picture calendars in Apple Park with that date crossed out. Subscribe to AppleInsider on YouTube Then we do already know something about Apple's October plans because they've told us. The iPhone XR will be available to pre-order from October 19 and it will start shipping on October 26. Those are both Wednesdays: assume, then, that the phones will begin arriving in people's hands from Thursday, October 27 or even Friday the 28th. It's not like they just made one phone It's a gigantic, simply gigantic job getting those phones to those people. Apple may not own the couriers, it may not fly the aircraft transporting them across the world. Yet just because Apple is used to it, that doesn't make the logistics any easier or any less of a stress on the company. The iPhone XR starts at $749, a full $250 less than the iPhone XS, and it's expected that this price difference will make it the best-selling iPhone this year. Analysts such as Ming-Chi Kuo estimate that overall Apple will sell some 85 million new iPhones of all types by the end of the year. However, the iPhone XR looks likely to account for over half of that . So, while the estimated figures do specifically cover up to 2019, still you can reasonably expect that the majority will be sold at launch. So from October 26 there could be something approaching 30 million iPhone XR boxes en route to customers. Back in 2014 when the iPhone 6 was coming out, anecdotal evidence from pilots said that Apple had chartered between 20 and 30 Boeing 747 aircraft purely to carry phones. Each aircraft was estimated to carry 195,000 iPhones. That Apple can sell this many phones and that it can cope with shipping that many at the same time is remarkable. However, doing all of that and then releasing new iPad Pro models or iMacs shipping at the same time, fighting for air freight space wouldn't be remarkable, it would be foolhardy. Theatrics Apple is very smart about knowing when to release items to get the most publicity and attention for them. You can argue that they've already launched the iPhone XR, yet the 19th and the 26th will see a lot of limelight focused on them. There's nothing to say that Apple couldn't hold another event even as the iPhone XR finally launches, yet it doesn't seem likely for such a news-aware firm. Then, too, there is another event outside Apple's control: the annual Jamf conference runs from October 23 to 25. Jamf is a system for corporate and enterprise customers to manage gigantic numbers of iOS devices. So some of the very people you want to be watching as you launch, say, a new iPad Pro, are going to be a bit tied up for those three days. It might be nice if those people at the Jamf conference were fully briefed about any new iOS devices so you could reasonably expect that Apple has timed its event to happen before that. Only, if you exclude the years Apple didn't do an October event, there has been only one Jamf conference that took place after a special event. That was Jamf 2014, which began five days after Apple's October 16, 2014 reveal. Other than that, in 2013 and 2016, the conference was about a week before Apple's launches. There is one more historical fact that may point to when this year's event will be. Invitations From 2011 to 2016, the last time Apple had an October event, the invitations were sent out with exactly seven days notice -- except once. In 2014, the invitation was sent on October 8 for an event on October 16. That's eight days. So when you even hear that an Apple invitation has been released for an October event, you can guess exactly when the date is. What's in the event Oddly, this time around it's easier to say what is going to be in the event than when precisely it will be. That's because there were so many solid rumors backed up by supply chain and other evidence to fill September's event three times over. Sources who got the details right about the new iPhones and Apple Watch Series 4 continue to point to there being more up Apple's sleeves before the end of the year. Apple has already intimated as much. If you've installed iOS 12 on an iPad then you'll have seen that the regular header information -- the date, battery level and so on -- have been moved to the sides. Or rather, they've been moved away from the center. That's heavily suggestive that there'll be a new iPad that needs that center space for all the same hardware that the iPhone X range does. This is surely where there will be the TrueDepth camera technology to give iPads FaceID. If so, that gives credence to the rumor that new iPads will take on other design elements from the iPhone X such as the drastically reduced bezel around the display screen. Alongside this, analyst Ming-Chi Kuo claims that the iPad Pro will come in an updated 12.9-inch model and a brand new 11-inch one. New Macs Although this is not as solidly backed up as the iPad rumors, Kuo does also claim that there will be a refreshed iMac. It's specifically said to have an improved screen and, possibly supporting this idea, this week Apple informed its stores that its supplies of some existing iMac screens were low. Apple's other desktop, the Mac mini, is similarly rumored to be getting updated with a "professional" remake, but more attention from the mainstream consumer is being focused on Kuo's claim that there will be new -- and cheaper -- MacBooks. Same old, same old We've stuck to where there is at least decent evidence of a new product coming and we're not even trying to weigh up whether there will be new HomePods, AirPods and the mythical AirPower. There won't be. What there almost certainly will be, however, is something missed out. Apple tends to be careful and deliberate about what it releases when while those of us predicting from supply evidence tend to be anything but. The odds are that there will be an October event, and that Apple will release some of these products -- and not all. Calling it Given that we're so keen on hard evidence and given that October 2018 is proving to be an unusually tricky month for Apple to have an event all things considered, still we're going to call it. Unless Apple just decides to email out a press release and be done with it, we say there'll be an event on Thursday October 20. It'll be at the Steve Jobs Theater and Tim Cook will announce incredible pre-order figures for the iPhone XR. It will concentrate on the iPad Pro and pre-orders for those will be announced for the end of the month with shipping in November. We're less sold on new Macs at the release, though. This fits in with everything else in the month and it gets Apple the chance to boast about iPhone XR sales. It also lets them make a splash with a big iPad announcement without then immediately overloading those 747s. And yet it still gives Apple just about the longest run-up to Christmas possible. Consequently we're pretty sure. We'd even say that we'd put money on this being the right date, but on the one hand we're not sufficiently certain and on the other we want to save that money in case there's a new iMac. Keep up with AppleInsider by downloading the AppleInsider app for iOS, and follow us on YouTube, Twitter @appleinsider and Facebook for live, late-breaking coverage. You can also check out our official Instagram account for exclusive photos. https://goo.gl/FvA1ue