crying? im saying you sound like an old man. posting on an online message board about a magazine etc super cool bro
You sound drunk. Hopefully, your kids are asleep so they don't have to see you slobbering on yourself.
When you take the worlds most gorgeous women and replace them with fats and cross dressers, what did you expect to happen? Talk about misjudging your audience! Incredibly dumb marketing moves.
They are going to search for trans p*rn on the hub because they hear it being debated? That’s kind of weird. Why not use search on Google for more legitimate articles than…p*rn?
On topic, I think SI going woke was a symptom of their failure and not the cause. They had a serious obsolescence problem and headed to bankruptcy. The misogynists who are so devoted to the swimsuit issue weren't paying enough to actually keep them in business. So they took a hail mary hoping to catch some lightning with the wokies. It didn't work and their problems caught up with them. They never would have tried it if they thought they had something to lose. But, just like Moreyball dictates you rain the 3-pointers to increase the variance when you're the inferior team and hope for a miracle, they knew they already lost unless they did something different. Really offtopic, but this is a terrible argument. They just found p*rn search volumes in a geographic area and compared it to voting and survey data for those areas? They have nothing to show that the individuals searching for p*rn answered this way or that in voting or surveying on LGBT. It could be that the liberal minority in a conservative area are heavy consumers of trans p*rn, bringing up their whole average, and it'd look the same in their results. We've seen that with racism, where racist attitudes are more pronounced in diverse areas than in homogenous ones. I could imagine the same effect with trans issues.
It's standard correction (eg. it's typical for health studies to rely on correlation since direct access to individuals is often limited). Correlation helps identify patterns, relationships, and generates hypotheses and connections. However, it doesn't imply causation or provide insights into potential other variables. Correlation studies are suggestive, not conclusive. They're not junk or terrible; their value depends on how you use them. As a starting point, they're beneficial. Misinterpreting them as conclusive, though, would be a mistake.
I'd call that more co-incidence than correlation. At least give me an r value if this is any kind of statistical argument.
How in the hell, in the year of our Lord 2024, are we debating the death of a legacy print publication that never adapted to the ground changing underneath its feet?
Ok, I figured out you need to manually fix the url to replace the * with an o. So, now I can see the article. I've never seen r-squared values so low! But, they say this: "While this data has low Rsquared values, our P-values show that even this noisy, high-variability data can have a significant trend. The trend indicates that the predictor variable (political leaning) still provides information about the response (transgender search popularity) even though data points fall further from the regression line. For all keywords we investigated, P-values were significant, allowing us to reject the Null Hypothesis. Thus, there is a statistically significant correlation between being more republican, and trans p*rn search volume, grouped by DMA." I don't know. I'm not a statistician or anything. I find this explanation a little sus though. On the face of it, the claim makes little sense. Then the methodology sounds weak. Then the r values are crazy low. But then I'm to believe the p-values should carry this argument? No, sounds like p-value-abuse.
