Haa, kiitos salapoliisintyöstä! Artikkeli on maksullinen, mutta kasvokuvataulukko onneksi sisältyy ilmaiseen esikatseluun. Minusta (näin yksittäisen heteromiehen otantana) taulukon naisten puoleensavetävyyksissä ei ole juurikaan eroja, ja erityisesti vieläpä niin, että jos jotain, niin high -puolen kasvot ovat pikemminkin vähemmän miellyttäviä kuin low’t. (Tosin en kyllä juuri nyt etsikään seksi- tai parisuhdekumppania.) Sen sijaan taulukon miehistä varsinkin psykopatian kohdalla huomaan suosivani high -puolta, jos kasvojen miellyttävyyttä arvioidaan.
Muistelen joskus taannoin täyttäneeni netissä jotain BBC:n sponssaamaa tutkimusta, jossa piti tehdä jotain päätelmiä kasvokuvien pohjalta. Se ei siis ollut sellainen (pelkästään) hupajuttu vaan sillä kerättyä aineistoa käytettiin myös ainakin osana jotain ns. oikeaa tutkimusta. Pahus kun en vain nyt yhtään muista että mitä siinä tutkittiin.
Oliko Lyonsin otanta kasvokuvia muodostettaessa minkä kokoinen? Tuo oli sen verran mielenkiintoista, että kokeilin etsiä niitä kuvia netistä, jolloin törmäsin päinvastaiseen tulokseen:
The dark triad score was positively correlated with their “dressed-up” attractiveness – a finding that mirrors previous findings. However, the dark triad score was not related to ratings of physical attractiveness in the dressed-down photos. In other words, people with dark personality traits are not seen as more physically attractive than others when you take away their freedom to wear their own clothes and makeup. People with dark personalities seem to be better at making themselves physically appealing.
Holtzman & Struben aineistona oli 111 opiskelijaa, ja ilmeisesti sukupuolia ei heidän tutkimuksessaan eroteltu, eli molemmat arvioivat kummankin sukupuolen edustajien puoleensavetävyyttä.
In the process of entertaining myself with random Imgur images, I constantly come across two of the same ones: a ”Facebook Monopoly” image (for instance, jkuiL) and a ”Three smartphones” one (e.g. 03iyz). Is this part of some advertising partnership of yours or just some weird form of abuse (posted by malware perhaps)? I’ve been collecting lists of URLs of those images, currently the one for ”Facebook Monopoly” has 215 unique addresses and the one for ”Three smartphones” has 135. I can share those lists with you if they’re of any use; I’d post them here already but am worried it might trigger spam detectors.
The Sources of confusion section has this confusing sentence: ”However, if a player believes that sticking and switching are equally successful and therefore randomizes their strategy, they should, in fact, win 50% of the time, reinforcing their original belief.” It could be just due to English not being my native language, but I read that as going against the entire point of the paradox: that the player somehow suddenly has the intuitive 50/50 odds of winning at their last choice, should they simply choose to believe it so. I suggest that this be mended or expanded to better express whatever it is that it’s supposed to mean.
#Mining_and_node_operation currently links to Bitcoind/Bitcoin-Qt, which just redirects back to this article. Bitcoind is the previous name of Bitcoin-Qt (according to that article), so the Bitcoind/Bitcoin-Qt redirection page should point there (or be removed), and the link in this article should just be [[Bitcoin-Qt]]
I liked the part where a door opened.
Sattumalta otinkin juuri eilen oluen, menköön siis Silmikselle! Se oli kylläkin Tsingtao, kun toivoin, että jos vaikka kiinalainen olut ei maistuisi oluelta ensinkään. Maistui.
Thanks, I can confirm that all the windows I posted screenshots of above now have maximizers in Quantal. The package downloading window (which I only mentioned) also had one, but there was one still missing it: the ’Applying Changes’ window. That one also sometimes gets quite a bit of content with the ’Details’ pseudo terminal. I didn’t post a screenshot of it above, I’ll do so now below with Synaptic 0.75.12build1 running in a VM.
Also, I did notice that the maximizers were missing from all of the fixed windows too when running Gnome Classic (No Effects). But I guess that’s going the way of the dinosaurs anyway so it probably doesn’t matter. With Gnome Classic (without ”No Effects”) the maximizers were there, as with LXDE and Xfce. (Non-fallback Gnome 3 was misbehaving too much to be able to tell either way.)
From a similar question on ServerFault (and particularly one response there), one possible explanation for the disparity is that there are processes hanging on to files they’ve accessed on /tmp that have since been deleted.
# lsof | grep deleted
will list such files along with the processes still attached to them.