|
On January 03 2016 05:17 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2016 03:49 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Not only tips per se, but they aren't required to be paid a standard minimum wage, so I've had friends who got paid like $3/hr plus tips. It's pretty bullshit and highly variable. Minimum wage is in the $6-$7 range for most "low level" jobs. Except for service industry--which can go as low to $2 for a lot of states. If you don't tip the $1-$3 on average for most small purchases you literally cut their pay by almost half. Hence why I pay 10% minimum for bad service.
I agree, although the onus shouldn't be on the consumer to pay for half of the worker's salary. It should be the employer.
|
|
|
On January 03 2016 05:57 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:That is absolutely not a stupid question! Please someone make a thread... I'm away for now so I can't x.x
Please be kind enough to let me rephrase it: Why havent you made a thread already? 
|
On January 03 2016 06:05 greenelve wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2016 05:57 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On January 03 2016 05:19 greenelve wrote:Where is the AGDQ 2016 thread?  That is absolutely not a stupid question! Please someone make a thread... I'm away for now so I can't x.x Please be kind enough to let me rephrase it: Why havent you made a thread already?
Touche. Give me a half hour please 
|
what a nice schedule. Aeromi would be proud
|
|
|
On January 03 2016 05:55 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2016 05:17 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 03 2016 03:49 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Not only tips per se, but they aren't required to be paid a standard minimum wage, so I've had friends who got paid like $3/hr plus tips. It's pretty bullshit and highly variable. Minimum wage is in the $6-$7 range for most "low level" jobs. Except for service industry--which can go as low to $2 for a lot of states. If you don't tip the $1-$3 on average for most small purchases you literally cut their pay by almost half. Hence why I pay 10% minimum for bad service. I agree, although the onus shouldn't be on the consumer to pay for half of the worker's salary. It should be the employer.
I very much agree that the onus should not be on the consumer.
If they'd rather pay workers per service provided instead of salary/hourly, they could easily make servers work on commission instead of through tips. As is, having servers depend on the charity of others is literally a cruel and archaic system.
|
|
|
Are deep sea creatures like the goblin shark and fanfin seadevil uglier than other animals because they can't see who they're shagging in the dark, and so can't select for attractive features in a mate?
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On January 04 2016 15:21 Epishade wrote:Are deep sea creatures like the goblin shark and fanfin seadevil uglier than other animals because they can't see who they're shagging in the dark, and so can't select for attractive features in a mate? + Show Spoiler +
No, that's now how "attractive" work.
You have a quite strong evolutionary pressure in picking a mate that is likely to successfully proliferate your genes. Largely, this translates into an evolutionary pressure on who you find attractive. So by evolution, who animals find attractive are animals that are evolutionary fit. There is no objective cross-species notion of "attractive", although some properties go for many species, such a strong muscular male.
The fact that we find deep-sea fish ugly is because they are different from our beauty standards that are mostly determined by human evolutionary pressure. The deep-sea fish are attractive to other deep-sea fish, or they would've been sorted by selective evolution. So for example, it seems like it is a good survival tool for some deep-sea fish to have a horribly oversized jaw. That means that it is advantageous for other deep-sea fish to bed other deep-sea fish with disfiguringly enormous jaws, as the property transfers to the offspring, which is then more likely to survive and proliferate. That means that, by evolutionary selection, deep-sea fish will find elephant-size jaws the hottest thing since that underwater volcano in 1978.
|
Guys just need dancing skillz.
Actually, the number one factor in attraction is location lol
|
On January 04 2016 15:56 riotjune wrote:
Guys just need dancing skillz.
Actually, the number one factor in attraction is location lol
Location is only secondary to available options.
|
On January 04 2016 16:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2016 15:56 riotjune wrote:
Guys just need dancing skillz.
Actually, the number one factor in attraction is location lol Location is only secondary to available options.
What are available options?
|
On January 04 2016 15:39 Cascade wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2016 15:21 Epishade wrote:Are deep sea creatures like the goblin shark and fanfin seadevil uglier than other animals because they can't see who they're shagging in the dark, and so can't select for attractive features in a mate? + Show Spoiler + No, that's now how "attractive" work. You have a quite strong evolutionary pressure in picking a mate that is likely to successfully proliferate your genes. Largely, this translates into an evolutionary pressure on who you find attractive. So by evolution, who animals find attractive are animals that are evolutionary fit.
Sexual selection may put an evolutionary pressure that acts against environmental fitness. Classical example would be peacock feathers. Those huge feathers hinder both flight and run, take energy to produce, yet their show attracts females enough to balance the negative pressure.
On January 04 2016 15:39 Cascade wrote:
There is no objective cross-species notion of "attractive", although some properties go for many species, such a strong muscular male.
In most species, females are larger (in insects, up to 100x the size of the male). "Strong muscular male" is mostly seen in mammals and is often another type of sexual selection: agressive males fight to get access to females. Being the larger/stronger one is wasteful and close to useless outside of sexual competition, but it gives a fighting edge to get access to females, hence it is selected.
On January 04 2016 15:39 Cascade wrote:
The fact that we find deep-sea fish ugly is because they are different from our beauty standards that are mostly determined by human evolutionary pressure. The deep-sea fish are attractive to other deep-sea fish, or they would've been sorted by selective evolution.
In blind species, there will be no selection for "visual attractiveness" at all.
Fun fact: the fish in the picture (anglerfish) has a very specific reproduction method. Males are very small compared to females and spend their life trying to find a female. If they find one and manage to get close, they bite her and fuse whith her (no choice involved, they bite anything anyway). Their blood systems become one, the male will never detach again, but his sperm will be used for reproduction (female may fuse with several males).
|
On January 04 2016 19:09 Oshuy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2016 15:39 Cascade wrote:On January 04 2016 15:21 Epishade wrote:Are deep sea creatures like the goblin shark and fanfin seadevil uglier than other animals because they can't see who they're shagging in the dark, and so can't select for attractive features in a mate? + Show Spoiler + No, that's now how "attractive" work. You have a quite strong evolutionary pressure in picking a mate that is likely to successfully proliferate your genes. Largely, this translates into an evolutionary pressure on who you find attractive. So by evolution, who animals find attractive are animals that are evolutionary fit. Sexual selection may put an evolutionary pressure that acts against environmental fitness. Classical example would be peacock feathers. Those huge feathers hinder both flight and run, take energy to produce, yet their show attracts females enough to balance the negative pressure. Show nested quote +On January 04 2016 15:39 Cascade wrote:
There is no objective cross-species notion of "attractive", although some properties go for many species, such a strong muscular male. In most species, females are larger (in insects, up to 100x the size of the male). "Strong muscular male" is mostly seen in mammals and is often another type of sexual selection: agressive males fight to get access to females. Being the larger/stronger one is wasteful and close to useless outside of sexual competition, but it gives a fighting edge to get access to females, hence it is selected. Show nested quote +On January 04 2016 15:39 Cascade wrote:
The fact that we find deep-sea fish ugly is because they are different from our beauty standards that are mostly determined by human evolutionary pressure. The deep-sea fish are attractive to other deep-sea fish, or they would've been sorted by selective evolution. In blind species, there will be no selection for "visual attractiveness" at all. Fun fact: the fish in the picture (anglerfish) has a very specific reproduction method. Males are very small compared to females and spend their life trying to find a female. If they find one and manage to get close, they bite her and fuse whith her (no choice involved, they bite anything anyway). Their blood systems become one, the male will never detach again, but his sperm will be used for reproduction (female may fuse with several males).
Haha, yes I probably was a bit off in most of the details (thanks), but the general gist of it should still stand. That what we find ugly doesn't apply to deep-sea fish.
I was about to mention the dontrememberthename-crab, that got this enormous claw that is definitely not practical in any way, but the gurlz looove it.
|
On January 04 2016 20:15 Cascade wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2016 19:09 Oshuy wrote:On January 04 2016 15:39 Cascade wrote:On January 04 2016 15:21 Epishade wrote:Are deep sea creatures like the goblin shark and fanfin seadevil uglier than other animals because they can't see who they're shagging in the dark, and so can't select for attractive features in a mate? + Show Spoiler + No, that's now how "attractive" work. You have a quite strong evolutionary pressure in picking a mate that is likely to successfully proliferate your genes. Largely, this translates into an evolutionary pressure on who you find attractive. So by evolution, who animals find attractive are animals that are evolutionary fit. Sexual selection may put an evolutionary pressure that acts against environmental fitness. Classical example would be peacock feathers. Those huge feathers hinder both flight and run, take energy to produce, yet their show attracts females enough to balance the negative pressure. On January 04 2016 15:39 Cascade wrote:
There is no objective cross-species notion of "attractive", although some properties go for many species, such a strong muscular male. In most species, females are larger (in insects, up to 100x the size of the male). "Strong muscular male" is mostly seen in mammals and is often another type of sexual selection: agressive males fight to get access to females. Being the larger/stronger one is wasteful and close to useless outside of sexual competition, but it gives a fighting edge to get access to females, hence it is selected. On January 04 2016 15:39 Cascade wrote:
The fact that we find deep-sea fish ugly is because they are different from our beauty standards that are mostly determined by human evolutionary pressure. The deep-sea fish are attractive to other deep-sea fish, or they would've been sorted by selective evolution. In blind species, there will be no selection for "visual attractiveness" at all. Fun fact: the fish in the picture (anglerfish) has a very specific reproduction method. Males are very small compared to females and spend their life trying to find a female. If they find one and manage to get close, they bite her and fuse whith her (no choice involved, they bite anything anyway). Their blood systems become one, the male will never detach again, but his sperm will be used for reproduction (female may fuse with several males). Haha, yes I probably was a bit off in most of the details (thanks), but the general gist of it should still stand. That what we find ugly doesn't apply to deep-sea fish. I was about to mention the dontrememberthename-crab, that got this enormous claw that is definitely not practical in any way, but the gurlz looove it.
Who doesn't love a big, shiny, manly claw?
|
On January 04 2016 20:40 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2016 20:15 Cascade wrote:On January 04 2016 19:09 Oshuy wrote:On January 04 2016 15:39 Cascade wrote:On January 04 2016 15:21 Epishade wrote:Are deep sea creatures like the goblin shark and fanfin seadevil uglier than other animals because they can't see who they're shagging in the dark, and so can't select for attractive features in a mate? + Show Spoiler + No, that's now how "attractive" work. You have a quite strong evolutionary pressure in picking a mate that is likely to successfully proliferate your genes. Largely, this translates into an evolutionary pressure on who you find attractive. So by evolution, who animals find attractive are animals that are evolutionary fit. Sexual selection may put an evolutionary pressure that acts against environmental fitness. Classical example would be peacock feathers. Those huge feathers hinder both flight and run, take energy to produce, yet their show attracts females enough to balance the negative pressure. On January 04 2016 15:39 Cascade wrote:
There is no objective cross-species notion of "attractive", although some properties go for many species, such a strong muscular male. In most species, females are larger (in insects, up to 100x the size of the male). "Strong muscular male" is mostly seen in mammals and is often another type of sexual selection: agressive males fight to get access to females. Being the larger/stronger one is wasteful and close to useless outside of sexual competition, but it gives a fighting edge to get access to females, hence it is selected. On January 04 2016 15:39 Cascade wrote:
The fact that we find deep-sea fish ugly is because they are different from our beauty standards that are mostly determined by human evolutionary pressure. The deep-sea fish are attractive to other deep-sea fish, or they would've been sorted by selective evolution. In blind species, there will be no selection for "visual attractiveness" at all. Fun fact: the fish in the picture (anglerfish) has a very specific reproduction method. Males are very small compared to females and spend their life trying to find a female. If they find one and manage to get close, they bite her and fuse whith her (no choice involved, they bite anything anyway). Their blood systems become one, the male will never detach again, but his sperm will be used for reproduction (female may fuse with several males). Haha, yes I probably was a bit off in most of the details (thanks), but the general gist of it should still stand. That what we find ugly doesn't apply to deep-sea fish. I was about to mention the dontrememberthename-crab, that got this enormous claw that is definitely not practical in any way, but the gurlz looove it. Who doesn't love a big, shiny, manly claw?
I think the theory is that some of these pointless features display something like "Hey, i am so fit, i can even afford to waste calories onto growing utterly pointless shiny feathers. Are you gonna mate with me or with some lesser mate that barely scrapes by and has to care that much for survival that he has to take care where he invests every single calorie?"
|
On January 04 2016 20:45 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2016 20:40 OtherWorld wrote:On January 04 2016 20:15 Cascade wrote:On January 04 2016 19:09 Oshuy wrote:On January 04 2016 15:39 Cascade wrote:On January 04 2016 15:21 Epishade wrote:Are deep sea creatures like the goblin shark and fanfin seadevil uglier than other animals because they can't see who they're shagging in the dark, and so can't select for attractive features in a mate? + Show Spoiler + No, that's now how "attractive" work. You have a quite strong evolutionary pressure in picking a mate that is likely to successfully proliferate your genes. Largely, this translates into an evolutionary pressure on who you find attractive. So by evolution, who animals find attractive are animals that are evolutionary fit. Sexual selection may put an evolutionary pressure that acts against environmental fitness. Classical example would be peacock feathers. Those huge feathers hinder both flight and run, take energy to produce, yet their show attracts females enough to balance the negative pressure. On January 04 2016 15:39 Cascade wrote:
There is no objective cross-species notion of "attractive", although some properties go for many species, such a strong muscular male. In most species, females are larger (in insects, up to 100x the size of the male). "Strong muscular male" is mostly seen in mammals and is often another type of sexual selection: agressive males fight to get access to females. Being the larger/stronger one is wasteful and close to useless outside of sexual competition, but it gives a fighting edge to get access to females, hence it is selected. On January 04 2016 15:39 Cascade wrote:
The fact that we find deep-sea fish ugly is because they are different from our beauty standards that are mostly determined by human evolutionary pressure. The deep-sea fish are attractive to other deep-sea fish, or they would've been sorted by selective evolution. In blind species, there will be no selection for "visual attractiveness" at all. Fun fact: the fish in the picture (anglerfish) has a very specific reproduction method. Males are very small compared to females and spend their life trying to find a female. If they find one and manage to get close, they bite her and fuse whith her (no choice involved, they bite anything anyway). Their blood systems become one, the male will never detach again, but his sperm will be used for reproduction (female may fuse with several males). Haha, yes I probably was a bit off in most of the details (thanks), but the general gist of it should still stand. That what we find ugly doesn't apply to deep-sea fish. I was about to mention the dontrememberthename-crab, that got this enormous claw that is definitely not practical in any way, but the gurlz looove it. Who doesn't love a big, shiny, manly claw? I think the theory is that some of these pointless features display something like "Hey, i am so fit, i can even afford to waste calories onto growing utterly pointless shiny feathers. Are you gonna mate with me or with some lesser mate that barely scrapes by and has to care that much for survival that he has to take care where he invests every single calorie?"
Yeah, I think the idea is:
1) big claws are useful for surviving.
2) girls pick up on it evolutionary, and start to go after guys with big claws.
3) guys evolutionary realise that they can get more offspring by compromising on the practically with a too large claw, to get more action.
I guess that is the case with penises and breasts for humans as well?
|
Is it true that in the US party cups are red so that the Police can't tell what one is drinking? So no problem with underage alcohol consumption etc
|
On January 04 2016 21:43 Cascade wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2016 20:45 Simberto wrote:On January 04 2016 20:40 OtherWorld wrote:On January 04 2016 20:15 Cascade wrote:On January 04 2016 19:09 Oshuy wrote:On January 04 2016 15:39 Cascade wrote:On January 04 2016 15:21 Epishade wrote:Are deep sea creatures like the goblin shark and fanfin seadevil uglier than other animals because they can't see who they're shagging in the dark, and so can't select for attractive features in a mate? + Show Spoiler + No, that's now how "attractive" work. You have a quite strong evolutionary pressure in picking a mate that is likely to successfully proliferate your genes. Largely, this translates into an evolutionary pressure on who you find attractive. So by evolution, who animals find attractive are animals that are evolutionary fit. Sexual selection may put an evolutionary pressure that acts against environmental fitness. Classical example would be peacock feathers. Those huge feathers hinder both flight and run, take energy to produce, yet their show attracts females enough to balance the negative pressure. On January 04 2016 15:39 Cascade wrote:
There is no objective cross-species notion of "attractive", although some properties go for many species, such a strong muscular male. In most species, females are larger (in insects, up to 100x the size of the male). "Strong muscular male" is mostly seen in mammals and is often another type of sexual selection: agressive males fight to get access to females. Being the larger/stronger one is wasteful and close to useless outside of sexual competition, but it gives a fighting edge to get access to females, hence it is selected. On January 04 2016 15:39 Cascade wrote:
The fact that we find deep-sea fish ugly is because they are different from our beauty standards that are mostly determined by human evolutionary pressure. The deep-sea fish are attractive to other deep-sea fish, or they would've been sorted by selective evolution. In blind species, there will be no selection for "visual attractiveness" at all. Fun fact: the fish in the picture (anglerfish) has a very specific reproduction method. Males are very small compared to females and spend their life trying to find a female. If they find one and manage to get close, they bite her and fuse whith her (no choice involved, they bite anything anyway). Their blood systems become one, the male will never detach again, but his sperm will be used for reproduction (female may fuse with several males). Haha, yes I probably was a bit off in most of the details (thanks), but the general gist of it should still stand. That what we find ugly doesn't apply to deep-sea fish. I was about to mention the dontrememberthename-crab, that got this enormous claw that is definitely not practical in any way, but the gurlz looove it. Who doesn't love a big, shiny, manly claw? I think the theory is that some of these pointless features display something like "Hey, i am so fit, i can even afford to waste calories onto growing utterly pointless shiny feathers. Are you gonna mate with me or with some lesser mate that barely scrapes by and has to care that much for survival that he has to take care where he invests every single calorie?" Yeah, I think the idea is: 1) big claws are useful for surviving. 2) girls pick up on it evolutionary, and start to go after guys with big claws. 3) guys evolutionary realise that they can get more offspring by compromising on the practically with a too large claw, to get more action. I guess that is the case with penises and breasts for humans as well?
Part of the handicap principle (wikipedia) within the Animal signalling theory (wikipedia).
Relies on game theory, basically: for a given handicap and selection pressure, it can be more interesting to select a mate known to be fit becaused he survived the handicap/developped the handicaping characteristic than to make a bet on a non-handicaped mate (which is fitter if sound, but could be unsound).
Evolution of human breasts is usually accepted as sexual selection, it is at least controversial for human penis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/vFTNe51.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/pJ9FLmo.jpg)
