The very many questions-not-worth-their-own-thread question thread XXVII

[cybrxkhan]

I'd like to see how this varies by culture/socio-economic status/other random social sciencey categories as well.

I can't see it being a bell curve, myself.

I generally rate people very highly on attractiveness. On a scale of 1 to 10 (which I don't use, but if I did), I'd place most people between 7 and 10. With the occasional minger coming in at 3 or 4. And they'd have to be absolutely awful: unkempt, squint-eyed and vicious. And then I'd just feel sorry for them.

I applaud your optimism, which is basically the opposite of what I do. :/

 

[Borachio]

Nah. That's not optimism. I just find people ravishing to look at. Or if not ravishing, at least very interesting.

 

[cybrxkhan]

Nah. That's not optimism. I just find people ravishing to look at. Or if not ravishing, at least very interesting.

That sounds dirty.

 

[Borachio]

Really? Aw!

I prefer a more innocent explanation.

Human beings are hardwired to appreciate facial expression, you know. Our brains devote a considerable proportion of their processing power to this very task.

 

[cybrxkhan]

Question: Concerning shopping online, you can usually organize search results by highest to lowest price. Does this have any purpose? Why would anyone want to find the most expensive results first?

Really? Aw!

I prefer a more innocent explanation.

Human beings are hardwired to appreciate facial expression, you know. Our brains devote a considerable proportion of their processing power to this very task.

That's a nice way of thinking about it.

 

[gay_Aleks]

Question: Concerning shopping online, you can usually organize search results by highest to lowest price. Does this have any purpose? Why would anyone want to find the most expensive results first?

It's due to the weird misconception that "more expensive = better quality".

 

[Zelig]

Question: Concerning shopping online, you can usually organize search results by highest to lowest price. Does this have any purpose? Why would anyone want to find the most expensive results first?

Because online shopping search results are a table that you can order by any column ascending or descending.

 

[bhsup]

To impress your materialistic girlfriend?

 

[Mise]

It's useful if you have a budget, and you want to quickly find the "best" products at that price. E.g. if you're looking for a house and have £250,000 to spend, you don't want to be shown houses for £150,000 because it's unlikely that the best house you can buy for £250,000 actually costs £150,000. Works the same with the almost all products actually.

Tldr, it's highly likely that the best product you can buy for less than X costs around X.

 

[cybrxkhan]

Hmm. All that makes sense.

It seems like my extreme cheapness has left me unable to grasp such concepts.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Nah. That's not optimism. I just find people ravishing to look at. Or if not ravishing, at least very interesting.

It seems you rate the attractiveness of people like they were paintings, rather than as the rest of us does - like they were potential mates.

 

[PlutonianEmpire]

Spoiler :

Rather frustrating, tbh. How do I get around it and still keep adblock on?

 

[madviking]

show some empathy

 

[timtofly]

@ post 292

Should that be in the STUPID QUOTES THREAD?

 

[Zelig]

Spoiler :

THIS is extremely rage-inducing. How do I get around it and still keep adblock on?

Don't visit sucky sites?
Just buy Doom on Steam instead of going to an obviously non-legit site with an inferior in-browser experience?
Use Ad Muncher instead of ABP?
Install the Adblock Warning Removal List for ABP?

 

[PlutonianEmpire]

Don't visit sucky sites?
Just buy Doom on Steam instead of going to an obviously non-legit site with an inferior in-browser experience?

Sorry. I suck at telling difference between legit and non legit.

Use Ad Muncher instead of ABP?
Install the Adblock Warning Removal List for ABP?

The easy list should be useful. Thanks.

 

[salty mud]

If the pay gap between men and women is really that large as people lead us to believe, why don't companies hire only female workers?

 

[Borachio]

I don't know. It's a good question.

Might it have something to do with the potential costs of maternity?

Some industries (notably clothing manufacture, electronics, retail, and primary education - more or less) do favour a female work force.

 

[Mise]

Well, if companies were rational about this sort of thing, there wouldn't be a gender pay gap in the first place. In other words, the lack of pay equality, the lack of women in top positions in companies, and the underemployment of women, minorities etc more generally, all share the same cause.

 

[Quackers]

If the pay gap between men and women is really that large as people lead us to believe, why don't companies hire only female workers?

muh...muh...misorgny!