Do you have literally anything to lend credence to this claim?

Edit: Welp, they brought the receipts.

I get that. But you are making a number of statements/claims about the effects of estrogen on men, so at the very least it would help your credibility to get the word right. Hell, when I tried Googling “protoestrogen”, the Google AI said it wasn’t a word in any kind of normal use but was in a 1998 paper about the possible origins of estrogen.

That is just not where legs go.

Not even one! You can tell this because HBO never made a show about it.

But it’s more of copying, isn’t it? The peoples that the British “take” words from still keep those words.

Perhaps you mean phytoestrogen? Another commenter suggested that the applicable phytoestrogen found in soy may actually be protective against excess estrogen.

Them being a calculator was my takeaway.

I mean, not really. He knows analog clocks well enough that the hand position just inherently means something to him. Afternoon, and the little hand is almost halfway? Work day done! Just by position.

Somewhat analagous: I know how far a meter and a kilometer are, in principle, but when I consider distances I more intuitively understand them in feet and miles. It’s what I’m used to.

I know a Gen X guy who “hates” digital clocks because “they don’t have hands to tell me what time it is.”

Long-time glasses-wearer. My face looks wrong without them, like someone missing their eyebrows. It is interesting how many little things around us are so different for us, like finding sunglasses that sit nicely, protective eyewear that isn’t kept too far away by my glasses’ corners, hats (less commonly a problem), any kind of helmet that approaches or covers the ears, headsets (I swear by earhooks). Not to mention the circumstances that fog them up, like sudden temperature changes (exiting a cooler building or car into a hot outside) or getting hit with a blast of steam from the kettle, oven, or whatever. Fog city, takes awhile to clear up during which I’m either blind because of fog or because of no glasses.

Their username, Almacca, can be rearranged to spell Am A Calc.

Christ.

I describe the video briefly below, so don’t read if you’re straight-up avoiding this.

For anyone curious, it’s not gory or horrendous. There is a chick, which the horse just kinda… mouths up, and the hen rushes the horse who just does care. Then more chewing.

Ice Age 22

The odds of your pet cat killing and eating you are low, but never zero.

I rent

Damn, I wanted a suspension of fine particulate solids in a liquid.

No one expects 100%. Australia hovers around 90% turnout.

The rest below is me just working out some numbers, and isn’t meant to convince anyone of anything.

There are ~236 million Americans citizens of voting age, of whom 73.6% (174 million) are registered to vote.

Of the 174 million registered voters, 155.2 million voted.

Of the 155.2m, 77.3m voted for Trump, 75.0m voted for Harris, and 2.9m voted for someone else. Not that this is how the system works, but more people voted for “someone other than Trump” than voted for him.

If 90% of the 174m voters had voted, that would have increased turnout by 1.4m voters. Not enough to change the popular vote, even if they were all for Harris (though depending on distribution there is at least some small chance the Electoral College votes would have changed enough).

If 90% (212.4m) of the 236m eligible voters had voted, that’s 57.2m more votes to cast.

Pew Research says that polled non-voters went 44% for Trump, 40% for Harris. Applying that to our hypothetical 57.2m voters, it’s 22.9m more for Harris and 25.2m more for Trump, bringing our totals to 102.5m Trump, 97.9m Harris, and a new block of 9.2m undecided. Note that two of those figures rounded up, so the apparent total is 212.6m rather than 212.4m.

The difference between Trump-Harris at this point is 4.6m votes. For Harris to tie/win the popular vote on the new undecided block, she would have needed 75% of them (Harris 6.9% vs. Trump 2.3m).

All of that hinges on polls reflecting reality, which lately is much easier to question (not based on misinformation, just with polling managing so often not matching the real vote results).

Thank you for going on this numbers journey with me.

90%, 80%, hell, even 70%. The general wisdom (not necessarily as true today) is that the higher the turnout in U.S. elections, the more likely the democrat is to win. That was the driver of the attached:

“You can change work” has similar, though not as bad, of vibes as “just move to a different state” these days. My resume isn’t good enough for decent appropriate work but also makes me look riskily overqualified for lesser jobs.