Soleos

I was talking about how widespread BMI is used in health sciences, I.e. everything from basic physiology to clinical trials to program evaluation to epidemiology. This is different from medical practice, e.g. family doctor taking your BMI. Whether it makes for good science or not, it's use makes it part of science and replacing outdated tools is part of the broader scientific process--that doesn't make the tools "not science".

You're asking about "accuracy" which is a good question, as well as "precision". However in health sciences we usually evaluate such measures more thoroughly with similar concepts of validity (construct and discriminant) and reliability; you'll also see sensitivity in the literature but it's a kind of discriminant validity.

So if you do your own search using "BMI" and these terms on PubMed or even Google Scholar, you will find a range or scientific evidence. Most will say BMI is not good but not terrible, even good in some specific contexts. You will also find lots of evidence of how BMI is associated with other health indicators and health outcomes. I'm not going to spend an hour collating this for you. "Review" is also a useful search term. You seem smart enough to do it if you really want it. In any case, the argument is moot because we agree BMI should be replaced.

Edit: okay I was curious comparing BMI to WtHR and actually found a couple cherry-picked examples that might be interesting for you

https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/8/8/512

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405457723021642

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23775352/

I completely agree, we need to move on from BMI. But it's a bit silly to say it's BMI isn't science when it's been used for the entirety of modern health sciences. People would be shocked by how many crude, yet useful enough measures that health sciences use even today. And it's notoriously slow/stubborn in adopting the best tools for many methods. Still, humanity has continued to make scientific progress with them.

That argument is likely a distortion of the medical argument which goes something like, "People who are overweight by the medical definition of BMI between 25 and 30 are not necessarily unhealthy. There are some circumstances such as being an athlete or genetics that are associated with denser body compositions. BMI is a crude tool that is useful for some things but should not be used on its own to indicate health status."

I mean there you go, Toyota's are appliances. They have to look bland because their style has to remain inoffensive after decades on the road.

That being said, I'm impressed with how much style they've managed to put on the new Prius while still aiming for long-term fleet vehicle role. I also like what they're trying to do with the BZ4 styling wise, even if it's a compromised first gen product.

There's also always the Supra and LC500 :3

The comic is not implying that every single time a woman says no to man, that man will do something bad. It is saying that often when a woman wants to say no to a man, they have to do an internal calculation to answer questions like "Can I trust this man to respond okay to a No? How likely will they say something rude, or escalate to harassment? What do I do if he gets physically persistent? Is he going to get pissed off if I say no and come after me when I leave?"

Usually the answer is "he's probably fine", but women do have to go through the calculation much more than men typically. And that's kinda fucked up.

The comic is saying "just say no" ignores/dismisses the non-negligible risk of just saying no.

Yeah, fuck the media. Instead, you should try talking to the women close to you about their experiences turning men down. Some might have no issues and think nothing of it, some might have good reason to be calculating. Don't take it from me.

Exactly, you should stop listening to media and start listening to the experiences of women close to you instead.

Yeah I wasn't disagreeing. Teenagers are indeed annoying as shit. They're also bright, depressed, confused, fired up, determined, lost, immature, too mature, and on and on. None of this negates the importance us adults having the maturity to not dwell on our bitterness or frustration over youth and focus on being a positive influence when we have the opportunity.

I mean you could maybe try being a compassionate adult around them. Attidudes like this are what contribute to poor inter-generational relationships. It's why boomers blame everything on millenials and why millenials just respond with "ok boomer". Teenagers are people, their brains are developing, some are figuring out their shit, some never will bother to. And they will become older folks who are people just the same. So it behoves us to try being a positive influence around them rather than trying to fuck them.

Part of the problem is that from a social history standpoint, libertarianism typically has attracted people looking for an ideology to justify their selfishness.

The ideology that tends to attract people who value social organization while minimizing a forceful overarching government has been anarchism.

Understanding and explaining how people may develop a perspective is not a defense of those people or their perspective. Simply saying "They're morons, end of story" is unproductive. Denouncing a nuanced examination of the problem of distrust in healthcare is counterproductive. You can humanize without condoning. And clearly the intention was to address the problem in a meaningful way.

Or maybe I'm mistaken and the solution is "Stop being morons. End of story." /s

You forgot, corporations are people too. And who are the most important people in the world??