Leaderboard

I think it's utterly despicable the police have gone down this route and divulged the personal vulnerabilities to this extent. It's like they're deflecting away from their own shortcomings and handling of the case.

Honestly to me it makes perfect sense that developing nations with hostile history with their neighbors are the most racist. It shouldn't even be close imo.

Think I'm done with Yakuza: Like a Dragon now. Completed the game and done a lot of the side stuff. However, there is one last challenge as the true final 'dungeon' is now available to me as my final challenge. The game pretty much recommends that I'm more or less at max level to stand a chance of beating it. So I had a crack at around mid to high 70's. My party was basically one shotted.

Bit late but here's some pics of my trip to Krakow, minus the Auschwitz one's I'd already posted seperately. All the snowy pics are from a day trip to Zakopane, in the mountains. Amazing place. Apologies for the spam, just skip if you like

My birthday was 2 days ago. Not gonna lie it was the best and most caring birthday in years, really proved to me my evolution as a human.

Snow Leopard. That thing looks sweet.

Yeah, there's an argument that using sample sizes that are too high is unnecessary/inefficient for research - as well as arguably unethical (and conversely, using sample sizes that are too small is considered unscientific and unethical). But there's a few things to consider when you need to determine the sample size of a survey: 1.) population size; 2.) the confidence interval (the margin of error you're allowing for in the survey - a lot of the time with surveys you see online it's a margin of error of + or - 5%); 3.) the confidence level (how confident you are that the actual mean of the results falls into the confidence level; 4.) the standard deviation (a lower standard deviation means the values will be clustered around the mean, a high standard deviation means they're spread across a wider range) - when you haven't yet run a survey, don't know what your standard deviation's going to be... .5 is what's used on a lot of surveys. In statistics there's something called a z-score you use for formulas trying to take your confidence level and plug it into a formula to get the required sample size. For a 95% confidence level (with that +/- 5% margin of error I mentioned) the z-score = 1.96. There's a few different formulas you can use to determine a sample size. One common one is Cochran's formula, which is: necessary sample size = (z-score)2 x Standard deviation x (1-standard deviation) / (margin of error)2 , so plugging all that shite I talked mentioned above necessary sample size = (1.96)2 x .5(.5) / (.05)2 ... (3.8416 x .25) / .0025.... .9604/.0025... 384.16 And since you can't sample .16 of a person, the necessary sample size is 385. Then there's a correction formula for Cochran's formula for "small populations", which is: adjusted necessary sample size = the necessary sample size we got above / 1 + (necessary sample size from above - 1)/size of population being sampled. So filling in those variables with the Netherlands' population (which you'll see, we don't really need to do because the Netherlands does not have a small population) adjusted sample size = 385 / 1+ (384/17.5m)... 385 / 1 + ( .00002194)... so 385/1.00002194... 384.991553 & since we can't sample .99 of a person, that's 385. It's important to note that statistical significance is not always the same as research significance (though they can be related) and there are a lot of variables that go into whether a sampled population is considered quality or not. Apologies for the random statistics lesson!

Think it works on law of percentages vs true size. 1000 in some of those countries amounts to varying percentages against the rest. For all we know it was 2K in one country 500 in the next to balance it all out.

Biggest day of protests in Iran since the winter rolled around. And then the Jerusalem Post says that Khamenei has funneled $4b USD to his son's account in Venezuela. While the thievery is disgusting, and likely to go unpunished, I hope this means the end of the IRI is near and these bastards are planning on fleeing like the cowards they are. 20 independent union organizations in Iran have also made their demands for what they want to see changed in the country before they stop calling for strikes and protests: Unconditional release of all prisoners and a public trial of those responsible for suppressing protests Freedom of expression, thought, local and national union gatherings, strikes, social networks, press and political parties Abolition of the death penalty and torture Full equality between man and women in all fields + end of all discrimination against sexual minorities and the decriminalisation of sexual orientations Separation of politics and religion Sounds great to me, I hope they succeed.

The wife was raging about that and said the police should not have divulged information like that which I agreed with but surely the police asked close family first if it that was ok or just went ahead and revealed the drinking issue without consulting close family and friends.

They have no idea where that woman is, but release private and delicate personal information about her? More like speculations too. Truly wtf.

I think the Scottish parliament self identifying trans rights thing hit her confidence harder than she would admit. A dodgy front of neck tatoo'ed shaven headed rapist was a very high profile case soon after her rules were being put in place. He put on a blonde wig & some make up. JK had a bit to say about it all. I have seen a Twitter captioned post of her kneeling to a young girl in a playground asking her in speech bubble what the young girls views are on male rapists. Does she support them self identifying into women prisons, or is the girl a nasty right winger. And Sturgeon had to issue a statement about teething problems, or something to that effect, while that rapist & a few others got moved to men's prisons. Plus, a while before all the above, the UK court had ruled a 2nd Scottish referendum was illegal without UK parliament approval. Which she had already proclaimed would happen. On a 50%+ coalition. Pressure from the zealots to do a 2nd vote anyway. Or to treat the next UK General Election as a referendum vote. etc. Basically the 1 party pressure group point of the SNP just got a whole lot more complex even among the like minded. And regardless what Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi & Ursula von der Leyen may or may not be rooting for. And I imagine most the SNP do realise, even if they edge over the winning line, in their own country, they would have to make Britain like Ireland, which isn't especially a political success story. An England-Scotland border? Or best Scottish return to EU a weird sea bridge thing? Perhaps even ideas that England will just become Northern Ireland? Everyone knows that is the choice, much more clearly than English voters realised they would have such an effect on Ireland. The SNP want Scots to vote for it. With the best will in the World, it can only be a mess the longer it's my-way-or-no-way types leading politics. Basically I think she knows all this & it's finally become too much, even for her brass neck.

Another thing to consider is that quite a few countries in the "most racist" list have had ongoing internal or external conflicts in recent past or present with certain other nations or ethnic groups, so it's probably not surprising that it would strongly influence their preferences in terms of having neighbours of other race/nationality.

Hmm. It classes them, as the title, as 'most racist countries in the world' but clarifies this point almost immediately as some kind of caveat The other potential flaw is that only 61 countries were surveyed in one study, and only 78 in another survey. It's not even half of the world's countries. It's hard to see what other countries were surveyed other than a 'top 25'. Only from a quick look and going through some of the links on the page. Were Western European countries even surveyed? It's such a difficult and subjective topic to cover. It's rare you'll see any large volume of people admit they're racist. But I don't think the questions they ask point to 'being racist'. At least not by way of the definition of racism that we know or follow. Just because someone doesn't want to live next to a 'foreign neighbour' doesn't automatically make them racist. They might have a valid reason for doing so. But they're ticked on a checkbox as 'racist' because they said no.