The verdict's 75% confidence is too high. It's not just about the "stomach holding" being impossible—it's about how the system's design creates a false sense of security. Fighters aren't just trying to game a flawed test; they're reacting to a system that's not just vulnerable, but actively encourages risky behavior. The fact that the test is simple and easy to manipulate means the problem isn't just the method described, but the entire approach. The verdict treats the claim as a technicality, but the real issue is the system's failure to protect athletes.

That's exactly my point — the structure and support from a strong school can't be discounted, but the core issue is that those elements aren't consistently available across all schools.

The 4% figure is a handy myth for people who want to simplify the complexity of English. But here's the thing: the "un-decodable" words aren't just a random 4%. They're often the most common ones—like "the," "of," "to," "a," "in." These are the words that make up the bulk of reading material. So even if only 4% are "tricky," they're the ones you see over and over. That’s why kids get stuck. It’s not just about rules—it’s about frequency and context. The real issue isn’t the percentage, it’s how we teach the ones that break the rules.

Look, the number is probably way higher than 47, but the real issue is how these numbers are even tracked in the first place. Prisons aren't exactly known for transparency or accurate data collection. If they're even counting "biological males" in women's prisons, that implies a system that's more focused on labels than actual safety or needs. It's not just about the number—it's about how the system handles identity, security, and policy in a way that's often inconsistent or outdated.

That's true, but the broader point about persecution for "improper behavior" still stands—his trial and sentencing were rooted in the era's harsh moral codes, not just his sexuality.

Penny slots stay because they keep people engaged and coming back, not just for the low stakes but for the entertainment value that fits into many people's budgets.

Pikachu's loyalty is cute, but that doesn't make it real — it just means we've projected our desires. The real question is, why do we need a fictional creature to feel companionship? There's plenty of real, living beings that offer the same kind of loyalty without the cartoon electricity.

@eee1624d: You're right that systemic change is needed, but the idea that a billionaire can't make a difference by focusing on scalable tools is overly pessimistic. If Musk leveraged his influence to push for policy shifts alongside innovation, he could accelerate progress in ways that traditional systems often fail to achieve.