xkcd

by **Kewangji** » Sat Jun 18, 2011 10:22 pm UTC

She'd been repressing her memory of it when they announced it.

by **SecondTalon** » Sun Jun 19, 2011 12:55 am UTC

podbaydoor wrote:Women Laughing Alone With Salad

by **EmptySet** » Sun Jun 19, 2011 3:50 am UTC

podbaydoor wrote:It could be a cheesecake from one of those communal snack days.

So the ad is set before the rise of McCarthyism, then?

by **Cloud Walker** » Sun Jun 19, 2011 5:11 am UTC

It seems to be before the rise of salad, because not everyone is intensely ecstatic. Jesus.

by **folkhero** » Sun Jun 19, 2011 6:26 am UTC

podbaydoor wrote:It could be a cheesecake from one of those communal snack days.

yeah, sometimes people bring in food for the whole office, but if someone brought cheesecake, wouldn't a little bit more than two slices be taken? Hence my confusion about the nature of this so-called "office that might exist outside of a tv commercial fantasy land." I know if I were lucky enough to have access to free cheesecake at work I would eat the shit out of it.

by **Goldstein** » Sun Jun 19, 2011 9:42 am UTC

Does no-one here work in an office where it's customary to get cakes in on one's birthday? Pick apart the portrayal of her disorder all you want, but there's nothing wrong with her place of work.

by **Grop** » Sun Jun 19, 2011 2:49 pm UTC

podbaydoor wrote:Women Laughing Alone With Salad

These women are doing it wrong : these salads obviously lack cheese and meat.

But I am interested in the drugs they are taking.

by **Dason** » Sun Jun 19, 2011 3:37 pm UTC

Goldstein wrote:Does no-one here work in an office where it's customary to get cakes in on one's birthday? Pick apart the portrayal of her disorder all you want, but there's nothing wrong with her place of work.

But there's still no sign saying it's for whoever's birthday and the lady still seems surprised. She doesn't then wonder whose birthday it is and immediately thinks about stealing some cake and not even wishing the birthday person a good day. Still sounds like a jerk to me.

Don't mind me. There aren't too many commercials I like so I tend to destroy the ones I hate. Sure it's possible that she's not a jerk but they didn't do an adequate job conveying that to me. Which they weren't too worried about since that's not the point of the commercial.

by **SurgicalSteel** » Sun Jun 19, 2011 3:42 pm UTC

It could be a community fridge. Some place have private food fridges and community fridges: if you take food from the private food fridge, it damn well better be yours; if you take food from the community fridge, just try to remember to contribute to it every once in a while.

by **folkhero** » Sun Jun 19, 2011 5:40 pm UTC

Goldstein wrote:Does no-one here work in an office where it's customary to get cakes in on one's birthday? Pick apart the portrayal of her disorder all you want, but there's nothing wrong with her place of work.

But when someone takes a cake to work, they usually make an announcement, and more of the cake gets eaten than two slices before it's left alone in the fridge, especially when the cake is a delicious looking cheesecake.

by **Ashlah** » Sun Jun 19, 2011 5:44 pm UTC

Unless they're all eating yogurt instead.

by **podbaydoor** » Sun Jun 19, 2011 11:28 pm UTC

Oh, sizzap!

Also on the joys of stock photography:
The Best of Sexual Harassment Stock Photography

by **Xeio** » Mon Jun 20, 2011 5:42 pm UTC

... diets for choosing your baby's sex...

Even if this has some wacky basis in fact (and I find that highly dubious) I have this strange suspicion that yogurt for girls, and bacon for boys is in no way related to it...

by **Sir_Elderberry** » Tue Jun 21, 2011 4:25 am UTC

Tell me, are they at least advertised for BEFORE conception? Because that'd be a funny brand of stupid.

by **You, sir, name?** » Tue Jun 21, 2011 4:35 am UTC

Sir_Elderberry wrote:Tell me, are they at least advertised for BEFORE conception? Because that'd be a funny brand of stupid.

Isn't it crocodiles or turtles or something that change sex depending on the Temeprature their (fertilized) eggs are kept at?

by **bluebambue** » Tue Jun 21, 2011 4:36 am UTC

You, sir, name? wrote:
Sir_Elderberry wrote:Tell me, are they at least advertised for BEFORE conception? Because that'd be a funny brand of stupid.

Isn't it crocodiles or turtles or something that change sex depending on the Temeprature their (fertilized) eggs are kept at?

I know that is true for crocodiles, not sure about turtles.

by **Sir_Elderberry** » Tue Jun 21, 2011 4:38 am UTC

It's this thing.

by **Dason** » Tue Jun 21, 2011 4:38 am UTC

So the diet turns your kid into a crocodile and then you adjust the temperature to choose the gender of your child. Got it.

by **Magnanimous** » Tue Jun 21, 2011 5:07 am UTC

Giving birth to a crocodile sounds like pretty much the most painful thing ever.

by **bluebambue** » Tue Jun 21, 2011 5:35 am UTC

Crocodile babies are pretty small. Much smaller than a baby's skull. Probably not nearly as painful as regular birth.

by **Soralin** » Tue Jun 21, 2011 6:20 am UTC

Plus they tend to come in eggs, so you wouldn't have to worry about sharp bits anyway.

by **Magnanimous** » Tue Jun 21, 2011 6:35 am UTC

I didn't say crocodile baby. I said crocodile.

by **GhostWolfe** » Tue Jun 21, 2011 7:53 am UTC

folkhero wrote:But when someone takes a cake to work, they usually make an announcement, and more of the cake gets eaten than two slices before it's left alone in the fridge, especially when the cake is a delicious looking cheesecake.

I used to work in an office of 12 people. When there was a b-day cake, one of the manager's would go around and say "cake in the fridge". If you happened to be in the bathroom at the time of the announcement, then yes, cake might come as a "oh, it's a cake day" surprise. And with so few co-workers, it was highly possible that most of them were waiting until "I just finish this", or "I have my morning coffee", etc.

/angell

by **BoomFrog** » Tue Jun 21, 2011 9:27 am UTC

Xeio wrote:... diets for choosing your baby's sex...

Even if this has some wacky basis in fact (and I find that highly dubious) I have this strange suspicion that yogurt for girls, and bacon for boys is in no way related to it...

Dun dun duuuuuuuuun

Spoiler:

by **Xeio** » Tue Jun 21, 2011 4:00 pm UTC

Sir_Elderberry wrote:Tell me, are they at least advertised for BEFORE conception? Because that'd be a funny brand of stupid.

The ad didn't seem to imply it, which is why I checked it out, but yes, the website says prior to conception.

BoomFrog wrote:Dun dun duuuuuuuuun

I'm now wondering what the mechanism for this is... are there differences between sperm that have an X chromosome as opposed to a Y chromosome that makes them more likely to implant in certain conditions or something? Because else I am at a loss. :shock:

by **Moose Hole** » Tue Jun 21, 2011 4:42 pm UTC

Is Magnum ice cream supposed to be like a huge black penis (see Magnum condoms), or am I reading too much into that commercial? Also, it shows a skinny chick eating non-diet ice cream, so you feminists should like that commercial, right?

by **Zarq** » Tue Jun 21, 2011 4:49 pm UTC

Moose Hole wrote:or am I reading too much into that commercial?

You are.

by **Whelan** » Tue Jun 21, 2011 5:22 pm UTC

Xeio wrote:
Sir_Elderberry wrote:Tell me, are they at least advertised for BEFORE conception? Because that'd be a funny brand of stupid.
The ad didn't seem to imply it, which is why I checked it out, but yes, the website says prior to conception.
BoomFrog wrote:Dun dun duuuuuuuuun
I'm now wondering what the mechanism for this is... are there differences between sperm that have an X chromosome as opposed to a Y chromosome that makes them more likely to implant in certain conditions or something? Because else I am at a loss.

X sperm might be slightly heavier, given the extra DNA they're carrying. Based on this male sperm would be a bit faster, so a woman on more calories can produce stronger 'defences' so only the faster sperm would get through, and thus, more likely to have a boy.

by **Zarq** » Tue Jun 21, 2011 5:24 pm UTC

Doesn't the Y-sperm being faster also mean it burns through it energy faster, which means it dies faster?

by **Whelan** » Tue Jun 21, 2011 5:46 pm UTC

Work done = Force x Distance
Force = Mass x acceleration
Lower Mass means that Force can be the same for a higher acceleration, so the same energy would be used.

by **Zarq** » Tue Jun 21, 2011 5:58 pm UTC

You're probably correct. That was just something I read while looking up that thing about the Y-chromosomes having lower mass, because I wanted to make the exact same reply.

by **The Scyphozoa** » Tue Jun 21, 2011 6:24 pm UTC

Whelan wrote:
Xeio wrote:
Sir_Elderberry wrote:Tell me, are they at least advertised for BEFORE conception? Because that'd be a funny brand of stupid.
The ad didn't seem to imply it, which is why I checked it out, but yes, the website says prior to conception.
BoomFrog wrote:Dun dun duuuuuuuuun
I'm now wondering what the mechanism for this is... are there differences between sperm that have an X chromosome as opposed to a Y chromosome that makes them more likely to implant in certain conditions or something? Because else I am at a loss.

X sperm might be slightly heavier, given the extra DNA they're carrying. Based on this male sperm would be a bit faster, so a woman on more calories can produce stronger 'defences' so only the faster sperm would get through, and thus, more likely to have a boy.

Why would the body put up defenses against sperm in the first place?

by **SecondTalon** » Tue Jun 21, 2011 6:33 pm UTC

The Scyphozoa wrote:Why would the body put up defenses against sperm in the first place?

It's not a defense against Sperm, it's a defense against Foreign Invaders.

Sperm just happens to be a (very small) subset of that group. It's better for the body to defend against Every-fucking-thing and go apeshit than it is to not. So it's not that the body defends against Sperm, it's that the body has a mechanism that gets the defenses to calm down for a moment or two when Sperm shows up... sometimes.

by **Cloud Walker** » Tue Jun 21, 2011 7:27 pm UTC

SexyTalon wrote:
The Scyphozoa wrote:Why would the body put up defenses against sperm in the first place?
It's not a defense against Sperm, it's a defense against Foreign Invaders.

Sperm just happens to be a (very small) subset of that group. It's better for the body to defend against Every-fucking-thing and go apeshit than it is to not. So it's not that the body defends against Sperm, it's that the body has a mechanism that gets the defenses to calm down for a moment or two when Sperm shows up... sometimes.

But then the answer given to the diet/calorie question doesn't make much sense. . .

I always thought that the female "defends" against sperm as a form a sexual selection. A male in poor health (which could have been due to an inferior genetic makeup) will probably produce damaged/fewer sperm and be less likely to fertilize a female; the female will save a ton of energy and 9 months of her life from being pregnant with a baby of inferior genetic makeup. A healthy male, on the other hand, will produce robust/a higher amount of sperm, which will be able to make it through the hostile environment. The female gets a better baby. I would guess that the fact that males produce so many sperm would be an attempted counter to that selective force.

But I'm just speculating. What I really wonder is how is babby formed?

by **You, sir, name?** » Thu Jun 23, 2011 3:09 am UTC

Re: Stock photos

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net ... ock_photos

by **The Scyphozoa** » Thu Jun 23, 2011 5:06 am UTC

Trigger warning in the above.

Never thought I'd be saying those words, as I try to... ah, fuck it. Yeah, trigger warning in the above.

by **Manial** » Fri Jun 24, 2011 5:23 am UTC

On the diet-baby-sex thing, I always thought that it's because females are more useful evolutionarily. As one male can mate with multiple females, females are more necessary for continuing the species. Males just compete with each other, and occasionally attack other males and possibly their offspring. So when food is low, males are the first to go.

I may be extrapolating too much from other species though.

by **crowey** » Fri Jun 24, 2011 9:45 am UTC

yes, yes you are. that's why evolutionary psychology is mostly bullshit :wink:

by **Magnanimous** » Fri Jun 24, 2011 8:36 pm UTC

You only really need one man, anyway. Screw genetic diversity, we've got babies to make!

by **Shivahn** » Fri Jun 24, 2011 9:10 pm UTC

crowey wrote:yes, yes you are. that's why evolutionary psychology is mostly bullshit

That's hardly the only reason

Anyway, if females were that much more useful evolutionarily in people, our birth ratio would not be generally 1.05:1 in male's favor.

Who is online