(Part 2) Best products from r/dataisbeautiful

>I don't need to. The assertions is that a physical thing can't create another physical thing. That is demonstrably untrue. You're placing restricting characteristics, not me.

It's not that a physical thing can't create another physical thing (even though it would actually be a physical thing creating a physical thing out of nothing), it's that the werewolf, a physical thing, would have nowhere to be while creating the universe, and no time to do it in.

>If a wearwolf doesn't exist, it can be whatever definition I'd like. Just like your god.

No this is idiotic. The word werewolf has a definition. You can't just change the definition however you'd like. If you can, then the conversation is meaningless because you'll just change it to be exactly like god, and then we're not talking about werewolves anymore.

> I would need to know why you think anything is likely in order to demonstrate why my wearwolf is likely. You would have to present your argument for why god is likely to have created the universe. I can then replace god with anything, and the argument will probably not change, if it's any of the popular ones. To be clear. Any argument I present would be a straw man of whatever you actually believe God is. I don't know how else to explain this.

Wrong. What I have to do is show why a werewolf is less likely to have created the universe than god, and I have. You don't seem to have anything to say in response.

>It is informed. Not sure that infants have developed morals, but I'm sure you have a well thought out argument on why slavery and genocide are cool.

I never said slavery and genocide are cool, I said you have an infantile understanding of religion.

>They're equally likely within the context of an argument for the likelihood of any being creating a universe. I personally don't think the likelihood of either is even measurable. If you say god is likely, because of reasons. I could replace god with a wearwolf, and the reasons wouldn't need to change.

Yeah you keep saying this and it's not true. You get that you're supposed to be making an argument, right? All you're doing is repeating that they're same over and over, and not explaining how. Prove to me that they're the same likelihood. Why are you saying anything else? All you should be doing is proving that, or taking back what you said.

>If a being needs to be capable of creating a universe to create a universe, then that is the only characteristic necessary for creating a universe. Adding additional requirements only makes it harder to prove. My wearwolf can be both a wearwolf and have the ability to create a universe. That ability wouldn't make it less of a wearwolf. It could possibly be more likely, because the characteristics of a wearwolf can be found in nature. Whereas the common characteristics given to a god are found NOWHERE. So what seems like a bigger stretch? But again, if you assert that additional characteristics are required to be capable of creating a universe, the onus is on you to argue that assertion.

The fact that there were men and wolves in nature absolutely does not make it more likely that a werewolf created the universe, because NOTHING about men or wolves would indicate that they can create universes. In fact, we know so much about them that it makes it way less likely. God, being defined as an all-powerful metaphysical being is much more likely to have created the universe, because nothing about the nature of god, as is traditionally defined, prevents it from doing so.

>A omniscient god would know. Otherwise, we could start with any that is measurable and predictable, and work our way towards a reasonable conclusion.

An omniscient god would know what?

>I don't have an argument to present unless you give me your reason for believing a universe creating being is likely at all. Then we can discuss why a wearwolf is as equally as likely as a that being. I have no idea why you think what you think, and I'm not going to guess from a wiki page.

You're very confused. I'm not proving to you that god exists, I'm proving to you that it's more likely that god created the universe than a werewolf. The fact that there is a long line of argumentation for god is itself evidence, because there is no corresponding argumentation for a werewolf creating the universe. If you have some, feel free to present it. Since you flippantly dismissed the fact that I gave you a wikipedia page to introduce you to apologetics, here are some books:

https://www.amazon.com/Mere-Christianity-C-S-Lewis/dp/0060652926/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1509549912&sr=1-1&keywords=mere+christianity

https://www.amazon.com/Last-Superstition-Refutation-New-Atheism/dp/1587314525/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_14_t_1?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=V2XKAWX4HD8JGV0KGHDZ

https://www.amazon.com/Aquinas-Beginners-Guide-Edward-Feser/dp/1851686908/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_14_t_2?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=V2XKAWX4HD8JGV0KGHDZ

https://www.amazon.com/Five-Proofs-Existence-Edward-Feser/dp/1621641333

I'm not entirely sure if you're missing the /s or not, but just in case... hi there! I'm an evolutionary biologist. Happy to answer any questions you may have. One of the more recent visualizations of evolution that I find to be quite compelling is watching bacteria evolve resistance to antibiotics on a large petri dish.

If microbes are too strange for your taste, we can stick to vertebrates and talk about guppies in Trinidad evolving similar traits when exposed to the same environmental conditions or maybe mice with higher voluntary wheel running behavior evolving a reduced hind limb muscle mass. These are physical changes in form documented in real time by researchers alive today.

If the short term stuff doesn't do it for you, we can talk about larger scale transitions in form like the shift from fins to limbs supported by evidence from fossils such as Tiktaalik or the fact that monotremes are so weird because they behave almost entirely like mammals except they lay eggs like their non-mammalian ancestors and sister group - the reptiles. Personally, I'm partial to the seemingly anomalous things that show that form isn't quite so unique, like cephalopod eyes evolving independently from vertebrate eyes or frogfish that use their limbs to produce walk-like gaits. There really aren't that many specialties or one-off cases in the history of life on our planet.

If you're interested in this kind of thing, a book I read recently that discusses hundreds more examples from researchers working today whose peer-reviewed publications you can read anywhere online (I'll help you get a copy if you're paywalled) is [Improbable Destinies: Fate, Chance, and the Future of Evolution](https://www.amazon.com/Improbable-Destinies-Chance-Future-Evolution/dp/0399184929 by Professor Jonathan Losos). For more classic but still accessible material, I recommend anything by Stephen Jay Gould. If you've got a Netflix account and don't have time to read a book, try a glass of wine on a Friday night with David Attenborough's soothing voice in Planet Earth II, which talks about evolution here and there though it is not the central theme to the series.

Evolutionary biology is an established scientific field. There are international conferences where thousands of researchers at every stage of their career congregate to discuss research and methods and criticize each other until only the well-refuted truths remain. A lot of research in evolution is about natural history, yes, but a lot of research also has direct implications for handling disease outbreaks and antibiotic resistance, for managing agricultural industries, for supporting fisheries and sustainable farming, for treating cancers and providing earlier screening for life-threatening diseases, and so much more. The next time you're trolling about evolution online, consider the fact that your words are directly going against these aspects of our human society, and the more you fight it, the further micro-delay you add to solutions we could already be developing to handle quite a number of human-wide issues. Some issues that are directly relevant for you if you eat food, live outside of a sterilized cell, and have a mortal human body.

Ok cool, I was genuinely asking since verses in Leviticus (like you posted) have differing contexts, audiences, time periods and all sorts of things compared to other passages on the topic of homosexuality or homosexual acts (of which there aren't many) say in Romans.


There are a couple things I'd say about this passage by way of giving some context which I think changes it.
1 - These are laws written to the people of Israel at a specific time in history. It is clear that God goes to great lengths to keep them distinct from the peoples around them as they are transmission point for the bulk of his revealed will so far. Their writings, history, and civic systems would form the foundation upon which God would point towards Christ 1300-1400 years after these books were written. There are a lot of things God forbids that are obvious in keeping the culture separate like intermarriage or certain political alliances. Others are more cultural like tattoos, certain foods, etc. It is my firm belief that this passage is speaking of all manner of things common in neighboring cultures who worshipped Moloch and similar deities. These cultures were pretty bad and God went to great lengths to keep Israel seperate from them. If you'd like to read more about Israel's relation to its neighbors through the Old Testament narrative I recommend "The Old Testament Against Its Environment by G. Ernest Wright. https://www.amazon.com/Testament-Against-Environment-Biblical-Theology/dp/B002EBGKTS/


2 - Despite point #1, many of the things are this list are part of God's moral will for our lives. Several things on the list go against how the God has made us according to the bible and thus are both wrong (IE a transgression worthy of punishment in an eternal sense) and harmful (IE something that will not satisfy or make one happy in the long run or hurts/defrauds others, sometimes both). I think it is the consensus of biblical text that the intention of our creator was for sexuality to exist on a man/woman spectrum. Some disagree with this but I think most biblical scholars would agree that the above passage most especially in its punishments for certain acts, is for a certain place and time and not an ongoing command of any type. It is important to not just do what the bible says but also emphasize what the bible emphasizes. Such a command to enforce any kind of morality regardless of the rightness of it is really foreign the bible. God is the enforcer, we aren't really called to do such a thing. We may disagree on what's God's moral will is for our lives (or whether there is a God or that his moral will is knowable), but I think the context here paints it in a much different light than "God says it's cool to hit gays with a rock". If you'd like to read further on the topic of understanding God's actions in the Old Testament, I recommend "Is God a Moral Monster? Making Sense of the Old Testament God" by Paul Copan. https://www.amazon.com/God-Moral-Monster-Making-Testament/dp/0801072751/


3 - The other important context here is God's redemptive plan for humanity. Why is it so important to keep this people group a certain way over time? What could be so important that you have these books full of civic and moral hoops to jump through with harsh consequences for non-compliance? The answer is that humanity has a problem, born seperated from God by the wrong things that we do, we are under the sentence of death and unable to deal with the punishment for our actions by a just God or the alienation between us and Him due to our sin. As I said everything about ancient Israel prepares for an points directly to Jesus, God's son who came to Earth as a human and died sinless to take the punishment onto himself. Having accepted this sacrifice we can not only escape the eternal consequences of our sin but also end the alienation between us and God and have a relationship with him. This is the moment where all of humanity, every person who has or will ever live on Earth, went from having the sentence of death hanging over them to the potential to live forever and have an eternal purpose. If you'd like to read more about this I recommend Romans Chapter 1:18-2:16,3:9-8:39.


The whole book is good but I've tried to exclude some sections as you are not, I assume, a first century jew living in Rome. I'd also recommend reading it in a more modern translation. It looks like what you posted is from the King James probably? That bible was really great in 1611 but since then modern archaelogy was invented and our greater access to older texts and evolution of better historically grounded textual scholarship means that many many versions are better. I personally like the New American Standard Bible which tries to be more of a "word for word" translation of the Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic in the text. It can sound a bit like Yoda so if you'd like a "Thought for Thought" translation the New Internation Version, New Living Translation, and English Standard Bible are all fine.


This might be more reply than you're looking for but at least we can agree that Twitter is perhaps not the best place for something so complex. :D Also sorry for a hastily written reply, I didn't think I'd be discussing Leviticus today.

The CES letter is really a copy/paste job. Look, I've attended the Fair Conference in Provo. This is actually kind of my "hobby". There isn't much original content in that "letter", and the topics have been discussed ad-nausea, with reasonable answers. I don't take him seriously because he does leave out facts that would counter his claims. Several times. This includes archaeological evidence that he says doesn't exist, but I have a book that has photographs of these objects.

In fact he ignores pretty much all the things Joseph got astonishingly right: The Egyptian Language and the Book of Mormon, Chiasmus, Colophones, Hebraisms and the 1500 + and growing list of Uto-Aztecan/Semitic language cognates, and the temple and Naghamaddi/Early Christian Library.

Do I have every answer to every question posed in the CES letter? No, but I don't think that I have to. The list of anachronisms in the Book of Mormon has gotten steadily smaller and smaller over the decades. Time destroys some evidence, so the list will probably never disappear, but that's ok.

I've researched many of the claims of the CES letter prior to its release. With my own money I've purchased the books containing the primary documents. I'm still a member in good standing.

So you challenged me, now I'll challenge you. Please explain this. Read 1 Nephi 1:1.

I, Nephi, having been born of goodly parents, therefore I was taught somewhat in all the learning of my father; and having seen many afflictions in the course of my days, nevertheless, having been highly favored of the Lord in all my days; yea, having had a great knowledge of the goodness and the mysteries of God, therefore I make a record of my proceedings in my days.

This is a Colophon, used by ancient scribes to give a mini autobiography before their writings. Now you should know from your elementary school Egyptian word for "good" or "beautiful is "nfr", and was pronounced "Nay-fee". Clearly all 1820 frontier schools included in their curriculum Ancient Egyptian, and how to begin your history. Also, make sure to make a pun with your name. "I, Nephi" "goodly (nfr) parents" "goodness (nfr) and the mysteries of God". One in a million coincidence? Well, maybe if we exclude the other examples of Jacob, or Enos.

So, since I read your book, please read those links. Also, never put in quotes text because you are merely putting words into other people's mouths. When I bare my testimony, I always refer to Christ. Always. In fact I only mention Joseph Smith in reference to Christ, as something like "I believe that God the Father and Jesus Christ appeared to Joseph Smith." Don't put up straw men, it weakens your other statements.

The legends derived mostly from one of the 4 great classical novels of China; the Romance of the Three Kingdoms. All of the four novels had massive impact on Eastern Asian culture (for instance Songoku of Dragon Ball is a derived story of Sun Wukong of the Journey to the West.)

Focusing on the Three Kingdoms:

It is a romance written by Luo Guanzhong during the Ming dynasty, a thousand year after the historical events. This is why the actual historical value of the novel is somewhat fishy, but why did it have such a great impact on Eastern Asian culture? It's because this novel paint the events as not only the struggle between kingdoms, but the adventure of several charismatic characters (the three brothers, Caocao, Zhu Geliang/PangTong, The Sun Family etc.)

More than a simple adventure it is a total immersion in classical Chinese culture tainted with confucianist morals; such as friends' loyalty (where Guan Yu would never betray his brother), the filial piety (where one of the general said that one who cannot protect his mother can hardly protect his country). And of course the Art of War from Sun Tzu is omnipresent (the strategic details of battles are just amazing).

If you are really interested in reading the novel, there is a good translation of it done by Moss Roberts, it is one the foundation of a continent history and this is why you can still find nowadays many mention of it in Korean, Vietnamese or Japanese cultural goods.

Class-based affirmative action is an oft-cited alternative to race-based affirmative action, because Americans would rather ascribe social concerns to class rather than racial inequities.

Regarding the oft-cited Espenshade quote: he elaborated that he "does not think his data establish[es]” an anti-Asian bias, because his study with Radford, which was the centerpiece of No Longer Separate, Not Yet Equal, only accounted for "objective" numbers such as GPA and SAT scores -- not extracurricular activities, personal statements, or other extenuating circumstances that are typically considered by private schools. The Espenshade and Radford study also found that race-conscious affirmative action creates more diversity on college campuses than any other form (and they used over 7 models that featured combinations of considering/not considering income, test scores in general, and race). Whether one believes diversity on college campuses is valuable is a personal matter of consideration, of course, though the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that this is a legitimate reason for affirmative action to exist, at least for the time being.

Race-based affirmative action tilts admission outcomes in favor of historically underserved and underrepresented minorities, but one should not fall for the whole-to-part fallacy and believe that race is the first thing admissions committees look at. It's usually a more distant factor in determining admission, behind all of the other things I've listed. It's easy to believe that race is a primary or secondary consideration because we look at the numbers that the admissions process produces, not the entire process of admission, and draw conclusions quickly.

Also, this may not be entirely relevant, but Unz's "analysis" in The Myth of American Meritocracy (a mostly admirable article, one must admit) that allowed him to conclude that Jews have fallen precipitously in academic achievement while maintaining ludicrously high levels of Ivy League enrollment is at best, specious, and at worst, complete bullshit.

Personal perspective comment: I can say with some confidence that as an aggregate, Asian students are weaker on the non-quantitative aspects of college admission. They (and their parents) mull over joining clubs and performing extracurricular activities explicitly for the purpose of admission and nothing more, and the lack of conviction shows on college applications. Keep in mind that most Asians, like any other people, are merely average.

tl;dr: Class-based affirmative action is popular but race-based affirmative action is more effective for diversity, an explanation SCOTUS approves of. Asian students need a higher SAT score to get in college, yes, but it's not just because the deck is stacked against them; there are some things they need to work on. Ron Unz tried too hard to call out the Jews in his book-length article about higher ed.

-an Asian who cares too much about this issue

Except what you are referring to isn't a function of "promotion" by "parts of society". Women don't generated greater value the fashion industry because society tells them to, or teaches them to. It's an amplification of our innate tendencies. The sexes genetically have very different interests and motivations, on average. Fashion is an area of intrasexual competition that statistically tends to be between females; sports is an area of intrasexual competition that statistically tend to between males. These are reasonably well understood phenomenon coming from sexual selection; these exist across cultures, time, and even species.

You can't dismantle it. All you can do is punish and oppress people who want to do it and make people more miserable as a result.

This is one of the most significant problems of modern feminism; it isn't built on equality of opportunity and breaking down barriers. It is build on an ideological belief about behaviour coming from social constructions, that the "correct" world is one defined by equal outcomes (not opportunities), and that the way to achieve this equality therefore is to tear down societal norms and re-build them from the ground up.

All three of these things are wrong and dangerous. There is no basis for any of these claims. The more free a society is, the greater opportunity men and women have to chose to do whatever they want without barriers, the greater the difference in choices. In order to get more identical outcomes, you have to force people against their will constantly to do things they don't want.

Equality is about ensuring that everybody has equal opportunity to do what they want. It isn't about telling people what they should want, or forcing numbers to be the same. There's no philosophical basis for the idea that statistical numbers should match. In fact, the mathematics of both economics and natural selection demonstrate quite clearly that you should not expect that at all.

Attitudes towards fashion and advertising aren't sexist, but they are gendered. And they are gendered for a very valid reason stemming right from the core of differentiation right back to the emergence of sexual reproduction. You can derive the divergence of interests, motivations, and means of competing between right from the difference of parental investment.

So no, the scientific evidence is quite strong on sex differences. The "strong case" you cite only holds based on the three assumptions I mentioned, none of which stand up to scrutiny.

Edit: To be clear, I'm not suggesting that people aren't portrayed or led toward certain roles in society. It's simply that these are not the source. These are simply reinforcing amplifications of our statistically different tendencies. It's a feedback loop. Women have innate tendencies to do X, men to do Y, even though there are plenty of women who do Y and are interested in it and plenty of men who do X and are interested in it. We humans then see the statistical patterns that "women tend to do X" and "men tend to do Y". Our innate "norming" tendencies then act upon that to pressure us for us to compete with the same sex.

(Norming tendencies come from multiple sources, including intrasexual competition for mate selection -- improving you chances of reproduction -- and in-group/out-group tribalist tendencies to demonstrate that you are one of "us" and not one of "them" because "they" are the other tribes fighting with us over limited resources at the time the tendencies evolved.)

That tends to pull the distributions even tighter toward the average for the gender, which reinforces the pattern, and so on. And, that feedback can become so strong as to put up specific (yes, socially constructed) barriers from men doing Y and women doing X, such as barring women from becoming firefighters even if they have interest and capacity to do the job. That is what prejudice means, pre-judging qualifications based on an intermediate variable like gender when the actual issue is size and strength, for instance. (Note that they are correlated with gender, but there are strong women and weak men.)

The correct response is to cut the feedback loop at the "norming" stage. That is, remove explicit barriers that stop men from doing X and women from doing Y, such as replacing rules barring women from being firefighters to rules that test strength and capacity to perform the job regardless of your gender, since it's the qualifications that matter, not the gender. We may also stop people from actively promoting that women should do Y and men should do X.

However, that will only loosen the feedback loop and widen the distribution back to it's more "natural" overlap. It will not eliminate the difference between men and women. You should expect more male firefighters than female firefighters based on statistical differences in genetic biology. You should expect more female nurses and educators based on statistical differences in genetic psychology. You should expect riskier jobs to have more men, and you should expect men to seek careers with higher pay (and less job satisfaction) and women to seek careers with more job satisfaction regardless of pay. Again, I mean that statistically in terms of average and variance, not all men and all women.

If you don't mind buying a book, I found this crazy useful as a Catholic.

There are a few arguments you would take. You could examine what "homosexual" meant in that culture. Could men be in a mutual relationship, or was it always dominance? In Greek culture, is it actually boy love that is being condemned? There's a lot of shit that went down with children and slaves that we would still condemn today.

You could also examine the idea of "normal." Homosexuality was seen as a perversion of nature, but depending on how you define nature, homosexuality is everywhere. Swans can't "sin" strictly speaking, but then you're off in the weeds arguing about a fallen creation. There is also the question of the individual person's nature: which is more perverse, forcing you to marry against your nature or allowing you to allign with it?

Lastly, I like to look at 1 Corinthians:

>Teachings on Marriage


>…7Yet I wish that all men were even as I myself am. However, each man has his own gift from God, one in this manner, and another in that. 8But I say to the unmarried and to widows that it is good for them if they remain even as I. 9But if they do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.…

Paul seems to see only two paths: a celibate path that is open only to people that are strong enough and a path that quenches passion. Current church teaching does not provide a path for those who are not given the gift of celibacy, but cannot quench their desires in hetero marriage.

Just a few thoughts! For my part, I'd like to see the church be open to blessing same sex couples while keeping traditional marriage about children. i.e. not a sin, just different. But practically speaking, it's as likely to happen as Bernie making the White House.

Lol im thinking about starting amazon FBA, amazon is such a great selling platform and once you learn the techniques there is some serious cash to be earn't. I have recently started kindle and am a growing author in the niche self help, if anyone would like to check out my book here's a link - https://www.amazon.com/Social-Confidence-Situations-Invincible-Strategies-ebook/dp/B01N4N2YOY/. I would be more than happy for anyone to pm me with some feedback. It can really help people. Get it now whilst its FREE dudes. Thank you

Pro-tip from someone who spent a few years living in Austin TX: soy-rizo + eggs + el yucateco. Maybe throw in a corn tortilla if you don't care so much about the x-axis.

Super easy. Super healthy. Super delicious. You're welcome.

As I see it, here's the core problem: The Bible isn't a scientific document that can be easily parsed into data, despite creationists and atheists wanting to treat it as such to raise it up and tear it down, respectively. In reality, there's little reason to think that humankind is capable of a full understanding of the spiritual dimension. It's even less reasonable to hold the Bible accountable for being scientifically accurate when such talk would have gone WAY over the heads of the people the books and letters were written directly to, who knew nothing of astronomy, electricity, etc, etc, etc.

It's fine to focus on the the absurdity of the creationist approach by pointing out scientific issues, but the Skeptic's Annotated Bible goes overwhelmingly too far and lists tons of "contradictions" that are actually paradoxes, antimonies, misinterpretations, or mistranslations (even more prevalent since the SAB's source is a an 18th-century King James Bible).

If you want some interesting reading on the subject, check out The Language of God, written by one of the heads of the Human Genome Project, who sees the Bible and nature as two books through which we see reflections of God's truth. At the heart of things, he states that "science is not threatened by God; it is enhanced" and "God is most certainly not threatened by science; He made it all possible."

There are tons of research on differences in gender (sex, really) that explains why men are more likely to like certain genres and women more likely to prefer other genres.

One very well-researched sex difference is the difference in the people - things dimension. Males - humans as well as other primates - are more interested in things and in abstract systems and females are more interested in other individuals and social relations.

This is exactly what you see in game preferences: games like SimLife are overwhelmingly played by women, and abstract / highly technical games like Eve Online are played almost exclusivly by men.

Another rock-solid sex difference is in competition: men are much more competitive than women. This is also seen in the choice of games: many more men play PvP games, racing games and sports games whereas women prefer games where there are no competitors, like puzzle and trivia games.

There are also lots of other documented differences that matter, like spacial ability, aggression and so on...

Yes.

This is a good entry level model. This is the cheapest new one that isn't shit and will begin to give you the legendary vinyl sound quality that blows away digital recordings.

http://www.amazon.com/Audio-Technica-AT-LP120-USB-Direct-Drive-Professional-Turntable/dp/B002S1CJ2Q

This is a good step up

http://www.amazon.com/Pro-Ject-13086-Debut-Carbon-Black/dp/B007XTE6YW

or

http://www.amazon.com/Rega-RP1-Turntable-Cool-Gray/dp/B004B3GELG/ref=sr_1_2?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1421852438&sr=1-2&keywords=rega+p3

or

http://www.amazon.com/Music-Hall-Driven-Turntable-Cartridge/dp/B001FUF8FQ/ref=sr_1_3?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1421852459&sr=1-3&keywords=musical+hall+mmf

This is even better if you're loaded

http://www.amazon.com/Music-Hall-M5-1N-MMF-5-1/dp/B000KOHIO2/ref=sr_1_6?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1421852381&sr=1-6&keywords=music+hall+mmf

http://www.amazon.com/Music-Hall-Turntable-Pro-ject-Tonearm/dp/B007X579S6

The best option unless you're rich is getting a really nice used turntable though.

Somewhere, I have a massive stack of journal articles on the topic ranging in date from the 1940s to present. I'd be happy to give you some of those citations sometime. I have to say, however, that my favorite resources for someone just getting into learning about beautiful data would be two books by Edward Tufte: The Visual Display of Quantitative Information and Beautiful Evidence, which you should be able to snag at about $30 a piece. Tufte has written many books on the topic and any would be helpful. It's been a while since I read them and I don't have them handy at the moment but the former as I recall has many specific design recommendations whereas the latter showcases a number of innovative graphs that have been published over the course of history. Both are therefore quite useful in terms of getting ideas and cleaning up your displays. Hope that helps.

When I don’t have it, someone needs it. Not trying to be the saviour of every situation, but an Altoid tin first aid kit, a small MtG dice box of various things like individually packaged Pepto and Tylenol, a tweezers/nail clippers/sewing needles/scissors set, tiny hand sanitizer bottle, earbud headphones, pen & little notebook, and a flashlight are the absolute basics in my purse.

The “well...there’s room?” stuff is a little hairbrush & hair tie, perfume roller stick, tiny measuring tape, nail file, collapsible reusable shopping bag, pack of travel tissue, thumb-sized compact mirror, and a visual international translator about the size of a credit card.

Honestly just want to be able to fit a chapstick, 3 card wallet (ID, credit card, other card), and phone in my pockets without thinking they’ll fall out. The bag is “how do they always need an Advil but never have any?” kind of prep.