I would disagree on them calling them defective. This is unnecessarily confrontational.
I would rather say the neglige their existence while using the simplest useful model. They should consider if a better model might be more appropriate.
I would disagree on them calling them defective. This is unnecessarily confrontational.
I would rather say the neglige their existence while using the simplest useful model. They should consider if a better model might be more appropriate.
Only for they gave inadequate context. Biological sex and genome expression is much more complicated than m/f but that discussion is not really in the scope of the thread.
That was 30+ years ago, no?
Just because you content to a data stark foes not mean you consent to all data sharks.
May work in niche cases where passive cooling is insufficient and overeating causes Instabilität.
Accurately presenting your past opinions and weaknesses is not weakness. You can recognise your error while accurately describing your past actions.
You may want to change your actions depending on new information though.
Reading comprehension. I did not say so.