Yes, I was going to leave this comment. 

It's strange to use the fact that popular celebrity actresses are not stunningly attractive in candid photos as evidence that women don't get that (naturally) attractive. Celebrity actresses are selected for a whole lot more than attractiveness, plus eventually they get old/out of their prime age (why are you exclusively displaying images of late twenties/early thirties women when it's widely accepted that attractiveness peaks at 21 or younger?). 

Furthermore, the fact that celebrity actresses only look good with makeup / in certain clothing etc. is again partially a product of their selection process - they are chosen for looking and acting well on camera, not being naturally overwhelmingly beautiful in person. 

Yeah I also see people make this mistake (and it massively affects results) - good callout

Kimi looks great here. I wonder what they are doing differently.

Ugh yes, oops

Oh, moloch, of course!

Guesses:

1. "I'd bet on this"
2. Hat tip == "Respect"
3. "This makes me sad"
4. "Balanced"
5. "+1"
6. "This makes me disgusted"
7. (Joking) "You are full of shit"
   1. (or maybe "My gut agrees")
8. "This is evil"
9. "Nitpicking"
10. "Correctly understood what I said"
11. "Passes the sniff test"
12. "Argument missing a step"
13. "Argument not missing a step"
14. Divergence operator == "Off topic"?

Very nice! I'm especially loving the nose (and the intestine)! Looking forward to finding out exactly what these are supposed to mean.

A lot of fitness advice is geared towards the safety/efficiency frontier - i.e. how to improve your fitness quickly but without too much injury risk. However, I'm personally equally interested in the comfort frontier. For example, if it'll take me 3x longer to reach the same vo2 max by only ever running at <=70% of my max heart rate, I may still prefer that because it's so much more pleasant to run at that exertion level.

Your hypothesis is plausible to me. The main factor pulling in the opposite direction is the prior that breastmilk is better because replacements don't fully emulate its bioactive compounds (e.g. antibodies) and nutritional profile (fats). 

I haven't done the research here (and my vague impression from reading secondary sources is that it's similarly small-to-null), but the other thing to look at would be studies on breastfeeding and other outcomes (not intelligence-related). If we see a more of a positive correlation there, that's further evidence that the very small positive effects on brain development are real.

Not a criticism but I thought this post was going to be about people having a bias towards supporting the underdog, whoever they perceive that to be. I think this bias also exists, though it's not universal.