Air conditioners are sexists.

[Pr.Jitterskull - best bug fixer]

It's a problem when it's warmer outside, than it is in your house.

[Quint the Alligator Snapper]

Escrito originalmente por Pr.Jitterskull - best bug fixer:

Air conditioners are sexists.

It's a problem when it's warmer outside, than it is in your house.

And this has what to do with sexism?

[Mac]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNH0bmYT7os

[Devious]

Looks like the new season of South Park is starting early this year...

[Dash Darkfighter]

Oh no. Its feminism. everyone run for your lives.

[Johnny-Boy]

Escrito originalmente por Darkfighter:

Oh no. Its feminism. everyone run for your lives.

Not worth it! Save your soul instead! AUUGGH

[M.A.F.I.A Cannoli]

Dont shribble up.....

[Soda ポップ！]

Escrito originalmente por Seb:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNH0bmYT7os

Wtf

[Blessed Evelyn]

This was what, the big thing six or seven months ago?
(INB4 lock for politics)

[Johnny-Boy]

Escrito originalmente por Lewd Face McGee:

This was what, the big thing six or seven months ago?
(INB4 lock for politics)

.....feminism is politics? the fuuudge

[Blessed Evelyn]

Escrito originalmente por Ketchup:

(INB4 lock for politics)

.....feminism is politics? the fuuudge [/quote]
Yeah, it kind of is.
Politics based around he idea of gender and gender-specific issues.

[Johnny-Boy]

Escrito originalmente por Lewd Face McGee:

Escrito originalmente por Ketchup:

(INB4 lock for politics)

.....feminism is politics? the fuuudge

Yeah, it kind of is.
Politics based around he idea of gender and gender-specific issues. [/quote]
We REALLY need to stop those air conditions! What ARE we supposed to do?!
stupid patriarchy why u making me so cold

[Blessed Evelyn]

Escrito originalmente por Ketchup:

We REALLY need to stop those air conditions! What ARE we supposed to do?!
stupid patriarchy why u making me so cold

Nice quotebreak there.


I find it funny they spit out the 'paytriarky' rhetoric when, if an actual patriarchy existed, they wouldn't be given a playtform in the first place.

[Quint the Alligator Snapper]

Oh hey, look, more idiots misrepresenting scientific studies.

That SkyNews snippet contains a lot of talking and not much of actual substance.

So I went and dug up a Telegraph article on the topic: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/03/15/women-shiver-at-work-in-sexist-air-conditioning/

Here's the study that this article references:

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v5/n12/full/nclimate2741.html

Energy consumption of residential buildings and offices adds up to about 30% of total carbon dioxide emissions; and occupant behaviour contributes to 80% of the variation in energy consumption1. Indoor climate regulations are based on an empirical thermal comfort model that was developed in the 1960s (ref. 2). Standard values for one of its primary variables—metabolic rate—are based on an average male, and may overestimate female metabolic rate by up to 35% (ref. 3). This may cause buildings to be intrinsically non-energy-efficient in providing comfort to females. Therefore, we make a case to use actual metabolic rates. Moreover, with a biophysical analysis we illustrate the effect of miscalculating metabolic rate on female thermal demand. The approach is fundamentally different from current empirical thermal comfort models and builds up predictions from the physical and physiological constraints, rather than statistical association to thermal comfort. It provides a substantiation of the thermal comfort standard on the population level and adds flexibility to predict thermal demand of subpopulations and individuals. Ultimately, an accurate representation of thermal demand of all occupants leads to actual energy consumption predictions and real energy savings of buildings that are designed and operated by the buildings services community.

If you're at a university and have a subscription through your school you'll be able to read/skim the entire article.

TL;DR version: "The thermostat was set low based on some standard formulas that specify what the thermostat setting should be based on people's metabolic rate. But it turns out these calculated settings were based on the standard estimated average male metabolic rate. We tested young adult females doing light office work and found that their average metabolic rate was significantly lower than that standard estimated average male metabolic rate. In conclusion, we think people who use the standard thermostat settings to estimate energy consumption should rethink their calculations."

1. Why didn't they test older adult females, or young adult males, or older adult males?
2. When was that standard made? It was developed in the 1960s. Are people different now than they were back then?
3. Note that this is "average male". A darn lot of us who are male also think it's cold!
4. What links metabolic rate to preferred thermostat setting?

The weird thing is that they might have at least a slightly more relevant 2007 article if they'd as much as bothered to look through the references: http://www.sciencedirect.com.mutex.gmu.edu/science/article/pii/S0360132306000242

Or they could have dug through a more mathy one from 1981: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0003687081900910

Still, though, regardless of whichever study you pick:

1. "Air conditioning is sexist" is a horribly stupid way of sensationalizing this.
2. It's ALWAYS too cold because I can't take a nap in there without feeling cold. They should just turn the damn AC off.

[Johnny-Boy]

Escrito originalmente por Lewd Face McGee:

Escrito originalmente por Ketchup:

We REALLY need to stop those air conditions! What ARE we supposed to do?!
stupid patriarchy why u making me so cold

Nice quotebreak there.


I find it funny they spit out the 'paytriarky' rhetoric when, if an actual patriarchy existed, they wouldn't be given a playtform in the first place.

It was you who broke it, silly >:C
Imagine a matriarchy.... I'm scared.

[Quint the Alligator Snapper]

Also, shut up about blaming feminism. That's just a convenient scapegoat that lets you ignore the fact that people doing this for like every other study on the effects of food on various tiny bits of the bodies of non-human organisms being twisted into conclusions on whether they are "good" or "bad" for people of various kinds.

Here's a good video on the kind of stupidity sensationalism provides us:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9a7WLaYlQJ8