You are 100% right, the downvote must be some creationist.

Good question.
It’s a thing that evolved among humans over millions of years. Men evolved bigger stronger muscles, because women are more vulnerable during pregnancy, and infants need their mother to survive.
Making men more available for the more dangerous task of protection and hunting.
So by the numbers, we evolved those roles, because it improved chances of survival for the group.
Males are more aggressive, because it actually help the group to survive short term attacks and hunting for food, and women are on average more cautious because that helps infants and the group survive long term.
It all boils down to survival of our ancestors.

Yes obviously there are women serial killers too, I never claimed there isn’t, I just claimed women are less prone to violence, which is a damned hard statistical fact.

The thing with serial killing, is that it is very difficult to hide.
Some of the hardest cases can be for instance a nurse at a hospital killing in a way that appear natural.
But even that gets detected quicker than you would think, because while 1 killing can be a fluke death, already at 2 killings, it can throw off the statistics and cause an investigation. With 3 it’s almost impossible the incidents can’t be tracked back to the person who did it.
An other situation can be a woman who kill their husband for inheritance, and then does it a second time. That second time is usually enough for alarm bells to sound for families of the deceased. Resulting in more thorough police investigations.

Obviously it can happen they get away with it, but I’m confident, that by far the most serial killers are caught, because it’s insanely difficult to hide multiple killings.

it’s impossible to know why more serials are men

I disagree, it’s part of a pattern where men are generally more violent than women.

For all we know, the numbers could be the same, and women are just better at getting away with it.

No this is not likely, since serial killers are generally caught, it’s very difficult to hide multiple killings.

This is not just modern age, this is how it has been for as long as our knowledge reach back. Women are less prone to violence than men.

Some say testosterone makes men more aggressive, but the problem is that the difference in aggressive behavior can be observed before sexual hormones kick in.

Another possibility could be social structures.

This article says there are 2 theories:
https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/science-blog/roots-aggression

One being male competition for reproduction, and the other social.

Problem is IMO, that it doesn’t swing with behavioral studies of children, that to me seem to exclude both as the fundamental course for higher male aggression and tendency towards violence.
Seems to me it goes deeper, yes we do have competition for reproduction, but so do women, and women can be quite competitive and aggressive about it too, but generally in a less violent way.

A third more likely possibility IMO, is that in a society where mankind consisted of small nomadic groups, the men had a role of protecting the group, while women protected the children.
This role for the male, needs the male to be less prone to fear of consequences of violence, giving the ability to confront danger, where women protecting the children were probably more prone to evade danger.

So yes you could say it’s based on a social role, but that role is not just learned, it’s a genetically encoded social role, that is then reinforced by social structure and hormones. Obviously women have the ability to take the role if needed, because we are sentient beings with ability to learn traits.
Now there is a curiosity in that women have actually become relatively MORE prone to violence for the past 50 years. And the above hypothesis does not explain that.

As I see it, there must be new factors playing a role that did not exist previously. I suspect it could be an increase of man made hormone like chemicals in the environment, that influence our behavior.

Probably generally starting with either an inferiority complex, or being a sociopath.

Ooh that sounds really nice then. 👍😀
I’ll have to see if it’s available here.

Sounds great, maybe I should try to make them myself, instead of buying them for the microwave.

Is chipotle normally super hot, or is it just Jalapnos? I like it hot, but not SUPER hot.

Yes people of many/most countries do.
There are different ways, some places they put salt on, others put sugar on, cheese is also popular, and I think Americans use butter.
Personally I’d love if we could have something more spicy.

Are you sure this is actually the goal?
Aid to developing countries from the west does not have a very good track record either.
Obviously if China can build the economies of those countries, it would benefit China in the long run, while controlling an economy that runs at a deficit is not that attractive.
You may be right, but I’m just not sure it really makes as much sense as many people seem to believe.

There has been an attempt at a balancing act by USA and Europe, and while Europe has abandoned the idea, USA is keeping it.
The idea is that if Russia lose to much to quickly, it may destabilize Russia, and that could create a dangerous situation with the Russian nukes.
So USA was sort of in a Limbo, that Russia could not be allowed to win, but they couldn’t be allowed to lose and be destabilized either.

This idea however is becoming less and less popular in USA, and there is speculation that USA will soon lift these restrictions.

A classic example is a centrifugal governor, also known as the Watt or fly-ball governor

This describes an engine revving governor, exactly as it sounds like, such a mechanism will not limit the speed of a car, but limit the revolutions on the engine. Probably to prevent damage to the engine.

I know most Mercedes cars have had speed limiters for many years, but those were traditionally at 250 km/h.
An engine governor sounds more like preventing revving it to high.

This sounds like blown up bullshit.
How does this speed limiter work exactly, I don’t see that mentioned anywhere.
If I drive Autobahn it’s not the same as driving passed a school in the city. How does the speed limiter know the speed limit?
To know that accurately, sounds like a somewhat expensive mandatory piece of equipment.
And how come I have heard absolutely zero about this from either car reviewers or local news media?

I looked it up for my country (Denmark), these are NOT mandatory that I can find, and they can ONLY be installed by public authorized shops, and from the paperwork required, it seems like the installer decides the limit, there are no mandatory limits.

So it seems like the whole story is bullshit.

EDIT:

https://road-safety-charter.ec.europa.eu/resources-knowledge/media-and-press/intelligent-speed-assistance-isa-set-become-mandatory-across

Intelligent speed assistance seems to be a thing, but this is a pretty crucial part:

The ISA system is required to work with the driver and not to restrict his/her possibility to act in any moment during driving. The driver is always in control and can easily override the ISA system.

From the OP the Guardian article:

Drivers of most new cars will be familiar with similar features already installed, but they are currently easy to override.

Yes and that’s how it will continue to be with Intelligent speed assistance.

Article is bullshit these are NOT speed limiters, which is a completely different thing, despite that I can see numerous articles in English erroneously calling this speed limiters, when it’s nothing of the sort.

Otherwise, what’s an ACTUAL speed limiter called? You know like what is popular in many new cars, that have speed limiters that prevent you from driving faster than for instance 160 km/h.

If it limits your speed, it’s taking control of your speed, otherwise it’s not really limiting your speed.
Basic logic 101.

This is why I as a multi billionaire believe we need to work on plan B on Mars.
I know that won’t help the billions of people left on Earth, but at least they can die peacefully, knowing that the richest people will have a chance.
/s

May he despair so he wish to commit suicide, but be in prison so he is prevented from doing it.

No Russia is completely responsible, if they hadn’t occupied it, Ukraine wouldn’t have to fight to get it back. Fuck Russia your rhetoric is stupid. The Russians are the Nazis and Putin will die in a bunker.

Putting the filthy in filthy rich.