Criminals are still people who can be hurt by the influence of others and you can start to get into how over half of the violent crime against women is from a spouse or relationship, which involves a lot more issues than just relative strength, etc. But that gets irrelevant to argue about a factor of 2 here and there, as you still end up with a large number of people in both categories, especially considering you have no idea which is more influenced by things like movies or even how big of an influence that is compared to much bigger problems. It seems asinine to me when extra qualifiers get placed on categories of bigger potential problems, and when there are other larger factors at play. Does it seem silly to say, "I wonder how many First Nations members are being hurt because of females in action movies?" if one considers how they have over twice the rate of sexual assault victims?

It is not that I don't think there are situations with huge disparities that become a problem specific to a particular subgroup. You could wonder about how many women are hurt because of how men are mislead about sex from pornography, and there is a huge disparity in male offenders and female victims in that case, and a disparity in the actual potential source. Although you're still dealing with the quagmire of the whole fantasy-vs-reality impact of media on people, which can often be quite tenuous compared to other problems.

Violent crime rates have comparable victim rates for men and women. While the distribution differs, both sexes have plenty of potential for extra trouble from unrealistic ideas stopping a physical threat. The keyword is "extra," since many of those situations are going to be pretty bad for the victim regardless of the victim's mindset.

And your quote leaves out the, "on a day-to-day basis." People's understanding of their physical abilities has far more impact with the possibility of hurting themselves from day-to-day chores and work activities than how they would behave in a violent crime scenario. People frequently hurt themselves regardless of how strong they are relative to other people, e.g. I've watched the strongest person at a company hurt themselves carrying too much, out of a macho mentality that certainly is interwoven in pop culture. Regardless of one sex on average being weaker than the other, all humans are ultimately weaker than machines and physics. That still matters in violent crime situations too, for any involving a weapon.

That isn't specific to women though... how many people in general have been hurt because they had a false sense of strength, ability, etc.? Movie fights tend to be pretty unrealistic all around, and anyone too influenced by that will be in for a surprise in an actual fight. And more practically speaking, awareness of the limits of your own strength and skills has far more impact on day-to-day risks than awareness of how your strength compares to other people.

While some significant fraction of current tends to shunt through the skin and has trouble getting through fat, the rest spreads out quite a bit and it is not difficult to get quite a spread of current, and at that point the muscles and other tissue would be getting comparable ( I.e. within an order of magnitude due to conductivity, not so much depth) current density. The problem I see is there seems to be little agreement on how much current density is needed to stimulate the nerves for effects, with arguments being made from microamps over a large volume to milliamps over a small volume, and other researchers arguing it doesn't work at all for pain relief. If the higher current densities are needed in general, then you would have muscle contraction problems with just about any transdermal nerve stimulation.

Electrical muscle stimulation and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation are different devices, with the latter often (but not always) designed specifically to not trigger muscle contractions through a combination of intensity and timing (e.g. pulsing rate). In principle a device could be made that does both, but cheap ones are probably going to not be flexible enough. And there is no problem getting deep penetration of electrical currents with the right placement of the electrodes.

That said, research I've seen finds that while TENS can relieve pain, it doesn't do so significantly more so than placebo in many cases. There is also an alphabet soup of other variations and medical uses of electrical stimulation that makes it difficult to keep up on.

Like someone telling you to not eat with your mouth open? Different cultures have a large variety of meal manners, some more arbitrary than others. No one forces you as an adult to follow any of those manners. But it is helpful to be aware of the customs at least, so you can chose to ignore them and be aware of context, instead of just letting ignorance make that choice for you. And for some foods, e.g. sushi, knowing how it was mechanically intended to be eaten would save many people the confusion of why something keeps falling apart or ends up messy for them.

If you take out the 12 year truce, you get the second, longer half as part of the Thirty Years War, which was listed.

A lot of people, including those in the justice system, accept the CSI effect as matter of fact, but several attempts to actually study it have found little to no actual effect. There are some studies showing correlations between crime show viewership and understanding/fallacies associated with DNA evidence, but no actual correlation with conviction vs aquittals. There are some arguments now that viewership could increase convictions instead of the assumed acquittals. Furthermore, some researchers are concerned that now lawyers have admitted to changing tactics to combat the CSI effect, that the lawyers may end up being the ones creating a significant effect by tryibg to counter a nonexistent or insignificant effect.

It depends on the cat and tree, as I've had neighbors who's cat broke bones coming down a tree on its own, and that is a lot more expensive to deal with than getting someone to bring them down. Climbing down a tree too tall to just jump down is a learned behavior, and some cats aren't going to figure that out if the first time they need to use it is from a very tall tree after being stuck up there a long time. Also, cats' kidneys aren't very robust at dealing with dehydration, and being stuck somewhere for more than a couple days is risky for cat, yet doesn't do much to motivate cats.

I think the number of flips on meat depends on the meat and the cook, as flipping multiple times versus a single time in some cases have different ways to mess up. For me and a thicker steak, a single flip and finishing in the oven takes less effort and gets more consistent results. If the oven is full, I'll use more flips, but it is easier to mess up the outside of the steak, as in either over cooking it from not flipping enough, or undercooking/boiling it from not cooking the outside enough. It doesn't have to do with losing too many juices, but there is more to it than aesthetics. Similarly with burgers, it depends what you put into the burger and the size/consistency if you want to flip it a bunch, or if it comes out better with a single flip.