In other news today...
-
@TimeBandit said in In other news today...:
@Karla said in In other news today...:
Some piercings for other reasons than just aesthetic
All of mine can be hidden by clothing.
But we know you don't really like clothing
Most of the jobs I go for now require it.
-
@jinpa said in In other news today...:
@brie said in In other news today...:
@jinpa The government would be paying, and he'd have as much time as it takes because he'd simply disappear.
Well, that's sort of the problem, because he'd have to be in custody (AKA prison) until the treatment was complete, because he'd be recognizable until then.
Well, since the minimum sentence without the plea deal (assuming he would have been convicted on all charges) would have been 47 years, it seems likely that the reduced sentence will still leave him behind bars for plenty long enough to get the tattoos removed.
I do wonder, though, what they do for people whose entire (non-criminal) career consists of being a recognizable public figure (musician, actor, etc.).
-
@Karla said in In other news today...:
Most of the jobs I go for now require it.
You should do a career change
-
@HardwareGeek said in In other news today...:
@jinpa said in In other news today...:
@brie said in In other news today...:
@jinpa The government would be paying, and he'd have as much time as it takes because he'd simply disappear.
Well, that's sort of the problem, because he'd have to be in custody (AKA prison) until the treatment was complete, because he'd be recognizable until then.
Well, since the minimum sentence without the plea deal (assuming he would have been convicted on all charges) would have been 47 years, it seems likely that the reduced sentence will still leave him behind bars for plenty long enough to get the tattoos removed.
I do wonder, though, what they do for people whose entire (non-criminal) career consists of being a recognizable public figure (musician, actor, etc.).
Usually they only offer witness protection to gangsters, because they have sufficiently valuable inside knowledge. I guess they offer it to non-gangsters sometimes, but it probably hasn't come up yet that a person who needed witness protection was a celebrity. Traditional organized crime wouldn't be as concerned about wacking a celebrity who happened to witness something as they would an insider. They'd be concerned up until the point that they testified, but so such much afterwards.
Though I guess it raises the question as to what would have happened to Frank Sinatra if he had squealed.
-
@jinpa said in In other news today...:
@HardwareGeek said in In other news today...:
@jinpa said in In other news today...:
@brie said in In other news today...:
@jinpa The government would be paying, and he'd have as much time as it takes because he'd simply disappear.
Well, that's sort of the problem, because he'd have to be in custody (AKA prison) until the treatment was complete, because he'd be recognizable until then.
Well, since the minimum sentence without the plea deal (assuming he would have been convicted on all charges) would have been 47 years, it seems likely that the reduced sentence will still leave him behind bars for plenty long enough to get the tattoos removed.
I do wonder, though, what they do for people whose entire (non-criminal) career consists of being a recognizable public figure (musician, actor, etc.).
Usually they only offer witness protection to gangsters, because they have sufficiently valuable inside knowledge. I guess they offer it to non-gangsters sometimes, but it probably hasn't come up yet that a person who needed witness protection was a celebrity. Traditional organized crime wouldn't be as concerned about wacking a celebrity who happened to witness something as they would an insider.
Hmm, maybe that explains all the Elvis sightings.
-
Middle-Age Men Who Can Do 40+ Push-Ups Have Lower Heart Disease Risk, Study Finds
A new study finds that active middle aged men who can do more than 40 push-ups at a time have a significantly lower risk of heart disease.
How they found men from the twelfth century to participate is left unstated.
-
@PJH said in In other news today...:
http s://boston.cbslocal.com/2019/02/18/push-ups-middle-age-men-study-heart-disease-cardiovascular-risk-harvard/
How they found men from the twelfth century to participate is left unstated.
I think you definitely deserve a
on this one. "Middle-age" vs. "middle-aged".
-
@PJH Next study will check if people that eat a lot of junk food and don't do any exercise are more likely to be fat
-
@jinpa said in In other news today...:
@brie said in In other news today...:
@jinpa The government would be paying, and he'd have as much time as it takes because he'd simply disappear.
Well, that's sort of the problem, because he'd have to be in custody (AKA prison) until the treatment was complete, because he'd be recognizable until then.
I think they could place him in a private home. He'd effectively under house arrest, but they'd be able to check up on him, monitor the house, bring whatever he needed, and pick him up to be transported to have the tattooing removed/altered.
It might be cheaper/simpler to just put him in a low-security prison. But he'd need to be kept away from other inmates, I'd think, so that he wouldn't be recognized before his appearance could be changed.
-
@brie said in In other news today...:
@jinpa said in In other news today...:
@brie said in In other news today...:
@jinpa The government would be paying, and he'd have as much time as it takes because he'd simply disappear.
Well, that's sort of the problem, because he'd have to be in custody (AKA prison) until the treatment was complete, because he'd be recognizable until then.
I think they could place him in a private home. He'd effectively under house arrest, but they'd be able to check up on him, monitor the house, bring whatever he needed, and pick him up to be transported to have the tattooing removed/altered.
It might be cheaper/simpler to just put him in a low-security prison. But he'd need to be kept away from other inmates, I'd think, so that he wouldn't be recognized before his appearance could be changed.
Low-security prisons are not set up for that kind of thing. The only way he'd be safe would be on protective custody in a maximum-security prison. They will occasionally house mob defendants awaiting trial there. (Defendants awaiting trial are normally housed in the city jail.)
-
@jinpa said in In other news today...:
They'd be concerned up until the point that they testified, but so such much afterwards.
I think they'd be plenty interested after the testimony as an example to others.
-
@topspin said in In other news today...:
@djls45 said in In other news today...:
@topspin said in In other news today...:
you’d still find reasons to dismiss all evidence.
Exactly what evidence did I dismiss?
Generally speaking, the complete, broad body of evidence for evolution.
That's outside the scope of my question (
), but I have the same body of facts that everyone else does. I just see that there exists at least one other interpretation of those facts – another way of putting them together – than is the "standard" evolutionary model.In this case, just the evidence that something is happening (assuming it’s correct) you dismissed as no-true-
scotsmanevolution.Did I? I thought I was calling out a lack of carefulness in the reporting.
Okay, okay, I can't read past the first few paragraphs because I don't have an account for that site, and I'm not going to sign up for one, but I didn't mention all the various possibilities for what could be occurring, but neither did the part of the article that I could read.
Some of the options might include:- A recessive allele for no-tusks could have mutated to become dominant.
- The gene for growing tusks could have been fully removed.
- The gene for growing tusks could have been disabled.
- Maybe the population ratio has just changed to nearly reverse the trend of most elephants having tusks due to natural selection pressure, but that had nothing to do with a genetic mutation, since both alleles for tusks and for no tusks already exist in the gene pool.
- Were the elephants born with tusks but they fell out later? That could be caused by a number of factors, including a nutrient deficiency or poisoning.
The article seemed to be taking a change in the ratio of elephants with tusks and just jumping to the conclusion "LOOK AT THIS EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION!!!111ll!L11L!!1!" when all that has happened is a bit of natural selection. Now, you might say that natural selection is evolution, but then you're conflating terms and making it more difficult to be scientifically accurate and precise. Strictly speaking, "evolution" in the Darwinian sense includes both natural selection and progressive mutations. If there's no progressive mutations, then it's not Darwinian evolution.
-
@Karla said in In other news today...:
@M_Adams said in In other news today...:
@djls45 said in In other news today...:
@anonymous234 said in In other news today...:
What happens when a terrible director tries to intentionally make a terrible movie? We'll probably find out.
'The Room''s Tommy Wiseau is making a horror film called 'Big Shark'
'The Room''s Tommy Wiseau is moving into the shark-horror genre, announcing that his next project will be called 'Big Shark'.
At least it's not a baby one.
Fuck you very much, now I have that song in my head, and must make others suffer:
I see your baby shark and raise you scary flying shark:
What in the world?!?! Do they want kids to have nightmares?
-
@boomzilla said in In other news today...:
@jinpa said in In other news today...:
They'd be concerned up until the point that they testified, but so such much afterwards.
I think they'd be plenty interested after the testimony as an example to others.
Snitches get stitches. Or in this case...dead would be the goal via some likely very painful ways.
And good thing he doesn't have a wife and kids.
-
@djls45 said in In other news today...:
The article seemed to be taking a change in the ratio of elephants with tusks and just jumping to the conclusion "LOOK AT THIS EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION!!!111ll!L11L!!1!" when all that has happened is a bit of natural selection.
What?
-
@boomzilla said in In other news today...:
@jinpa said in In other news today...:
They'd be concerned up until the point that they testified, but so such much afterwards.
I think they'd be plenty interested after the testimony as an example to others.
For celebrities, I think not so much. Based on what I've seen in the movies
they would be worried that taking out a celebrity would attract too much attention. If they have politicians and judges on the payroll, they could lose their support.In the Mafia, at least, made members take a formal vow of omerta that outsiders don't.
-
@TimeBandit said in In other news today...:
@PJH Next study will check if people that eat a lot of junk food and don't do any exercise are more likely to be fat
But this is actually interesting:
They found that men who could do more than 40 push-ups had a 96-percent lower risk of heart disease than those who could do no more than 10 and their ability to do push-ups was a better predictor of cardiovascular disease than their stamina on a treadmill test.
Emphasis mine. I like doing push-ups a lot more than I like running. Of course, this is probably just another coincidental correlation with a publishable P-value.
-
@djls45 said in In other news today...:
Strictly speaking, "evolution" in the Darwinian sense includes both natural selection and progressive mutations. If there's no progressive mutations, then it's not Darwinian evolution.
Did Darwin make it clear that:
*If it's just natural selection without progressive mutations, it's not evolution;
- If it's just progressive mutations without natural selection, is it evolution? (I assume the answer to this question is no.)
It seems to me that he would not have specifically excluded the first case, but a reference could convince me otherwise.
-
@djls45 said in In other news today...:
Do they want kids to have nightmares?
Well, it is called "Scary Nursery Rhymes."
-
@LaoC said in In other news today...:
@djls45 said in In other news today...:
@LaoC said in In other news today...:
@JBert said in In other news today...:
Quality reporting there.
Deposit boxes? That's nothing. The Trump junta does that with children.Oh, yeah, real quality reporting by the ACLU there. </sarcasm>
My quote isn't from their reporting. The wording "it is likely that the Government separated thousands more families than it previously reported" is verbatim from the Inspector General; the "delta" expression is from an ORR witness statement.
In reality, what happened was that the government was legally obliged to release the kids, so it placed them with relatives (which may have even been the kids' own parents after the parents were done with the legal processing). It can't put trackers on them, so when the government tries to use its last known contact information to follow up on them after a month or two or several, often either the contact info has changed, so the government doesn't have current contact info, or the people refuse to answer the government's questions. And because the USA is not a police state, that is all perfectly legal and the authorities, with no cause for suspicion of criminal activity, have no jurisdiction any more.
You'd think in that case they would have a clear and unambiguous record that "child X was discharged based on legal provision A, to person Y, related to hir in this and that way, last known address Z". At least that's how it would work in the Latin American shithole where I adopted my son. In the US, the data is apparently sometimes "ambiguous and open to different interpretations"
They do and did have records like that. But then when someone wanted to check in on them for whatever reason, very often "person Y" would refuse to answer any questions or "last known address Z" was unresponsive or had new residents.
-
@HardwareGeek said in In other news today...:
@dkf said in In other news today...:
Drunken tractor racing
The tractors run on alcohol?
Some do.
-
@djls45 said in In other news today...:
@LaoC said in In other news today...:
You'd think in that case they would have a clear and unambiguous record that "child X was discharged based on legal provision A, to person Y, related to hir in this and that way, last known address Z". At least that's how it would work in the Latin American shithole where I adopted my son. In the US, the data is apparently sometimes "ambiguous and open to different interpretations"
They do and did have records like that. But then when someone wanted to check in on them for whatever reason, very often "person Y" would refuse to answer any questions or "last known address Z" was unresponsive or had new residents.
Take it up with the ORR guy who said the records were "ambiguous and open to different interpretations".
-
@boomzilla said in In other news today...:
@djls45 said in In other news today...:
The article seemed to be taking a change in the ratio of elephants with tusks and just jumping to the conclusion "LOOK AT THIS EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION!!!111ll!L11L!!1!" when all that has happened is a bit of natural selection.
What?
What what?
-
@djls45 said in In other news today...:
@boomzilla said in In other news today...:
@djls45 said in In other news today...:
The article seemed to be taking a change in the ratio of elephants with tusks and just jumping to the conclusion "LOOK AT THIS EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION!!!111ll!L11L!!1!" when all that has happened is a bit of natural selection.
What?
What what?
In the butt?
-
@jinpa said in In other news today...:
@djls45 said in In other news today...:
Strictly speaking, "evolution" in the Darwinian sense includes both natural selection and progressive mutations. If there's no progressive mutations, then it's not Darwinian evolution.
Did Darwin make it clear that:
-
If it's just natural selection without progressive mutations, it's not evolution;
-
If it's just progressive mutations without natural selection, is it evolution? (I assume the answer to this question is no.)
It seems to me that he would not have specifically excluded the first case, but a reference could convince me otherwise.
Here's a reference that describes the natural selection + mutation aspects of evolution:
If you can see the auto-box preview, the graphic even shows them. Natural selection is the line to the left; genetic mutation/inheritance are the lines to the right.
"Natural selection" alone doesn't mean "evolution" because it simply means removing the less-viable options from the set. It doesn't say how additional options can be added.
"Mutation" alone doesn't mean "evolution" because most mutations are detrimental to the livelihood of the mutant. It doesn't say how "better" mutations can be preserved.
(On a side note, the article even uses the terms "macroevolution" and "microevolution.")And because someone might try to
me about , I was using the term "Darwinian" evolution simply to differentiate it from the other meanings of evolve, as of cars or of CPUs or of understanding ideas.
-
-
@Karla said in In other news today...:
@boomzilla said in In other news today...:
@jinpa said in In other news today...:
They'd be concerned up until the point that they testified, but so such much afterwards.
I think they'd be plenty interested after the testimony as an example to others.
Snitches get stitches. Or in this case...dead would be the goal via some likely very painful ways.
I think it was more as an example to future snitches as to how well the system will look after them, and for how long, after the fact.
And good thing he doesn't have a wife
Probably a given.
and kids.
Possibly not so much....
-
@boomzilla said in In other news today...:
@djls45 said in In other news today...:
The article seemed to be taking a change in the ratio of elephants with tusks and just jumping to the conclusion "LOOK AT THIS EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION!!!111ll!L11L!!1!" when all that has happened is a bit of natural selection.
What?
Clearly, natural selection has nothing to do with evolution.
At least I think that's what's trying to be said...
-
@djls45 said in In other news today...:
Now, you might say that natural selection is evolution, but then you're conflating terms and making it more difficult to be scientifically accurate and precise. Strictly speaking, "evolution" in the Darwinian sense includes both natural selection and progressive mutations. If there's no progressive mutations, then it's not Darwinian evolution.
What is there to select from if there are no mutations?
That "both variants already exists in the gene pool" is a result of some prior mutations. Then natural selection will either strongly favor one, thereby eliminating the other, or won't so both co-exist. If there's no mutations (ever), there is no natural selection.The last bullet is a fair point (thus my "assuming it's correct" parenthetical), but only applies to this singular report and not in general.
-
@Rhywden said in In other news today...:
@DogsB said in In other news today...:
@Rhywden I suspect you didn't read the article. He's proposing tariffs on only certain products to protect local farmers. Beef and lamb mostly. Even went as far as to suggest 0 tariffs in some areas.
As if that stuff would be able to arrive on that island anyway before rotting, due to the chaos. Plus, the pound will fall to the bottom so it's not as if they could afford imports anyway...
And the article you're not going to read to back that up?
-
Elizabeth Báthory is going to be very disappointed...
Young blood company stops unproven anti-aging treatments after FDA warning | CNN
The US Food and Drug Administration warned against using plasma infusions from young blood donors to ward off the effects of normal aging as well as other more serious conditions. One company, Ambrosia, responded by ceasing patient treatments.
-
@brie said in In other news today...:
It might be cheaper/simpler to just put him in a low-security prison.
Almost certainly not. If he's notionally not a prisoner, he can reasonably be asked to do things like household chores and so on.
-
@DogsB said in In other news today...:
@Rhywden said in In other news today...:
@DogsB said in In other news today...:
@Rhywden I suspect you didn't read the article. He's proposing tariffs on only certain products to protect local farmers. Beef and lamb mostly. Even went as far as to suggest 0 tariffs in some areas.
As if that stuff would be able to arrive on that island anyway before rotting, due to the chaos. Plus, the pound will fall to the bottom so it's not as if they could afford imports anyway...
And the article you're not going to read to back that up?
What? The whole point of tariffs for anything in that case is nonsensical. UK prices will go up all on their own due to the pound being in freefall.
Also, do they think that they can just unilaterally plonk tariffs on what they want? Of course the EU will respond with tariffs of their own. Which will do wonders for what's left of their export industry.
In essence: They'll have to pay more for all imports, they have to pay even more for other imports due to tariffs (and if you think that this will make their inland production in the same area cheaper I've got bottom land to sell to you - just don't ask what it's on the bottom of) and their exports will be fucked because the fall of the pound will be counterset by retaliatory tariffs.
Great ideas all around. The UK is not self-sufficient - and remember, this is just the food sector we're talking about. The industrial sector is probably even worse.
-
@Rhywden said in In other news today...:
The whole point of tariffs for anything in that case is nonsensical.
It's to do with Brexit. Nonsensical is expected and default.
-
@Karla said in In other news today...:
Most of the jobs I go for now require it.
Can you imagine an office of nudists? It might be alright in winter, but in summer you'd have to peal yourself out of the faux leather conference room chairs
-
@Cursorkeys If you're a nudist and you don't bring along a personal towel to place wherever you sit, you're doing it wrong.
-
@Rhywden said in In other news today...:
Also, do they think that they can just unilaterally plonk tariffs on what they want?
That's one of the points of leaving the EU. So they can do so.
Whether they should increase the cost of products to the UK consumer or not, is a different issue.
and if you think that this will make their inland production in the same area cheaper
Who (seriously) thinks that?
Tariffs are largely protectionism for the local producers so they don't have to sell at below-cost price (or go bankrupt) , which would be the case if we let all that 'filthy foreign muck' in at cheaper prices than local.
They also, rather conveniently, raise funds for government to piss up the wall on where ever they're trying to buy votes at the moment.
They'll have to pay more for all imports,
There we go - bottom line. Politicians screwing over the public. Again. This shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone.
-
@Rhywden said in In other news today...:
@DogsB said in In other news today...:
@Rhywden said in In other news today...:
@DogsB said in In other news today...:
@Rhywden I suspect you didn't read the article. He's proposing tariffs on only certain products to protect local farmers. Beef and lamb mostly. Even went as far as to suggest 0 tariffs in some areas.
As if that stuff would be able to arrive on that island anyway before rotting, due to the chaos. Plus, the pound will fall to the bottom so it's not as if they could afford imports anyway...
And the article you're not going to read to back that up?
What? The whole point of tariffs for anything in that case is nonsensical. UK prices will go up all on their own due to the pound being in freefall.
Once again you're not actually providing any evidence or even reading the news. The pound has stabilised and still stronger than the euro. Taking a page out of your book apparently it made a a rally this morning.
Also, do they think that they can just unilaterally plonk tariffs on what they want? Of course the EU will respond with tariffs of their own. Which will do wonders for what's left of their export industry.
Of course they can. Tariffs to protect beef and lamb as mentioned in your article and then 0 tariffs on stuff they want cheaply. Also what exports? That was the funniest thing about Brexit. They actually export very little material products. It's mostly services which hinged on European access. Besides the daily circus that's what actually made this so funny.
In essence: They'll have to pay more for all imports, they have to pay even more for other imports due to tariffs (and if you think that this will make their inland production in the same area cheaper I've got bottom land to sell to you - just don't ask what it's on the bottom of) and their exports will be fucked because the fall of the pound will be counterset by retaliatory tariffs.
The pound could also rebound and there could be minimal tariffs on everything. It's all up in the air at the moment. The pound was suppose to fall off a cliff. Didn't happen. The tariffs aren't set yet. Will probably favour Europe judging by the British' negotiating skills. Have you actually any substance to what you're saying or is it just conjecture based on what you believe articles have said after looking at the headlines.
Great ideas all around. The UK is not self-sufficient - and remember, this is just the food sector we're talking about. The industrial sector is probably even worse.
What industrial sector? See comment about services and why it's funny.
*edit as an after thought.
What is so awful about Britian leaving the EU? If they want to go their own way what of it?
-
@DogsB Dude, by "unilateral" I mean: Something you do without the other side retaliating in kind.
Also, sure the pound is "going strong" now. You realize that this is before a No Deal?
"If you jump off that cliff then you'll have a bad time!" - "Well, I haven't jumped off yet and I feel fine. I don't see what the issue is!"
The pound was suppose to fall off a cliff.
Yes. AFTER a No Deal. Jesus Christ. It also took heavy losses in the mean time, by the way. You can see quite nicely when the referendum happened. Then it rallied a bit and now... well, doesn't look too good.
Pound Dollar Exchange Rate (GBP USD) - Historical Chart
Interactive historical chart showing the daily British Pound - U.S. Dollar (GBPUSD) exchange rate back to 1971.
The thing that is so "awful" about it is the simple fact that it was based on lies and pie-in-the-sky thinking.
For example, they stated that they would have numerous trade deals immediately after leaving. Currently they have, like, maybe five (out of more than a hundred)? With pretty unimportant players to boot. Turns out that you cannot simply do Copy&Paste on trade deals and simply replace "EU" with "UK" everywhere.
-
@boomzilla said in In other news today...:
their ability to do push-ups was a better predictor of cardiovascular disease than their stamina on a treadmill test.
I'm doomed.
-
@Rhywden said in In other news today...:
@DogsB Dude, by "unilateral" I mean: Something you do without the other side retaliating in kind.
Don't use words you don't understand the meaning of then. The onus is on the speaker to make themselves understood.
Also, sure the pound is "going strong" now. You realize that this is before a No Deal?
"If you jump off that cliff then you'll have a bad time!" - "Well, I haven't jumped off yet and I feel fine. I don't see what the issue is!"
The pound was suppose to fall off a cliff.
Yes. AFTER a No Deal. Jesus Christ. It also took heavy losses in the mean time, by the way. You can see quite nicely when the referendum happened. Then it rallied a bit and now... well, doesn't look too good.
Interactive historical chart showing the daily British Pound - U.S. Dollar (GBPUSD) exchange rate back to 1971.
If you follow your chart back to it's beginning it was at it's highest point was early 1972. Then the value of its currency tanks and never quite recovers. I wonder what happened in 1972? Care to offer a suggestion? Looking at this chart it would look quite sensible to go back to what they were doing prior to 1972.
The thing that is so "awful" about it is the simple fact that it was based on lies and pie-in-the-sky thinking.
That's how a lot of the UK feels about the EU. They see it as a house of cards that is about to fall and don't want to be dragged down by it. Do you really want to be coupled to people who don't to be part of your project?
For example, they stated that they would have numerous trade deals immediately after leaving. Currently they have, like, maybe five (out of more than a hundred)? With pretty unimportant players to boot. Turns out that you cannot simply do Copy&Paste on trade deals and simply replace "EU" with "UK" everywhere.
six out of about seventy countries actually. All of them without extra tariffs or barriers and keep things working smoothly. You think the EU would be able to follow their example.
-
@djls45 said in In other news today...:
@jinpa said in In other news today...:
@djls45 said in In other news today...:
Strictly speaking, "evolution" in the Darwinian sense includes both natural selection and progressive mutations. If there's no progressive mutations, then it's not Darwinian evolution.
Did Darwin make it clear that:
-
If it's just natural selection without progressive mutations, it's not evolution;
-
If it's just progressive mutations without natural selection, is it evolution? (I assume the answer to this question is no.)
It seems to me that he would not have specifically excluded the first case, but a reference could convince me otherwise.
Here's a reference that describes the natural selection + mutation aspects of evolution:
If you can see the auto-box preview, the graphic even shows them. Natural selection is the line to the left; genetic mutation/inheritance are the lines to the right.
"Natural selection" alone doesn't mean "evolution" because it simply means removing the less-viable options from the set. It doesn't say how additional options can be added.
"Mutation" alone doesn't mean "evolution" because most mutations are detrimental to the livelihood of the mutant. It doesn't say how "better" mutations can be preserved.
(On a side note, the article even uses the terms "macroevolution" and "microevolution.")And because someone might try to
me about , I was using the term "Darwinian" evolution simply to differentiate it from the other meanings of evolve, as of cars or of CPUs or of understanding ideas.SorryNot sorry, but you're being retarded about this.
-
-
@djls45 said in In other news today...:
@jinpa said in In other news today...:
@djls45 said in In other news today...:
Strictly speaking, "evolution" in the Darwinian sense includes both natural selection and progressive mutations. If there's no progressive mutations, then it's not Darwinian evolution.
Did Darwin make it clear that:
-
If it's just natural selection without progressive mutations, it's not evolution;
-
If it's just progressive mutations without natural selection, is it evolution? (I assume the answer to this question is no.)
It seems to me that he would not have specifically excluded the first case, but a reference could convince me otherwise.
Here's a reference that describes the natural selection + mutation aspects of evolution:
If you can see the auto-box preview, the graphic even shows them. Natural selection is the line to the left; genetic mutation/inheritance are the lines to the right.
"Natural selection" alone doesn't mean "evolution" because it simply means removing the less-viable options from the set. It doesn't say how additional options can be added.
"Mutation" alone doesn't mean "evolution" because most mutations are detrimental to the livelihood of the mutant. It doesn't say how "better" mutations can be preserved.
(On a side note, the article even uses the terms "macroevolution" and "microevolution.")And because someone might try to
me about , I was using the term "Darwinian" evolution simply to differentiate it from the other meanings of evolve, as of cars or of CPUs or of understanding ideas.Not only was it the word Darwinian (which is far from pedantry to point out that you used it, and that it was key to the discussion) which the diagram leaves out, but it also leaves out the word "evolution". So 0 for 2. Anyone can throw a Wikipedia page at someone claiming that it supports their point, when in reality it merely obscures the essence of the discussion. (You're not the only one who does that.) Are there any sentences which you can quote which clearly and unambiguously support your point? Or are you maintaining that the word "synthesis" in the diagram is an exact synonym (for the purposes of the discussion) to "evolution"?
-
-
@Cursorkeys said in In other news today...:
@Karla said in In other news today...:
Most of the jobs I go for now require it.
Can you imagine an office of nudists? It might be alright in winter, but in summer you'd have to peal yourself out of the faux leather conference room chairs
Maybe Don Burleson (the Oracle blog guy) could be asked about this. I seem to recall that nudism was one of his hobbies.
-
@Rhywden said in In other news today...:
@DogsB Dude, by "unilateral" I mean: Something you do without the other side retaliating in kind.
Also, sure the pound is "going strong" now. You realize that this is before a No Deal?
"If you jump off that cliff then you'll have a bad time!" - "Well, I haven't jumped off yet and I feel fine. I don't see what the issue is!"
The pound was suppose to fall off a cliff.
Yes. AFTER a No Deal. Jesus Christ. It also took heavy losses in the mean time, by the way. You can see quite nicely when the referendum happened. Then it rallied a bit and now... well, doesn't look too good.
Interactive historical chart showing the daily British Pound - U.S. Dollar (GBPUSD) exchange rate back to 1971.
Hmm...that's interesting. Let's take a look at a tale of two currencies and see if you can guess which is which:
Currency A:
Currency B:
They look strikingly similar.
Answers:
A: Pound to dollar exchange rate.
b: Euro to dollar exchange rate.
-
@boomzilla said in In other news today...:
@Rhywden said in In other news today...:
@DogsB Dude, by "unilateral" I mean: Something you do without the other side retaliating in kind.
Also, sure the pound is "going strong" now. You realize that this is before a No Deal?
"If you jump off that cliff then you'll have a bad time!" - "Well, I haven't jumped off yet and I feel fine. I don't see what the issue is!"
The pound was suppose to fall off a cliff.
Yes. AFTER a No Deal. Jesus Christ. It also took heavy losses in the mean time, by the way. You can see quite nicely when the referendum happened. Then it rallied a bit and now... well, doesn't look too good.
Interactive historical chart showing the daily British Pound - U.S. Dollar (GBPUSD) exchange rate back to 1971.
Hmm...that's interesting. Let's take a look at a tale of two currencies and see if you can guess which is which:
Currency A:
Currency B:
They look strikingly similar.
Answers:
A: Pound to dollar exchange rate.
b: Euro to dollar exchange rate.So it's the dollar that's going up? Which, in fairness, it is.
-
-
@boomzilla I think you've posted the same graph twice. None of the currencies have been at 1:1 over that whole period, so I wouldn't expect things to be identical, at least not down to the scale on the left side.
-
@dkf said in In other news today...:
@boomzilla I think you've posted the same graph twice. None of the currencies have been at 1:1 over that whole period, so I wouldn't expect things to be identical, at least not down to the scale on the left side.
Shit. Yes, clipboard shenanigans. I took the screenshot but forgot to click the copy button to get the new picture on the clipboard.
-
@dkf said in In other news today...:
@boomzilla I think you've posted the same graph twice. None of the currencies have been at 1:1 over that whole period, so I wouldn't expect things to be identical, at least not down to the scale on the left side.
I was quite impressed by how similar they were!
-
https://www.earthtouchnews.com/wtf/wtf/behold-the-falcon-sex-hat-a-species-saving-hump-helmet
Falcon Sex Hat would be a great band name.
Modern synthesis (20th century) - Wikipedia
