Yes, it does. A direct comparison between the Government of Canada and the Government of Ontario shows the impact of a sunshine list exclusively in the latter. This creates an institutional disincentive from crossing that threshold, which severely limits career progress and I suppose also saves some money. The problem is that legislating the threshold is that it can't flex to accommodate inflation, new collective agreements, or specialization.

Makes sense tbh. Statistically there are more men working extra hours than women, given the time that the latter need to dedicate to pregnancy/post-labor. So average salary gap numbers will reflect both actual cases of discrimination and also performance/dedication-based differences. Corporate HR departments cannot magically disentangle the two of those from their multiple business units (as extra hours / overall dedication are not necesarilly easily tracked), so they need to make broad adjustments. Given a fixed personel budget, its easier to lower average salaries to comply with policy

[deleted]

I find it hard to believe - as far as I know this viewpoint is not mainstream. Maybe cherry picked, but more likely the study isn't a very representative or large enough sample. It could also be that these policies in theory should help the labor side, but in practice there are some confounding variables - ex. "well we would pay you more except for this pesky law preventing us, sorry" being used as an excuse, or general disdain for the idea of raising everyone's wages vs. stagnating most employees' wages save a few favorite employees / new hires.

Could also be that a requirement to post salary ranges gives companies better information on what the lowest wage is that prospective employees would truly accept.

I also find it suspect that the article is lumping together a study that focused on pay transparency and university professors, with a different study on a pay disparity law and saying their results suggest similar conclusions. They are different policies, different samples, and different effects - tricky comparison to make.

Was having trouble finding other studies, but here's a good place to dig around: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C38&q=effects+of+pay+transparency+on+wages&btnG=

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

It's called having a healthy diet and exercising regularly. People who eat mainly a Mediterranean diet live longer than people with other less healthy diets. There is already a big difference in people who are unhealthy and uncomfortable in their own body by their 60s and people who regularly practice moderate exercise and eat healthy diets who can live comfortable adventurous lives into their 80s and 90s.

Sometimes the world is cruel and someone does everything the can to be healthy and fit into old age but they are robbed of that experience by tragic events and/or disease. Life's not fair.

[This paper in Cell (pdf)](https://www.cell.com/cell/pdf/S0092-8674(22)01530-6.pdf) examines the role of endogenous retroviruses and senescence and was discussed in the latest podcast from "This Week in Virology."

During the podcast, they also discussed other research showing that, in mice, repeated blood transfusion from young mice to elderly mice over extended periods of time produced rejuvenating effects. Thinks like improved strength, thickening of cartilage, etc.

There is a very long way between that research and increased lifespan in humans, but my opinion is that it's worth considering the possibility we'll eventually get there. Or if not lifespan, per se, then better health through the lifespan (health span).

A motor when physically turned produces power in the same way as an alternator, so adding an alternater just adds %loss through heat and added weight. Also in a gas car, the engine always runs like a generator to turn the shaft in an alternater. EVs already recapture generated electricity through rolling and braking. But there is still %loss through heat, light, computing power, friction. So you drive up a mountain and then coast down, you won't regain all the power, but you do get some.

As time goes on, better wiring, battery and even an addition of a single cylinder engine can be used to create and store power for the batteries to drive the motor. Innovation takes time, but tomorrow will be better than today. Even in recycling of batteries :)

Electric cars don’t have alternators.

In regular internal combustion engine cars, the alternator and the engine work to convert chemical energy from the fuel into potential electric energy for the auxiliary systems. Electric cars already have tons of this potential electric energy just sitting around in their battery arrays.

Regenerative braking basically is doing that.

The probelm is the laws of thermodynamics. To successfully charge the battery using the kinetic energy of the car would make an EV doing that into a perpetual motion machine of the first kind. You’d be converting KE back to PE, to use to convert back to KE, etc ad infinitum.

In reality, you actually could “trickle charge” the battery using an alternator or something similar to draw a small amount of the energy, but due to the thermal efficiency of such a device not being 100%, as well as inefficiencies (energy losses) in the batteries, controller, motor, and wheel bearings, you end up losing energy compared to just using it to drive the car.

Say you feed 500W into this alternator, which is 99.9% efficient (that in itself would be amazing). Your controller is 99.9% efficient. Your battery’s charge acceptance is 99.9% efficient. The battery discharge is also 99.9% efficient. Of that 500W in, your battery is able to put 498W of it back into the drivetrain again — which would be remarkably efficient — but there’s an obvious problem…you’ve lost 2W to inefficiency. You could’ve just not drawn that 500W, and had 500W going through the drivetrain to start with.

Taking the car out of the picture, it’s trying to charge a battery by having it drive a motor to drive a generator to charge the battery powering the system. The end result is less energy coming back i to the battery than if you’d just used the energy in the battery without running it through anything.

Even more simply it’s like trying to charge a battery with itself.

Regenerative braking works to convert the KE to PE at a time when you’d be wasting that KE anyway — brakes work by converting KE to heat, which is lost forever. Compared to that, all the inefficiency of the system in trying to recover some of that KE is still a massive improvement.

An alternator is something that you spin and out comes electricity. It takes effort/work to spin the alternator directly proportional to the amount of electricity you get out. Let's say some theoretical car where everything in the car was perfectly efficient had a motor and an alternator (electric cars don't actually need an alternator). The motor outputs 10kW of power to keep your car cruising at 50MPH (overcoming wind resistance and rolling resistance of the tyres). You switch on the alternator, it draws 1kW of power from the motor, which you then feed back to the battery. So the motor now draws 11kW and you charge the battery at 1kW. That 1kW hasn't gained you anything, the system is equivalent to running the motor at 10kW. In reality because of inefficiencies, this would waste a load of energy.

Try placing a baited mouse trap on the ground inside one of the front tires overnight? Idk might work, might not

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

By deploying one of few counter measures available: revolutionary optimism.

Gotta have that vision that not only can the world be changed for the better, but also having a vision for how this change can happen.

I'm of the Marxist tenancy so my vision of change is a bit more rough and tumble than the Liberal view of change 😂

This isn't much of a poli Sci question because I would expect very differing answers from political scientists, or at least, I wouldn't know how they would answer it.

But to me, it isn't really endless dread. In the situations that what you are describing does happen, we try to study it, make observations on what's happening, find the cause of the issue, and look for solutions.

In fact, I find that the more I study voter behavior, elections, and political power, the less emotionally attached I become to politics. That doesn't mean I'm apathetic, I still care deeply about my political stance. The point is that when I see something I don't like happening in politics, I don't get angry, I become curious and sometimes, even fascinated.

[removed]

[removed]

There's a little ambiguity here, so I'll answer as best I can, but it might also be good to refine the question a little bit.

First, "history" started with writing, so "prehistoric" is anytime before writing, which means up until about 6 thousand years ago.

There are languages still spoken today that are that old (eg Egyptian, Sanskrit, Greek, Chinese). So just based on the fact that those spoken languages are practically prehistoric, then that would count as language elements from prehistoric times.

Further, even newer languages like English can trace words back to Indo-European. Looking at Wikipedia, Indo-European goes back 5k years, so I don't think it's a stretch to say that it retained some elements from prehistory.

That is quite a loaded question. I don't think I can give a valid answer within the limits of a reddit comment, but what I can do is recommend an amazing book called International Communication: Continuity and Change by Daya Kishan Thussu. It doesn't directly answer your question, but it gives you a great background in how all of what you say tie together in the world and what impact it has. It should give you all the knowledge you need to extrapolate your own answer to the question.

(BCH Political science) I’m gonna try to give you a useful answer, but I will try to keep it simple and between the lines.

People often forget that culture and politics are incredibly close to each other regarding differences between countries. While western culture (English language, American culture) is more often focused on the democratic system due to the “discovery and rise” of it in Europe, it has certainly not picked up all over the world. While you can have Coca Cola in your country and have a large majority of people speaking English this isn’t often an example of a country that also handles liberal economics or democracy(western liberalism)

Chinese youth for example has had over the last years an obsession with American culture stuff (Wild West etc.) But liberal economics and western liberalism is far from being in China. So while a lot of European countries have taken up that democracy, liberal economics, American culturing, and speaking English it is certainly not an all in one package

[removed]

A mix of all of the above. Sometimes areas were uninhabited when new people arrived, sometimes they displaced older groups, sometimes they mixed. Sometimes it was a combination where there was some mixing and some displacement. There is a lot of debate about how many waves there were.

> how do I explain evolution to a new learner as succinctly as possible?

As in biological evolution? When there's competition for resources in an environment the species that are best able (fit) to compete for those resources and raising offspring within the environment end up spreading their genes more than those that don't. Over a long period of time, this results in what we recognize as evolution.

> is there a current evolutionary trait that's been selected for in humans?

Even the fastest changes in species like humans takes many generations to show itself in a population and even longer to become dominant (Unless the selective pressure is extreme). Saying any certain trait (even obvious ones like lactose tolerance) is too speculative and subject to a rapidly changing environment in a biological context.

To your first question: probably not. We travel all over the world sharing our genome, so there isn’t really a bottleneck or split that would cause selection for a specific trait to appear.

To your second question: that’s tricky and depends on how scientifically literate they are.

[removed]

If you look at the economy narrowly as purely making stuff then economics typically frames this within factors of production. These are land, labour, capital and possibly technology or entrepreneurship depending on how you define these terms. Land can contain the natural resources of the earth for simplicity's sake. These are the inputs as you describe.

But this is only really a part of the picture when considering what makes an economy where you get more into subjective value and coordination. The other comment is a rather good one.

Because I can’t explain “the economy” in an Reddit post entirely I will do my best in a small example/explanation.

You can see this economy as this kind of circle with some smaller circles around it. We have all decided that we will live with a system that gives us a digital or physical piece of paper to pay with. The economy revolves around the value, sustainability and usefulness of that product (money). That is the main circle.

You could see that part of the start of the main circle is raw materials, like for example that of farmers, miners and loggers. Then we need some people to transform the raw material into something. Factory workers, builders who build a house or Cooks. Then we need people to buy the iPhone, buy or invest in the building and go out to eat. The thing is that everyone in that circle pretty much needs something from not only their own profession:( Money and Maybe a house) but also from the other professions, like an iPhone or food, this does of course include the farmer who grew the ingredients for the food or the miner who dug up the gold for the iPhone. So to put it simpel it is a circle build around the needs and demands, but also the money we have chosen to exchange products with

Does that answer it a bit ?

If I understood you correctly: Aside from energy and cold, there's no other input that's really fundamental in the way you thinking. Most processes we consider "labor" consume energy and generate heat, and other than that deciding how to do things or where to source your energy/cold from is only a matter of efficiency. For material goods, you could always (with enormous difficulty/cost) create matter from energy, and arrange it the right way by "spending" some cold/negentropy, but if you want to make steel, mining abundant iron ore is much easier. If not:

Two people can exchange goods and both be better off, and that's the basis of trade.

We create valuable things where there were none (e.g. food, buildings, a concert) or make things more valuable by changing how accessible they are, moving them, changing their form, giving them to people who value them more, getting more information about them, etc. and we do all of this because each person doing it considers it better than not doing it. That's only because they get paid, usually, but that also happens because bosses consider paying workers to be better than not doing it. And so on.

I don't really get what you mean by "injecting value", but aside from food and steel you also value more abstract things like information, law and safety, consistency, personal connections, entertainment, and others. Every time service work happens, some of this kind of value is newly generated.

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

It would help to narrow down this question quite a bit more. For instance, what do you mean by "economy" or even "value"? An economy in the broadest sense is just a grouping of interdependent entities (people) all trying to do things they want/need to do. Sometimes goals overlap and individuals form larger groups (institutions) to better achieve those goals. Forming a School, a State, a body to oversee a Currency... these are all results of some form of collective decision making (note: NOT necessarily democratic either!). These institutions serve some better than others. Entities and people try to achieve goals the best they can within and around them. As such, "how" the economy functions is directly related the the institutions (policy) in place.

So an economy in a political system where people look out for themselves will look different from one where corporate interests come first or one where more public or collectivists interests are the behavioral norms.

There will always be some kind of "economy" as long as people are interdependent in their goals.

If you want a more academic and in-depth overview specific to western economy and how we got here, "Institutional Economics" by John R Commons is incredibly cohesive. There are also more modern books on the topic.

Yellow is a primary color in the subtractive system. This is the ones that paint and printing use where the ink or paint subtracts some of the white light. TVs and monitors used the additive system where the three primary colors are Red, Green and Blue. You mix Red and Green to get yellow.

The other commenter is correct that R+G = Y when it comes to TV and light in general.

Yellow is only a primary color when it comes to painting (which reflects / absorbs different wavelengths of light). The primary colors of light themselves are red, blue, and green.

RGB pixels light up the the red and the green to make yellow.

Liquids always give off a little bit of gas, generating what's called vapor pressure. As you increase the temperature, the vapor pressure also increases. When it reaches the pressure of the atmosphere around the liquid, boiling starts to happen: the liquid can turn into a gas not just at the surface but also in the liquid itself, creating bubbles. And if you try to increase its temperature any more, you will find that you can't. It will just boil harder.

So because boiling happens when vapor pressure matches the external pressure, liquids boil at different temperatures if there are different pressures acting on it. Under high pressure, it will boil at a higher temperature; that's the principle behind a pressure cooker for example. At low pressure, it will boil at a lower temperature.

[deleted]

First :Crusade does not make only evil but create trade with muslim world. With that we found some Lost greak philosophers. The most important was Platonism and Platon whose was lost for Western world(Western Christianity knew some Philosophers as an aristotle, but some became forgotten. ). In fact, it is the discovery of neoplatonism kick off Renaissance.

Second :between 1150 and 1300 was full blown war between Italian City states and German Emperor. City states won and start not only fighting each others but fight for prestige. With that they funded by Intelligent mens whose have creative minds.

The second Black death of 1348 has literally destroyed 35% of europe's total population. But it also allowed the monopoly of old trading families in Italy to be destroyed, and thus to enrich new families start competing with each other. this allows competition and better life and with that creativity.

The third was the crisis in Christianity due to the Avigion exile. This make Catholic Christianity split in two partsand with this, the Pope was able to compete with himself and sponsor science.Also make Philosophic divide and space for New theological questions. also Catholic Christianity was more liberal to Romano-Greek philosophers ať the time and allowed this.

[deleted]

I’m an archaeologist so I’m best suited to give you a succinct definition for feminist archaeology, but it essentially is looking at the any people who were previously overlooked when examining past human behavior. Doesn’t necessarily have to be women, it can be how children appear in the record, or any other group that was typically not cared about by early archaeologists who were very focused on “Man the Hunter” and chalked everything else up to “oh and women gathered things, but have you seen these men?!?”

I think overall, both men and women did a lot of overlap on tasks. Age probably has to do more with role separation than sex. I think that the “Grandmother Hypothesis” for example could be considered feminist anthropology. It’s hard to take young children hunting, they’re loud. It’s hard for elderly people to hunt, it’s very taxing. That leaves the prime aged men and women available for that task. But meemaw and pawpaw can watch junior while mom and dad hunt. They get something protein rich, and while they’re out doing that, everyone else does some local gathering. Boom, balanced diet for the whole family. The Grandmother Hypothesis is great at explaining why humans, unlike other mammals, live far past their main reproductive years, in my opinion.

It depends on how fast money is created versus how fast the growth in goods and services is. If goods and services grow faster than the money supply grows, then prices decline over time. This is really painful to people who have borrowed money and have to do more work to pay it off. If the money supply grows at the same rate that goods and services grow then prices are stable. If the money supply grows faster, we have inflation which we are currently experiencing. If the FED can rein the US money supply growth back to levels closer to the growth in goods and services, then it can go on indefinitely.

Why would it not be sustainable though?

It can be, though the context of how the money is created matters.

Nailing down exactly what money is is a good starting point. Most economists define money by its functions:

• Money is a medium of exchange - you can buy things with it instead of bartering.
• Money is a store of value - you can earn money today and buy something with it tomorrow or next year.
• Money is a unit of account - you can use it to express the price of goods, and thus allow accounting.
• Money is a standard of deferred payment - you can use money to express the idea that someone owes you X money by Y date, rather than needing all aspects of the transaction to happen concurrently.

Keeping the monetary economy stable is broadly the process supporting those functions.

The management of the money supply primarily impacts the role of money as a store of value (though that in turn has implications on the other roles).
Importantly, money need not be a perfect store of value - and no currency ever has been. But it does need to be relatively stable.
If money is created without regards to managing this, it can cause inflation. If money is removed from the money supply without attention to this, it can cause deflation.

Specific forms of money creation, however, can have different degrees of impact. The example you gave - a loan has a diminished impact because the money is created in pair with a debt to be paid: in effect, an equal amount of negative money is created in the form of the debt. There will still be some impact - people value today money more than tomorrow money. This idea is called the "present value of future money," and the difference between the current value of the money and the value of that same money in the future is called the "discount rate." The nuts and bolts can be more complicated, but for the 1000 foot view, you can consider the impact of a loan on the money supply to be more closely related to the discount rate than the raw value of the loan.

This gets at the idea that there are different kinds of money supplies. Economics has terms for these kinds of currency. M0 is actual, hard currency. It's issued by the government only, and it's the most disruptive if produced recklessly. Pointedly, sound government's don't do that: that's why, for example, the Federal Reserve generally addresses the money supply by issuing treasuries rather making additional US dollars.

M1 is fairly close related: it's M0 plus most of what would seem like a normal bank account to most people. M2 also includes money market accounts and similar. Money creation here should still be fairly well controlled.

M3 & M4 starts working in terms of sovereign debt and commercial paper. This tends to be what we're talking about when people panic about "The Fed is creating money!1!!1!." But all of this supply is created in terms of debt obligations. Like your loan example, the impact is diminished by the negative value of the debt.

i wouldnt say so, and to explain it to you simply i would give you this example: if you have 10 slices of pizza to divide among 10 people, the value of each slice would be one slice per person. if instead for some reason, there are now only 5 slices, each slice now has double the value it had before. conversely, if there were 20 slices instead of 10, the value of each slice would be lesser because there are more slices for everyone. the amount of slices creates the value of each slice, and in the same way the amount of money creates the value for money, and if everyone creates as much money as they wish, there would eventually be so much of money that it would lose most, if not all of it’s value. the scarcity of supply of money is what basically gives it its value

One reason is simply that languages change over time, especially with relation to its culture. Meaning as a groups culture changes so does their language. In general languages having a notable change takes a few hundred years so it is a slow process.

So even if you want to assume there was a “first” language (which I don’t think is correct), over the thousands of years of human migration, our cultures have changed very drastically from one another and so do our languages.

There are many answers to this.

Languages change over time. Even if you started with one language, as people spread out and different communities formed, those dialects would eventually change enough to no longer be mutually intelligible with the original language. And related to your wording, we are indeed using “flapping meat” to communicate, and while it can produce and reproduce sounds with regular characteristics, these sounds are not completely and exactly the same between people or even between utterances. Our perception of what forms a given phoneme can encompass a range of patterns that all “fit” to an archetype for what we expect for that sound. Some sounds have enough characteristics of another sound that we categorize them as being the same one, even if there are actually greater differences in their production than between two other sounds we recognize as distinct.

So languages naturally change over time, and when we produce sounds we are not doing so with perfect fidelity and precision each time. Beyond that, we must remember language is a system of communication that communicates more than just information. A crucial use of language is strengthening social ties between individuals or groups. Groups may actively speak in a certain manner to identify a person as a member of that group, which can be another driver of language change over time. It also means that we don’t necessarily care about how efficient we are when using language, because efficiency frequently isn’t the point. We are complex social creatures, and our ways of engaging in complex social situations are similarly complex, with human language being no exception.

Language evolves, and it does so at a much faster rate than biological evolution since it is driven socioculturally, even though some of the same factors that can drive biological evolution can also be at play (geographic isolation, reproductive isolation, sexual selection even). With this in mind, realize that humans have been speaking, joking, telling stories, and all around using language for hundreds of thousands of years. Populations of humans spread to every corner of the globe and innovated new societies, new ways of living, encountered new environments. Why would they also not use new words, new grammatical structures, as they were confronted with new physical environments and social concepts?

I’m sorry I can’t give you a short answer, because there isn’t one single simple short answer. I also didn’t want to just drop an article about the origins of language, because that is a frequent subject of debate among linguists and anthropologists. But I hope my answer helped. Source: PhD in linguistics.

Sure it is! Just look at post pandemic. High inflation globally can lead to recession when people with flat earnings decide that they can’t afford to spend that money and decide to save. Families decide that they can’t afford to buy a new car or move into a larger house because their collective salaries are 9% less valuable in the US or 40% less valuable in Turkey. The unemployment rate can actually decrease with people getting jobs who were previously retired because now their retirement or social security isn’t providing them with enough to live on and we could still enter a recession if collectively we feel like we need to save instead of spend.

Humor is a good test that a language model is able to create subtle and intricate links between words and concepts - but it doesn't directly link to sentience. Something like GPT-3 could probably be adapted to write decent jokes, it's an incredible language model that at first can appear sentient. However it's not sentient because it's just a model where an input maps to a deterministic output. There's no continuous loop of input-learning-adaptation-output that comes with a sentient being. The learning process was a one shot process until the model is updated.

Mama and papa are the two most universal words. The theory is that those sounds are the easiest for a new mouth to create and that we have given them immediate meaning in our environment.

As far as i know, stone will be the answer. Like the pyramids of gizeh and such stuff. Everything else will be destroyed by weathering. The pyramids will exist for many hundreds of thousand, even millions of years. Basically almost everything we build today will be destroyed pretty fast. We build in a very cheap and efficient way and nothing will last very long. Like if we would abandoned New York, there wouldnt be much left of it in 10.000 years. I believe even in 1.000 years it will be gone. Stone monuments like the people built in the past will exist for a very long time.

Oh, and satellites in the right orbit, where it takes ages for them to come closer to earth, if they manage to get to space again. Or if aliens want to visit us.

I probably forgot something but those are my answers.

We already did. There’s plastic everywhere and a layer of nuclear fallout surrounding the entire globe. Those will be around long after we are gone.

Railway and motorway embankments. Serious earth moving projects will be the last things to disappear.

[removed]