Holy shit, was the sterilization actually enforced? What the fuck

Wonderful news that it's just self-declaration now.

Yeah, I read the second sentence as meaning the wall is brick-brown. In this case, the order does carry meaning.

"The brown big brick wall" still sounds weird though, and I don't think it can be interpreted differently.

After some research, I think it's very likely that kid had diabetes (though they probably didn't know it at the time). Eating a ton of raisins means eating a ton of sugar, and that will seriously fuck up a diabetic kid.

I found some indication that eating a ton of raisins can increase your chances of a stroke, but the link seems tenuous and I can't find any dosage information.

Not to suggest you should fill up on raisins if you're not diabetic, not doing that is very good advice regardless of why that kid died.

Doesn't have to be God, to be clear. Just the belief that whatever happens is fated to happen and there weren't any alternatives.

Edit: Wait, that description of Nihilism is completely wrong. Nihilism denies an objective "fundamental truth about the universe" source for morality and significance; they're not incapable of identifying morality and finding significance.

Every person over 90 has a ready answer to this question, and it's always BS that doesn't make any sense lmao. There was that famous interview of the women who said the key was smoking a lot.

The machine in the article supposedly converts it into methanol.

To be clear, that article is about one single company who simply doesn't plant the trees, and is paid by big corporations so that those corporations can pretend they're carbon neutral.

It's not a reason that you, personally, should feel bad about donating to a tree charity, because that tree charity was probably not Verra. It means that our system for incentivizing corporations to be carbon neutral via planting trees does not work at all.

It's not true at all lol, that's not how trees or carbon work.

Trees don't passively remove carbon dioxide from the air. Trees remove carbon dioxide by growing and turning that carbon into bark, stems, leaves, etc. And they release carbon when they burn or decompose.

Planting a tree sucks up exactly as much carbon as is the size of that tree, and no more once it stops growing. Replacing it with a baby tree will suck up way more carbon, and if we turn it into chairs instead of burning it then those tons of carbon are gone from the atmosphere for the foreseeable future.

Definitely, in the long-term, but in the mean time loads of people are suffering right now. It doesn't make sense to let real people right now suffer and die in the name of fighting for a better system.

Isn't that a function of distance from the planet (the Roche limit) rather than the total mass of the rings?

Rings are under a lot of pressure from all kinds of conflicting and chaotic forces. So they need to be able to move fairly fluidly.

If they melded into a single solid structure, they would immediately be ripped apart again unless they were made of a fantasy super-strong material.

Worth emphasizing your second paragraph: East and West are not defined by the sun rising and setting. That would be a very silly idea. They're perpendicular to North and South because they're defined as perpendicular to North and South.

Is there research into the idea that there are any tastes that can't be acquired with repeated exposure over time? I wouldn't be surprised if there weren't.

County, not country. A minor municipal area that probably only covers a couple small cities and suburbs.

You'll have to ask OP which one, though. Probably multiple, there are over a thousand counties in the US

It will be carbon neutral in a few decades if you plant new trees to replace them. Otherwise, no.

I wouldn't stress about it too much, though; wood burning is not why the climate is changing, and climate change isn't why wood burning is illegal in your county.

Wood is still a problem if it was taken from a recently deforested area (or transported long-distance, but that's true of everything). When taken from a local wood farm, then it's carbon-neutral, yeah.

My math put 30 generations back at c. 1400 AD. Yet another reason why the general case of this question isn't answerable.

Edit: The math can very quite a lot, but 5000 BC would require ~230-year generations.

There's too many variables to answer universally. It would vary wildly depending on the individual you started with.

Edit: See /u/Tidorith's comment below, the rest of what I'm saying here isn't necessarily relevant.

For what it's worth, the point where unique ancestors would outnumber the population is precisely 30 generations. Whereas if we limited it to just the UK, it would be a number in the low twenties. So the possible variance here isn't dozens of generations, but more like fives.

So probably around 15-20 generations back? But again, it's impossible to give a universal answer.

...What's "what they get" lol. They're not downvoted, and they're not even swarmed with replies.

Worth pointing out that this isn't the result of the natural and inevitable flow of progress, but rather the result of heavy investment in electric vehicles. We could have had adequate electric vehicles pretty much the whole time if they'd been invested in during the 20s-- and getting this far (or any farther) was never guaranteed.

They weren't wrong about needing a breath of fresh air and hating career politicians. They were just wrong about all the fascism.

Apparently this has two answers.

For one, dogs have been bred to be tools and assistants for a wide variety of situations. Cats were pretty much just "eat the pests," which is what they were gonna do anyways. So dogs got whatever morphology and size was needed for their job, but cats were just bred to be whatever they already were.

Secondly, there's actually a coincidence of genetics that gives dogs more natural variation than most animals, that both made more dramatic artificial selection possible for them and kept them the same species throughout all of it. Cats don't have that, and it would be harder to breed them in so many different directions.

And it's far more accurate to say those 8 species aren't "true" fish than to say that fish doesn't exist as a category.

No monophyletic branch. But there's a paraphyletic branch, and a definition based on that won't be any less objective or consistent.

I have heard good things about the podcast, though

Also that birds aren't pressured as highly into camouflage because of their ability to fly. But given that they're not unique in their colors, I'm not sure how big of a contributor that actually is.