N8CCRG t1_j32sfo6 wrote

This comment is very important, because it so perfectly highlights an aspect of the gun control discussion that is so often neglected. Many people believe that gun owners are always 100% responsible and that a mistake like this couldn't ever happen, and are completely shocked and confused when it does. Many other people recognize that humans making mistakes like this (maybe they're sick or tired or something important distracted them in that moment) is something that happens and will always happen.

The former are worried about the world they wished we live in, and the latter are worried about the reality that we actually do live in.


N8CCRG t1_j1ztwfu wrote

I don't think the authors would claim that kind of cognitive ability either. The reason such a behavior would trigger a fear response is because that fear has been selected for because a coordinated defense is a greater danger to the predator. There is nothing inherent to being afraid of coordinated movement otherwise.


N8CCRG t1_j1zav5t wrote

A bit of a misleading headline. The authors aren't suggesting we evolved music and dance to deter potential predators, but that music and dance evolved from other similar cognitive abilities that we evolved to deter potential predators.

>A wide variety of species, including carnivores and apes and other primates, have therefore evolved visual and auditory signals that deter predators by credibly signaling detection and/or the ability to effectively defend themselves. In some cooperative species, these predator deterrent signals involve highly synchronized visual and auditory displays among group members. Hagen and Bryant (Human Nature, 14(1), 21-51, 2003) proposed that synchronized visual and auditory displays credibly signal coalition quality. Here, this hypothesis is extended to include credible signals to predators that they have been detected and would be met with a highly coordinated defensive response, thereby deterring an attack. Within-group signaling functions are also proposed. The evolved cognitive abilities underlying these behaviors were foundations for the evolution of fully human music and dance.

If I interpret it correctly, if a predator met a group of early hominins, those early hominins' behavioral response would include synchronized movements and/or sounds, indicating a likely coordinated defense, thus dissuade the predator.

Also noteworthy, the abstract only talks about "extending the hypothesis" and not about actually having any evidence yet to support the hypothesis. If anyone wants to peak peek at the full text and let us know further details, I'd be curious.


N8CCRG t1_j1eji1q wrote

> There is without a doubt enough evidence against trump.

And not just Trump, but several co-conspirators: Eastman, Chesebro, Meadows and Giuliani. Almost certainly there could be more like the ones that you mentioned and others (in particular Jordan, McCarthy, Biggs and Perry) but so many pleaded the fifth or refused subpoenas that it's not airtight at the moment.


N8CCRG t1_j1dabye wrote

The one small complaint I have is I think they weight the actual attack too heavily. And I get it, that's the part that's easiest to get the most people to comprehend, but it's not the most important aspect of the whole story. The actual story is the months' long work commited by a whole team of conspirators to try to find a way to over turn the election. Including getting people to swear and submit as fake electors and the attempt to use the chaos of January 6th to get those fake electors to replace the actual electors.

The attack on January 6th wasn't the problem, it was the finish line.


N8CCRG t1_iy8jamb wrote

They have kept the youngest reactors online still. The youngest reactors are 35 years old. They've shut down plants that were 50-60 years old.

The biggest problem about nuclear power is that the world almost completely stopped building new plants in the 80s. We should have been continuously building them instead of building the cheaper fossil fuel plants.


N8CCRG t1_iy41qh1 wrote

>Significantly, she found Eadburg’s name passionately etched into the margins of the manuscript in five places, while abbreviated forms of the name appear a further 10 times.

>This suggests it is likely to have been Eadburg herself who made the marks. “I could understand why somebody might write someone else’s name once. But I don’t know why you would write somebody else’s name so many times like that,” Hodgkinson said.

Are we pretending that a man obsessing over a woman is a modern invention?