Earlier this month, Minnesota’s Republican Congressional delegation demanded the Canadian government deploy new technology and share its plans for mitigating wildfires and smoke.

OH now I see, just another attempt by the feeble Republicans in Minnesota who haven’t had power in decades to embarrass themselves by trying to steal headlines.

PBS Eons

Yep, this is the thing people often forget about gerrymandering. The entire point is to take a large margin of victory in an area, and use it to offset your opponents margin in another area, usually by carving into your opponents margin with several of your own.

The more gerrymandered a set of districts is, the more likely they are to be tipped by an unexpected change of turn out by a given group.

One group gets complacent (my vote doesn’t matter in this state, since my party always wins!) or one group gets fired up… And suddenly the story flips.

I’m not sure it accounts for everything, but people tend to embrace conservatism (and yes, eventually Authoritarianism) due to fear. I was very young during the HIV/AIDS scare, but the fear was rampant and very real.

Magic Johnson making his diagnosis public and Princess Diana touching someone with AIDS was international headline news.

People are dumb and fear makes us less empathetic and even dumber.

This is correct for a given transaction, but there’s no consensus needed to open a Bitcoin wallet. That is usually just a private key in an encrypted envelope.

Alabama’s state slogan is “Thank God for Mississippi”, because they can at least point to one place where things are worse.

The Polynesian people had many ways of detecting land far beyond the horizon using ocean currents, temperatures, weather patterns, animal movements, and others which they used to island hop all the way through the Pacific Islands.

I have little doubt it was a well informed theory before they got into their vessels.

https://media1.tenor.com/m/OibcqkA9ZlgAAAAC/arrested-development.gif

I’m going for Mussolini.

Mostly undoing his legacy and trying to placate their base, who is sharply divided in the actions of Trump/GOP since the election.

I apologize for the double reply, truly. Didn’t want to add a huge amount of text in an edit since I figured you’d reply quickly.

I’ll summarize my rebuttal thusly, and you can decide for yourself if you want to continue.

I think we’re arguing over the definition of species using two separate definitions. Encyclopedia Brittannica indicates that genetic species is a distinct definition from the definition of biological species.

Is it fair to say that genetically these homonids are extremely closely related, but had distinct populations with distinct traits and morphology over time and across large geographies due to adaptive pressure?

So then the debate centers on when or if speciation occured with each of those definitions, which I don’t think is a really productive exercise. We’re basically saying the same things just differently.

And apologies, I did you a disservice by not replying to your single citation.

At the top of the definition:

however. Some examples include the ecological species concept, which describes a species as a group of organisms framed by the resources they depend on (in other words, their ecological niche), and the genetic species concept, which considers all organisms capable of inheriting traits from one another within a common gene pool and the amount of genetic difference between populations of that species.

The definition of genetic species are distinct due to more than just “can they successfully interbreed”. It’s more about their genetic drift and timeline.

Your own text extraction says things like “usually” and “almost always”, because we have distinct examples of this happening over and over.

Like most of science and nature it’s messy and categories are imperfect, but we use what we got to do the science we can.

Species can’t interbreed… That’s like, the main thing for speciation

False. Have you even tried looking this up? https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelmarshalleurope/2018/08/28/a-long-busted-myth-its-not-true-that-animals-belonging-to-different-species-can-never-interbreed/

You mean like one species? You do know wolves and dogs are still the same species if they can produce fertile offspring, right?

False. Wildly false. Where are you getting this from? Cite your sources.

Wildly untrue, is that a typo or did you really mean that?

You really should read up on what actually makes a species a separate species, and stop just memorizing the list some racist made centuries ago…

Based on what? Cite your sources. Otherwise you’re just spitting vibes and making up meanings for words. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recent_African_origin_of_modern_humans

I mean, disagree. The DNA pretty conclusively proves the other homonids were not us, just a distant part of us. Same genus, different species.

If they were alive today they’d be extremely distinct, but we’d still be able to interbreed, think like wolves vs dogs.

All races of homo sapien came from a species out of Africa at the same time. Some stayed, others wandered and intermingled with other homonids mixing our DNAs.

Oh to be clear I wasn’t arguing the reality, but brandishing is what he’s accused of and that’s legally very different from open carrying.

Open carry and brandish have distinct legal definitions.

Grew up a stones throw away. Bluntly, not much. It’s a fairly dense suburban area. The closest densely wooded area is just the two county parks, one about 3 miles East and the other about 2.5 miles south. Neither is very big though. For a larger area there’s a nature preserve about 15 miles west, but that’s still pretty limited.

True wilderness is about 60 miles north.

Now Sibley county, where he was found, is quite rural but not wild at all, similar distance to wilderness.

Happily!

So, first epoch time. It’s a pretty robust standard, covers many use cases, has few edge cases… but it’s specifically for machine usage, since it’s not human readable and it’s not reversible into the past (pre-1970).

ISO 8601 (depending on the annum), by the text of the documentation, these are all valid dates:

• 2007-04-05T14:30
• 2007-04-05T12:30−02:00
• 2007-04-05T14:30Z
• 200704051430
• 07-04-05T14:30
• 2007-95T14:30

Etc.

RFC 3339 (& RFC 9557, it’s newest modification) is actually a subset of ISO 8601 and is far more prescriptive. For example you must have a timezone designator. You must have a separator between the date and time. You must use a dash between date elements and a colon between time elements. You can easily add standardized subseconds.

• 2007-04-05T12:30−02:00
• 2007-04-05 14:30Z

This means that RFC 3339 is much easier to parse and use by both machines and humans.

This page (reddit, I know…) has a great summary, and so in the interest of knowledge and attribution I’ll link it: https://www.reddit.com/r/ISO8601/comments/p572xy/rfc_3339_versus_iso_8601/

This website allows you to more directly compare the two interactively. https://ijmacd.github.io/rfc3339-iso8601/

Let’s not forget that technically you have to pay for ISO8601, despite it being nearly useless as a standard because it allows several incompatible formats to coexist.

Fucking wild.

RFC 3339 if you please. Let’s be prescriptive.