And the voices. "Billy..."
"You fucked the whole thing up."
"Billy, your time is up."
"Your time... is up."
49% agreed to some extent that elections in the country don’t represent people like them; 51% agreed to some extent that the political system in the US “doesn’t work for people like me;” and 64% backed the statement that “America is in decline.” A whopping 65% agreed either strongly or somewhat that “nearly all politicians are corrupt, and make money from their political power”
Nearly all of these statements are, I think, undeniable if you’re paying attention. I’m surprised the percentages are so low.
“I think these statements blow me away, the scale of these numbers with young voters,” Evan Roth Smith, Blueprint’s lead pollster, told Semafor. “Young voters do not look at our politics and see any good guys.”
(Emphasis mine)
And that is exactly the point where the misinterpretation train leaves the station. The excitement generated by Bernie Sanders / Beto O’Rourke / etc seems to suggest otherwise.
If you wanted to check whether young voters feel that the right answer to that bleakness you asked them about is to give up on politics and let whatever happens happen, rather than to get involved and fix it, you could have asked them that directly. My observation is that they are voting and getting involved in protest movements a lot more so than other younger generations in the recent past, but it kinda sounds like you don’t want that to be true, so you asked them something different and then decided that they said something different than they did.
Oh shit
The plot thickens
Now I'm confused. Here's what Wikipedia says. The last ice age was 11,000 years ago, so presumably they should have spread back out northwards since then... or maybe they needed to evolve the ability to survive in the cold first, which they haven't had time to do? IDK.
I'll edit the title to be more accurate. I don't necessarily see a conflict between the fine details of what the article says / what Wikipedia says / what Smithsonian says, but my title is misleading and the careless way I read the article led me to totally misunderstand it.
I think you literally made 100% of the first half of this up
There are no earthworms that used to be here; read the article. Crazy worms do exactly the same thing (remove the layer of leaf litter that traditional NA boreal forests depend on), they just spread a little more quickly which makes it a little more of a problem. But the essential issue is the same. And I don't think killing either one of them makes any difference at all; humans will not encounter either one on anything even remotely similar to the scale that would make going after them on an individual level a useful thing to do.
Edit: Okay I am totally wrong; the article talks about northern forests only, and what I'm saying isn't true of the US / North America as a whole.
- JumpDeleted
Permanently Deleted
Just to put some context:
- Predatory scorpions a couple feet long
- Armored millipedes larger than a man; they were probably herbivorous but as the article notes they "would have had few, if any, predators."
- There is a theory, possibly not real well accepted but it makes sense to me, that trilobites were the creature that way-back-when invented effective predation shortly after evolving vision. (Before which the world was a fairly benign place.) The theory further supposes that the Cambrian Explosion was caused by every other organism on the planet having to scramble not to have their soft blobby flesh munched on at leisure by a limitless army of armored, invulnerable hunters, which they couldn't see or avoid, but who could see and follow them.
- JumpDeleted
Permanently Deleted
plants still absorb 90% of green light
(Your statement is technically true I think; I assume that plants like all opaque nonreflective objects absorb most of the light of any wavelength that hits them. But that doesn't mean they're using the green stuff for photosynthesis)
green light holds the highest proportion of the energy radiated by the sun
green light has too much energy
What are you talking about
However, this is not to say that green lights ability to efficiently evaporate water is not a factor in this evolutionary development, hell it's probable that these two things are heavily related
What are you talking about
Did you read this recently, and just automatically assume that that thing about green light is probably heavily related to this other thing about green light because they're both green light? I'm not tryin to be a dick about it by saying that, but that doesn't sound automatically probable to me.
So essentially, while absorbing all green light would provide the plant with more energy, it's not capable of handling this energy so plants evolved to limit their intake of green light.
This part for all I know could be true. (Or, the thing that linked paper says which this is kind of a simplified version of.) I couldn't completely make sense of the paper just from the abstract, but to me it looks just from a first glance like it's not real convincing as an overriding proof that what they're talking about is (a) necessarily exactly how it happens in biological systems or (b) wholly responsible for plants being green if it does. It's just a theoretical indication of one way that you can do the regulation, which also doesn't work real well if you're choosing to absorb green light.
The thing I linked to claims that the green color is a result of an evolutionary trap (presumably based on evolving under conditions of green light unavailability and then having the machinery too complete to go back and redesign to absorb green light? Once green light became available again when the retinal-based organisms weren't around anymore? Maybe.) I'm not convinced either explanation is proven but IDK if you can say just based on this one paper that it's absolutely definite that that's why and how it happens.
Wikipedia's hall of fame of stupid edit wars has some pretty entertaining sections.
He was the most popular politician in America for YEARS after that election. He’s still more popular than either Biden or Trump.
I think that, if the DNC’s kneecapping of him had not succeeded, someone might have shot him. They just can’t have that shit. Think of how MANY people with how much power he was sticking the finger directly in the eye of.
Him and his fuckin mittens