Carter was a one term President because he tried to do his job under terrible circumstances. Not because he was a loser.
Carter was a one term President because he tried to do his job under terrible circumstances. Not because he was a loser.
Lucky the cars were helping slow things. That’s a hero, jumping in to make the difference. I’m guessing they’re probably familiar with large trucks so they knew what had to be done.
I find it difficult to understand what today’s Republican party would offer to a black person. (Or any really, but specifically black)
Netscape was never lesser or evil.
Brings back memories of that one Lost episode with the unstable dynamite.
Also an episode of Grey’s Anatomy.
That doesn’t seem to be a reclaiming of a word (since it wasn’t previously used in a good way), but a reuse of a historically insulting term. I can respect the effort, but I still cringe when hearing it used as an amiable word. I don’t know if that makes me racist because I have trouble moving past it being a slur and distasteful. Maybe it’s still too new and it’s going to take a few generations to become more normalized.
He has trouble in his own rallies with his own speeches.
Laughs in electrical tape.
You might be thinking of the Fairness Doctrine, which has to do with the subject matter and not profits.
They analyzed how it would affect their numbers and determined it would turn off too many MAGA viewers and not attract enough other viewers to make up the difference. News for profit was always a bad idea.
The flaw of the question is assuming there is a clear dividing line between species. Evolutionary change is a continuous process. We only have dividing lines where we see differences in long dead ones in the fossil record, or we see enough differences in living ones. The question has no answer, only a long explanation of how that isn’t how any of this works.
A reminder that this is still how they think.
Here’s a fact check OF a fact check about Project 2025, something that has been stated recently will gut the National Hurricane Center.
USA Today’s fact check of that claim
Now when I first ran across this link, I thought, hmmm…are liberal Youtubers making up stuff to sell their position as a hurricane approaches? Maybe so. Then I read the article and actual text from Project 2025.
Project 2025 “does not call for the elimination of” the National Hurricane Center, Heritage Foundation spokesperson Ellen Keenan told USA TODAY.
Not in the text, this part of the fact check is correct. The text calls for review of it as well as other agencies and downsize or move resources around as needed. But then I see:
Data collected by the department should be presented neutrally, without adjustments intended to support any one side in the climate debate.
Well, that set off some alarm bells in my head. They aren’t actively proposing to shut it down, but there does seem to be an agenda here.
Project 2025 accuses NOAA of “climate alarmism” and calls for it to be "broken up and downsized.” “That is not to say NOAA is useless, but its current organization corrupts its useful functions,” the playbook says of the agency.
I read all this as exactly how MAGA Republicans in power have been treating anything tied to climate change. They aren’t completely cutting things out, only the parts that are inconvenient to their agenda. Which of course is terrible science, and will absolutely affect the ability to learn and respond to future threats.
USA Today is a tool for them if they are marking such claims as completely false.
Easy fix - “Are there any dead leaves to protect our eggs?”
So the comic is a lie to give us feelings.
But mulching leaves is so much better than raking and removal. All those nutrients, gone.
They wouldn’t be swing states if everyone could/did vote. Look at the typical voting percentage, it’s very sad.
The only plus from this approach is that it is using already extracted petroleum products to create energy instead of pulling out new carbon sources from the ground. But like others have said, burning plastics is nasty, and would require a huge proof of concept that the emissions are low and not dangerous. Which I guess they skipped over.
Correct, the differences make the analogy good enough to visualize the concept. It does however suffer from the same problem as the balloon one, in which someone can get the impression the expansion has a center. The wiki for the expansion of the universe goes through the various analogies and where they break down.
I would suggest Dr Becky’s Youtube channel for a number of excellent videos on the expansion as well as the current problem of getting an accurate measurement of the correct Hubble expansion rate. The James Webb telescope was hoped to solve that dilemma, but we still aren’t sure.
Once he gets past this election he’ll settle down and start doing some things for the public, like helping build houses or whatever.
At the cluster level it will depend on the velocities and distances. For example, using very rough numbers the current expansion rate means that space between us and the Andromeda galaxy is expanding at 55 km/s. Seems fast until you realize the distance needed to see the effect build to this level. For perspective I found someone’s calculation to reduce it to solar system level to end up with ~10 meters/AU/year. But of course at this distance gravity dominates so we can’t measure that directly and it may not even be large enough to consider.
A larger and slower moving galactic cluster would be more affected than a tighter one. I don’t know what our Local Group would be considered to be, but there are a hundred or so galaxies around us that appear blue shifted, so they are moving towards us even with the expansion.
Even just the condition being called “rare” is odd, since that’s 12 million women. I have no idea how to do odds on fertilization of two different eggs, but I can’t see it as unlikely unless it’s a factor of the periods of each set of ovaries being usually offset.
Another recent US case has other info. The “hyperovulation” is the key component here, as normally the ovaries in even someone with two uteruses release one at a time. I read the first article as saying two ovaries per uterus, but that doesn’t seem to be the case, it’s just a duplication of the uterus and sometimes each ovary connects to its own, leading to these odds.