We didn't have access to modern technology... like ultrasonic speakers?
Also we died at a young age. Everyone dying at 40 isn't incompatible with the species surviving but it's what advice like that is usually trying to avoid (and even less extreme outcomes).
Eh, here it's more of a simplification than a myth as used in my comment. There are two effects:
1. We've reduced infant (and childhood) mortality. My comment isn't talking about this effect but it did drag down average life expectancy substantially. Including this effect life expectancy at birth in the stone age might have been as low as 20... but as you say the bimodality means this is a deceptive statistic when used this way.
2. We've made it so you on average live longer even if you survive childhood, my comment is really just about this part of the effect. It's still a simplification because saying "on average if you survive childhood you die at 40" isn't the same as "everyone dies at 40" but closer to "adults die at all ages in a reasonable smooth monotonic curve and 40 is about the average age they live to but some get lucky and live to 80 or whatever". But then "don't use ultrasonic dehumidifiers" is like this too, using one won't kill you at some specific age, it will just slightly increase your chance of death every year for the rest of your life however long that ends up being.
The number 40 was picked out of a hat, too. It should be right for some areas at some times just by coincidence though and since I was non-specific that makes me right ;)
Yes, I remember Wales received a lot of EU funding for infrastructure and there used to be those "funded by the EU" signs everywhere. They voted in favour of Brexit.
I think this sort of things does little to convince people. The road network was there and working before the EU, it is still there and working now.
Especially, people were well aware that the UK was a consistent net contributor to the EU budget so knew that EU funding for infrastructure was not reallly a benefit.
Well, except that in the UK the devolved nations (Wales, Northern Ireland, and Scotland) receive more funding from the government than England does. For instance, Wales received 20% more money per person than England does.
Devolution itself also means that, effectively, the UK government is in charge of England while the devolved governments are in charge of their respective nations, so just looking at which projects the UK government funds is misleading.
So, it is not accurate to say that regions are neglected, and you might even argue that ultimately the South East of England and England overall fund the whole country...
Overall, I do not know if that was specifically a benefit for Wales. Obviously in the end the Welsh decided that the cons outweighted the pros, anyway.
They do get made at national level. That's because, for example, what to build is decided at national level, then they bid for EU funding as part of financing of the project.
Basically yoy bid to get some of your money back...
Of course European countries' intelligence and military know about this.
The question we should ask ourselves is why they let it happen... My take is that the "Russian scare" serves the EU's agenda. You'll notice how European leaders and the EU are stroking fear at every opportunity.
Eh, no matter what is done about the drones there would be people who complain about 'fear- and war-mongering', and most likely it would be the exact same people who now complain that the government is 'letting this happen' ;)
Imagine the German military would shoot those drones down over Germany, the self-proclaimed 'pacifists' would be all about 'escalation', 'war-mongering' and 'militarization'. There are clear and very restrictive rules what the military and police are allowed and not allowed to do in cilivized countries, and those restrictions are in general a good thing and shouldn't be changed on a whim.
> the self-proclaimed 'pacifists' would be all about 'escalation', 'war-mongering' and 'militarization'.
They have a right to protest and the government is free to ignore them and do its job. This is not a serious argument and the kip about "civilized countries" is ridiculous, frankly.
Drones don't fly from Russia. They are launched more locally. The vessels mentioned in this article could be taken over by special forces today if the neighbouring governments decided to. So again why don't they? I can't find any sensible answer to that apart from "because they are useful".
I don't know if they can seize those vessels - I'm no maritime law expert, but just to give you an idea how tricky the legal topic can become once a vessel is seized:
Of course they can. This is military in international waters, you can do what you want and worry about being sued by whomever later (good luck with that). The French special forces took over an oil tanker and brought it to France no later than October [1].
Again, trying to find too many excuses why it is not possible usually indicates that in reality they don't want to for whatever reasons (alreayd mentioned my theory). Or ask the French to do it as they seem to at least have a working defense chain of command...
Generally, whatever happens, or not happens, in those situations has been decided, and we should never take any public narratives at face value.
Exactly. Whether those drones are Russian or not the expected course of action is to intercept them, their operators, and launch vehicles. I would say even more so if they are Russian as weakness only encourage more hostile action. So if these vessels is indeed known or highly suspected to be hostile and linked to drones we would expect them to have been intercepted by special forces.
More broadly, the "Russian scare" in Europe is very murky. I have little doubt that it is vastly overblown for domestic purposes. I.e. it serves the EU's agenda of further political integration and involvement in military matters (in which it is normally not or barely).
Generally, whatever happens one way or another in those situations has been decided, and we should never take any public narratives at face value.
So you have an invader trying their best (which is luckily not much) to grab a neighbor's land, just at your border, and you call that "murky and overblown"? Sorry this is not the Facebook grandmas knitting group giving likes to a carrot horse, we refuse to accept such bs.
The "Russian scare" in Europe is not about Russia's invasion of Ukraine, that's just the premise, it is the narrative that the EU (and Western Europe at large) is next to be invaded and that we should be ready for WWIII against Russia.
Russia hasn't stopped invading their neighbors ever since the fall of the soviet union. To state they will stop doing so while Putin is in power is either naive or on purpose to propel some agenda.
That's both a logical fallacy and a strawman argument, not to mention an ad hominem attack. I did not claim that Russia would stop anything and even if Russia did attack several neighbours it is irrelevant. Reasoning and trying to see through the haze is not "having an agenda".
My claim is that Russia is not going to invade or start a war with the EU/NATO/Western Europe (and that, consequentially the "Russia scare" is mostly fearmongering). I don't think that they ever had a plan to, but in any case their campaign in Ukraine has shown that they don't have the capability.
The irony is that Christmas is the time for unhealthy eating but is it still allowed to show in ads?
Personally I interpreted the fish as either a timely Christian symbol (and fish at Christmas is traditional in some places) or simply because a meat dish would not have worked in context.
The ad illustrates the Christmas spirit and fish is a Christian religious symbol and actually traditional at Christmas in some countries and areas. I don't know if they did it on purpose in this ad or just because it would obviously not have worked for the wolf to bring a meat dish.
I was confused because one of the characters tells the wolf he might have more friends if he didn't go around killing animals all the time. Then the wolf starts making vegetarian dishes, and I thought, okay, they're promoting vegetarianism. Great.
But then later the wolf is killing fish, and that's ...okay I guess because they don't talk or walk like the other animals? The speciesism hit hard.
> a report that argues global inequality has reached such extremes that urgent action has become essential.
This is always stated like if that was an obvious fact that somehow "action is needed" against the richest, but is it?
Does it matter that a few individuals are multi-billionaires (usually because of the notional value of shares they own)? I would say that it does not. What matters is how the majority and the poorest are faring, which is orthogonal.
Unless the baby was born into more debt than those people, no. It’s a fact that the baby is wealthier than they are. A substantial portion of our population is in debt. This is a fact.
reply