J.C.MacSwell

Setting aside the mostly waiting to be born part...I'm sure the progress has been slower than you would have liked, and maybe more painfully achieved...but it's been there.

I think there is something to be said for less transparency in this regard. When H,W. Bush announced the Clarence Thomas appointment, whether true or not he announced him as the best candidate available. I think it's regrettable that Biden's ultimate choice cannot be allowed that same level of respect. It's quite possible that she would deserve it.

That's what I'm saying, even while agreeing that either or both could fairly be considered advantages in getting the appointment, over some others. To help put this home, if Biden had specifically excluded indigenous women from consideration I think everyone would see the problem with it. The fact that he did so, excluded indigenous women (and others) along with overrepresented white males seems to have clouded the fact that this type of discrimination is wrong. It may not be the worst of identity politics, but it's still wrong.

If, for example, you exclude 93% of a population as opposed to half...that's not fundamentally different but I would hope that you don't need it explained how it is substantially and significantly different.

When the qualifications are stated as excluding all others from consideration, and include both sex and race to the degree in this case, I find it substantially and significantly different. If he had stated it as having someone particular in mind that would not be the same; but Implicit in his announcement, whether he realizes it or not is that a black female would not get chosen otherwise... that he could find a better candidate if he didn't limit himself in this manner. He should have just made his choice. If he felt it was important enough to choose a black female he should have just done it without announcing that sex and race was paramount. I'm sure whoever he chooses will have other attributes and qualifications that deserve focus. Has any reporter asked him why indigenous females were excluded from consideration? As for the argument that the Republicans are the same, or worse, I really don't blame anyone for making that argument...I mean what else do you have?

I don't see a problem with appointing a black female judge to the SCOTUS. I don't even see a problem with considering someone being from an underrepresented/unrepresented group to hold that as an advantage in the choice. But to announce that you intend to pick from only black females as a limiting criterion is simply wrong IMO, and also kind of dumb, also IMO. He should have just made his choice, and announced her as the best candidate available. Why burden her with a "best available Black Female" label? Why announce to other minorities (or for that matter anyone) that regardless of their qualifications they were not wanted, and ineligible, for a job they may in fact be most qualified for, and have worked hard to become qualified for? Why, but for identity politics and for the purposes of virtue signalling would he announce that? If they, Biden and the Senate, pick one with anything close to the level of integrity of Susan Collins they'll be doing well. ...and as Collins pointed out, a black female should be a welcome addition to the SCOTUS..but Biden has handled it poorly.

Come on. Are you against women's hockey? I think they are just are just celebrating one of Canada's early Women's hockey Teams, the Fernie Swastikas... A symbol chosen for good luck and peace!

Not much chance for the reward then...

A full cat? My understanding is that it is highly unlikely...approaching but not reaching zero probability. (unlike the possibility that my understanding is wrong possibly approaching and reaching 100%)

Thanks CY.

If, say, we had 100% knowledge of our lineage/lineages, how arbitrary would the point we define as Modern Humans be? Maybe a better way of stating it would be "what is our current definition?".

They did not. The graph shows three periods where it went down, fairly substantially, relative to cash income. That doesn't mean it went down. My point was that it, clearly, doesn't clearly refute MigL's generalization that taxes "always go up". Your graph...again...makes a good point with regard to the tax burden...but doesn't clearly refute what you claim it does. Here is an article that actually contains both graphs. While I don't see it stated I recognize "my graph" to be based on taxes in Canadian Dollars not adjusted for inflation. https://globalnews.ca/news/3691159/canada-taxes-incomes-fraser-institute/

You can argue otherwise, but I don't believe the slight dip circa 1992 clearly refutes MigL's generalization that taxes always go up. But even if you think it does, your graph doesn't show it.

"Burden" and you have a point. Clearly refutes the "always increases"...not so much...though maybe a different graph is needed to display that.

I do remember the "thrown clear" argument...complete with factual anecdotal evidence. So maybe we just need time and maybe some of the right type of "air bags" to convince everyone. You can probably include most of human prehistory in that thought...but more information and science at least tends to win.

More people are killed wearing seatbelts than not...yet somehow we don't hear that argument despite the obvious why. It's like they have no concept of human nature. I've had friends that were against vaccination that despite still being against it came around and got one...it wouldn't have taken much more for them to dig in their heels. Another, avid golfer, was barred from playing golf at his Club. I can understand the argument for barring him from the clubhouse, but barring him from the course is vaccine coercion IMO.

Going that way, are we? Or we could be in for a coaled war... Did not know that. More than 3 times Canada (or Australia) (+1 except I already +1ed the shirtless horse)

How about controlling something/s at the Lagrange point between Earth and Sun. Close enough that it wouldn't need to be exceptionally large to have a considerable effect, and far enough that most of any re-radiation would not effect the Earth, assuming it's/they are shaped, oriented, and controlled correctly.

Is it statistically less harmful in the unvaccinated (and/or not previously covid infected population, though I doubt we have good data on that)? You meant less there, correct?

Just semantics, but I thought "impressed" was more accurate than "astounds", and thus the thread title. From the link: "It is an amazing specimen...I have been working on dinosaur eggs for 25 years and have yet to see anything like it," Zelenitsky told CNN through email. "Up until now, little has been known of what was going on inside a dinosaur's egg prior to hatching, as there are so few embryonic skeletons, particularly those that are complete and preserved in a life pose."

Not directed at the Taiwan situation, but Trudeau weighs in on some of China's economic tactics. Though not directed at military concerns, I think it is relevant given the importance of politico-economic pressures, or the potential threat of them. https://globalnews.ca/news/8466217/trudeau-china-countries-need-united-front/ "Xi Jinping’s China today is “no longer the China that we thought about 10 years ago or even five years ago in some ways,” Trudeau said."

https://www.theweathernetwork.com/ca/news/article/fossil-of-baby-dinosaur-preserved-in-egg-astounds-science-community

Is this why it can maintain a halo while (I'm presuming) orbiting galactic centres, and not form dark matter "planets" or major black holes? I've often wondered why it didn't form a localized mass and eventually clear it's orbit like planets tend to. Which would essentially remove the halo.

Jesus can be crucified, stabbed, shot, and beat to death, more times and on more planets than you can imagine...every day before you've even had breakfast...all because He loves everybody.

There you go...underestimating Him again.