CharonY

I will have to dig out some books to be sure, but now that I reflect on it, I am likely (and embarrassingly) conflating events surrounding the spurt of Latin translations in the 12th century. Especially Aristotle's work were translated, circulated and maintained in the Middle East (but also Egypt and Constantinople), together with Greek manuscripts as early as the 8th century (via the Abbasid caliphate). To this point only few books were translated into Latin (of that I am fairly certain). At the same time few Greek works existed in Western Europe. However, as you rightfully pointed out, that does not mean that the books survived exclusively as Arabic translations. It would probably be somewhat more accurate to state that the works survived to a large extent due to contributions of Islamic scholars at a time when the ideas fell out of favor in the West. So yep, after writing this I am now quite sure that I was wrong. Which again demonstrates the importance of coffee as a part of as breakfast. Good call, btw. We cannot have something factually wrong be on the internet now, can we?

In that context it is perhaps interesting that much of the writings of Aristotle that we have now is based on translations made between the 12th-13th century. Most of it based on translations of Arabic texts, which effectively saved his writings (and quotes) from vanishing from history.

Yeah, the same way I fine tune my car with a sledgehammer. It runs faster out of fear.

The question is too broad to have any meaningful discussion. The population of chronic cannabis users is broad, and as such they differ in many relevant aspects. Some may be embedded in large social groups, some may be loners. Some may be affluent, some struggling. Some are old some are young. As such each of them would be subject to different kinds of social pressure. There are, however, a lot of studies that show a correlation (though not necessarily a causation) between chronic use and e.g. mild cognitive impairment and poor mental health. There is specifically a strong association between high level chronic use especially among teens and development of schizophrenia and psychosis. However, it is not clear whether it is caused by cannabis use or that people susceptible to psychosis are drawn to cannabis use. Some studies focus on the mechanistic link (e.g. Malone et al Br J Pharmacol 2010) but others look into the societal area. So the first question cannot be answered and the follow-up is just a non sequitur.

Possible and rather typical for what effectively is fusion food (but less pretentious). Incidentally, food is for me one of the best arguments for immigration.

I am not entirely sure. I was told that sudoko was an abbreviation of what it was originally called (something like "the digits are to remain alone"), and later abbreviated by taking the first syllables. They also refer to it as something like "number position" or maybe it was missing number as you mentioned), but that was because "sudoku" has been trademarked. Chop suey is actually also in a funny situation as many are not entirely sure how to write it in Mandarin. It pretty much originated (most likely) in the US and there are various potential etymologies on which basically no one agrees. From what I heard at some point most (but not all) people kind of agreed on a specific writing, mostly by just copying it from each other. Not that anyone agrees what should go into it, either. Outside of Western countries it is probably referred to as leftovers for the foreigner.

So you say that Chinese people do not recognize their dish if you call it the English name? I am pretty sure they must be dumbfounded by "rice" then.

Actually from what I read moo shu pork does exist in China, though typically different than served in the US, and pot stickers are a very popular dish referred to as jianjiao. Fortune cookies are an example of something that does not actually exist in China or chop suey.

Oh, good uses for decent macros as well as telephoto lenses then . Cheers!

There is at least one study that found that in addition to CO2 black flies use other cues (Schofield & Sutcliffe) J Med Entomol 1996, though it was not clear which part of the breath could be involved. No idea whether there is something newer around.The only other thing that I remember is that pattern also played a role (striped and spotted were less attractive).

Black flies would make sense, as they lay eggs in animal hosts thanks for that. So it appears that most likely only flies that actually attack humans are going to be CO2 attracted, whereas other are likely to show aversion. Question is how it is the case for houseflies and others that lay eggs in decomposing substrate (as they ware also likely to emit CO2). (this lack of knowledge also betrays the fact that I am obviously not an outdoors biologist....).

That is pretty much my understanding, too.

Really? I was only aware that they have a negative taxis at least in fruit flies. Do you have a reference at hand?

Which laws do you think apply when a Christian or a an atheist strikes his daughter? Also, you are arguing from an extremely judgmental position of incredulity. Did Christians not change their attitude? Did I not present evidence that Muslims are not a homogeneous mass in their attitude? Is that, in turn not evidence that Muslims can have a very differentiated opinion on issues even if they have the same religious background? Should I point out that Christianity is in its core misogynist and is therefore not compatible with our society, which is supposed to be based on equality?

Precisely. The context being the USA or, potentially by extension, other Western countries. If one omits all context one can make a case for virtually anything. For example Hitler was elected withing a democratic system. So I could claim that democracy is bad, as it resulted in a Nazi regime (whilst ignoring other parameters that were relevant). Pardon the Godwin, but that is the direct consequence of omitting context. Now, if you want to, would you mind trying to refute the points SwansonT proposed? Because I surely can't. And since homosexuality has been brought up, there have been anti-homosexuality laws in the US, and (male) homosexuality was considered a felony up until recently. There are still laws enacted trying to limit LGBT rights, and as far as I can see these were not pushed primarily by Muslims. Take a look at the Pew data on homosexuality. 45% of the Muslims said that it should be accepted. While it is lower than Catholics (70%) or Jews (81%) it is still higher than Evangelical protestants (38%) or Mormons (36%). But why are they treated differently? Also the acceptance of homosexuals by American Muslims is higher than in other countries. Doesn't it tell us again that it is meaningless to paint everything with one brush? We do that for protestants: "they may be anti-gay but they are basically good people" or how about the statistic I recently cited regarding misogyny comparing Syrians and Germans? Why is it that we can differentiate between nuances of intentions and see the good in people, provided they are more like we are? And why can't we do the same for those that are not, even if available data shows a far more complicated view? Do theocratic Muslim regimes do horrible things? Sure. But do you really believe that a theocratic protestant regime would be so much better if given unlimited power? And again, that is why we have laws and the constitution to prevent precisely that happening, regardless which faith you may or may not be.

If you read SwansonT and my post it should be clear that Sharia law does not an issue in the USA (note the title) due to the legal framework provided.

And how many stonings have happened in the USA? And as for the extremist individuals, what does it matter whether they did because of the Bible, Quran, anti-capitalist, anti-government, supremacist, political, or any other ideology? If we use the same measure, shouldn't we ostracize all ideologies that could eventually lead to violence? And when we do, what is left?

Ultimately it is a bogeyman as it sounds foreign and threatening and fears are based on completely ignoring the legal framework a given society (even their own) is based on. While somewhat off-topic it is akin to the irrational fear of having freedom of speech suppressed by introducing elements that are considered PC, such as introducing polite forms to address minorities.

Your post only explains why you find it intuitive using assumptions that, judging by the posts, others are not making. This is not usually how riddles or brain teasers work, as they generally rely specifically on the premise given, rather than trying to figure out what is going on in your mind.

I am not sure why there are spoiler tags as there are only a number of assertions and handwaving, but I cannot see any actual data/hints, references or relevant information.

Because they dismiss the additional info that the host reveals a wrong door and instead and instead reduce the question to a two door problem. I.e. it is assumed that the reveal simply removes it out of the equation, whereas as others pointed out it is still very much part of it.

I am still not entirely sure what your question is, but the 50:50 appears to be intuitively correct (whilst being wrong) as people generally dismiss the additional information provided by revealing one wrong door. Edit: crossposted

I guess same reason why the subsections are oddly constructed. There is not enough dedicated traffic/posting to justify a re-organization.

Indeed. Also, I disagree to a large extent with the criticism. His later nightwatch novels were always less about jokes but much more about social criticism wrapped in murder mystery. And, to me, he delivered that in spades. His earlier works were more fanciful maybe, but less refined and less pointed. In the latter he has established his world but may seem a bit redundant in its description for those that have read all his book. However, for newcomers the added layer is important to get into Discworld,

In some ways I found the history surrounding the Mongol empire even more fascinating than that of the Romans. The latter had the most sophisticated military (for about a millennium) and much of it was down to superior organization and tactics. All backed by a strong economy. The mongols on the other hand started off as nomads (though well-versed in warfare) who initially were illiterate (until Temujin) and picked up everything required to build an empire and things like siege warfare in one go. Finally resulting in an empire that shaped European as well as Asian history on a massive scale.