CharonY

A pity. I will note that while you briefly commented on at least one additional troublesome aspect (settlements) you do revert to your original argument about state religion and neglecting the rest of the bill as well as (and perhaps more importantly) the context of the bill. Other constitutions were framed in various time points in history and they are a direct reflection of the ongoing political and social context. As I already noted before, establishing a state religion has precedence, but excluding protections for other groups is rather unusual for a democracy. As this bill was not made 50 years ago, but right now, it does seem to be squarely aimed at diminishing the role of Arabs withing their society. At minimum it is a signal for the hardliners and the big question is now what follow up will come. There are roughly three paths that it could take. One is that in a follow-up protection for minorities will be enshrined (or at minimum a simple statement of equality of citizens). Then this was just a move towards the hardliners with little immediate impact. Second, they could continue to straddle the ambiguity and milk it for what it's worth. And third, and I believe that is what SJ is alluding to, it may be the opening short of increasingly anti-Arab/Palestinian policies (with the settlements being already one of them). It is not just the internet armchair analysts who are worried about the consequences, but also Jewish groups as well as traditional allies of Israel. There is more to it than just "losing one's mind because it is Israel". I.e. a better example than the Charter of the French language would be removing Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (or e.g. limiting it to francophones).

So the Article 4 states that Islam is the official religion (and the sanctity of other heavenly religions shall be maintained. Two things of note. First, there are other countries which have state religions (including some nordic states, England etc.). In itself one could argue for or against it, but it is not quite the same as what is proposed in the bill (which one probably should read). Before I continue with it, I should mention that even if the Palestinian constitution had questionable provisions (I'd have to read the whole thing, for which I do not have the time right now) one would hope that Israel would provide a better example (after all, it is supposed to be the beacon of democracy in the middle East. Also I want to re-iterate that while there are little practical provisions in terms of shifting to more autocratic system, it does show a certain political shift. Similar to the rise of right wing groups in Europe, which could lead to constitutional issues (as seen in Poland). Among the problematic provisions are the following and to make sure, I do not have any expertise in that area, so my interpretation could be way off but: This seems to imply that non-Jews (regardless of citizenship) should have less influence on the State of Israel. In contrast to setting a state religion (and assuming there are no further provision to diminish others) this implies an exclusion of a certain citizens just based on their cultural background. In most Western countries this would be clearly unconstitutional and in certainly seems undemocratic. I do not know enough on how current and future treatment of Arabic is going to shift. I will just note that if one traditionally had two accepted languages and removes one (if that is what is happening) then it is quite a different thing if one was always only used in official capacity. I think that is kind of self-explanatory. Then there is the baffling issue that it does not mention equality of its citizens anywhere, which is found in virtually all democratic constitutions (and is also included in the Palestinian constitution). Perhaps even more so, as it has been in the declaration of independence in 48. Note that the bill is also controversial among Israelis, including President Rivlin. Now there are several layers in which this bill can be considered problematic. One is the general tone for further legislation, second is its possible consequence for the conflict with the Palestinian people (partially due to the ongoing conflict over Jerusalem, part due to the explicit mentioning of settlement expansion in a basic law) and third is of course as it could be seen as an indicator of how Israel sees its future in relationship the contentious situation they have with their Arabic citizens and neighbours/rivals. Western countries see it as Israel moving away from a two-state solution.

That is a good question. Commonly, autoclaving phosphate buffer with other salts can cause problems, such as precipitation (e.g. in presence of iron). I assume that folks had those issues especially with residuals in yeast extract or tryptone. While there are likely batches which should work fine (in fact, you can get TB premixed for autoclaving), the occasional failures have prompted folks to adapt a protocol that is less error-prone. Which makes a lot of sense considering the effort you put in downstream.

That is precisely my point. and the counterpoint to this:

Makes sense. One thing of note is that improvement in education generally go hand in hand with economic improvement (in fact the education level tend to lag economic improvements). While reduction in children number with higher education has been observed in high as well as in low-economy areas, in the latter the economy adds additional pressures that are absent (or different) in the former.

Fairly easily. I mentioned the drop rate. I.e. say the time it took to reduce a children size from 6 to below 3. In many Muslim countries it took about 20-27 years. In the UK and USA it took 80-90 years. The difference is that in the latter case it happened earlier. If we factor in other parameters it becomes quite obvious that economic factors were the main drivers and those happened later, but much faster in most Muslim countries. Any evidence for that? Why is educational attainment for women so different in the various Muslim countries, if the religion is the main factor?

It's "Trottel" . But still gives hits.

Not quite that high rate, but in class I often have quite a few rather obviously (from their clothing) Muslim female students. While I assume that there is a selection bias of those studying overseas, I found them not to conform to any common stereotypes (one of the things I like with getting contact from students all over the world- it rather frequently challenges what one assumes to know about certain areas).

That is a stretch. The biggest factor is economy and closely associated with it, education. Religion does play a subordinate role. Birth rates are dropping quite fast in most Muslim countries and the rate in the last 20 years was much faster than the comparable drop in Western Christian countries. It is also a bit ignorant to state that women have lower education throughout the Muslim world. There a immense regional differences. While (and despite) there is still discrimination going on, in many MENA countries there are more women in higher education than men. Likewise, while the average birth rate is still higher in the West on average, some countries (such as Iran) are lower than many Western countries. The situation is certainly not ideal in terms of equality. But it is much more complex than what you allude to. Just as a remark, while there is indeed this connection, it is usually better to indicate where the information was derived from. My sister or I checked may make it difficult to assess veracity. It is better to refer to some info that allows interested reader to follow up. E.g. a Norwegian study from 2005 which provided probably the strongest evidence at that time (Albrektsen et al. BJC 2005).

The study was using economic models to distinguish between those two effects on overall fertility (i.e. likelihood of having children and number of children). Among the things they found is that schooling increased likelihood of marriage that, so the authors argue, reduce the price of child quality, (in their model they used children as the equivalent of a commodity of a given quality and quantity). Likewise, a higher income by the woman increases child quantity cost (as caring for children is traditionally done by women and their salary would be lost). Together, they argue a higher educational attainment reduces overall child quantity.

An important element is the accompanied higher participation of women in the workforce and improvement family planning. Data from Canada suggests that higher education increases the likelihood of having children, but reduces number of total children.

There is a difference between "not quite the same" and "not applicable". This is a strawman. First, I noted that a second element (establishment of autocratic structures) are missing from the bill. Second, my criticism was that you draw the line to facism at the level of extermination. Let me be clearer. If laws were enacted that would limit rights of certain citizen, say, the anglophone population, then I would call it a cause for concern and depending on which rights, it could well be underway to facism (say limiting voting rights or political participation). To state that genocide is the litmus test of autcratic regimes is, as I have noted, plain silly. At that point we would be already way beyond that. And that seems to be what certain groups are worried about and why there is a call for Jewish ethnostate. For now it is toothless. But what is the endgame? Assuming the Arab population increases further, what action would need to be taken to ensure that Israel remains Jewish? The possible consequences are what folks are worried about and what folks are worried about. And I sure hope you see that there is a difference between learning French and becoming Jewish?

So you only consider policies that are clearly aimed against a certain set of your fellow citizens problematic when it comes to outright extermination? That is just silly.

The link between female education and empowerment (legal and otherwise) with reduced birth rates is by now quite firmly established, I believe. Current projections indicate a slowdown of growth with a maximum population of ca. 11 billions by 2100. I always found that the off-world idea is a bit like a projection of the colonial past to the future. I.e. a time when folks were thinking in forms of continuous (exponential) growth, expansion and consumption.

Ooof, the differences are huge and are politically or not just not comparable. But if one wanted to do such a comparison: As others have mentioned, policies (laws as well as practices such as redlining) persisted well into the 80s and other, perhaps unintended policies disproportionately affected (and still affect) black communities disproportionately. As a consequence generational wealth was not increasing resulting of disproportionate amount of black folks staying in poverty. The economic trajectories in Jewish communities was quite different, of course. And, again, as Zapatos mentioned, in online fora crime in black communities are not discussed in good faith. I doubt that anyone denies that black communities are more affected by crime than white communities. But it is also quite clear that poverty is a big driving factor. The talking point that slavery ended and thus they should have ample time to be successful glaringly overlooks the history of black communities post-slavery and reveals an underlying agenda. It is based on the assumption that black folks are inherently different/inferior and as such the lack of success is solely down to their deficiencies. It does not really matter if they mention genetics or culture, all they mean is something inherent, relatively unchangeable that is somehow also connected to dark skin colour. It is really just a skin-deep veneer over a bigoted world view. If you look at poverty levels among black communities, you'll see that only since the mid-90s a more sustained drop in black poverty was observed. And part of it is due to acknowledging the special issues black communities and the role racism (intentional or not) played in it. In contrast, post-holocaust there was a rather immediate recognition of how horrible the deeds were and Germany negotiated reparations. Sure the anti-semites did not suddenly vanished, but being openly anti-Jewish (Jewish, mind you, not Israel) was much more frowned upon than it used to be. As we all know that did not happen in the US for the black folks. So no, there are not many points were a comparison could be justified. Now touching on the situation in Quebec. The situation is quite different (though the francophone situations does not seem to be trivial either) as it is not merely promoting Hebrew to the national language but also quite clearly says that Israel is a Jewish nation. I.e. it is a specific exclusions of Arabic citizens. And that is quite a worrisome aspect as I would imagine that under Canadian law someone obtaining Canadian citizenship would be considered a full member of society, regardless of their heritage.

Assuming that there are no provisions to strengthen autocratic elements, bill alone appears to be more a move toward something like an ethnostate, which could be considered a subelement of facism. Of course if it is just an opening move, it may well go down that road.

While we are at it, they also come in 60 g as well as 360g. There are also 35g ones and the individual triangles (but no idea about the weight. Already consumed those). Aside from pit vipers, some members of the pythons and boas, also detect IR, but at lower sensitivity.

The article refers to preservation of a protein. I.e. biomolecule, not tissue. In this case it depends on precipitation of the protein, though it is still not clear how that alone could preserve the proteins for the indicated amount of time.

I think research is pretty much still ramping up. After all we are roughly at the point where kids growing up with heavy smartphone use are getting into college (which is the common test cohort for these kind of studies).

That is only half correct. The latter part is correct (to my limited knowledge based on second-hand knowledge from medical professionals) hypothermic patients should warm up slowly. But it is not that sudden heat will lead to heat loss or that cold blood will cause heart attack as the major issue. The core temp may have an intermittent drop, but it is usually only an issue if the warming efforts are aborted because of that. Rather it is because sudden shift in temperature can a) be extremely painful and can b) cause a sudden drop in blood pressure if the extremities start warming up (plus the blood in extremities will be rich in lactic acid, possibly causing additional heat issues). I.e. baths could be used if one carefully warms up the trunk first (as opposed to extremities) . Again: not medical advice, just somewhat informed second-hand knowledge. I also note that the point about shifting preferences in dependence on exertion, liquid content (flavouring), environmental temperature as well as the fact that preferred temps still allow some bacterial growth are being ignored as well. Indeed, the main point being that learned behaviour does strongly affect our actions (a point that is only selectively acknowledged...).

So.... France?

Two things, even assuming preference for cold water, you would not know whether it was due to microbial avoidance or some other aspect that makes us enjoy it (either directly the temperature or taste). Second, as I mentioned in other mammals such as rats it is known that they prefer warmer water. Except when they are overheated, then they prefer cold and after sufficient hydration prefer warm again. The general preference, however, is below body temp (which has room for much simple speculations). Even so you seem to have a lot explanations that do not add up. E.g. if bacterial avoidance is the only or main reasons, then why is the preferred temp at 12-16 rather then lower, where we have more effective bacterial inhibition? If certain taste preferences can be learned why do you think is it only true for certain cases and not for others? Why do you think that there must be a overriding evolutionary mandate, if on the other hand simple peer pressure can eliminate it? As a rule of thumb, simple explanations without evidence have to face scrutiny and should not be taken at face value. Otherwise it is too easy to make some overarching just so stories, sometimes with rather nasty consequences (though arguably not in this case). Yes eating or drinking cold helps lower body temperature. The hot drinks in hot temperature is not complete rubbish, but works only in certain circumstances and it does not work for dogs. The basis is this, increasing temperature by drinking hot beverages (or soup) can cause a disproportionate amount of sweating (relative to ambient temp increase). Provided that the resulting sweat can evaporate effectively it can lower your temperature more than drinking cold beverages. However, if sweating is not effective in cooling (e.g. high humidity or having lots of clothing) it won't work. Likewise, dogs do not cool down by sweating and hence, would not have a positive effect.

In the US they are called standard deductions (12k for individuals). However, that is somewhat different than the concept of BUI. The latter is, among others, supposed to replace complex welfare systems. A tax-based equivalent (or at least something with similar effects) would be a negative income tax. In that case if one earns less than a minimum amount (e.g. 9 or 12 k in the above examples) would get some kind financial aid. Different models exist for the precise amount.

Look, what you describe is in a nutshell the issue the whole field of evolutionary psychology (and some other disciplines such as sociobiology) have and which is much research in that area is discredited. It is easy to weave evolutionary stories but it is much more difficult to find evidence to support those notions. In this case, I am still waiting to see any study that found a link between temperature preference and bacterial avoidance. Even worse, what is being ignored are pretty obvious cues that others already mentioned: the preference shifts depending on environmental temperature and exertion. Or the the preference of temperature based on expectations. If bacterial avoidance was a deeply ingrained evolutionary behaviour why did we develop all the other patterns? And if those behaviours are indeed that fluid, how would you identify the evolutionary component? The fundamental issue is that behavioral traits are highly malleable and massively influenced by individual experience as opposed to evolutionary history. As such it is incredibly difficult (as researchers found out) to separate those aspects. As such in the absence of rather intricate research these evolutionary stories have proven to have little explanatory value.

I don't think that the US media system is such as huge exception as you might think. In Germany in the 90s and now some of the biggest drivers of public resentments were /are tabloids. What we see in modern times is a bit more of fragmentation. I.e. in the 90s the view of refugees was universally worse in Germany with mainstream media being far more critical than now. However, there is a strong push not only from traditional conservative media, as you might expect, but also from other sources, predominantly social media. And I think that part is different to before and it is not endemic to the US.