J.C.MacSwell

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.

When you can be as omnipresent as required...how is this difficult? Also why would He choose to to be the mortal Messiah for each species? Don't forget He works in mysterious ways. For all the questionable things done in his name...by "official accounts" He seems like a pretty good guy. i'm starting to think you lack a little faith...

Fairly easy to do. A bit harder but much for effective if the conditions are right is to wear boots with steel blades attached and add the ability to glide on it. At that point it's no longer religion. It's in the realm of science. I think you might be underestimating Jesus a little here. If St. Nick can cover all of Earth in one night, bringing gifts to all the children as appropriate to what they have become accustomed to, an infinitely greater being with omnipresence would manage all you've mentioned above, and more, without problem.

So...here we are half a year later and I'm scheduled for a booster shot between Xmas and NewYear. After two Pfizer shots that I tolerated well, I was wondering whether to get that again or a Moderna booster. I chose Moderna despite slightly higher safety risks of Myocarditis or Pericarditis (I'm guessing driving to get vaccinated poses similar level of risk), mostly due to availability. Moderna also seems to be considered more effective. Apparently Pfizer shots only have 30% of the mRNA load of the Moderna shots, so the Pfizer boosters are full doses where the Moderna boosters are half doses. Related to that, for those without vaccine (and even those that have been), can the Omicron variant serve as a "vaccinator" (or booster)? Not that it would be recommended, but if it is a better "non-option" than say Delta, could it eventually be useful in that way? Also, are the variants competing with each other? Can some strains crowd others out?

I think a significant minority have surgical procedures but still far from a majority: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6626314/#:~:text=As a whole%2C less than,in the future (7).

+1 for the article. Hard to pick sides. A classic example of "They said, she said". Well...I did skip to start posting on page 7, after scanning page 1.

Are you "B." INow? I assumed "A." and "B." were composites you made up of members in this thread, for the purposes of mocking the "B." leaning arguments, even while most making those arguments have accepted from the outset that, depending on context, sex can be more than binary.

More accurate fix: B: Nope. Even by that definition...what about water? You're starting to sound hydrophobic. You're not hydrophobic, are you? Because that seems like the type of argument a hydrophobe would make. Lather, rinse...repeat as necessary

You forgot: A: What if we only consider substances that contract when they freeze...can we categorize them all as substances that contract when they freeze? B: Nope. Even by that definition...what about water?

Yep. We await the technology from our biology community, just as we await a more precise definition of biologically male and female that can include everyone...with no guarantee whether it is theoretically possible...or not.