CharonY

To quote a famous strategist and deal-maker: No doubt. I am moderately certain that Trump is strategically not talking to Hegseth so that that one can take the fall. Also a lot of folks apparently were women and people of color, so we can see the true worth of DEI.

Fair. I guess my envy comes from the fact that there many unscrupulous folks out there making money tapping into that. My life would be so much easier if I could just getting paid for making stuff up. Heck, students telling me that with their degree they aspire to become youtubers and influencers is incredibly depressing.

Ain't that convenient, though. "Here is a product that we want to use for all kind of things so that we can train it to be better. However, if there is any liability of any sort that is entirely on you". For sure, that is the strategy of most large companies, but especially tech has been interwoven so strongly with society via things that folks interact daily, such as social media and now AI, so that the reward/harm balance is way out of whack.

He does. And doesn't care. That is the superpower of the new right. I am frankly a bit envious of that ability. There are ongoing EU investigations into interference by Musk/Twitter and other US companies into European election interference (which are not really subtle, considering that Musk virtually joined far-right party rallies). So of course it makes sense for them to characterize the interference with the interference as interference...

Did someone make any bets again just before the announcement? Asking for a friend.

I don't think that a better understanding of the history excuses the atrocities of the current government. What it does explain, however, is deep-rooted support in parts of the population that, at least originally were not based on irrational fanaticism as sometimes characterized. Historically, it led to different power structures within the regime, that were not exclusively tied to one person (like for example in Iraq). Some articles are discussing that Trump might have thought that Iran is pretty much set up like Venezuela, where decapitation could make sense in order to force compliance. But as he learned in real-time, the power structures in Iran actually run deep and the loss of the leader does in fact not cripple the system.

One of the things that folks tend to forget is that the uprising against the Shah was a popular one, and not really one driven by religion (initially). Quite a few folks that would be considered progressives were part of it, in an effort to overthrow the Shah. As part of this alliance, Kohomeini then promised things like equal rights, freedom of expression, democratization and even agreed to ensure that religious leaders wouldn't be in position of political power. Of course, that never happened, and when he realized that he was able to consolidate power, he did. And perhaps different to some other autocracies, who are very much focused on the person, he did create a deep system, that is holding on to power even now. But folks have to recognize how badly folks wanted to get rid of the Shah and it is not simply religious fanaticism that caused and sustained the current regime.

Nothing like threatening/conducting war crimes to hold on to power. Worked for Netanyahu.

While we are at variations on how surnames can be formed, I always found the Spanish one to be fun. There, folks have two surnames, based on the first surname of each parent. This can be interesting if the surnames are composites. Or if Basque names are intermingled, where the surname is based on the father's surname and the family town.

How do you define the "as we know" part? I think the oldest evidence of the custom will likely depend on how long written records have survived. My wild guess is that the development of surnames will coincide with the formation of sufficient large settlements which made it more relevant to distinguish membership to different families and might predate a lot of the written records (those that survived, at least). With regard to the earliest documented surnames, I randomly googled the Uruk period and found this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kushim_(Uruk_period)

Take away where? The white House is where all the crazies aggregate.

Yes, oxidation in principle is the loss, and reduction the gain of an electron. In biology, iron is often part of an enzymes that are involved in these processes where it switches between Fe(II) to Fe(III). But obviously there area also other types redoxenzymes. The broader point here is that this reaction is not "bad" as asked in OP. Rather they are a biological necessity.

It is not fundamentally bad. Oxidation is merely a chemical process and it also has many important biological functions. For example, we oxidize nutrients to create reducing equivalents so that we can generate energy (via oxidative phosphorylation). Rust requires iron (it is an iron (hydr)oxide. So that is not the issue. What can happen is that during respiration reactive oxygen species are generated. This is mostly due to leakage from the ubiquinon pool as part of the aforementioned oxidative phosphorylation. These species are kind of aggressive and can indeed lead to damages, unless they are dealt with the many mechanisms in cells to neutralize them (e.g. superoxide dismutases, catalases, peroxidases etc.). Nothing. If we stop oxidation, we stop critical biochemical processes and we just die. Not due to oxidation, but because our cells run out of energy (well and other critical processes). Redox reactions are kind of the essentials for metabolism. I mean, yes. Anything that is not made of iron will, by definition, not rust.

Perhaps interestingly, the number of meningitidis cases is also increasing across parts of Canada, in part likely associated with a drop in vaccinations but as with other sporadic outbreaks the precise reasons are usually unknown.

Huh, the URL should have been a hint to me, shouldn't it? Sorry I have been grading and I swear my own ability to read degrades with each student essay I am reading. History FactsWere People in Medieval Times Always Drunk?It’s often said that people during the Middle Ages, a period that lasted from roughly the end of the fifth century through the 15th century, drank beer instead of water because the drinking water at t