CharonY

I don't think that is universally true. Especially in the Americas specific programs might be limited, but as a whole the limiting factor seems to be money, rather than space. Not sure what you try to say here, but income is one factor that determines certain eligibility paths in admission. E.g. scholarships. But they can also be part of the evaluation. E.g. a student from a poor neighborhood but with high scores might be perceived as a better candidate than someone from another school in which the average score is much higher than the other school (which, again is often determined by socioeconomic factors). If you are talking about college admissions, they are not based on identities (at least not the way you describe it) but rather but those various factors, i.e. scores, background, compelling CV/life story/essay equivalent and so on.

It would make sense. However I think the hypothesis from the authors that certain developments (such as the bow) may have caused increasing job specialization. It does seem to make sense that pregnant women are out of the hunting game, too. Conversely, it is likely that folks would do whatever is most beneficial given the circumstances. E.g. if foraging provides most of the nutrition in a given area, hunting may not be seen as a top priority.

Fundamentally the presented evidence in this studies suggest that hunting gear seemed to be some what equally distributed between genders. I.e. whatever it means does not seem to be gender-specific.

I wonder whether specific antitrust rules could be applied to companies that provide services related to news or other forms of information dissemination. A big issue there is, of course that with larger variety folks might just create their own bubble (such as parler). Still not certain what a good solution would be. Fundamentally it is an issue of trust. Do we trust companies? Random folks on the internet? Governments?

He was/is plenty bloodthirsty. He demanded the death penalty for the central park five even after they were acquitted. There is an underlying theme about the folks he thinks should die, though (not necessarily related to death penalties, they seemed also politically motivated to various degrees.

I am actually not sure whether these things are really that valuable. Based from what I read about hunters in various San peoples the hunters create their tools based on their own preferences, sometimes even on the fly. I am not sure whether there were dedicated craftsmen involved at these old burial sites.

I did, actually and it was not even mine (but admittedly, a mild mannered one). Also from a cat, once (I still got scars from that one). I should stop stealing from pets is what I am saying.

I think the most parsimonious explanation is that they are buried with their possession rather than something indirectly associated with them. For example, if it was theirs it makes them to bury them with it. But if it something they produced for someone else, why would they waste it?

The obvious conclusion is to switch to dogs, then.

I think I tried to see what the criteria are for identifying someone as a hunter, but I think most evidence is based on archeological finds. There is unlikely to be a way to look at the body themselves. Moreover, many are not in a shape to figure out much about the lifestyle. One aspect I think is the presence of specific work kits (e.g. cutting tools, weapons etc. that are buried together with the body indicating that it may be personal belongings. It would be a bit strange to add these specific tools just randomly because someone died (but not e.g. tools associated with food processing toolmaking or other specializations).

From what I have read it appears the going hypothesis is that simply put it is a matter of necessity. Early societies did not have the luxury to split folks according to perceived suitability. Rather they needed all the protein they could get. So if hunters were needed whoever was available (and perhaps somewhat able) joined in. I.e. it is possible that they did not have the luxury to discriminate. On speculation was that potentially it was related to the use of a spear throwing device, the atlatl, which can be mastered at a fairly young age. I.e. women could have become proficient in this hunting method before they start having children. Later, bows became the dominant hunting tools, which take longer to master and may have resulted in the job discrimination that we still see in current hunter-gatherer societies. I would also highlight that the evidence level for male hunters is also mostly based on buried hunting material. The assumption that they were all male is based on a) speculation (or inductive reasoning) and b) projection of current populations, which may or may not have held true in former times (in the Americas). In fact it is the archaeological find that oppose these assumptions. They identified female hunters a number of burial sites of the late Pleistocene and early Holocene, indicating that it is not a unique finding. The authors argue that it is more likely that it was fairly common in the Americas.

! Moderator Note As per rule 7 advertising in the text body is prohibited.

Well that is always assuming that one expects a singular target. As far as I can tell it is unclear what kind of assay it was in the first place.

Fundamentally I do not think that there is a much wrong with your gel (for most purposes that is). The left pocket might have been damaged a bit. You have a bit of a frowning effect going but nothing too worrisome (though I would add ladder at the last lane to address that a bit.

True enough. On top they obviously have massive influence over lawmakers, so they can make things easier for them either way.

Yes and I think it is one of the few things were empirical studies have consistently shown that trickle down just does not happen. I mean, it is one of those things folks might have really believed in, it has been tried to various degrees for a few decades and the verdict is pretty clear at this point.

So, how about not negotiating with terrorists now?

I think it is important to acknowledge at some point that immigration politics has little to do with worker rights per se. It has more to do to provide a scapegoat for economical woes. Xenophobic tactics have been a time-proven tactic to do just that an by now we have plenty of evidence that it has been a driving factors within the right populist movements (which does include the current GOP). On the scientific side of things, several decade of research in multiple industrialized countries have failed to find consistent evidence of immigrants depressing wages on native (well, not native, native, but you know...) workers. At best, some studies found that new immigrant workers might depress wages of slightly earlier, but uneducated immigrant workers. There are sorting effects at play that, at times can locally decrease but also increase wages, so it is slightly tricky. Yet the simple formula more immigrants = lower wages is in its essence wrong or at least incomplete.

Exactly, it enrages me if folks say something is "just" like flu. Actual influenza is a deadly disease for many folks resulting in thousands of deaths every single year. Moreover, other diseases (including COVID-19) even if not deadly can in increase in morbidity, loss of quality of life and so on. And on top, even otherwise harmless organisms can cause deadly sepsis when they get into the wrong areas (e.g. wounds) or if exposed to too high dosages (as in the above mentioned run-off). Also one should add that the hygiene hypothesis regarding early childhood exposure is mostly looking at the development of allergies, not resistance against pathogens. Fundamentally, low-level exposure can have a similar function as a vaccine, but as in the case of mononucleosis it is not the case for quite a few pathogens. There are plenty that circumvent or hide from the immune system quite effectively, for example.

Also, most extinctions are driven by habitat loss, which impacts prey and predator...

And even those voting against mentioned that what the president did was not right, but he learned his lesson. This time even McConnel has mentioned that the are impeachable offenses... Potentially because a Trump 2024 run could make the GOP implode.

Well there is probably more need for nuance but I think it is not quite fair to say that say European conservatives are more progressives than US conservatives or Republicans. For example, Europe is for much of it fairly left when it comes to the financing social programs. However, many areas are very socially conservative. I think it is fair to say, though that in the US being fiscally conservative is not really associated with the GOP anymore. It has always been a talking point, but never a policy point. There are also certain aspects that are universal among conservatives, though perhaps differently scaled. But again fiscal conservatism is in most areas of the world not really a defining aspect. Fundamentally we are talking about political identity here and what the worldview of folks are that consider themselves conservative vs those that do not. There are of course common themes, such as traditionalism, often associated religiosity (to various degrees) but various surveys and studies indicate that born of these there are also certain traits that are more common. Such as admiration for strong (often father-)figures, an assumption of how things should be (basically assuming a natural order of sorts) and so on. Republicans are obviously just a certain (somewhat crazy) flavour of conservatism and I take your point that one should separate those in most contexts. I will say especially in the Western world the political movements (such as social Democrats, Liberals, Conservatives etc.) are not that isolated anymore that they used to be and there crazy flavours popping up everywhere.

If you go through the headers there is a line somewhere indicating the original submission, as well as another line stating whether the sequence has been updated at some point. If you are interested about variants, I think the GISAID database is more helpful (https://www.gisaid.org/).

I was more thinking back to 9/11 (and to some degree to the more recent terror attacks in Europe) and how it galvanized the population with anti-Muslim sentiments and, among others, resulting in endless wars. Also how a fairly open society managed to become fearful and increasingly restrictive. The main reason I thought about this are because of the parallels some see between Islamic extremists and the radical white evangelical movement (https://nyti.ms/2LHNB5u). They even got their martyrs among the QAnon believers. Also one should not underestimate how deep they are in conspiracy theories. There is a good chance that folks would think that the deep state got to him and that they need to be even more violent to liberate their savior.

These are very different mechanisms. Mononucleosis is mostly caused by the Epstein Barr virus. There is no immunity per se. You get infected and then you carry it. About 90% of adults carry the virus. However, if you only shed low level of viral particles, so often transmission requires intimate contact. So yeah, college. However, childhood infections are often subclinical. However, infection amog kids is often associated with poor hygiene, shared utensils etc. That is why folks in cleaner homes might not get infected as children and therefore develop symptoms. But it is not because the body gained or lost resistance or immunity. Also, fecal transplants are generally screened for potential pathogens, so that is quite a different matter than ingesting manure.