I have no evidence of her motives. Campaign donations are public record, and she receives funding from oil companies. The idea that politicians are not swayed by finance is absurdly naive. They don’t need to accept that money. And, regardless whether convincing swing voters is a part of the campaign’s consideration, it should be clear that influence from corporations is not an influence. Then we could sit here an take them at their word. As it is, it’s impossible to think that millions of dollars from oil companies is not affecting the decision to make a complete u turn on supporting fracking.

They do according to the US supreme court. The court ruled in Citizens United that restricting donations from corporations was a violation of corporations’ first amendment rights.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC

It corporations weren’t given the same rights as people, then we’d need to wonder less about what politicians’ real motives were.

That does sound better doesn’t it? If I were a presidential candidate, I would definitely say “We support fracking because we need Pennsylvania” instead of “We support fracking because our campaign has accepted millions of dollars from the oil industry”.

Without evidence I will say it’s more likely that she has significant funding from the fracking industry and is under the thumb of rich executives. The difference is that they likely understand that supporting fracking could cost them the election, but they know that by not supporting it they lose a huge source of funding. They have weighed the costs, benefits and risks, and decided it’s a risk worth taking.

A good solution is to get corporate money out of politics. There are narrow ways to achieve that, but a broad solution that fixes a lot of problems is to end corporate personhood. This organization has made steady progress toward that and I think is worth supporting. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Move_to_Amend. Considered signing up for their email list.

Another solution is more wisely voting. People don’t vote in primary elections, but they’re more important than the general elections. They determine what the field of candidates looks like. Vote in primary elections. You don’t necessarily want to vote in primary of the party you most align with though. An obvious example where you’d vote in a different party is if you live in a gerrymandered district. There’s a near 100% chance the gerrymandered party candidate will win. It doesn’t matter who the other candidates are. Vote for the least bad candidate in the other party. You won’t get everything you want, but you’ll get more than you would otherwise. It will also force the party to change.

That’s not the only time you’d vote in a party you don’t align best with. Maybe you’re relatively happy with all of the candidates in a party, so why split hairs if you’d be ok with any of them? There are so many considerations that the only advice is to keep an open mind about party membership, evaluate where you make the most impact (not what looks the most like you) and vote in every damn election, primaries included.

The OP article said the same thing, and like this article, it provides no evidence for the statement. I looked for some numbers, and for world bests, men had better performance in every category I found. The study linked below looked at speeds over decades and in every case men had better performance. Both men and women have improved over time, and as a percentage the difference is getting smaller, but in absolute difference it appears the same. It is an admittedly brief search, but I can’t find evidence in the form of measured times (not conjecture about estrogen) indicating at all that women perform better in ultra marathons. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3870311

I haven’t used this in a bit so I thought I’d check it. They somewhat recently updated the desktop program and nothing works at all now. It appears to be just Edge pretending to be another program. It’s literally just a browser, so surround sound doesn’t work now.

It’s a weird thing for them to do. Why would anyone download a copy of edge that can only watch Netflix? You’d just use a browser.

I attach a computer to a TV and open streaming Web sites in a browser. There aren’t much benefits of the streaming devices compared to that unless you’re using surround sound. The Netflix desktop program has surround sound, but that’s the only service I know of.

I doubt it accounts for much, but a lot of authors pay up front now for open access. If the majority of authors did that, then subscriptions wouldn’t make sense for most people. I don’t think it’s anywhere near the majority of publications now though.

I don’t know that it’s technically harmonization, but sometimes when wolves howl at the same time, they will each choose a different pitch. Presumably it’s so the group sounds like it has as many individuals as possible.

There’s no shortage of well meaning dog owners who don’t know any better.

deleted by creator

Here’s a bad one. After watching X-Men The Last Stand I thought it was so terrible that I wanted to know what the director (Brett Ratner) had to say about this crapsterpiece.

Among a lot of bad scenes, one that stood out to me was at the start of an assault, Ian MacKallen as Magneto tells Pyro something like “Wait. In chess the pawns go first”. Then they send in a bunch of useless mutants who get slaughtered. It pans back to Magneto and he says “That’s why in chess the pawns go first”. I thought, does the director think the audience is full of idiots? Did he really just have this famous actor repeat the same line within 3 minutes?

When it gets there in the director’s commentary, Ratner says something like “Yeah, we really had this academy award winning actor say the same thing twice.” He knew it was bad, and he still did it! Why? In general, I felt like his commentary was an insight into the mindset needed to make shitty movies.

Yeah, I use that all the time. I think I use it in a different way though. I have projects with C, C++ and other languages. The C and C++ get compiled and linked together, and so there are some considerations for those files that don’t apply to anything else. So I mean C files and C++ files, but not as if they were the same language.

I guess that’s the joke, and I think we’re all confused because it’s wrong.

I did this in a project and someone later came and changed them all to .h, because that was “the convention” and because “any C is valid C++”. Obviously neither of those things is true and I am constantly befuddled by people’s use of the word convention to mean “something some people do”. It didn’t seem worth the argument though.

I visited for a few days once. If you like the outdoors, the parks in the surrounding area are nice. Camelback in the city is packed and not particularly fun.

Overall, I found that Phoenix was not at all a place I’d like to spend time. You might try Sedona just a little north of Phoenix. I haven’t been there, but I hear it’s not Phoenix, and in general seems more aligned with the things you mentioned you like.

I’d even settle for a remake that hasn’t been some before. I think we’ve had enough Batman do-overs. How about a remake of Stargate, or Turner and Hootch?

But seriously though, enough with the remakes.

Although there are measurement techniques that do appropriate pi, that’s done mostly because it’s interesting. Typically one calculates pi, not measures it. The calculation can’t ever be completed but the more you do, the better your approximation. One method is this https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leibniz_formula_for_π

That sort of stuff is done a lot. However, you don’t need all that many digits before adding more digits doesn’t meaningfully affect calculations. https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/edu/news/2016/3/16/how-many-decimals-of-pi-do-we-really-need/

Is your claim simply that XX folks have twice as many X genes as XY folks? It doesn’t take anything from the article or what I said to understand that. That’s tautological.

The article is about the mechanism explaining why women have more autoimmune diseases than men. Nothing in the article implicates the number of genes themselves in the mechanism. Theybstayes that the gene that deactivates one of the X chromosomes has side effects. They do not describe the details of that. Maybe ultimately there is some reason the pair of X chromosomes is itself involved, but nothing in the study indicates that, and what they describe doesn’t necessarily involve that as part of the mechanism.