I disagree with your interpretation of primarily in regards to my comments. My comments are about a wide range of things, and when in ideological threads (curiously permitted constantly) they are primarily satire. They are also pretty much always in response to another ideological post; I am not creating ideology discussion out of thin air. So I'm just going to make a new account.
You're ignoring the method by which these things are dated. First, if a date was written on the page (extremely rare), it may well have been after the date change happened. The vast majority of writings from the time are dated to known events, like eclipses, or by reference to other known things ("20 years ago, when Joe was born" and then finding Joe's birth records).
If calendars really did advance 300 years, we are living past the advance. That means that when we see a writing reference an eclipse that we know happened in what we call 900, it doesn't actually tell us anything about the calendar having moved or not. It only tells us that something was observed 1122 years ago. That could be 900 years after 0AD, or it could be 600.
Actually, almost every instance of dating anything back then depends upon few relative date calculations which are "known". The eclipse happened 1000 years ago, so that is year 1022, and this writing referencing it is from 1022, and so this scholar writing a generation later is from 1082. This inscribed rock was found under 1100 years of dust, so the people living here were from 922, and their language existed at that time, and all records we find from this civilization are now known to be from the early 900s. Now we can claim to have evidence that there was thriving commerce in the 900s with hundreds of written records about it, so of course the dates weren't changed.
If you dig into the records people cite as evidence against the phantom time hypothesis, the vast majority of them (literally every one that I've seen) is using indirect dating in this way, which doesn't mean anything.
Its role is to do everything you just said in one package, plus other networking features. It fetches, updates the store, subscribes the components, caches the responses, performantly rerenders. It allows configuration of when to refetch, how to cache, polling, pagination, infinite scroll, etc etc via a simple API.
Nothing is stopping you from writing all this yourself, but libs exist for a reason. It's a terribly useful networking package. If you just use a generic store and write a fetcher yourself, you have to at the very least write logic for when to (re)fetch and for persisting the responses to the store.
An external service fetcher doesn't have integration with React because the entire tree potentially needs to know when the data changed. Once you write the code to subscribe to those changes where necessary, you've basically invented another state library.
It's a great benefit for a component to be able to specify what data it needs from remote without worrying about if an ancestor or sibling also needed it. React query will only fetch once the unique queries in the whole tree.
Without this feature, every component needing remote data D must share a parent ancestor fetching D for all of them, even when the children are not conceptually related. Adding another component higher in the tree means you have to hoist the fetcher up to that level, etc. React query is an incredible upgrade to anything else I've used over the years.
My reasoning is that the coffee will cool in a curve having high rate of temperature change at first, and slower later in a long tail until it reaches room temp. Adding the cream will "remove" a fixed amount of "heat units". The heat of the cup can be graphed as heat/time and it will look like exponential decay.
If you remove those units at the start, you've reduced the starting temp a bit, but you haven't much changed the long tail of the cooling. You essentially just started the coffee at a slightly cooler temperature, but this doesn't affect the curve much. Or to think of it another way, the change in temperature at the start corresponds to a small amount of X axis (time) on the curve.
If you add the cream later, the temperature reduction corresponds to a larger amount of time on the curve. This means the temperature will be lower than the above.
So to my intuition, cream first should yield hotter coffee
It's not about per capita, it's about total. We can not only reduce their resource usage, but also produce less food ourselves, all for free. It's win-win.
It would also help the planet greatly if we stopped sending aid to Africa and other poor nations. Without our help, their populations would decline quite a bit, reducing their meat consumption and emissions by a huge amount. I know this is an unpopular sentiment but we have to be pragmatic.
1. We already produce way more food than the entire world can eat, even if it were distributed equally
2. When population begins butting up against the limits of food production, demand for cheaper plant based food will rise. Most will be unable to afford meat, making the meat market naturally shrink itself for economic reasons. Likewise if meat becomes too expensive due to resource constraints.
3. At the point where population exceeds food supply, there will be at worst 1 generation of starvation, and then population will stabilize to have enough food
3a. Infinite growth of the population is not sustainable or desirable. Even if meat were banned, this same story will eventually happen again with any vegetable that is less calorie efficient to grow. Do we want 30 billion people eating literally one food, or 25 billion eating a varied, though less land efficient diet? At some point, the world will have to accept that there isn't enough food to have 3 children. At that point, when the 2 child policy is global, what kind of diet should be possible? We can stretch it so that we're all eating literally one crop and there's absolutely nothing more we can do to feed the world, but hopefully we stop breeding a bit earlier than that, to end with one where people can still enjoy meat.
Hmmm, if it wouldn't pass the Senate then I guess a lot of states' constituents don't want this. Sounds like it's better left to a state by state basis.
There's simply no empirical evidence that you love your wife/mother, so it would be foolish to believe that you do. Until a study is funded there's just no way for you to know. Trust science
If we only want profitable people represented, we can skip the extra steps and just have a voting fee, or even just a landowning requirement! Then the poors won't be able to screw up the country at all
Because the country was explicitly founded in a way that local matters more. If you want abortions, go to an abortion state. Is it so intolerable that Mississippians as a whole want different things than you and your state residents do?
This is exactly how things should work. If you don't like the politics of one state, you should move to another state. States should retain authority over their laws not enumerated in the constitution. The diversity of states, some with weed, some with no income tax, some with abortion, some with an oil stipend, is a great thing. Hopefully most companies end up supporting this
> Any state law that deprives someone of life and / or liberty is unconstitutional.
It's not. It's literally not. Stealing food is illegal, even if you were going to die of starvation without it. Breaking into someone's home is illegal, even if you were going to freeze to death outside. And now, in some states, abortion is illegal, even if you were going to die from giving birth.
States or congress should pass a law allowing abortions if that's the will of the people. The court should not invent a law out of nothing; this ruling is legally correct.