Relatively minor changes have huge effect on the content of articles. The linked article also addresses how Wikipedia has banned conservative sources from Wikipedia including Fox News, the Daily Mail, and the New York Post. "In short, and with few exceptions, only globalist, progressive mainstream sources—and sources friendly to globalist progressivism—are permitted."
Every claim in a Wikipedia article must be accompanied with a source. Claims that are only covered by conservative media and not covered at all by mainstream (liberal) media, cannot be referenced as a source in a Wikipedia article. This leads to conservative viewpoints being removed from articles. Which directly causes articles to become biased towards mainstream viewpoints.
Looks like it triggered the flamewar detector. This usually happens if a post has more comments than votes, and the post did not reach the minimum threshold (40 points).
The differences were substantial: in some cases, such as total brain volume, more than a standard deviation. The effect size of d = −1.41 for total brain volume (Table 1) translates to 92.1% of males being above the female mean, and an 84.1% chance that a randomly-chosen male will have a larger total brain volume than a randomly-chosen female.
I did not bring global temperatures into the discussion as I don't believe they pose as serious a threat as increased CO2 levels. Wikipedia has a nice graph showing estimated global average temperatures over time https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:All_palaeotemps.svg . Please note the log-time scale.
The graph shows that between 10-250 million years ago, global temperatures were 1-12° C higher than they are today. Given that current projections, which include the 2% relative gain in solar irradiance, expect 3-4°C warming by 2100, the geologic temperature record suggests such increases are not detrimental to life on earth. Let us recall that life was thriving during the Jurassic and Cretaceous periods, when temperatures were 5-10°C higher and CO2 levels between 1000-2000ppm. Global temperatures today are actually lower than than average, on a geological timescale.
>the rate of change in CO2 levels was never nearly this swift
No, you can't conclude this. You cannot show there was no other a period in Earth's geologic history where CO2 levels rose by 150ppm (or 150%, whichever is not relevant) in less than 200 years. The geologic record is not detailed enough to make such a claim. It is unknowable if there was a series of major volcanic eruptions that caused CO2 levels to rise rapidly.
And sudden change has always been a part of climate and evolution. Rapid change can occur in just a few decades. For example, the Sahara wasn't even a desert 10,000 years ago. Also see punctuated equilibrium.
Which is moving the goalposts and changing the question. He's asking if a "hypothetical human time traveler" could survive hundreds of millions of years ago, and based off historical CO2 data, it could be possible.
>It's common knowledge, especially among the scientists that publish claims about rising CO2 levels, that Earth has had much higher levels of CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the past, and that at those times, there was lots of life.
This isn't common knowledge at all among non-scientists. Most people have no clue that CO2 levels were many times higher than today, and that earth and the ecosystem in general were just fine. Scientists may be aware of this fact, but why don't they inform the general public of this? Take the submitted article for example. Instead of publishing an article stating, "CO2 levels are higher than 800,000 years ago; but are likely lower than they were at any point from 20-200 million years ago" they only leave in the scary, doomsaying first part and neglect to inform the second part. It is the equivalent of looking at a 24 hour geological clock and only telling people about the past minute while neglecting datapoints from minutes or hours ago. Why aren't scientists informing the public of the historical data?
I understand why the climate change community may not want to bring up this point (it detracts from other issues) but people should be aware of this fact. Humanity, and life in general, will survive increased CO2 levels.
I am paraphrasing, but that's largely what your comment is saying. The article premise and its title, is about [X], where [X] is CO2 levels. It seems like the response to historical CO2 levels is to change the topic.
Edit: I don't want to reply to several comments, so I'll respond here.
Why do I believe the discussion should inform people about historical CO2 levels? Largely because I firmly believe CO2 emissions will not decrease through 2040. The incentives to cut emissions are just not there. Petroleum is simply too useful as a resource. The current projections I have seen predict 500ppm by 2050, and likely 600ppm by 2100. Given those numbers, I ask myself the question, how likely is it that humanity will face extinction in the next century? How should I interpret these numbers?
Given the geological data, I find it reassuring that biology and life on earth survived for hundreds of millions of years with CO2 levels between 1000-2000ppm. It means that increased CO2 levels will not cause the extinction of humanity.
>A hypothetical human time traveler, however, wouldn't survive a hypothetical time travel back to [the Cambrian explosion].
I assume you are referencing about CO2 levels. Yes, around ~500 million years ago, CO2 levels reached 10,000ppm, which would be hazardous (but not fatal) to a human traveler. However if you pick a point between 300 million years ago and today, when CO2 levels were at 1000-2000ppm, a human traveler would have no problem surviving in that environment. Heck, it is even possible to hit those CO2 levels in a modern day warehouse or office that is poorly ventilated.
Increased CO2 levels are very survivable and do not mean the end of the human race.
Fair, but that doesn't detract from the point that CO2 levels maintained 1000-2000ppm for over 100 million years. This was during the Jurassic and Cretaceous periods, when life was thriving on earth.
Present CO2 levels are low on a geological timescale.
On a geologic timescale, CO2 levels were many times higher than they are today.
>In very general terms, long-term reconstructions of atmospheric CO2 levels going back in time show that 500 million years ago atmospheric CO2 was some 20 times higher than present values. It dropped, then rose again some 200 million years ago to 4-5 times present levels--a period that saw the rise of giant fern forests--and then continued a slow decline until recent pre-industrial time.
CO2 levels over the past ~5 million years are at the lowest point in over 200 million years. On a geological timescale, CO2 levels are returning to normal, not going away from it.
The pedestrian is 1) wearing black 2) not wearing any sort of safety reflectors 3) crossing in darkness not under street lights. In the safety video I linked, it's clear that such a pedestrian in the road would be very tough spot and react to. The safety video says there is a very real possibly that a human driver would hit such a pedestrian.
Citing the camera's poor dynamic range, does not imply a human in the same situation would have enough dynamic range to spot a pedestrian in the same circumstance.
High beams would have saved a life here, however in many situations they are illegal to use.
I think the point the poster is trying to make is that if the pedestrian was looking while crossing the street, they would have ample time to react to the oncoming car.
Car headlights can be seen from over 1000 feet away, and at the speed the Uber car was traveling, the pedestrian had 20 seconds to see & and react to the vehicle coming at her.
From the video, it's clear they were not looking for oncoming vehicles while crossing the road.
>A human driver could have seen the person and/or bike from a long way off.
Not true at all, the person was not standing under lit streetlights and was in the shadows. Humans have problems detecting objects in the shadows, especially at night.
3M made a video illustrating how difficult it is to see people at night. In this video, people wearing bright-colored clothing don't even show up until 250 feet away. According to the national safety council, a human driver traveling at 30mph at night, may take up 500 feet to react to and stop when there is an object in the road.
I reccomend watching this video as it strongly changed my views about night driving.
I have read the lawsuit, and it accuses Facebook of making false and misleading statements in their data privacy policy. It takes issue with this section of Facebook's privacy policy:
While you are allowing us to use the information we receive about you, you always own all of your information. Your trust is important to us, which is why we don't share information we receive about you with others unless we have:
• received your permission;
• given you notice, such as by telling you about it in this policy; or
• removed your name and any other personally identifying information from it.
The lawsuit claims Facebook violated bullet points 1 and 2, citing the CA news. The lawsuit uses this point to argue Facebook lied to their investors, did not provide more information on this in their SEC filings, and that investors suffering financial loss when the stock price fell after CA news.
It is. In my experience, Cogent has more peering problems than other transit providers do (e.g. L3). The submitted article is
a clear example of this. I don't find these peering problems surprising, given Cogent is much cheaper vs the competition.
>prioritize Cogent's Panic traffic specifically. Comcast is still the bad guy.
No, from the article it really sounds like Comcast added more capacity to their Cogent-Comcast peering links, at their expense. Comcast was not obligated to do this for Panic in any way. How does that make Comcast 'the bad guy'? Cogent should have worked with Comcast to fix this issue in the first place. Panic is paying Cogent for transit, Cogent should be the one getting Comcast to increase their peering bandwidth. If Panic has to go around the company they're are paying to get their problem fixed, that's terrible service.
I am sorry, but you are still making the same mistake I pointed out earlier, conflating statistical concepts with colloquial ones. You don’t seem to understand the point I am making at all. To understand a statistical argument like the paper submitted, or respond to the statistical argument in the ‘diversity’ memo, you require a basic understanding of statistics. 5%, 15%, those exact numbers I was throwing out, are meaningless here. From a statistical standpoint, what matters is the distribution. The distribution of traits for individuals at the 50th percentile (using whatever metric), is not the same as the distribution of individuals at the 85th percentile, nor the 95th percentile. What you need to understand is that for the general population, the distributions of traits are not identical at every percentile. That is the key misunderstanding you demonstrate in your original comment. Further, your claim that “somewhere at 15-20% its really not a big deal” is not easily disprovable, but statistical nonsense (that’s a colloquial statement).
I do encourage you to re-read my comments and understand where 15% and 5% come from. They are from different populations, something which you do not appear to notice.
Sadly there’s a litany of basic mistakes in your comment. It’s not worth my teaching people high school statistics, so I won’t be replying.
You are playing word games with the phrase ‘considered normal’. The phrase has different meanings whether you consider it from a statistical (as the submitted scientific paper would) or colloquial (as you are) standpoint.
Google does not publish hiring statistics, but I genuinely believe most Google engineers are hired from the top 5% of the general population. In a statistical sense, that could be considered as above normal. However, in a colloquial sense, there is no clear definition of what is ‘considered normal’, hence you could consider persons with top engineering ability as normal. Heck you could even correctly consider everyone as normal, and therefore all Google engineers are normal.
Since this thread is about a statistical interpretation of a population in the US & India, I hope you can see how your use the colloquial sense of the phrase is misleading here.
