Is this supposed to be a point of contention?

Let’s have a trigger warning on that, please.

Cries in Brexit

Given how much they have been projecting about vote-rigging, I would say this is very plausible.

We found the solutions a long time ago - it’s just that nobody wanted to implement them.

I think it’s quite clear that we did.

The way you’ve worded that suggested to me that there isn’t an actual solution so, for the people who didn’t click through, I’ll point out that the article concludes: “more sustainable alternatives to plastic bottles exist for all three types of beverage”.

That said, in order to compare the environmental impact, there has to be some kind of weighting between the energy cost of manufacture and the direct environmental pollution (discarded plastic choking marine animals; microplastics; etc). I’m not sure it even makes sense to try to combine them. Climate change is an imminent existential threat, whereas microplastics are poisoning us but not obviously killing us.

I also wonder what they assumed for the energy source in the glass manufacture. It is mostly fossil fuels at present, but the industry is moving towards electrification.

We know perfectly well that the art is behind glass and will not be damaged because they did it before. So it’s complete nonsense to say that it will potentially destroy the art.

The author trying to make a connection is not clarifying which bias Tlaib meant. It is just as likely to be misrepresenting what Tlaib meant.

And, when you think about it, Tlaib said biases - plural - so this ‘clarification’ - if it was a clarification - is ignoring the other biases.

If you have listened to Electric Avenue, you will understand why Eddie Grant may have been particularly outraged by Trump using it.

They say “she was being fed the questions”. What would be the point of being fed the questions while you are on stage?!

I know that what they really mean is that she was being fed the answers. It just shows exactly how little effort they put into these claims.

The top of this comment thread is a person claiming that men do all the hunting in every primitive society, not just hunting based on long distance running.

You came into the thread to criticise a paper that showed that women hunt in 50 different societies around the world. Even your estimate of 50% is plenty enough examples to debunk the “all the hunting” claim.

Women are perfectly capable of drawing a bow that is suitable to hunt monkeys, rabbits, squirrels, small birds, etc. Accuracy is more important than power.

If your strategy for hunting mammoths involves your physical strength, you’re gonna have a bad time.

You would need to be in luck. Let’s assume that they studied all 200 uncontacted tribes. To bring the overall rate to 50%, you would need 119 out of the 200 to be exclusively males hunting - 60% of those societies. The researchers studied 63 societies and found that 20% of them were exclusively males hunting.

But what’s the point anyway? The hypothesis is that males evolved to be bigger for hunting, even 50% of societies where women hunt is enough to make it implausible. In those societies, women are hunting in spite of their apparent size disadvantage.

I think you should ask yourself whether size is actually important for hunting. We don’t wrestle our prey. Size doesn’t matter if you’re bringing down monkeys from the trees with a bow and arrow, and size doesn’t matter if you’re trying to bring down a mammoth.

I suspect not. To get to 50%, they would need to study an additional 37 societies, and every single one would have to have only males doing the hunting.

You explicitly mentioned the Sentinelese. Exactly how would you go about this infrequent contact and observation with them?

In any case, let’s assume that hunting is exclusively performed by males in all of those peoples. How much would that change the statistic and the overall conclusion? 79% would be 72%

You think they should have surveyed the uncontacted people?

I don’t think China wants that.

Since the republicans won’t do anything about gun control, the boys will probably find them useful to plug gunshot wounds.

He’s just a confused old man.

You’re thinking about Mr Biden again, sir. Don’t you worry about it. Let’s check your diaper and get you back to the TV Room, OK? Don’t forget your special red hat.

If you make a painting now, it wouldn’t be based on those thousands and thousands of paintings since, although you have seen them, you apparently do not remember them. But, if you did, and you made a painting based on one, and did not acknowledge it, you would indeed be a bad artist.

The bad part about using the art of the past is not copying. The problem is plagiarism.

Inspiration is absolutely a thing. When Constable and Cezanne sat at their easels, a large part of their inspiration was Nature. When Picasso invented Cubism, he was reacting to tradition, not following it. There are also artists like Alfred Wallis, who are very unconnected to tradition.

I think your final sentence is actually trying to say that we have advances in tools, not inspiration, since the Lascaux caves are easily on a par with the Sistine Chapel if you allow for the technology? And that AI is simply a new tool? That may be, but does the artist using this new tool control which images it was trained on? Do they even know? Can they even know?