Hold out until the quad-mounted 50 cal is brought back.

Species with internal fertilization tend to have females care for the young because the male is the one who can leave first. He can maximize his reproductive success by searching for other females while the female is left with the choice between putting a lot more time and energy into caring for the offspring or leaving them to die.

Species with external fertilization usually have the opposite dynamic. The female lays unfertilized eggs and then leaves. The male is the one stuck caring for them because they would die otherwise. However, the males of some species have evolved to be too clever for this:

Among the maternal mouthbrooding cichlids, it is quite common … for the male to fertilise the eggs only once they are in the female’s mouth.

They managed to fit something into the trunk of a BMW coupe? I thought that was impossible.

Removed by mod

I understand that that’s the intent. The problem is the methodology, which is as I said just multiplication by five. Calling it a gold standard implies that there’s actually some sophisticated analysis going on, and there isn’t.

The “gold standard in the field” is apparently to multiply the Hamas numbers by five. I’m not kidding. That’s where the 186,000 number comes from. This is low-effort bullshit.

Edit: Also this article is just wrong about what the 335,500 number is claimed to be. It is what you get if you extrapolate the 186,000 number to the end of the year, not to September.

always chooses the cheapest option

quality isn’t great

Capitalism is to blame!

Does… Does this mean Harris actually isn’t the lesser of two evils? Now I don’t know who to vote for.

The Egyptians weren’t always shy, but there do appear to be traces of green paint.

In case anyone is curious: the ancestors of house spiders lived in caves. They’re adapted to live in very dry environments, which is why they can survive indoors while most other spiders can’t.

The joke is on you, I don’t know my own true name!

(Mortals generally don’t in most settings, I think.)

My naming convention for C++ is that custom types are capitalized and instances aren’t. So I might write User user;.

Those numbers aren’t right.

First, the total-gun-death numbers are not population-adjusted and therefore useless without additional context. The same article does have the population-adjusted numbers and the USA is, predictably, not in the top ten.

Second, once the numbers are adjusted for population, there are some very strange results. For example, apparently Iraq actually has slightly fewer gun deaths per capita than the USA. Nigeria, the country where Boko Haram is based, has four times fewer gun deaths per capita than the USA?! Clearly the gun-death numbers correspond more to how well records are kept in a country than they do to the actual numbers of gun deaths.

Oh, and those gun death numbers include suicides, not just murders. Most gun deaths in the USA are suicides. A suicide is technically a gun death, but not usually the sort that people have in mind when discussing a school shooting.

I don’t understand why the father would just confess like that, but I suppose I shouldn’t expect good judgement from him.

Only if I intend to use them as weapons.

It took me months to recover after I learned that I couldn’t stick weapons to my back like refrigerator magnets.

FourPacketsOfPeanuts has already given a good answer specifically about Israel’s situation, but I want to say something about international law in general. Law may be written based on moral principles, but law is still not the same thing as morality. In our daily lives, we follow our moral principles because that’s what we believe is right, and we follow the law because otherwise cops will put us in jail.

The situation for a sovereign country is different - there are no cops and there is no jail. If other countries wanted to take hostile action, they would even if there was no violation of international law, and if they did not want to take hostile action, the wouldn’t even if there was a violation. Morality still exists (although morality at the scale of countries is necessarily not the same as morality at the scale of individuals) but the law might as well not exist because it is not enforced. It’s just pretty language that may be quoted when a country does what it was going to do anyway.

I’m not trying to imply that I think that Israel is violating international law. I’m saying that discussing whether it is or not is a purely intellectual exercise with no practical relevance. If I support Israel but you convince me that it is technically breaking some law, I’m still not going to change my mind. If you oppose Israel but I convince you that it is technically obeying every law to the letter, you’re still probably not going to change your mind.

So far “more data” has been the solution to most problems, but I don’t think we’re close to the limit of how much useful information can be learned from the data even if we’re close to the limit of how much data is available. Look at the AIs that can’t draw hands. There are already many pictures of hands from every angle in their training data. Maybe just having ten times as many pictures of hands would solve the problem, but I’m confident that if that was not possible then doing more with the existing pictures would also work.* Algorithm design just needs some time to catch up.

*I know that the data that is running out is text data. This is just an analogy.

Not really questionable - hospitals explicitly lose their protection if they are used for military activity.

What occasions are you referring to? I know people claim that Israeli use of white phosphorous munitions is illegal, but the law is actually quite specific about what an incendiary weapon is. Incendiary effects caused by weapons that were not designed with the specific purpose of causing incendiary effects are not prohibited. (As far as I can tell, even the deliberate use of such weapons in order to cause incendiary effects is allowed.) This is extremely permissive, because no reasonable country would actually agree not to use a weapon that it considered effective. Something like the firebombing of Dresden is banned, but little else.

Incendiary weapons do not include:

(i) Munitions which may have incidental incendiary effects, such as illuminants, tracers, smoke or signalling systems;

(ii) Munitions designed to combine penetration, blast or fragmentation effects with an additional incendiary effect, such as armour-piercing projectiles, fragmentation shells, explosive bombs and similar combined-effects munitions in which the incendiary effect is not specifically designed to cause burn injury to persons, but to be used against military objectives, such as armoured vehicles, aircraft and installations or facilities.