the hourly forecast looks less scary than the news reports, but i don't expect to leave the house until after the storm lifts, so we'll have to see how bad it gets from inside. they're calling for 50-100 mm in the region, but it looks like i'm going to be on the lower end of that, and it looks like it's going to take a long time to pass through. so, let's hope it's not that bad.
yesterday was unfocused. but, i think i'm ready to be super productive tonight. i want this done by monday...
Saturday, May 16, 2020
the parasite theory does make some sense in explaining the sexual dimorphism that currently exists, however much of a blip it ends up being in the long run.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/latest-theory-human-body-hair/
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/latest-theory-human-body-hair/
A researcher studying the plantar region of rabbits noticed that an inhibitor protein, called Dickkopf 2 or Dkk2, was not present in high levels, giving the team the fist clue that Dkk2 may be fundamental to hair growth.
so, the hormone responsible for hairy palms in mammals is called "dickkopf".
don't look at me, i just read the articles.
so, the hormone responsible for hairy palms in mammals is called "dickkopf".
don't look at me, i just read the articles.
here's some more accepted science about humans, not sheepskin.
go tell those idiots to go back to using their sheepskin for condoms.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/why-did-humans-evolve-lose-fur-180970980/
go tell those idiots to go back to using their sheepskin for condoms.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/why-did-humans-evolve-lose-fur-180970980/
so, stop asking "why did we evolve to grow hair?". that is the wrong question, in every possible context.
the right question is always "why do we have less hair than our recent ancestors?".
and, in the context of sexual dimorphism, what we need to understand is why men are losing their hair at a slower rate than women are.
the right question is always "why do we have less hair than our recent ancestors?".
and, in the context of sexual dimorphism, what we need to understand is why men are losing their hair at a slower rate than women are.
humans are a species with remarkably low levels of sexual dimorphism. this difference in body hair is not shared in other primates, either, who have much more similar levels of body hair across the sexes.
it could take a while for men to catch up to women in their loss of body hair, but we can be reasonably confident that men will eventually lose their beards, over time.
it could take a while for men to catch up to women in their loss of body hair, but we can be reasonably confident that men will eventually lose their beards, over time.
this is absolutely retarded, and i take it that it's intended to be.
body hair is actually largely a vestigial trait, meaning we're evolving to have less hair and not more hair. look at a chimp and look at a human and take notes on the direction that facial hair is evolving. so, we don't need to ask why men evolved hair, we need to ask why they haven't gotten rid of it yet, or, more specifically, why men have been slower to lose their facial hair than women have been.
that means that a better question to ask is whether the fact that men still grow facial hair makes them less evolved than women, who have largely evolved past it. and, that is a question that likely has to do with sexual selection, rather than any sort of competition. the answer is basically "yes".
but, any question that starts with "why did men evolve beards?" is completely backwards. men did not evolve to have facial hair, they are in the process of losing it - and are clearly behind the curve in doing so.
https://www.newsweek.com/beards-may-have-evolved-protect-men-punches-face-1504294
body hair is actually largely a vestigial trait, meaning we're evolving to have less hair and not more hair. look at a chimp and look at a human and take notes on the direction that facial hair is evolving. so, we don't need to ask why men evolved hair, we need to ask why they haven't gotten rid of it yet, or, more specifically, why men have been slower to lose their facial hair than women have been.
that means that a better question to ask is whether the fact that men still grow facial hair makes them less evolved than women, who have largely evolved past it. and, that is a question that likely has to do with sexual selection, rather than any sort of competition. the answer is basically "yes".
but, any question that starts with "why did men evolve beards?" is completely backwards. men did not evolve to have facial hair, they are in the process of losing it - and are clearly behind the curve in doing so.
https://www.newsweek.com/beards-may-have-evolved-protect-men-punches-face-1504294
i know that a lot of people are very confused.
but, christianity is a religion that originated in the middle east - in israel, in egypt - and was spread by greeks and romans, generally by force.
it is not a religion that comes from the north of europe, which fought back against it with everything it had, for centuries.
but, christianity is a religion that originated in the middle east - in israel, in egypt - and was spread by greeks and romans, generally by force.
it is not a religion that comes from the north of europe, which fought back against it with everything it had, for centuries.
stop.
the baltic regions were firmly in the varangian sphere of influence, before the northern crusades. they were then conquered, converted and colonized by force, before succeeding in overthrowing the crusaders. but, they never truly found their way back into the slavic confederacy.
the baltic regions were firmly in the varangian sphere of influence, before the northern crusades. they were then conquered, converted and colonized by force, before succeeding in overthrowing the crusaders. but, they never truly found their way back into the slavic confederacy.
so, are they greco-rus, or are they holdover vikings? i dunno.
i know they're not romans.
i know they're not romans.
which western european countries got skipped?
my "western empire" statistical area included:
portugal - 10
spain - 47
france - 67
italy - 60
germany - 83
switzerland- 9
belgium- 11
netherlands- 17
luxembourg- 1
austria- 9
czechia- 11
slovenia - 2
i did not consider the british isles or scandinavia to be a part of western europe, but rather split them off together into a separate statistical region due to historical discontinuities with roman culture. there would then be an eastern europe, centered on moscow (but historically on constaninople) that would include the slavic and baltic speaking countries, as well as historical greece, which is where the culture of eastern europe ultimately originates from. that means that i'm splitting europe into three regions - the western empire (rome/paris), the eastern empire (constantinople/moscow) and the untamed viking wilderness (british isles & scandinavia).
(edit: i might let you consider the baltic and finnic countries, together, along with the north of poland, to be a part of scandinavia, but i would not let you consider them to be a part of the western empire. concerns about muscovite hegemony aside, the teutonic knights were hardly much better. the fact is that these regions were christianized by force in a series of crusades that happened well into the modern era, so citing russian chauvinism is hardly much of an argument against catholic barbarity. the balts and slavs are culturally almost indistinguishable, but if you don't like that then the right answer is to split them off as untamed pagans on the periphery of vikingdom, not fold them into the west.)
to complete the thought, portugal is an interesting test case as they did much better than spain without a harsh lockdown, putting them in the same category as sweden. the countries directly in the german sphere of control (including denmark) seem to have done a little better, which is perhaps not surprising. the low countries did not do so well, and may belong in the same tier as the uk. lastly, ireland performed more like france than a part of the united kingdom - as it generally does.
you can work those numbers out if you want to compare your favourite european country to the big seven, but i don't think it really clarifies anything to do so. you can get all of the important idea out just by looking at the countries that kevin drum cherry-picked.
my "western empire" statistical area included:
portugal - 10
belgium- 11
netherlands- 17
luxembourg- 1
austria- 9
czechia- 11
slovenia - 2
i did not consider the british isles or scandinavia to be a part of western europe, but rather split them off together into a separate statistical region due to historical discontinuities with roman culture. there would then be an eastern europe, centered on moscow (but historically on constaninople) that would include the slavic and baltic speaking countries, as well as historical greece, which is where the culture of eastern europe ultimately originates from. that means that i'm splitting europe into three regions - the western empire (rome/paris), the eastern empire (constantinople/moscow) and the untamed viking wilderness (british isles & scandinavia).
(edit: i might let you consider the baltic and finnic countries, together, along with the north of poland, to be a part of scandinavia, but i would not let you consider them to be a part of the western empire. concerns about muscovite hegemony aside, the teutonic knights were hardly much better. the fact is that these regions were christianized by force in a series of crusades that happened well into the modern era, so citing russian chauvinism is hardly much of an argument against catholic barbarity. the balts and slavs are culturally almost indistinguishable, but if you don't like that then the right answer is to split them off as untamed pagans on the periphery of vikingdom, not fold them into the west.)
to complete the thought, portugal is an interesting test case as they did much better than spain without a harsh lockdown, putting them in the same category as sweden. the countries directly in the german sphere of control (including denmark) seem to have done a little better, which is perhaps not surprising. the low countries did not do so well, and may belong in the same tier as the uk. lastly, ireland performed more like france than a part of the united kingdom - as it generally does.
you can work those numbers out if you want to compare your favourite european country to the big seven, but i don't think it really clarifies anything to do so. you can get all of the important idea out just by looking at the countries that kevin drum cherry-picked.
what can you say about the european countries, though?
well, italy and spain and france have a lot of old people - something that's actually not true in the uk, who cannot use that excuse. the swedes are more like the former, and have drastically outperformed them. the swiss are also a very old country that, no doubt aided by the geography, have done even better.
you would actually expect lower death rates in the united states because the life expectancy is lower, and that's actually working out. it's just that there's 330 million people in the united states, which is the size of all of western europe combined. i went over this once before....
the germans have done exceedingly well on first glance, but they are not as old as the other countries in europe, either. they're well ahead of china or the united states, but a little behind the uk, actually.
and, in canada, we're going to hand our homework in after the due date.
so, putting those countries into tiers,
1) the countries that have done very, very well relative to their demographics would be the swiss & germans.
2) the swedes have outperformed other countries with very old populations, but have not done quite as well as the swiss. the french also did noticeably better than the spaniards or italians.
3) italy & spain were hit hard, but are very old.
4) the uk is not as old as these countries, but performed as bad or worse. the americans are doing a little better, but are even younger, and are also a little behind in the pandemic curve. we'll have to see if the americans can beat the british or not in the end, but they may not, and this poor performance may in the end be a legacy of thatcher-reaganism.
and we need to wait for canada to finish, but it looks like we'll be more comparable to the swedes or french, and not as good as the germans or swiss.
well, italy and spain and france have a lot of old people - something that's actually not true in the uk, who cannot use that excuse. the swedes are more like the former, and have drastically outperformed them. the swiss are also a very old country that, no doubt aided by the geography, have done even better.
you would actually expect lower death rates in the united states because the life expectancy is lower, and that's actually working out. it's just that there's 330 million people in the united states, which is the size of all of western europe combined. i went over this once before....
the germans have done exceedingly well on first glance, but they are not as old as the other countries in europe, either. they're well ahead of china or the united states, but a little behind the uk, actually.
and, in canada, we're going to hand our homework in after the due date.
so, putting those countries into tiers,
1) the countries that have done very, very well relative to their demographics would be the swiss & germans.
2) the swedes have outperformed other countries with very old populations, but have not done quite as well as the swiss. the french also did noticeably better than the spaniards or italians.
3) italy & spain were hit hard, but are very old.
4) the uk is not as old as these countries, but performed as bad or worse. the americans are doing a little better, but are even younger, and are also a little behind in the pandemic curve. we'll have to see if the americans can beat the british or not in the end, but they may not, and this poor performance may in the end be a legacy of thatcher-reaganism.
and we need to wait for canada to finish, but it looks like we'll be more comparable to the swedes or french, and not as good as the germans or swiss.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)