“Who here plans on driving their car today? Show of hands!” … “I recommend getting to know these people, because you are far more likely to die in an car accident caused by a stranger than by someone you know. But also don’t upset them, as you are far more likely to be murdered by someone you know rather than a stranger.”
“Mr Tourguide, aren’t you supposed to talk about sharks?”
Buddy, if they won’t talk to you after you mentioned your toxic tulips, fear is not the reason.
Even if you added “for it’s meat” at the end there, I have killed and eaten fish.
But the way you said it, who hasn’t swatted a fly or mosquito? Not to mention the skin mites and fruit flies you consume daily.
99% of humans have the complete opposite reaction when the animal in question is a mosquito.
If you want to open a padlock and don’t have the key, you can almost certainly break it open with 2 big wrenches.
I only had 1 opportunity to try that yet, when removing a 20 year old lock some stupid kid left on my stuff and then forgot where I put the key, but man did it feel empowering.
You can practice this trick at any romantic bridge. Do you really think whoever etched their initials on the lock is still together and would notice? Please
I never said that. What I meant is that a behaviour, which benefits a species as a whole but reduces one individual’s fitness, is not evolutionary competitive. It’s evolutionary game theory, like the prisoners dilemma from normal game theory.
And to determine if some behaviour is such a dilemma, you have to consider costs and benefits of it, which is not at all clear in natural situations. That’s why I said it needs to be studied.
But I must concede, I sort of assumed what exactly you called an evolutionary advantage. Common homosexuality in penguins or not discriminating against homosexual individuals in penguins have very different analysis here.
I’d be cautious with saying evolutionary advantage here.
I don’t believe the “Gay Uncle hypothesis” any more than the somewhat debunked “Grandmother Hypothesis”, which aimed to explain menopause with biological altruism. Just because we could think of a way in that it might be advantageous for a species doesn’t mean it’s advantageous for an individuals fitness.
Of course, it can be still an advantage, but we’d only know with more free, uncensored research.
From the penguin documentaries I watched as a kid, I feel like the “leaving eggs behind” might involve relentless bullying.
The news say Eastern Ukraine, though take that with a grain of salt as I haven’t been there personally.
I am all for mentioning his conviction in the 1st sentence, but the crowd saying it should go into the 2nd sentence make some good points.
Barely anyone gets to have “convicted felon” in their lead sentence. Firstly, it is poor style unless the person is only known because they did a crime, secondly, convicted felon can mean a lot of thing and should be specified. “Convicted of falsifying business records” is just so much more specific, and can later be added with “and election interference”.
In any case, while the discussion is ongoing it has been included in a 2nd sentence, and the editors supporting to move it to first sentence seem to be the majority. If only more of them would read the whole discussion, instead of just saying “Support due to being established fact”.
Me and my 4 tribesmen making meters of twine by funnelling fibers through a mamoth femur: “Isn’t technology amazing?”
1500 years later in Mesopotamia: “Your feedback is highly appreciated, please listen to our lyremen as you wait in line”