This is totally false. No Democrat voted to confirm him. It was 52 R for, 45 D, 2 I, and 1 R against. See https://ballotpedia.org/Confirmation_process_for_Robert_F._Kennedy_Jr._for_secretary_of_health_and_human_services#Confirmation_vote_roll_call for more details.
A related more general mnemonic works for the running lights too. Red has fewer letters than green, so it goes with left which has fewer letters than right and port which has fewer letters than starboard.
YY is non viable; the X chromosome has many genes which are essential. You can be XY, female, and fertile, but it’s pretty rare.
There’s a bunch of them, but one more common example is Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome.
It’s also possible to have a non-functional SRY (XY but female), or to be XX with an SRY translocation (XX but male).
Biology is complicated: pretty much anyone who says it only happens one way or is really simple is wrong.
This is a bit misleading. You only need to treat the first generation of 2n watermelon with colchicine (which inhibits the movement of chromosomes during metaphase) to produce a 4n watermelon. Once you have a 4n watermelon, subsequent generations do not require colchicine treatment.
There’s likely some cases of convergent evolution, but I’m not sure this is settled for all trees.
I’d suspect that at least some trees with last common ancestors that are shrubs have re-enabled genes that enable the tree phenotype rather than independently evolving the tree phenotype.
But still really cool (and maybe turns on exactly how much evolution your consider needs to happen before it’s convergent evolution.)
Though usually they appoint them to ambassador to a ally like France or England or somewhere else cushy with minimal political impact.
Because they temporarily block the onset of puberty, not permanently block it. Any effects are mostly reversible if the individual desires. What isn’t reversible are the all too frequent side effects of untreated dysphoria: death.
First off, thanks for the discussion, and this is an important question to ask as Democrats unpack why they lost. It boils down to “does moving to the central position gain more voters in the end or not?”
The argument I’m making applies in reverse too. What if there was polling data that indicated that this issue shifted the seven percent who were las likely to vote for Harris into not voting for Harris or not voting at all?
If that’s the case, then their decision becomes more understandable.
The challenge with this poll question is that it doesn’t ask whether this issue changes a potential voter from someone who wouldn’t have voted for Harris into someone who would have voted for Harris. It asks if they are more likely to vote for Harris.
For example, I was already highly likely to vote for Harris, but her being more emphatically against the genocide would still have made me even more likely to vote for her.
To make the case that she should have used this poll to change her position, you have to look at the pre-existing likelihood that someone would vote for her and see whether this issue brought them over that threshold. (For example, what fraction of the 35% voted in the primary and the midterm election? Were they already planning on voting? Who were they planning on voting for if not Harris?)
Bonus points if your static site sends a 503 with a retry after header.
Figuring out the Parkinson’s linkage is challenging too, because glyphosate is just one of many chemicals used in agricultural settings. It wouldn’t be surprising for the correlation to be caused by another chemical with strong evidence of casual linkage to Parkinson’s that itself is correlated with glyphosate, like Parquat. (Since Parquat is a herbicide, places that used it may also use (or have switched to) glyphosate.) Totally worth continued scientific study.
Exactly.
The general approach is to use interpretable models where you can understand how the model works and what features it uses to discriminate, but that doesn’t work for all ML approaches (and even when it does our understanding is incomplete.)
Maybe not the hardest, but still challenging. Unknown biases in training data are a challenge in any experimental design. Opaque ML frequently makes them more challenging to discover.
I wonder if there will be an anti SLAPP action soon from Cohen’s team. (Not sure what the rules are in that jurisdiction.)
They also make NEMA plugs with threaded rings around the boot for applications in marine and other harsh environments.
The 20 of us who looked up the vote record for his confirmation?
Democrats do bad things, but let’s at least complain about the bad things they actually did.