I think that might be possible with mitochondrial dna (it always comes from the mother), but I only found 1 speculative source that draws a conclusion: "Nobody today has mitochondrial DNA like that in Neanderthals and, since it’s passed only maternally, this implies that interbreeding was more often between their men and our women." https://aeon.co/essays/what-do-we-know-about-the-lives-of-neanderthal-women

It's an essay, not a research paper, I wouldn't bet any money on this conclusion being correct.

There are examples of 2 distinct species (with different chromosome count) creating (sometimes) fertile offspring: https://revistapesquisa.fapesp.br/en/when-hybrids-are-fertile-3/

But genetically the neanderthalers were far less different from us than those examples. Apparently all modern humans share 99.9% of DNA and neanderthalers shared 99.7% of that. https://www.livescience.com/archaeology/are-neanderthals-and-homo-sapiens-the-same-species

So the no viable offspring rule might not be that good for differentiating species, but that also doesn't mean that neanderthalers and us were not the same species. The more I read on it, the more I think that we were. Apparently we interbred quite a lot over the millennia.

In a non first past the post voting system, it's less likely that 1 radical party remains in power long enough to screw up the high courts. But it can still happen, case in point Hungary and Poland.

Iirc, Orban had been in power for many years in Hungary and went for a gradual erosion of the independence of the courts. Death by a thousand cuts.

Pis in Poland only had a majority for 2 election cycles, but they needed only the first win to screw up the courts. Instead of a gradual (legalistic) takeover, they went for a bonkers hostile takeover of the supreme courts: https://freedomhouse.org/report/analytical-brief/2018/hostile-takeover-how-law-and-justice-captured-polands-courts

The eu should have kicked out both states out of the decision making process and implemented sanctions, but since that required unanimity, Poland and Hungary were essentially protecting each other from consequences. Now that pis lost in Poland, I hope that the eu takes action and prevents this from happening again.

Inspired by is not the same as based on. I don't think that it can ever be canonical because the time period was never explored in depth by Frank Herbert himself, but I do think that the what ifs of this time period could make for a very interesting premise.

Either way, the showrunner is apparently Alison Schapker, who was also the primary showrunner for Altered Carbon, which I really liked. So I'm definitely going to give the first episode a chance :)

From imdb: "Ten thousand years before Paul Atreides joined the Fremen to lead an uprising on Arrakis to take down House Harkonen, two sisters (Valya and Tula Harkkonen) create the mysterious all-female order called the Bene Gesserit. In Dune Prophecy, the siblings combat forces that threaten the future of humankind.".

Iirc, 10000 thousand years before Dune was the time of the Butler Jihad, when humankind fought against the thinking machines. So I think it's a series based on apocryphal stories on how the feudal society in Dune came to be. Lots of creative freedom for the creators, kinda like Knights of the Old Republic was for Star Wars.

The wildlife is just left alone, I wouldn't call it safe from radiation, they still have a higher incidence of mutations than animals outside the contaminated zones. It's just that some radiation and no humans, happens to be better for wildlife than no radiation and lots of humans.

I would ask the window system producers for contractors near you, try: https://www.schueco.com/nl/particulieren/raamsystemen And/or https://www.reynaers.nl/

Hey, thanks for sticking up for me. Noone else seems to dare go against the bandwagon.

Personally I don't get people, I provide sources and am open to alternate viewpoints, but most people just want to blindly believe whatever last video they watched unfortunately.

Well, I hate to disappoint you, but curtains work for energy savings. If you are open to changing your mind, here's an explanation: https://www.thermal-engineering.org/thermal-curtains-material-home-energy-saving/

You always want glass coatings on outside window glass, no matter the climate. Depending on where you live, you want different coatings obviously, but coatings are essential in modern glass panes.

And since you seem to be entirely unaware of what already exists in the construction industry, here's another article with a bit more explanation: https://en.aaglas.nl/producten/warmtewerend-glas. A low zta will stop a good portion of the summer sun, while a high lta will still allow through a lot of light from low angles (including from the weak winter sun). Select glass that has a high lta/zta factor and you have glass that is good both in winter and in summer in northern Europe. The Netherlands is at lattitude of about 52°, while most Canadians live a few degrees south of that, so these same solutions would work there as well.

I'm afraid to admit that I have not, will do it this evening but until then I will remain ignorant.

Edit: Just skimmed through it because I couldn't wait and the video did not change my opinion at all.

The presenter seems to be unaware that there exist glasses which reflect different amounts of light depending on the angle. Up north, where he lives, the angle of the sun is much lower in winter than in summer. There exists glass that is designed for that.

A large awning to create extra seasonal living space outside, sure, those are still great. Small window awnings like ik the thumbnail picture, definitely not, those are a waste of time and money.

I was also disappointed by how dismissive the presenter was of scientifically based findings that did not align with his feelings. Curtains work great.

These things are technologically obsolete imo. The same result can be achieved with glass coatings, without requiring the extra work to install/maintain or replace these appendages.

These awnings work against losing heat to the night sky, the same effect of which can be achieved with anti emissive coatings that reflect heat radiation back inside.

The awnings also work against the sun when it's high in the sky, for which there are now anti solar coatings which will reflect more light from certain angles.

Nostalgia is nice, but the modern solution is easier + cheaper to install and maintain.

A tldr image: https://www.agc-glass.eu/sites/default/files/styles/max_1300x1300/public/2024-05/diagram-coatings leaflet.JPG?itok=s97bN-aV

Longer promotional article: https://www.agc-glass.eu/en/sustainability/glass-sustainable-architecture/energy-saving-glass

Not really, 2k is enough to have a result with a pretty low error %. Some example numbers: https://www.surveymonkey.com/curiosity/how-many-people-do-i-need-to-take-my-survey/

That is for "1 population" though, I don't know if the divided USA public opinion still counts as 1 population. I'm not a polling scientist, I just know that you don't need a massive amount of data points to draw statistically sound conclusions. Try tossing a coin and see how fast it stabilizes towards 50/50, that one really surprised me the first time I did it.

The statewide efficiency gap is when you look at wasted votes across all districts of that state, it is not applicable to any single district. It is not correct to state that aoc was elected despite a state efficiency gap, because that gap is not applicable to the single district that she was elected in.

I'm not with the tankies, but I do think you have a misunderstanding of how gerrymandering works, so I wanted to try explaining it.

Part of gerrymandering is packing:
The committee packs as many voters of the party they want to discriminate against, in as few districts as possible. This creates a lot of wasted votes in those packed (now safe) districts, which will benefit the other party in other more contested districts. So yes, the gerrymandering benefits the republican party when looking at ALL districts, but democrats within the packed districts have very safe general elections.

AOC is elected in one of those safe packed districts, so in that way she "benefitted" from the gerrymandering. I'm not going to hold that against her though, she didn't make the map and the fpp voting system isn't her fault either.

This picture shows it best imo: in one of the disproportiate examples there's a majority of blue voters, but thanks to 2 packed blue districts, there are more yellow representatives. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering#/media/File%3ADifferingApportionment.svg

There's several systems in use. In short and from memory:

Ranked choice voting is good for electing 1 representative per voting group, so would be good for electing a president for example or a senator in a small us state.

A popular method in parliamentary democracies is the D'Hondt method, which is used for electing multiple representatives per voting group (country, district, whatever). The D'Hondt method still gives a minor advantage to larger parties over smaller ones.

With the D'Hondt method, you can either vote for the list or for a person on the list. The sum of list + direct votes will determine how many representatives will come from that list.

List votes will be distributed starting at the top of the list, according to need to meet the threshold. It's basically as you described. Sometimes a celebrity might be dropped somewhere in the middle of the list (or in the very visible last spot) and get elected without benefitting from list votes.

Being a career politician takes years of work and politicians who got a lot of votes in past elections, will receive better list positions in future elections. So persons at the top of the lists will typically get more direct votes as well.

The method of vote distribution does not determine how the voting lists are created. The different parties can have different rules on how to create their voting lists, but typically it will be the regional party leadership that creates the lists for their regional elections, based on past performance but also on political chicanery. The regional party leadership will have been typically elected by the regional party membership.

If I like a party platform but dislike an individual within that party, then I weigh my decision on the chances of that person getting into a position of power if that party was to form the government. If they stand to become a minister, then I won't vote for anyone from that party.

I personally never vote for lists, always for persons. Even if that person does not get elected, receiving more direct votes will give them more say within their party.

And the most damning part of all imo: "the owners and the scientists familiar with the effects of radium carefully avoided any exposure to it themselves. Chemists at the plant used lead screens, tongs, and masks.".

The plant owners definitely knew that they were killing people, there should have been murder charges imo.

Blinkers should be blinking before you turn the wheel. I once drove as a passenger with a driver who only started blinking after he started his manoeuvres and those 40T trucks were hammering their horns for a good reason. Scary as hell experience, would not recommend.

Then there would be no paradox anymore and the correct answer would be 25%.

Edit: 30 seconds after I wrote the above sentence I see it and I facepalmed, well done sir.

If you've already looked it up, please share the link (next time) so we don't have to also look it up. I'm not going to look this one up, because I don't really care about it, but I would have clicked the link.

Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht were murdered in 1919. The Iron Front was founded in 1931. Claiming that all Iron Front members in 1931 and 1932 supported those 1919 murders is nonsensical.

The claim is a straw man fallacy, a fabrication to paint people who actively oppose their version of totalitarianism in a bad light.