If someone is gestaded during a famine state, their metabolism is altered. They have higher risk of hyperglycemia. That is not use of a trait and it is not something passed from parent to child. It's none of Lamarckism, genetics, or epigenitics. It's response to environment.
Kethal
joined 2 years ago
Lamarckism is the idea that a parent passes traits to its offsprings based on use or disuse of the trait. There is no support for this in genetics or epigenitics. Epigenitics deals with stably heritable traits based on by a mechanism other than DNA. It doesn't pertain to whether a trait is used or disused.
People had similar responses to the ideas of negative numbers and irrational numbers when they were identified. There's a story that a follower of Pythagoras was drown for identifying irrational numbers. I suspect it's not true, but certainly it seems people had a hard time grasping the concept.
I doubt it accounts for much, but a lot of authors pay up front now for open access. If the majority of authors did that, then subscriptions wouldn't make sense for most people. I don't think it's anywhere near the majority of publications now though.
You can end a sentence in a preposition, and whom isn't a preposition anyway. It's a pronoun.
It's always great to learn more. Next you can relearn colons.
"In modern English usage, a complete sentence precedes a colon, while a list, description, explanation, or definition follows it." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colon_(punctuation)
What happens in California and Texas isn't the problem so obviously one wouldn't start there. They'd start with swing states.
As above, those things don't matter. You say "simply get rid of the electoral college" as if that is the easier solution, but having a handful of states change laws fully under their control is far, far simpler than having numerous states agree to a change to the constitution, but the two things have the same effect. Do you want to stop having an unpopular president elected in the next 20 years, or the next 80 years?
It is a common misconception that disproportionate power of states is what has resulted in the winner of the popular vote losing the electoral college. That isn't what has caused it in the past, despite the possibility. What has caused it is the fact that nearly all states allocate 100% of their electors to the simple majority winner. If three candidates get 49%, 48% and 3% of the vote, the top candidate gets 100% of the delegates. That swings the electoral count out of alignment, and if that happens in enough big states, then the popular vote winner can get fewer delegates.
That historically has been what happened. If you were to imagine elections where all the states had equal power but still allocated their delegates that way, as far as I know, not a single election result would change.
If however you were to imagine states allocating delegates in proportion to the votes they received, that would have changed election results. There are different ways to do that, but the details are not that important. It's the solution. Is unequal power among states fair? Not really. But it hasn't had any impact in the past, so let's focus on something we know has unfairly altered multiple outcomes.
States should be doing this. Currently only two do: Maine and Nebraska I think. It wouldn't take a lot of states for this to fundamentally change elections. Five key states are all that's necessary. There's no reason to allocate all delgates to the simple majority, and no one likes it. It's unfair to the minority in locked down states, and it's stressful in battleground states. It results in candidate pandering to battleground states and ignoring everyone else. This is something people should be aware of and talk about more.
They have chosen as thier candidate the least popular president in recorded history. He had a decent shot when he was running against the second-least popular president. But now ...
They should have gone with Haley. She'd be a powerhouse at this point.
Chiquita has a long history as a terrible company. I have avoided their products for years and I have similar choice I make for similar companies. However, I do routinely question whether it makes sense to do this given that the people that did a lot of these terrible things are long dead. Companies are not things themselves and really are the people they're made of. You'd have to think that there's some long-lasting influence that causes terrible people to congregate in a company or somehow the culture in the company makes people act badly, and also think that that influence can persist for decades. Is that reasonable? Then you get news like this, and yeah, it seems pretty reasonable.
What did the teacher say about apostrophes to indicate possession?