> my understanding of what classifies something as being a part of the same species is the fact that they can make children that are viable to have children themselves
things are a bit more complicated than that, because having fertile offspring is not a transitive property.
Ring species: population A can mate with B, B with C, C with D, and D with E, but A and E cannot mate, even though they are part of the same continuous chain.
Ensatina eschscholtzii salamanders in California exhibit this non-transitive behavior. Populations at the ends of the coastal ranges can interbreed with their neighboring populations, but where they meet in the south, the "ends" of the ring do not interbreed.
> The article's central premise is based on a false assumption, which is that people taking UBI will be idle. There is no significant evidence to support that claim.
You really think there would not be a massive increase in the number of coach potatoes, watching netflix and doomscrolling tiktok all day long? Where do they make such optimists? It's almost as if this very website has a strong selection bias, congregating people with higher than average drive, who would never, who just can't imagine not having it.
And even if they won't be technically idle, you can bet your ass that the total supply of labor would drop like a rock, and many jobs that are generally beneficial to the society but not glamorous wouldn't be done.
You also completely ignore the massive problem which is the shift in the society's collective psychology in regards to work, which the article did mention. Quote:
The problems are significant, however. First, all existing pilots are small in scale, temporary in duration, and limited to populations already experiencing poverty or precarity. None of them test the psychology of a society in which nobody is economically compelled to contribute. Temporary income relief and permanent unconditional income are fundamentally different phenomena — the first is a cushion, the second is a permanent reorientation of the relationship between individuals and economic necessity. The pilots tell us nothing useful about the second.
Currently we collectively derive personal worth from work etc, and the society applies significant pressure on individuals "incentivizing" them to work even if they can't have a dream job, increasing the aggregate amount of work done. We just don't know and can't really imagine what it's like to live in a world where you are entitled to money for existing, no strings attached, pretty much from cradle to grave. Imagine being a kid who grows up in such a world with no real responsibilities, playing vidya all day long, who knows that once he formally reaches adulthood, he can just continue doing nothing. The model of family life is falling apart as we speak, so why bother chasing it? Just lower your expectations and desires - and you are set for life.
in the world of antivaxxers, flat earthers you really trust a jury full of laymen to make judgements?
Quoting Blazing Saddles: "These are people of the land, the common clay of the new west.... you know, morons"
The vast majority of people believe what they want to believe and if that's how their roll, no expert in the world will convince them that 2+2=4
you really think that in a world chock-full of antivaxxers, flat earthers and the climate change deniers it's hard to pad a jury with clueless mouthbreathers and exploit widespread anti-corpo sentiments?
Same shit with glyphosate. It's pretty much the least bad pesticide of the bunch, with the alternatives being legitimately, undeniably cancerous, yet it's glyphosate that gets banned left and right, and sued for billions by anti-science twats, because "monstanto hurr durr".
Hell, the damage of covid19 vaccines is actually proven and was noticed a few months in, yet in the case of talc used by millions of people for decades all they have is some weak, inconclusive shit.
Modern nuclear plants with light water reactors are designed to have maneuvering capabilities in the 30-100% range with 5%/minute slope, up to 140 MW/minute.[7] Nuclear power plants in France and in Germany operate in load-following mode and so participate in the primary and secondary frequency control.
no, it traces back to the same thing pretty much, but in modern Polish it's indistinguishable from ż (ž?)
I assume that long time ago it went like this r' -> ř -> řż -> ż, which effectively removed the foundational r-ness of the thing.
Off the top of my head, the Polish language has lost the phonetic distinction between
rz and ż -> ż,
h and ch -> ch,
u and ó (flat u vs long o) -> u
In some regional dialects near southern/eastern borders you could still find some of these distinctions, but in modern Polish it's gone.
at a glance shit looks unnecessarily confusing especially for non-slavic foreigners, but once you look more into it explains many things and helps greatly with writing of related words, declination and conjugation, eg where grammar mandates sound substitution (assuming you are Czech you are probably aware of this effect already)
For example there are clusters of sounds that often change one into another.
g/h/ż are one such cluster of closely related sounds
noga (leg, noun) vs nożny (adjective)
drugi (second) vs druh (friend, companion) drużba (guy helping the newlyweds with wedding)
Sapieha (noble name of Ukrainian origin) vs Sapieżanka (daughter of Sapieha)
rz/r:
drzewo (tree) vs drewno (wood)
ch/sz is another:
mucha (fly) -> muszka (diminutive)
ó/o/e is another:
bóg (god) vs bożek (lesser god)
pióro (feather) vs pierzyna (bed cover stuffed with feathers)
It also helps seeing similarities between Slavic languages, as this stuff preserves a ton of the common roots. Any Slav seeing 'góra' will know what's up, not so much with phonetically equivalent 'gura'.
things are a bit more complicated than that, because having fertile offspring is not a transitive property. Ring species: population A can mate with B, B with C, C with D, and D with E, but A and E cannot mate, even though they are part of the same continuous chain.
Ensatina eschscholtzii salamanders in California exhibit this non-transitive behavior. Populations at the ends of the coastal ranges can interbreed with their neighboring populations, but where they meet in the south, the "ends" of the ring do not interbreed.