Not at all. It is true that CO2 has never led temperature change before; that's because the massive anthropogenic CO2 spike in the data is completely unprecedented, so we don't know what happens when CO2 increases massively "on its own".
Climate scientists try to figure out whether this could affect global climate, and many say it can and probably is. This latter thing is what is being ignored.
Both are views of death are technically correct, but focusing on the former while ignoring the latter is problematic for reasons described at length in the article.
Afraid doesn't necessarily denote the emotion of fear, I think in this context we can safely say it's merely the anticipation of something which is disliked. Like, "I'm afraid if I order from Sloppy Joe's Pizzeria, I'll find another hair in my pizza."
The article specifically describes a comparison of Finland with Norway, similiar in size and ethnic composition. Apples-to-apples, as you say. Norway's education policy is much more similar to the US, and Norway's PISA results are mediocre, also similar to the US.
Using xargs with a pipe is easier. I don't know any reason why I'd want to "save a pipe" when working at the command line.
Also note that text surrounded by asterisks in your comment become italics. Indent text by two or more spaces to reproduce text verbatim, like for code.
You can other things to show that you give a damn besides apologizing, which is kind of her point.
Would a woman apologize to another woman about the behavior of a crude man? No, because she hasn't done anything wrong. Apologizing explicitly externalizes women as being outside your group. You're saying "gee, I'm sorry one of us did that to one of you." That just reinforces the idea that "Women in Tech" are a separate entity from "People in Tech". She's asking you to stay at the "People in Tech" level.
Not-apologizing isn't a form if ignoring. There are many other things you can do than pretend to be part of the offending group so that you can apologize. If a caucasian American said to an African-American, "Gee, I'm sorry about slavery, that was really wrong of us", that would be horribly offensive, wouldn't it?
Teleology was used somewhat tongue-in-cheek. The older literature was problematic because it aligned too neatly with anthropocentric ideas of goal-oriented evolution, and gave rise to nonsense objections like "Where is the missing link?" and "Why are apes still around?"
I don't doubt the integrity of the scientists who were involved with the earlier literature, but in hindsight it looks an awful lot like a teleological bias.
As far as I know, the adaptive radiation theory is now held as correct for hominids just as it is for every other group of species. The "classical" teleological viewpoint doesn't hold up to scrutiny for the reasons you cited.
Surprising, and highly unlikely. If it's not too taxing for you, you could read the rest of the Wikipedia article to better understand when measures other than reproductive compatibility are employed.
The suggestion that color alone would be employed by modern biologists to differentiate species, to the exclusion of other more important factors, is specious.
One, stuff is a positive number. If your goal is to have less stuff to be happy, you can't get less than zero stuff. It's self-limiting. If your goal is to have more stuff, there is no limit. It's always possible to have more stuff.
Second, the OP seems to indicate that having stuff wasn't actually making him happy, which is an important distinction. Actually being happy is totally distinct from feeling like you will be happy if you buy more things.
If you are actually happy because you own things, then obviously you should stick with what works for you.
"Our ongoing research suggests that teams need a moderate level of cognitive diversity for effectiveness. Extremely homogeneous or extremely diverse groups aren’t as intelligent."
That study is exclusively with smaller groups: 3 people. The social dynamics of a 3-person group are very different than a 10-person group as in this study. This probably has much to do with the different results.
Makes sense. EFF knows the law as well as anyone, the concern here is that they could be entangled in as-yet-unknown legal disputes because of their use of bitcoin. That'd be wasteful of both bitcoin and regular currency donations.
I think it makes sense for them to step up and admit that they don't understand the law surrounding bitcoin well enough to be comfortable accepting it. There's no point in assuming an unknown-sized risk just for bitcoin when there's other things in their mission they can work towards.
I'd hate to see the EFF financially decimated merely because they accepted bitcoin donations. They are useful people, let them pick their battles.
From the article: "The tech supposedly makes the batteries up to ten times more efficient than their traditional counterparts, and even more importantly, the new tech is cheaper to produce."
Very real and legitimate objections based on a right to privacy aside, the main flaw with this point of view is this: "If there's almost 0 chance..."
Almost 0 is not zero. If you're monitoring 300 million people, and the chance of a false positive is, say 0.001% per person per day, that's still 3,000 false positives every day. The false positive signal far outweighs the signal from the "real" dangerous people, making the system pointless and useless. Even if it works 100% of the time on the intended targets, human operators will become too fatigued from dealing with the false positives to deal with them effectively.
Climate scientists try to figure out whether this could affect global climate, and many say it can and probably is. This latter thing is what is being ignored.