It makes it more dangerous : the sting is attach to the venom bag, so the venom bag gets to empty itself whole if it stays. Evolution would have chosen the survival of the hive, not the survival of the bee.

One thing is weird though : you can extract the sting of a wasp with a pincer. The wasp will live through it. Why do the bee dies when it loses it’s sting and not the wasp?

Your mistake is to consider an election is a rational competition. It’s not. Not anymore, because medias make it impossible to know the truth. So it is more like a football match. People have the team they support, and for most nothing will change their mind because there’s too much propaganda. When almost everything is propaganda, you get to choose the reality you “prefer”.

So the point of the campaign is more about convincing people to vote in order to defeat the opposing team. Or to persuade the other team to concede.

For the first, it can be women too. For misogyny it’s harder. But there is a trend currently to attract and radicalise women into conservatism too. The trad wives movement. I don’t remember the names but there are movement for spirituality and naturalism that are also linked to trad wives. That is also a slippery slope : first you hook them spirituality, and at the end you have JK Rowling who is an anti-trans activist.

Women and men are not in the same groups simply because conservatives are misogynistic so they like to separate men and women.

Overall it is a culture war lead by the far right.

It’s a slippery slope. First it’s either a community they can share anything with, or it is a subject dear to them that they see people give solution to. Then, slowly, one idea at a time, they get litteraly corrupted. Ideas are imprinted through repetition, values are suggested. Then, or before, you imprint the idea that the others are lying. This is key because it seed doubt in everything, but as he is closer from this group, this group get to imprint its own ideas through repetition alone. Distance is built with relatives so that the group is the only group he has. Then if he starts to disagree, he will be kicked, sometimes also punished, and he’ll be left alone, or at least he must be convinced of it. Once there radicalisation is a process that’s hard to stop.

Doubt, distrust, and a group to be with are the key ingredients. Liberalism is a fertile ground for this because it promotes individualism when humans are social creatures. So it’s very easy to find people in need of a social group that gives belonging. And racism makes the easiest pretense : you belong because of your blood, or because you’re born here.

For sexism, it’s mostly a reactionary backlash, and secondly this liberalism problem of promoting individualism to humans who seek belonging. Feminism did won, and the old way of treating women is being addressed. But it is a process, and while we know what’s bad, we don’t have much new examples to follow. Yet most people have been trained in the old way, so now they are at lost. It’s not the first reason why they’re alone, liberalism has this place, but it is far easier to blame it on women and feminism than to try to build a new society. And also, it again gives them belonging with men like them that understands them and give explanations and solutions to their problems. Not good ones, but that’s not the point.

Oh so managers are biological LLMs! It explains everything!

They did see it coming. But they decided it was bluffing.

It depends. There are riots in England currently because some racists don’t want anymore immigration. I’m pretty sure you can easily have a very heated debate with these guys. You may talk with a jew about Israel these days too.

If you avoid hit topic with the wrong person, you won’t find strong opinions. But Internet bring people together, especially when they want to fight eachother.

Starfleet is not anarchist. There are admirals. There are federation laws and judges (1st directive, in strange new worlds, laws against eugenics). Those laws and positions of power are decided on a federal level. How do you do that in an anarchist organization?

I fail to see how a federation can not be a representative government (because different worlds have different political systems, representative democracy is the only one that can make them all on an equal footing).

I certainly don’t know much about anarchism, but different planets in the federation can and do have different kinds societies.

If we consider the vulcan in brace new world for example, their society seems very much aristocratic for example, where influence gives authority and power. I doubt the klingon are anarchists either. And in lower deck, the orions have a monarchy.

The federation is the government of the collection of planets, but each planet still has its own government and culture.

It’s a federation, which means it’s a group of government who decided to get some of their rules and organzations in common. Each government in the federation can be different, although there are some implications for the federation to work: they must recognize the borders and laws of the federation, and they must participate in its function.

Ha ! Turns out I’m right after all : radioactivation can happen with all type of radiations. But neutron activation is the lowest energy one.

You are right that it’s probably a contamination for the book though, and not directly an activation (although carbon can be activated and will be found in the book).

I know quite a bit about radioactivity thanks to my studies. I was sure all radiations could activate something, but it turns out I was wrong apparently because I can’t find anything but neutron activation.

I’m pretty sure alpha, beta and gamma rays can stick to a particle, often bringing it in an unstable state that will force it to release something to get into a stable state. That’s particle physics. And that’s why we call them ionising radiations : because they turn atoms into ions. But my memories are definitely fuzzy, and it was not were I was the best.

Those radiations may only activate for a too short time to be useful maybe? I don’t know.

Thanks for the precision. Still, the result is the same I’m sure.

Well, maybe explain my confusion then, instead of being an ass.

Marie Curie studied radioactivity with pure and very active materials with no protection. The radioactivity of the notebook is indirect radioactivity, that is material that becomes radioactive after being exposed to powerful ionizing radiations. It must be noted that the notebook may not be deadly radioactive. And if it will be for 1500 years, it won’t be deadly for 1500 years. For reference, bananas tend to be radioactive too. And you are exposed to ionizing radiations when you take the plane.

Chernobyl had two reactors burn iirc. Most of the radioactive material was in the reactor, but the fire made smoke out of radioactive materials. The quantity of smoke, in kg, that go out was significant, but it got diluted in the atmosphere and spread. Which means there wasn’t so much dust, in mass, that got in any one place. The dust is also not only uranium, but a combination of uranium and materials that were contaminated like the notebook. With the rain, the dust was washed and distributed more, and with the time, materials become less and less radioactive.

Both the book and chernobyl are not dangerously radioactive. But because of the nature of radioactivity, care must always be taken.

The title mention god with a capital G, which means it’s the religions of the Bible, which means European history of things. Context in small details.

What weakened religion is a long process going from the middle age to the modern world. It starts with the pope wars. It peaks with the religion wars in the XVIIth century. By this point the religious power was a political power like any other, but merely with a cultural hold on European populations. Which was the nail in the coffin.

During this period, the Church radicalised itself as a defense mode. Which solidified the laïcal mindset of the Lumières. Basically the church entered a cultural war against science because it feared it would lose controle.

Then the XIXth century happened. Monarchies got destroyed. And the Catholic Church got humiliated and destroyed as a political power. Socialism and communism appeared, and to state how progressive they were, they put the church in the same reactionary bag as the royalists.

In the middle of this are the liberals who don’t care much about anything but profits. Si when democracy is on the rise, they are democrats. When royalty comes back, they praise the king. At least as long as they let them make good profits. And that’s what the church doesn’t let them do. Morale goes in the way of profit. It forbid slavery and exploitation. It’s against science. It promotes charity. That sucks balls for the liberals. But order is good, so why not being a believer but without the problems?

It’s not science that made religion recess. It’s bad political decisions and alliances. Many renowned scientists were believers. Many still are. But somehow the religions are rejecting science because it doesn’t go into litteraly what their old fantasy book wrote. It’s a shame because religions could easily make a humanist evolution if they had the political will to do it.

Exactly. In some way the software is a lock that ensure the property of the machine stays to the company that built it.

You’re all true until allocating scarce resources. These days economy is how to make scarce something that isn’t in order to profit from it. See copyrights and patents. In our society a replicator would be the property of a company and you would need to pay it to be allowed to use it.

Well, considering the scales, the difference is not only imperceptible, I’m pretty sure it’s impossible to measure.