Maybe it's regression to the mean? Perhaps the second day 'feels' more lazy because you did so much the last day, so that when you return to your baseline, you feel as if you haven't done anything in comparison.
This could be proven/disproven with some metrics about your average productivity and productivity on 'lazy' days.
Just curious: does anyone know any good, somewhat realistic computer wargames that one could play? I've always been interested in military theory, history, and strategy, so would love to play a wargame where you play as a commander and have to deal with limited intelligence while moving forces around, engaging with an enemy, and (most importantly) dealing with logistics. Paradox games scratch this itch a bit, but I find that they emphasize the "grand" strategy a bit too heavily.
If this doesn't exist: why not? It seems like the Army should spend millions of dollars to give their officers a fun way to get tactical and logistical experience without having to run in-person wargames.
I guess from a genetic standpoint, it doesn't really matter. Since many of those near-relations (as other comments have mentioned) who mated and had children would have somewhat similar genetic profiles, one particular SNP from a great-x10 grandparent might still propagate to us, simply because other mates would also have that gene.
I wonder if there's religious symbolism attached to this, i.e., I wonder if people in the HRE made an allusion between the trinity you mentioned and that of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
No, three is just an arbitrary number for their example. The point is not the exact number of roles but the fact that the basic legal unit is the relationship, not the person. For instance a prince-bishop might in principle be subject to an archbishop as a bishop, subject to the Emperor as an imperial prince, subject to the King of Bohemia (who was in turn subject to the Emperor) as the holder of a secular fief, and part of the Polish nobility, all at once.
yes this is true today - some researchers have identified the LEGAL definition of a person taking over from the biological definition of a person, in modern times. If you consider the realms of finance, things are definitely not consistent nor fully resolved.
Yeah, in retrospect I realized the three might be distracting but it was just the example I thought of at the moment. (It gets even worse if the guy also has burgher status in a free city!)
I’m the descendant of Indian immigrants, but is someone who grew up in North America, speaks English as my first language, and is very westernized—I wouldn’t even consider myself Indian to any respect, except for my heritage.
I’ve never experienced caste discrimination (through I think I come from a high caste). But, I recognize that my experience is likely different, and probably slanted by my caste status in comparison to recent Indian immigrants.
I was wondering if any other Indian diaspora or Indian immigrants to North America could chime in with what they’ve experienced: have you faced any caste discrimination?
Personally, that's why I think a Cap and Trade program is better than a Carbon tax. You're reducing the effect on lower-income people (who aren't directly exposed to increased prices caused by the tax), you incentivize innovation (so that companies don't have to buy carbon trades), and you can reduce emissions targets based on your stated goals (i.e., you can automatically reduce emissions by lowering the cap).
> Our iceberg lettuce is up to 7$/ea except for the 10% we get from California. The other ~90% is from predominantly Ontario green houses, all of which are being hammered by the Federal carbon taxes(Provincial are already carved out).
To be fair, this is the doing of the Ford government. Ontario had a cap-and-trade program under Kathleen Wynne (however bad she may be), which the Ford government scrapped for no apparent reason. By law, the federal government had to step in and implement a carbon tax, which Ford knew in advance. This increase is purely due to his government.
I'm not sure if female social capital in gorillas is the reason for the shorter penis size. Because in other primates, like bonobos, for example, where females predominate and have lots of choice, penis size is still small.
I think the main reason why is because sex is used in humans for pair-bonding, and many human cultures have much more monogamous lifestyles—raising children together for example. Sex in humans is less for procreation than in monkeys, so larger penis sizes became more adaptive.
I thought it was because apes fight by grabbing and tearing, so with that evolutionary pressure applied you basically end up with the minimum effective protrusion.
Also, this is why I plan to avoid fighting apes or at least try to wear some good pants if I do.
You may be right. If there was a selective pressure against large penises due to intra-male fighting, and the lack of a strong enough pressure for larger penises (due to the relative absence of pair-bonding), that would support the observation that gorilla penises are small. For humans, where that sort of fighting doesn't happen, and where pair-bonding is important, penis size would naturally drift upwards until they become too big, or they take too much energy to grow/utilize.
One way to test this would be analyze the fighting techniques of various primate species, and then bin them based on their penis size and relative monogamy. If all primates that grab and tear have small penis, irrespective of their pair-bonding, then perhaps the former is more important.
Interesting, it seems like then that the old wives tale—that height, foot size, or hand size—should not correlate with that measurement in men.
According to the literature (RIP my search history), height is weakly correlated with it [1], while the ratio between the second digit and fourth digit is moderately correlated [2]. Weirdly enough, the 2D:4D ratio has to do with bone lengths, but is still correlated with that measurement.
This seems to underlie their problem: if they're only supporting SciFi (and probably other creative outlets) as a means to an end, as a means to encourage innovation, they're doing it wrong. Asimov didn't write because he foresaw all of the tech entrepreneurs who would read his work, he wrote because he wanted to, and because the society where he wrote supported him—and promoted artistic works (though of course there is perverse incentive for art here in the West, in the form of monetary incentive for artists). If China only supports SciFi to innovate, they won't produce good enough works to innovate.
Historically many or even most great works of work have been "compromised" by similar things, whether it's the politics of some King's court or flattering a rich patron or simply dealing with the vagaries of the market.
This could be proven/disproven with some metrics about your average productivity and productivity on 'lazy' days.