Obviously it's in cows and other creatures as well, so clearly it's not restricted to birds. Face the facts, it's not a "bird" flu, and it shouldn't be called that anymore, as it's obviously not exclusive to birds.
H5N1 works for me. At least the technical name doesn't mislead people into thinking only one category of animals can get it.
The companion article about American contrariness was also fun. Fauci warns against drinking raw milk and immediately social media has people promoting drinking raw milk "for immunization" making the sale of raw milk shoot up.
At this moment I think if a new pandemic starts, nurses are just going to quit their jobs in the spot instead of going through all that again.
I thought the torus shape was the accepted theory? Guess I haven't been keeping up on this.
Near the bottom of the article they mention that if the universe wasn't flat, we would see multiple copies of the universe in the sky. I'm not sure that is exactly true? Given the speed at which the universe is expanding, especially during the early period after the big bang, it seems reasonable that the light from most stars wouldn't have had a chance to loop back around yet. Even the light from the earliest stars is just reaching us, so I don't know why they think it would have had time to loop back around multiple times, unless there's something I'm missing?
And nothing in the article really touched on the "holes" mentioned in the title. Are they referring to the center of a torus, which isn't really a hole that we could observe? I don't get it.
I'm sorry to say I don't remember who to attribute this to, but I heard someone say that we're living in an age of data-driven stupidity, and it's hard not to agree.
All I want is for one of these super rich fucks to start obsessing about preserving Earth and building massive carbon capture plants that also generate clean drinking water from the air. Dump billions into pulse fusion reactors and build them into every carbon capture plant. Create a stable biodome...right here, on Earth. And use the entire planet for the experiment. Can someone please get on that?
Ok so I have a question about one thing in your list.
If you don't have kids then you would not have people to continue your virtue and belief on the next generation. While the people who are denying climate change have all the kids they can spit out of their body. And guess what, children are the ones who have a higher percentage of continuing their parents beliefs.
So in a few generation their side will outnumber your side.
You make a good point but then again, the numbers game would still be tilted in favor of those who multiply the most.
Why not have 1 child and adopt another, preferably of the same age so that both children won't be lonely and have someone to depend on as family when the parents are gone.
Climate change really has to be solved in this generation. You're thinking too long term, we don't have that kind of time.
Additionally, not all children of climate sociopaths become sociopaths. The planet increasingly makes a convincing argument even for those who weren't taught to hear. That's why the old propagandists have to ramp up their effort
scientificamerican.com
Hot