milankovic

I think the important point is: You can't turn over a document that does not exist.

Which major extinction event? Do you really think this is an appropriate comparison to proven major extinction events of the past (e.g Chicxulub, 66 m. years ago)?

Yes, excellent video, I love that series.

Can't recommend it enough, explains why size matters and how mass, surface and volume cause these effects.

But at least you learned about it.. thank god, I was starting to lose my faith in humanity.

And thanks for the shout-out to Mr Pupin and Mr Mohorovičić, and for providing some links as well, I wholeheartedly approve of any attempts to rescue important characters from their undeserved obscurity. Really appreciate it.

I was not, I have never been to Serbia in my whole life.

I learned this in school nonetheless, I don't know what so say anymore. Many more had this covered in school as well, I believe, but hey, maybe you simply forgot? I find that lack in general education in that regard a bit disturbing.

But let me compliment you that you actually went ahead and learned a bit more about the details on your own volition. That means there are at least two of us on here..

Wrong. It's a perfect test, to see whether a so called climate scientist is actually worth his salt.

> There’s a large difference between being interested in the history of science, and who did what and where they hailed from, and actually being interested in science.

I fundamentally disagree. If you are really interested in science, but not in the history of science, you are doing something very, very wrong, and you are bound to repeat a lot of mistakes if you are not willing to learn lessons from history. But my suspicion is, while many people claim to be interested in science, because it's 2018 and it is definitely fancy to do so, they deep down do not care. Participating in bullshit events like "marches for science" is a really poor disguise, in my opinion.

The simple truth is: No one really knows.

How do you determine the exact position in a cycle of 400000 years?

> Not everyone is required to take Astronomy courses in school. For example, my formal education never included it.

No wonder that flat-earthers are still a thing. If that is not basic, fundamental, general education, I don't know what is. The world is officially screwed. I don't give a fuck anymore.

> While Tesla was ethnically Serbian, I'd consider him to be an American scientist since that's where he lived for most of his life, and did most of his work. Plus he was born in what is today Croatia. Honestly, though, does it really matter other than for fictional nationalistic bragging rights?

Exactly, ethnically Serbian, that's the sole reason I used that adjective. Why do you bring up nationalism here? Are we a bit projecting here? I'm not even Serbian or anything close. If you want to consider him an American scientist, that is perfectly fine, you have solid ground for that. Plus, it's pretty irrelevant what the birthplace is known as today. Back then, it was the Austrian Empire, and many Serbs were a part of it at that time..

> Because you're acting like a snob?

A snob? For stating what is a simple and harmless truth? I'd rather say that I caught some subset of the HN target demographic on the wrong foot. But it's okay, no one likes to get called out for their bullshit. Intellectual honesty is dead anyway, in a world where "fake it till you make it" is seriously considered good career advice.

> Had you taken the care to actually read the article you linked, you'd notice that the name of the cycle is Milankovitch, regardless of the actual name of its eponym:

I'm perfectly aware. But I choose to not follow here. You know, English is not the only language on this planet. I am not a native English speaker as well, so why should I care..

What do you mean by fundamental here? For studying astronomy at an university? Then yes, agreed, but I am wondering about the very basic understanding of the principles at all, are you implying that kids today don't learn this anymore? You know, what our solar system is, what the earth is, and it's, well, shape..

Wait.. are you serious?

Guess I should consider myself lucky that I had a physics teacher who taught us about the thing that we stand on and live on, what it is, where it is, what's around and how our solar system works.

Ha, I am really shocked now. Honestly, I can't believe this. I should probably not dare to ask someone on HN if they ever heard about the Milk Way or something.

Exactly, but what is new here? The duration of the complete cycle?

Well, that number is new, to me at least, but the principle was well known before, I assume?

I don't get it.. don't they teach basic astronomy in schools anymore?

Correct me if I am wrong here, but if I recall it correctly, Jon Stewart made that name change himself (as your comment and linked source implies), while in Trump's case, it was not done by himself, it was something that his father had done in his life (or maybe even grandfather?).

That is something fundamentally different, but Last Week Tonight is just some comedy show, so one should not expect too much here.

So glad to see that the concept of individual responsibility is not dead yet...

Tell me something I don't know yet..

But I was not asking in bad faith, it is beyond me why anyone would even want to do that.

Okay, this is the Internet, I know, and you cannot tell from across the screen. That old drama.

But still, I don't agree that an uncharitable interpretation should be the standard on HN that everyone just downright assumes..

That's quite a stretch to say that I would imply something like that.. You should read the original comment again. To which I was simply writing a reply.

I don't know, maybe you should have a talk with some post-structuralists, or with some other folks who seem to believe that xyz is a "social construct"..

Not everyone is a saint like you, I guess..

I agree in theory, but I would like to hear some justification why other comments, even if unrelated, get downvoted as well then.

Not sure, but I don't think any would qualify as fundamental denial. Just questions about some specifics, details, and their evidence etc..

I mean, nothing that would be relevant to the question at hand, in my opinion.

Because the topic still is as linked above, and subsumed in this simple proposition: The genome varies from cell to cell.

Great. What a discovery! More news at 11!

Or is someone seriously arguing that genetic mutation is not universal knowledge?

(Excluding "flat-earth" level stuff, but I would assume that as given on HN. Maybe I am wrong again)

Yes, obviously. But I am honestly baffled here. I mean, when did anyone really seriously argue otherwise? Isn't that already universal knowledge what you are describing here?

(Well, depends a bit on the definitions, I'd still say that ants are organisms, but so is the ant colony, and yes, you always have to see the bigger picture)

I don't get what the NYT is trying to achieve with their "reporting" here.

(BTW, the title here on HN has been changed, for anyone coming a bit later to these comment threads)

Nothing. It was not suggested.

I just extrapolated a bit too unconstrained maybe. Okay, you can accuse me of erecting a straw man now.

But the thing is, I don't know how many times I've seen this (or very similar) debates unfold. Definitely getting a bit tired of it, to be honest. So I just though, why not skip ahead a bit, leave out some of the usual steps, you know?

You are actually correct, I have seen statistics like that. It's really funny where you can find correlations, if you think about it.

Whether or not Robert Sapolsky likes the implications behind that does not make it less true (or anyone else for that matter).

When did this notion take hold that we can answer such complex matters with simple solutions?

Do people on here even realize how old this stupid Nature vs Nurture debate is?

Probably not. I guess most older HN users have already abandoned ship, leaving only the greenhorns behind.

At least that would explain it.

And again, I am not arguing for anything here. I am just the Devil's Advocate.

Who's implying to believe in magic here? I certainly don't.

I'm just trying to warn about the pitfalls of monocausal explanations for complex issues..

You should try to ask the OP the same question..

But, to be fair, the title of the submission to HN has been changed, to something a lot less of clickbait.

Maybe I would not have engaged otherwise, actually. Makes you think..

But still, downvotes = disagreement, I thought HN would be better than that.

Apparently, I was wrong.

Downvoted for asking a simple question?

Is that what HN has come to? Really?

I'm really sorry my friend.

They (downvoters) fail to realize that they are shooting the messengers, nothing more. But smart people understand. They know and will never cease to keeping them honest..

Yes and No, I guess. It depends.. I don't know what someone would achieve by arguing that way, hence my reply.

But please enlighten me.. Maybe I am getting it wrong, or am just not seeing it..

But sure, just put it all on "biochemical processes".. and no one is responsible for anything any more. Brave New World.

Time to abolish prisons now.. is that what you are trying to say?

So, crime is driven by biochemical processes as well?

You really believe that journalism was fundamentally different back then? You never heard that famous John Swinton quote before? I find that a bit hard to believe, actually.

To be honest, and this is HN, where everyone values intellectual honesty (right?), I will only say this:

I would pay for porn on the Internet, definitely, but not for journalism. They can all go die in a fire already..

I disagree. Of all ideas, I think this is his best one.

Do you believe that the law is infallible?