> Experts say the rising tally of polar bears reflects an increased ability to track bears – not an actual increase in the population. The graph is based on various estimates of the global population that include unscientific estimates, extrapolation and insufficient data sets, according to scientists.
Did you even read that article? It says the measurements from 1960-1980 are unreliable so the claim is false but the trend still works from 1980. Go look at the data yourself: https://www.iucn-pbsg.org/population-status/
You will find that the population has been stable globally and they themselves say the most populated region (Barents sea) is has very likely increased in the last 50 years.
The polar bear population is a pet peeve of mine because it is a bad example, if you want to keep defending it, go ahead, but you are not helping climate change advocates.
> You will find that the population has been stable globally…
That is a very different claim than your original.
You said it is steadily increasing and has doubled.
And, yes, I read the whole article.
"'Populations have not grown,' Steven Amstrup, chief scientist for Polar Bears International, said in an email. 'Rather our growing knowledge has shown there may be more bears in these areas than we previously thought.'"
"The areas with the best data show no increase, contrary to the post's claim. According to the 2021 report, three of the subpopulations have decreased over the past two generations. None of the subpopulations have increased over the past two generations."
To be clear, I have not changed my claim. I am merely point out that even the polar bear people say that it is not in decline and, for some reason, refuse to say what their own data says, which is global population is on the rise. From their data from the region with most bears:
Subpopulation estimate and uncertainty - 2644 (95% CI = 1899–3592)
Long term change - Very likely increased (1973-2015)
I am not making up these claims. I am reading the very words and data from the people you are quoting.
I think this is a “you have one job” kind of thing for shooting liftoff (no matter what quality of equipment is on hand): rocket goes up, tilt camera up.
Bonus: Try to match the speed of the tilt with the speed of the rocket in the frame.
If I saw that in any other context I would have assumed it was a low budget special effect--mostly due the spray of rainbow sparkles when the module separates from the base.
It's a sequential colour camera, each field is red, green or blue filtered (using a spinning colour wheel), and they're processed back on earth to recombine them into a colour TV picture. Doesn't work that well with fast motion, as there's too much movement between the red, green, and blue images, hence the rainbowing. They were of course bandwidth limited so conventional NTSC might be an issue. Also a normal colour TV camera at the time used three (or four) image tubes, rather than the one in the Apollo cameras, which would have added size and weight (this is before things like CCDs were practical).
Okay but the live stream for YouTube used a dslr live feed which I guess they didn't tell the camera operator for lift off because they started to snap still shots and the video feed had a visible shutter and then still frame for 1 second in the video feed. So to reiterate the official nasa YouTube stream ruined the lift off video stream.
> I think everyone forgot about early SpaceX product quality.
This was 8 years ago and is one of the greatest stuff I've seen in space launches. The footage is so epic that it even got replicated in SciFi series! ... https://youtu.be/wbSwFU6tY1c?t=1313
> The church tax is only paid by members of the respective church, although the concept of "membership" is far from clear, and it may be asked what right the secular state has to tell the faithful what contribution they should make to their own denomination. People who are not members of a church tax-collecting denomination do not have to pay it. Members of a religious community may formally cease to be considered members by making a declaration to state (not religious) authorities, ending liability to pay church taxes. Some religious communities refuse religious marriages and funerals to members who leave.
Is it harder than implied to make that declaration?
Same here. Google lets you refunds or partial refunds and still don’t disclose any customer details. All you see is transaction IDs. I never understood why Apple doesn’t show a history of all IAPs in a similar way with similar control.
There is the Stanford Persuasion Lab study on infinite scroll... rather than take it as a cautionary finding, tech has embraced the infinite scroll. Because incentives.
So these extensions allow linkedin to do this though, it's literally them saying "yes, this site can ping this resource" - called "web_accessible_resources".
This is fair from Linkedin IMO as I've seen loads of different extensions actually scraping the linkedin session tokens or content on linkedin.
Humanity does far more wasteful things than build some extra solar panels.
reply