First we got Link's Awakening, a Zelda game with some Mario stuff thrown in, and then we were supposed to get this, a Mario game with Zelda aspects. I wonder if they were trying to combine the two somehow.

When my wife and I are cuddling and she gets stiff, she'll always say "I've gotta turn over." and I always respond "Can I have a bite?"

My wife surprised me by how much she enjoys just randomly saying "Get-get-get-get down! Get-get-get-get up...mom."

I always liked the name Woodrow, but I hate the nickname Woody, so it's a bit of a wash.

Ah, I see.

Again, selective breeding suffers from the same issue of introducing changes that can be detrimental to the organism itself and its place in the balance of the environment. Look at dog breeding as an example. Pugs were bred for a specific look, and that inadvertently caused them to have severe breathing issues. Dachshunds are another example, with many developing spinal issues over time. The difference, as I said before, is the speed; making a change causes unintended side effects - when you make a huge change quickly, it will produce more side effects than making a small change slowly will.

And... again... as I already said... there should be limitations to prevent rolling out new GMOs without specific testing for safety, both in a lab for potential problems to the organism or - in the event of an agricultural product - its consumers, as well as in the environment as a whole, to determine how it may affect the ecology if and when it is introduced. It may take decades to notice changes if the GMO is released immediately after being developed, but if testing protocols are made and followed, we should have no problem quickly spotting any issues before the organism is rolled out into the world.

Just like newly developed medicines need to go through rigorous testing to prevent things like the Thalidomide scandal that caused an immense amount of birth defects due to lax testing, new GMO's will need to be tested as well. But, just like you likely understand the benefits of medicine for helping people suffering from various diseases, GMO's can provide the same level of benefit to people suffering from malnutrition, among a wide range of other positive uses. The key is to study new developments to the point where we can spot and address issues. Throwing away the technology as a whole is not the answer.

...yeah, that's what I'm saying. Maybe he's got no money, or keeps it in a bank with no interest for some weird reason, but the more likely scenario is that he has a lot of money he doesn't want to make public. If he's got so much money that it benefits him more to keep it hidden than to let it publicly gain interest, then he's going to be willing to hand some of it off to a corrupt public official to prevent an investigation.

If a real investigation were done, then there would be no reason for him to bribe anyone, which is the more important thing for the vast majority of the government, so they have no reason to do an investigation. I'd like them to, but my preferences aren't going to matter to the guy who only took the job of an investigator for the bribery money. If anything, they'll just do a sham investigation so that they can say "nope, nothing" while walking away with their pockets full of cash.

It's been a long time since this country meaningfully punished a rich man for doing something wrong.

The public hate definitely got worse in the later 2000's, but it was definitely still popular among middle/high schoolers to tell everyone they hated songs like Yellow and Fix You to show how "sophisticated" their tastes were. It was the same for any band that got too popular, but I remember that when Facebook opened up to people without .edu emails in 2006 I saw the Coldplay hate all over the place. One of the first online arguments I ever had was because someone said that the song The Scientist sucked, and I was really into it at the time. It's part of why I chose my username, along with my love of biology.

He was a decent youtuber, but I was always irked by his propagation of the "That's just a theory" phrase. I get that it was just a tagline, but it still inadvertently promotes the downplay of the scientific process.

I'm a bit of a noob about privacy, but wouldn't preventing people from knowing you're using Tor be pretty important? I know that, among people who know of Tor, but don't know much about it, the use of Tor alone is generally associated with criminal activity, and often conjures up imagery of worse things than just piracy.

If I were to tell my friends I was thinking of using Tor, and I didn't immediately have a good explanation of what I'd use it for beyond "privacy," then they'd think I was into some nasty shit. I'd imagine the ISPs, and anyone else they might give/sell their info to, would be suspicious of anyone logged to be using Tor.

I like to focus on my shoulders. If I notice they're scrunched, I lower them, and the rest of my body tends to follow suit.

Avoid biases, yes. We can say "current data supports X," and make whatever real-world decisions we need to make, while still accepting that future data may very well completely disprove that notion. It's bad science to say "current data supports X, so Y is wrong," but it's also bad science to say "Yeah, I know current data supports X, but my gut says Y is true even without data, and that's enough for me."

That's what I see more and more often in society recently; people are seeing that biases are something that can't truly be avoided, so they're accepting them instead, allowing themselves to completely abandon data in place of biases. When you catch yourself believing something is true even when data doesn't currently support it, forgive yourself, as you're human, but don't allow yourself to continue believing that thing.