If the solution of a leap minute would require us to update every half century, that would mean that "a few centuries down the line" would be out of sync by something like 6 minutes. Or 20 minutes for a millennium. In three millenniums we would only have diverged by about an hour, or daylight savings time, which means we could scrap that too! I have a feeling that in 3000 years we won't really care that midnight is at 1 am (or 11 pm, I don't know which way the error goes), but that's just me.

I wish I had mod points, very informative, thank you!

Either you are clueless or you are lying.

Disclaimer: I am a doctor in Sweden.

Official statistics from Swedish nursing homes and hospitals show a clear benefit in survival and milder disease in the vaccinated as opposed to the unvaccinated. If you want to run it through google translate here's the latest report from FHM (Swedish Public Health Agency) https://www.folkhalsomyndighet...

The only negative thing that can be said about vaccination against covid-19 is that the effect seems to be temporary and we might need to keep giving boosters every 6 months or so in order to have good long term protection for the weakest and oldest.

You clearly don't understand even the basic premise of gerrymandering and why it is such a problem. That said, 1/3 vs 2/3 would be difficult (but not impossible) to gerrymander in favor of the 1/3. And before you get all defensive, just educate yourself and play this game: http://gametheorytest.com/gerr... it should take you at most 5 minutes to grasp the concept.

It most definitely will affect the *time* that sun rises however, which is the entire point. As someone living in Sweden with very few hours of sunlight in winter or darkness in summer the difference is very noticeable. If we ever do the same here the consensus is to stay on summer time (DST, winter time is our standard time) such that we aren't woken up by the sun at 2-3 am.

While true, would you not think twice about that message if before you get that, all conservative media had been banned like the free media in Russia has?

Did they go about on their influencer platform loudly conspiring to tell everyone smoking is healthy? No? Then absolutely they deserve respect. Same with the obese person trying (but failing) to lose weight. It's not really a difficult concept. You respect people who try to do the right thing, even if they fail. You don't respect people who are crazy nutjobs actively sabotaging other people through their platform.

No way. First of all, "right" leaning parties of Sweden are by global standards on the left side of the spectrum in many respects. Second of all, the Social Democrats (centre-left by Swedish measurements) have been in power either on their own or in coalition for at least 70 of the last 100 years, so your statement could almost not be more wrong. Source: I am a Swede

I wasn't aware Atlantis had already been rediscovered and that we were trading with them? Do they even need electricity? I figured they'd have zero-point power by now... :/

It is entirely reasonable to choose a date after the initial wave. Almost no country or state except maybe South Korea and Singapore had an effective response to the pandemic. As such, using a date after the first wave is indicative of which states/countries/regions have responded the best once we had knowledge of what actually worked. As an example, I am a doctor in Sweden and with hindsight our strategy has been absolutely terrible even though initially it seemed like a good idea. And that's with a populace with a very high trust in government and institutions. Using statistics from early in the pandemic would have been quite unfair as our strategy was formulated when not a lot of data was available. This autumn and early winter however is showing that our strategy *does not work* and our government is trying to severely limit the holidays to compensate.

According to your own citation, even the best age group in the US has an infant mortality rate of about 5 per 1000. According to the CIA world factbook (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2091rank.html), there are about 50 countries in the world that have lower than 5 deaths per 1000 *overall*, ie averaged across all age groups. In short, your statistics are bullshit and flat out wrong.

How is that even a difficult question? If you have an average lifespan of ~30 years due to infectious disease, starvation, dehydration, hypo/hyperthermia, poisonous food, or being eaten by predators, how exactly would a really slow acting low risk/high impact disease like skin cancer "eradicate" us? I know that it's popular to join the "everything causes cancer!" bandwagon but it's really not that difficult to understand. It's still good to know that being in the sun is always a risk, however small. Vitamin D is easy to get from supplements so if you just don't *like* being in the sun, you have good reason to avoid it.

You are looking at it the wrong way. It's entirely possible that people allied to big oil would legitimately try and counter global warming as a way to stay in business. There is a real non-zero risk of fossil fuels becoming banned worldwide unless there's a solution to counteract it.

That said, I'm not sure that the study isn't bullshit, but just because people from big oil are attached, doesn't necessarily invalidate it.