Way to pick one old story. Sure, there were wide intervals in the uncertainty about the number of cats. Not birds killed. Number of cats that are doing the killing. That still doesn't take away from the main point in that publication that cats make a big impact on birds.

To counter your argument based on one weak data point, I've made it easy it easy for you to realize your premise that 'it was one lousy research project' that has pointed out that cats are a scourge on wildlife, I've given you more research from a variety of locations.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/...

https://www.publish.csiro.au/w...

https://wildlife.onlinelibrary...

https://www.researchgate.net/p...

https://scholar.google.com/sch...

Also, there is no reason to think that humans domesticated cats. It could have been possible that people were habituated to cats coming around and in typical human-centered thinking, people claim that humans domesticated cats and not some other arrangement.

I wonder if the U.S.'s National Academies of Science is willing to also recognize the impact and make that classification? There is plenty of research literature documenting the negative impact on wildlife that cats have.

Some birds provide pollination services in addition to the point made by someone else about them eating insects.

There is also the argument that cats can spread a disease called toxoplasmosis that can have bad outcomes for pregnant women. But they have to handle the poop of an infected cat I believe, so the risk is probably small.

or any other poll on issues like this ("The country supports X") never really seem to answer the question the way the media phrases the poll results. I doubt the results of this poll. For one thing, I don't believe people are completely honest when they respond to these polls. And let's not forget self-selection bias. Of course, I did not RTFA, and most polls are supposed to account for the bias at least, so I have no idea about the methodology or what the poll's results are actually stating.

Most of my neighbors seems to have some kind of belief in God and I have not run into anyone lately who says that they've renounced such a belief. Anecdotal, but that's still part of my priors.

Prove it. :D

Oh, no. People won't be able to get their next day order of books or whatever it is people think Amazon is so essential for. Stop buying stuff from Amazon. Such an abusive company to feed everyone's retail orgasms.

I'd say that the person you're replying to is proving the crazy that the right exhibits. It's a normal play for conservatives, play the victim while they shoot at you. In this case, blame the left first for complaining about the 2016 result. When that orange-skinned chump CLEARLY lost the popular vote, as if that's not something to gripe about, even if people are willing to go along with the loony idea of electoral college.

A subpoena would have legal backing. There's not even a formal investigation. In this case, there's no subpoena. It's just that group of lawmakers grandstanding. https://constitution.congress....

I came to echo your subject line. The main part of your post is even better.

While hey! is right, they only list Nevada's population. And Lake Meade supplies water to more than Nevada. It's gonna be a rough time in the Four Corners+ part of the country before long.

I don't think it's that clear. I don't deny the problem with landmines at all. Obviously, decades of injury and death, especially after a conflict is over, is immoral. But just because the duration is shorter, that doesn't mean there is a moral distinction. How many people can that "flying landmine" maim or kill in the time it's active? I'm assuming it could probably attack more than a couple of people? If one drone can attack 20 people at a time, does the number of people offset how immoral it is? I don't think so. If the drone is acting indiscriminately, the duration of action does not diminish the fact it is acting indiscriminately.

If someone is wrongfully imprisoned for a day or 20 years, that doesn't change the immoral act of that person being wrongfully imprisoned.

I listened to an interview with Dr. Jones a few weeks ago. She described her up-bringing as low income ("poor"). Thus, she said that she is used to being poor. She also said that she has a very strong urge to act ethically and morally and so she felt obligated to do the right thing and expose the malfeasance, even though it would risk her job. In the interview, she also said that there were other people in her department who were torn between keeping their jobs and exposing the corruption and that she has no ill-will toward those people who chose to keep their jobs, because she understood the need for people to keep a livelihood. Dr. Jones deserves a great deal of recognition for trying to serve the public in a highly ethical capacity.

More than can be said for most of the state government in Florida. While they forced the rest of the state to reopen and kept local governments from deciding if they wanted masks or not, the state politicians hid behind the excuse of COVID-19 to keep meetings that should be public hidden from the public. What is supposedly the people's business and should be executed in daylight is performed behind closed door in shady circumstances.

I don't remember the date of the interview on the show, but it was in one of the episodes here since probably February:
https://www.wmnf.org/events/11...

As an aside, that show used to be called "Radioactivity" (until about 3 weeks ago) and it was hosted by a guy name Rob Lorei. He was a fantastic host. Then the station's management decided to fire him for reasons that are still not public.

Google can also consider doubling the size of an ethics committee that oversees Google's own practices.

The political party pushing this law complains that there is too much regulation. Yet here that party is regulating companies. No contradiction here at all, is there?

And it's not like those companies are deplatforming all the members of that party. Those members being deplatformed are spreading baseless claims or sharing messages that promote violence or both. At least as far as promoting violence, nearly any company associated with public media has rules against posts that promote violence. So those members promoting violence aren't being deplatformed for being members of a certain party, it's for that person's choice to post things that go against terms of service. Those politicians love it when companies protect themselves with a bunch legal fine print, but they don't like it when the fine print is actually used against them.

And somewhat related. This legislation is being pushed by a party that doesn't want to be held accountable and is thus pushing other legislation at the same time that they hope will disenfranchise thousands of voters, so that the party can't be voted out as easily. There is almost nothing democratic, small d as in the principles, not capital D, as in the party, about the republican party. They are only out to serve the interests of a slowly shrinking certain group of people who don't like the fact they aren't being allowed to run everything like they have been for the last 200+ years.