Wrong. Evolution happens when there is a difference in reproductive success.
Dying will definitely affect your reproductive success.
But it is far from the only factor.

But I agree: the assumption that the increase is due to hereditary factors is quite a leap.

How does it behave on the control group?
Don't have one, you say?
Then you don't have an experiment.

But just out of curiosity, does it behave the same way on your entire unbiased selection of vaccinated people?
What?
OK, did it at least behave differently when you did those things before the vaccine?
Aw, seriously, dude.
You suck at this.

No, these will replace the need for beaming in power via 5g, freeing up the network for use by phones or whatever. Proof will arrive in the form of increased 5g coverage.

You mean the republicans ARE actually working to fix global warming, just in their own special way?

The ozone depleting gases are also extremely potent greenhouse gases. They constituted several percent of the man-made greenhouse contribution at the time, even tough the actual volumes were tiny compared to CO2. This "low hanging fruit" on greenhouse reduction was well known and an indeed an extra selling point. But sure, it was not the primary objective, and would probably not have been enough to drive an agreement on its own.

But the CO2-releasing effect of UV is news.

I am an incel with asthma, you insensitive clod!

No, continuing to increase external pressures on the system even while see the cracks forming and widening does not exactly constitute the "doing nothing" option you seem to insinuate. Stopping emissions dead IS the conservative option as far as the climate is concerned. Just not for the short term economy, and especially not for some very rich and powerful companies.

Yes, but I'm also used to "cup" as shorthand for the "knockout tournament" competition form, as several of the most famous ones have "cup" in their name.

zombie snacks

Some people find the distinction useful.

The various hominids probably occupied roughly the same niche in their ecosystems, and may have disappeared mainly due to the arrival of new competition, being assimilated, displaced or straight out killed by other groups, rather than simply failing on their own. More of a cup than a race, then. Doesn't mean the other contenders could never have gotten anywhere.

Most cultures have stories of weird humanoids lurking in the woods. Usually portrayed as extremely dangerous and our natural enemies. Makes sense that the eventual sole survivors of this mess might have a weakness for such notions.

There are definitely birds (who do descend from dinosaurs) that rival plenty of similarly-sized mammals in intelligence - who knows what could hypothetically evolve from them given the right evolutionary pressures.
But the exact circumstances that allowed a specific line of mammal to go as far as we have must be rare, since no other branches of life here seem to have.

Yep. Same way terrorism is ethically and legally worse than the basic crimes or acts of war employed.
People try to use the term for basically anything they don't like these days, in the hope of capitalising from the stigma associated with it, but the core of the concept is violence aimed at striking fear into the civilian population, as opposed to reducing military capability, which can be more readily defended as "defense".

Metallic sodium does not explode from water vapour in the air.

You can put a lump on your desk and nothing much will happen.
Cut off piece so you get a nice, clean, corrosion-free surface and still nothing happens.
Put the piece into liquid water and things get interesting.
There has to be enough water to react with enough sodium to release energy at an explosive rate.
Otherwise all you get is corrosion.

And just about anyone who knows about the dangers of metallic sodium will already know that it is the same as natrium. In most languages it is known only as natrium.

The job is never done. Scope expands to fill the time available.
Are all jobs done after specifically 55 hours but not 40? Why not 100?

Finding the right balance between profitability and sustainability is non-trivial, but expected performance is not a given universal constant. It is a matter of experience with a certain level of effort. If expected input was 40h, 'the job' would need to be shaped to fit, just as it has for 55 or whatever.

But that is ignoring all the reasearch showing that for many office-type jobs, the added value of overtime is often marginal or even negative.