No. Pompeii was destroyed by a pyroclastic flow, which is only a danger in the immediate vicinity of the eruption. The danger from Yellowstone is that it could blanket much of the continent with ash.

Cesium tends to behave like potassium in biological systems. It has a biological half-life of about 100 days (half will be excreted by the body in this amount of time). But that can be accelerated by consuming more potassium. So just sprinkle some "lite-salt" on your next dish of wild boar.

Ann Coulter is a political Kim Kardashian. She thrives on drawing attention to herself by acting like an idiot. But her statement is a tiny kernel of truth wrapped up in a big ball of stupidity. Slightly higher levels of background radiation may actually be good for you. There is some evidence, in both animals and humans, that slightly higher levels of external (not ingested) radiation, over extended time, can reduced cancer rates and improve health. One hypothesis is that the radiation "exercises" the cellular repair mechanism, and keeps if functioning well.

Over the last few decades public support for climate changed action has declined dramatically. Much of the reason for that is a decline in public perceptions of the credibility of scientists. Much of the reason for that is because of people that exaggerate, and then, when called out on it, insist that the actual facts are just "quibbles" and don't matter. The same happened with the first IPCC report. It contained exaggerations, and made false statements, and when those were pointed out, the response from the authors was indignation and name calling rather than humility.

Look, we are losing the debate on climate change. The Koch Brothers are winning. If we want to change that, the first step is to start building credibility. We don't do that by insisting our facts are important, and the other guy's facts are "quibbles". We do it by being truthful and honest.

Those are for overall food radiation levels. If you ate wild pork for 100% of your diet, those numbers would be important. But wild boar is something that is eaten infrequently. It is like mercury in tuna. If you are pregnant, and eat tuna everyday, it is a concern. Otherwise, a tuna sandwich a few times a month is harmless.

Disclaimer: I am a vegetarian, and eat neither tuna nor wild boar. But I do eat bananas, which contain enough radiation to occasionally trigger radiation alarms.

The real problem here is the ridiculous standard in Germany for the amount of radiation considered safe. There is nothing unsafe about eating this pork, as long as it is cooked well to kill the trichinosis.

While the "419 scam" is associated with Nigeria, many of the scammers are not actually Nigerian. The Economist published an article about why. For the scammers, a major cost is leads that turn out to not be credulous enough to actually send money. So many non-Nigerian scammers claim to be Nigerian, figuring that Nigeria's reputation for corruption and crime will weed out all but the stupidest respondents.

This CC/ID should help with the corruption and crime. It is easy for a corrupt official to take a bribe in cash, but much harder with a CC. Likewise, a thief wants to steal cash, not a pre-paid CC without knowing the PIN. It will also make collecting taxes easier. In poor countries, pervasive tax evasion means not enough money for infrastructure, or to pay sufficient salaries to government employees so that they work for their salary rather the opportunity to extort bribes. A broader tax base will also pull more people into the formal economy, rather than low productivity work in subsistence farming or running small street stalls.

While I agree with your main point that there is a broad scientific consensus on climate change, the 97% figure is bogus. 97% of research papers on climate change that stated a position on whether AGW is real, took an affirmative stance. But this ignores the many papers that were non-committal, and stated no opinion.

By exaggerating the consensus, you are just handing ammunition to the denialists. The problem with convincing skeptics of the need to take action is not evidence (which is strong), but credibility (which is lacking). Please calm down and stick to the facts.

No. The insurance companies have concluded that they have a risk. They will charge more in premiums to compensate for even small risks.

And here is the crux of the problem. "Climate change" has been politically associated with the "Liberal Agenda", and is being used to justify all sorts of economic nonsense that has nothing to do with climate change. I live in California, and "Climate Change" is being used to justify a $300 billion* boondoggle to build high speed rail between SF and LA. That is about $10,000 for every person in California, for a train that on a typical day will carry 0.03% of commuters. It will have zero impact on CO2 emissions because it won't be operational for 30 years, when it is likely most cars will be electric anyway.

*Yes, I know the current projected cost is $100 billion, but on average, government boondoggles in California eventually cost three times the original cost, so $300 billion is a more reasonable estimate.

Yes, but that is 80% of the people in the world.

If you want to be pedantic, it is not "Bitcoin" either. It is "bitcoin", all lowercase. In English, currencies are not normally capitalized. You don't capitalize "dollar", "euro", or "rupee", so you shouldn't capitalize "bitcoin" either.

I do "real business" with people in bitcoins, including several overseas contractors. For instance, a woman in Karachi, Pakistan does graphic design for my company. Transferring dollars, and converting them to rupees, is expensive, and a time consuming hassle. Transferring bitcoins just takes a few seconds, and the transaction cost is a few pennies. She would be bonkers to not accept bitcoins.

At the time they migrated to the Americas, the people in Eurasia were not resistant either. They became resistant when they started keeping herds of animals.

The problem with the hypothesis is that "Asian" people not only replaced "Caucasian-like" people in North America, but that the same thing happened in Northeast Asia. The original aboriginal people of Northeast Asia were similar to Europeans in facial structure and hair color/texture. There are still living remnants of these populations, such as the Ainu people in Hokkaido and Sakhalin, and remains of vanished tribes, such as the Tarim Mummies. So it is more plausible that if "Caucasian-like" people lived in America 15,000 years ago, they came from Northeast Asia, not Europe, and they were wiped out (or assimilated) by the same wave of "Asians" that wiped them out in NE Asia. So, in the absence of other supporting evidence, the Solutrean Hypothesis does not pass Occam's Razor.

Only for very small values of "working". If you invested $100 in Broadcom stock back in the year 2000, you would have $21 today, and last month they laid off 20% of their workforce.

Yes. If you look at their revenue, and stock price, and compare it to other semiconductor companies, it is clear that they are doing something wrong. Their policy of intentionally alienating potential customers doesn't appear to be working.

Broadcom is not the first company to have a "We Hate Our Customers" strategy. A decade ago, Marvell Semiconductor was even worse. It was almost impossible to get a datasheet out of them. Today they are one of the most open.

Because what they are doing is making the market less healthy and less diverse.

We speak out because we want to change their behavior, and discourage other companies from adopting the same customer hostile behavior. Why do you get so pushed out of shape about other people getting pushed out of shape?