You appear to lack the historical knowledge to appreciate the joke:
The war on drugs was specifically designed to allow the government to go after the left and black people. Nixon's domestic policy chief said this in 1994:
The constraint is a life-forms' existing form. A given genetic sequence can only move (in general) a small distance from the existing sequence.
Since you're already starting with a successful sequence, the odds are that a small variant on that sequence is also going to be only marginally more or less successful than the original sequence.
It's even weirder than that. It turns out that at very low concentrations caffeine seems to have similar effects on insect neurology as it does on ours. There are some plant species whose flowers produce caffeinated nectar. Bees seem to like these flowers preferentially, and have an easier time remembering where they are. (Yes, bees get buzzed.)
He is famous for his writing, and not for being a chef.
His 2000 book, "Kitchen Confidential," was a New York Times best seller, and it's what put him on the map. It's still one of my favorite books, and I cannot recommend it highly enough. The chapter on his bread baker, "Adam Real Last Name Unknown," is one of the funniest things I've ever had the pleasure to read.
It was only a staple in your mind. Those views you remember were very much reactions against what already existed, and where things were headed. Things never changed direction, and here we are.
It's nobody on here is talking about Rheinhardt's #2 point: The US is not spending enough on regulation. He specifically points out that regulators are underfunded and understaffed. In the US, this is often an active strategy by conservative politicians to undermine regulations, and portray the story that the regulations are bad, when in fact, the regulatory agencies are being intentionally preventing doing their jobs efficiently.
Peter Reinhardt is specifically talking about pumping massive amounts of a synthetic liquid into the ground.
The history of the 20th century is full of people insisting that some industrial product is perfectly safe to dump into the environment in massive amounts, and then it turns out years later that it's not safe at all. I can't imagine the process for injecting some new synthetic into the ground taking less than four years in any situation. It's going to take more time than that just to do basic studies.
The specific kinds of regulations he's arguing about have been written in blood and tumors, and they exist for good reasons.
> They need to be actually hit by the load to care. (BTW I can confirm,
> although quite violent, pigeons seemingly don't readily learn from
> this experience... They are really fucking stupid.)
That doesn't sound stupid to me. Rather it sounds like they're willing
to put with a lot of annoyance in order to get food.
It's not about the food. It's about a place to rest their fat bodies. Lacking the agility of every other bird, they prefer strictly horizontal branches of a certain diameter. There is plenty of other trees around. They could just realize the particular ones in front of my window mean getting shot with stuff. Honestly, they could alternatively just contain themselves and not literally shit my plants kaputt. We could coexist.
Do you commonly see other birds disfigured because they kept ignoring deterrents? No?! That's because pigeons are fucking stupid.
The war on drugs was specifically designed to allow the government to go after the left and black people. Nixon's domestic policy chief said this in 1994:
* https://eji.org/news/nixon-war-on-drugs-designed-to-criminal...
reply