I'm not Irish and I'm a lazy reader at this time so I won't search who's right, but the comment you are answering to was way more convincing than yours.
They're correct on both. The Irish government is running a budget surplus due to massive increases in the corporation tax intake over the last several years. The issue with delivery of housing and projects in this country isn't due to a lack of money, but a lack of capacity. The economy is already running at full capacity and there aren't enough workers available. Throwing more cash at things wouldn't have a material increase in output for several years until supply could ramp up.
I'm Irish and the later is more correct. There isn't going to be a major political crisis over this. Irish corporate taxation is to the Irish electorate what the flag is to Americans. It's quasi religious.
The government isn't really blaming lack of money on the housing crisis more they are claiming it takes time.
The paper addresses this briefly, and suggests additional mechanisms to do with UV effects on different skin layers (e.g. NO mediated vasodilatation) may be involved.
> Seizing the plant and rigging it to explode as a quid pro quo demand for Russia to leave the Zaporizhia NPP
I honestly don't see that happening. There's a diplomatic game being played around Russia's nuclear threats, I don't see Ukraine being so dumb as to undermine that.
It's quite a bit more than that. I've seen reports of 40-50 surrendering in just one location alone - smaller numbers in multiple reports from other locations.
I find that tricky to believe. This is a fast operation that is probably quite a bit smaller than the Russians are claiming (they claim 1000 guys). I don’t think Ukraine is going to have the manpower to collect a significant number of prisoners even if they are surrendering.
The numbers I’m seeing now are about 300 prisoners, which seems believable now that Ukraine seems to be doing a ridiculous number of soldiers into Russia
Somebody (I don't remember who) suggested that Australian Boabab trees were potential evidence of the direct population of Australia from Africa by a pre-Aboriginal people, based on the idea that the fruit of the Boabab tree would be an excellent food source for a long cross-ocean crossing, as well as supposed "African" characteristics in the Kimberley petrographs found in the same area as the trees. The theory is fringe-science at best (and I believe slightly offensive to Aboriginals) but I've been curious about the origin of the trees since coming across the theory. I skimmed through the paper but didn't see any estimate for a date for the genetic diversion of the Australian Boababs.
The Kimberly rock drawings are some of the oldest in Australia, and an intrinsic part of Aboriginal culture in the region which they are found. Assigning their origin to a non-aboriginal source was considered disrespectful by some.
It's generally the case that indigenous peoples have their own origin stories, which tend to not easily align with scientific explanations. Which is tricky because they have often experienced colonial exploitation and rejection of their cultures, and the science can come off as more of the same (even if it's true).
>It's generally the case that indigenous peoples have their own origin stories, which tend to not easily align with scientific explanations.
This, indigenous people everywhere always claim to be the first peoples and that they originated in whatever area they are indigenous to, even if it's obviously not true. It causes a lot of problems for science because they want to claim ownership of bones or artifacts from cultures that predate their own and prevent those items from being studied.
Fun fact: The Navajo speak of the Anasazi ("ancient enemies"/"ancient ones") as the tribe that used to occupy the land they later lived on, and explicitly consider them to be "those who are different from our people", not their own tribe.
That's awesome. Here a group of nomadic plains Indians shut down research into ancient mounds built by totally different prehistoric people. I get that some of these issues need to have some sensitivity around them, and research in the past wasn't always done with the appropriate level of reverence, but the pendulum has swung the other way now where we give too much credence towards avoiding hurt feelings that have no basis in reality.
Wouldn't you want informed consent if a scientist wanted to dig up your relatives' graves for research? It's just a scientific ethics question, combined with sovereignty issues. You want to do research on someone else's land in a different jurisdiction, it makes sense to know their laws and ask them for permission first.
Without safeguards like that you end up with HeLa and such.
Sure if it was my actual relatives, I'm not worried about people I'm definitely not descended from that lives several thousands of years ago though. The pendulum has swung too far in favor of people claiming ownership to graves that have no relationship to them.
I'd highly recommend the book "The Old Ways: A Journey on Foot" by Robert Macfarlane in which the writer describes walking the Ridgeway and other walks in the UK and other places. His description of walking the Broomway (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Broomway) is particularly enthralling.
> But I do believe they got the syntax wrong - should have been "from fs import { readFile }" so that auto-complete works.
Personally, I prefer the "import x from y" format because it makes it easier to visually scan where an import is coming from; fair point about auto-complete though.
You can say that about absolutely any belief, whether religious or not