A. S.
387 posts


Maybe the Russian high command is exhibiting the same disregard for the lives of common soldiers they’ve shown since the dawn of time.
Or maybe… the Ukrainians are doing “The Most Dangerous Game” with POWs

Melian Refugee@escapefrommelos
two things that “radicalized” me about this useless stupid war: 1) these videos are often posted with masturbatory glee 2) the victims are always uniformed but very often unarmed and without helmets… almost like they’re PoWs who have been released and hunted on video for sport
English

@webdevMason Is California correct or not? I think yes, because (1) cougars formerly had a massive range, (2) fragmentation of populations is how extinction “creeps up” to non-migratory species that are sparsely spread out.
English

@webdevMason Santa Monica population is in a way irrelevant. It is not protected as a unit *because* it is a unit. It is protected because it is of a larger whole (genetic pool) which California deems to be more important than federal authority does. We can argue about that separately.
English

The extremely California reason for this is that the cougars in Malibu are too inbred, and though cougars are not remotely endangered or rare the state decided to divide them into subpopulations and then panic about the imminent extinction of the inbred Malibu ones specifically


New York Post@nypost
California's priciest bridge is in SoCal and costs $114M - but it's not for cars trib.al/CO69Lsq
English

@webdevMason Actually yes considering that cougar range formerly covered almost entire continental US.
English

@webdevMason If a species is listed under CESA in California then it is by definition not a Least Concern species in California, which makes the premise of your question invalid. See, i can play language games too!
English

@webdevMason Literally the animals currently living in Santa Monica mountains. A population. Not a subspecies. Not a species. Do you know what a population is in genetic terms?
English

@webdevMason Do you understand the genetic rationale a conservationist might have for preventing Santa Monica cougars from going extinct that is apart from the “omg a subspecies” rhetoric?
English

@webdevMason They want Monica mountain lions to share their genes with others. Genetically if that were to happen, it would *prevent* - not enable - Santa Monica cats from becoming a distinct subspecies.
English

@webdevMason No absolutely not. In fact the actual reason for protection (and also for the bridge) is preventing genetic isolation while maintaining diverse genetic pool.
English

@webdevMason In fact if you want to know the actual reason these population are protected (biological/generic rationale) — i can tell you — just ask.
English

@webdevMason That is irrelevant. The distinct populations specified by CESA are protected *not* (and i emphasize *not* again) due to a makeshift invention of a subspecies as you repeatedly incorrectly claim.
English

@webdevMason You seem to assume that existence of California law implies that that law considers California mountain lions unique. It foes not.
English

@webdevMason Oh yes i do now. They are protected under it as a species — not as a unique Santa Monica subspecies that you imagine.
English

@webdevMason Okay let’s spell it out like one would do for 6th-grader. There is a policy rationale and then there is rhetoric/writing in an article (often by ill-educated writers). You are responding to the latter not to the former.
English

@olivertraldi I would say yes; however what makes the above ideas special is also that they gained fast social validation on social media, something that LLM cannot provide almost by definition. Of course, in a future internet there may be LLM user accounts so…
English






