Celebratory Round-up
Thanks Ant, Neutronbeam, and Max.Story
Science
- ‘Phenomenal’ tool sequences DNA and tracks proteins — without cracking cells open - Nature.
- Colossal snake measuring over 50 feet long found in India - The Brighter Side of News.
- 'Islands' of regularity discovered in the famously chaotic three-body problem - Phys.org.
- Can a Supplement Really Help Control Your Pesky Eye Floaters? - ScienceAlert.
Media
- VFX Artists React to Bad & Great CGi 153. Thanks The Flying Penguin.
Follow-up
- Tea And Coffee May Affect Your Heart Health, New Study Says - HuffPost UK Life.
- SpaceX catches returning rocket in mid-air, turning a fanciful idea into reality - Ars Technica.
The Funnies
MrCharm42 wrote on Oct 15, 2024, 07:06:Sepharo wrote on Oct 14, 2024, 21:40:
The history is already there, you can't reset history.
Would you argue for the unilateral dissolving of the sovereign tribes?
I don't see any logical connection between what I wrote and your question. The Native American tribes that I am familiar with could easily be defined as a freely associating group of people with certain property rights (since AFAIK, most don't require a genetic component or a fixed, documented family tree to be accepted into the tribe).
I do not support forced dissolution of freely associating groups, and the Constitution explicitly bars that anyway.
All tribe membership does is provide a certain political status within legal frameworks; it does not make someone morally superior to anyone else. If you want to argue that the US Govt should live up to specific treaties they signed, that's a legal argument. You seem to be mixing in a moral argument with a legal one, and don't seem to be able to separate them.