Apologies, I was looking at European Union. I see Norway is not imposing tariffs and there may be variance in other non EU countries as well. Thank you for pointing out the issue.
Detroit will be laughing when a "worldwide economy hiccup" occurs and BYD starts abandoning any service-warrantee centers all across Europe. No parts, no service, send it to the scrap yard.
There are also fleet emmission fines for ICEs so it's not so bad (and very expensive fuel too). Otoh you need buy-in from the population, so making domestic EVs more attractive than foreign ones is one of the better ways to do that.
"She remained with it for several hours and possibly even days."
Interesting article, but that comment veers into speculation. Speculation diminishes the value of a scientific article.
Fair, but does that mean that the entire article is speculative? They were not around long enough to confirm whether or not it happened for days, but the fact that the mother stayed for at least some hours appears to be confirmed (although as another reply said, the motivation for staying could be different than ours).
You will likely find a lot of these hedging comments in scientific articles, as it’s hard to know and prove something with 100% certainty and it’s an important task for researchers to also indicate the limits of what they’ve discovered. I think ;)
> They were not around long enough to confirm whether or not it happened for days
And that is perfectly fair. But what is the “possibly days” based on? Did they see the two whales acting weirdly a day later, but then they didn’t see them four days later? Or is it just based on the hunch of the person who made the observation? Or is it the hunch of the researcher? And if it is a hunch is it based on knowledge of similar reported events in the past? Is it based on the observed state of the adult whale or maybe the state of the carcas?
Why possibly days and not possibly weeks?
> but the fact that the mother stayed for at least some hours appears to be confirmed
Is it confirmed? So that’s the problem. The hours are comming from the same sentence which describes the days. Both by a person who did not whitness the event personally. Your reading is that the second part of the sentence (the days) is speculation, while the first is reporting on observed fact. My reading is that the journalist did a bad job separating the first hand observed facts from the second hand speculation. We just simply won’t know until someone asks the Captain what exactly they have seen and writes it down.
> it’s hard to know and prove something with 100% certainty
But it is not hard to describe what was observed, and clearly separate it from what they think or speculate. Also it is not hard to ask the person who actually did the observing to describe what they have seen, instead of it being described by someone else who was not present.
You are correct. The underlying scientific article is clear on the timeline of observations. My problem is with the editing done by the phys.org article.
The article calls the data an "observation", made by the captain of a Rescue Boat from Sea World Foundation. From a peek at https://seaworldfoundation.com.au/rescue it seems clear that their job is rescue, not research.
Keeping even a small boat at sea is not cheap - the default for pretty much every observation at sea, ever, is that the witnesses did not stick around to see anything beyond what they reported.
I disagree. Fundamentaly the article is about an observation someone made of an animal’s behaviour. It is very important to be clear about what they seen, who seen it, and when. This article is not clear about that.
What we know from the article that Rescue boat Capt. Andrew Mulville whitnessed the two whales behaving unusually. They also took a video of the behaviour. We don’t know how long they whitnessed it, or if there were multiple separate observations or just the one.
And then we have Dr. Olaf Meynecke who was not personaly present and says that “She remained close to the calf, maintaining eye contact and positioning herself next to her calf over several hours and maybe even days.” It is valid to ask what is that based on? Is Dr Meynecke narrating what Capt Mulville seen? Is he saying that based on his knowledge of other times when behaviour like this was observed? Is it just speculation? There is nothing wrong with speculation but it is better be cleanly separated from the description of what was seen.
The reason why this is frustrating is because something interesting (and likely supremely tragic) happened to these whales. But we are hearing about it in a distorted fashion. It is a game of telephone, where the captain seen it, told about it to the researcher, who told the journalist who is telling it to us. It is fundamentally important to keep it clear which parts are comming from the captain’s first hand account and which parts are speculation or elaboration by the researcher.
A skull might be a warning sign to some people, but it is in no way a universal warning for all people.
One example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calavera
Well it was fun as a child to speculate. Definitely don’t think there are ruins from ancient Egyptians on Mars now LOL. But the possibility of signs of microbial life is fascinating from an evolutionary biology perspective.
You don’t understand fondly reminiscing about when the world seemed more magical? It has nothing to do with the truth of it, it has everything to do with how it felt.
This reminds me of when I coach a kid in chess and the first thing I ask them is what they want to achieve. A fairly common response is to not lose. At first that doesn't sound unreasonable, yet the goal there doesn't require any coaching at all - simply only play terrible players!
So too with knowledge. The path to never believing anything false would be to simply minimize the amount you learn, and certainly to avoid learning anything developed within the past century or so. It's not a great perspective for self betterment. Learning from one's mistakes is the path to improvement in most of every domain. Mistakes and falsehoods are nothing to regret. If anything, they're something to rejoice over. It's only the fool that believes all he thinks must be true.
Hmm. I tend to have the opposite. With science usually the process of overwriting a credence means increasing understanding and getting a deeper perspective. No one is born knowing anything, and as we advance it’s inevitable to learn certain prior beliefs were wrong. Might as well make it a fun thing.
Of course the Japanese government hasn't been sitting idle for 16 years.
https://www.demographic-research.org/articles/volume/26/11
"In Japan 234,354 people registered before 1910 remained on the family registers in 2010, without being crossed out. They would have been 100 years old at least and represent 0.5% of the births recorded between 1872 and 1910. The impact of this group on life expectancy statistics, however, is effectively nil. "
I suspect that there are several levels of severity in an emergency and that when appropriate the responders forego removal of shoes. It's a low depth article, they didn't go into details.
Interesting data, but it seems overly complex and could easily be simplified by having less clothes. Example I have so few shirts that I wear each one on a weekly basis. Because of the frequency I quickly figure out when a brand is not of quality and switch when necessary.
It also makes determining cost per wear much easier. If a shirt makes it through the year then the cost per wear is price/52.
"BYD has sold 19,241 fully electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles in Europe last month, a 255% soar from the same period a year ago."
Small numbers, but I am pretty sure they're in Europe. https://eletric-vehicles.com/byd/byd-sales-in-europe-more-th...
Edited: Tariffs vary across Europe, particularly in non EU nations.
reply