I remember being kinda excited for the tv-series, since Peter Lustig would dub the inventor in the German version (I am sure that was part of the advertisements). Peter was already famous for his roles in educational science programs for children, so having those shows in animated form with cute mammoths couldn't possibly fail.

I think I only ever watched the episode on water pressure. Usual problem of it only being on Tv while I was at school.

...well would you look at that, not only did I watch at least 2 episodes, but I also learn that the episodes about gravity and blimps is called "the far side".

How can they even get the source wrong so many times? In the pictures and Articles it says "Photo: Youtube/Maxime Darache" but the Channel is "Maxime Derache"

Isn't that exactly what he says? Promote bike usage and people will buy E-bikes when they need it?

I know that, what made you think I forgot?

It's just not fun to me, yet online people describe Mario 3 as "the best 2d Mario" and "one I could always come back to". This has nothing to do with the NES' limitations, it's a difference in taste.

When a drivers license is taken or suspended, especially for speeding in cities, give an easy option to directly... lease(?)^1^ an e-bike. And then suspend licenses for a lot more of the dangerous behaviors we currently just accept.

A relative got her license suspended for a month for speeding, and then simply did not go anywhere. Having an exciting new mode of transport might have just been what she needed, the supermarket is just 2km away.

1: The state can hammer out the details, obviously we don't want to gift them it or it becomes a reward for speeding, and selling them it means they could just resell it afterwards when the goal is that they keep and use it. Maybe like a 5 year ban on reselling it, only one per household. Also, probably keep the model generic and discreet so no shame is cast when just trying to buy groceries.

My first Mario Game was Super Mario World, as such I don't understand why Mario 1 and 3 are so beloved. Groundbreaking they might be, fun they are not.

Any time I got the Mario All Stars Cartridge out and said to myself "I am completing Mario 3 today", after a while my mind went "or I could actually enjoy a round of Mario World" and did that instead.

To be fair, I don't know exactly what is meant.

But my mind went to meat consumption, which is higher in the developed world, is considered indicative of a high standard of living, and, in my opinion, is best addressed not by lab-grown meat (or other technological solutions), but by reduced consumption (the reduced living standard).

I never said that. What I meant is that a behaviour, which benefits a species as a whole but reduces one individual's fitness, is not evolutionary competitive. It's evolutionary game theory, like the prisoners dilemma from normal game theory.

And to determine if some behaviour is such a dilemma, you have to consider costs and benefits of it, which is not at all clear in natural situations. That's why I said it needs to be studied.

But I must concede, I sort of assumed what exactly you called an evolutionary advantage. Common homosexuality in penguins or not discriminating against homosexual individuals in penguins have very different analysis here.

I'd be cautious with saying evolutionary advantage here.

I don't believe the "Gay Uncle hypothesis" any more than the somewhat debunked "Grandmother Hypothesis", which aimed to explain menopause with biological altruism. Just because we could think of a way in that it might be advantageous for a species doesn't mean it's advantageous for an individuals fitness.

Of course, it can be still an advantage, but we'd only know with more free, uncensored research.

Yes.

We humans are very well adapted to tell humans apart, penguins are very well adapted to tell penguins apart. They have gender specific mating calls for example.

Contrary to popular belief, Emperor Penguins do not mate for life. They are serially monogamous, only having 1 mate per year, but between years fidelity is at around 15%.

I think this means that they only choose last years partner 15% of the time. Still higher than random chance, but in no way dependant on their partner.

Was looking up something else on Wikipedia and stumbled onto this fact. I know this is not exactly related to the point you wanted to make, but I might as well share it.