Is it a drupe? Yes.

Is it a prepared food? Yes.

(It was not and it was not.)

Dammit. Of course. Edited

I mean. A 9.0 quake is 100 million times stronger in amplitude than a 1.0 tremor. 10.0 is 1 billion times stronger

So, if you wanted a linear scale to cover the same range of amplitude as the log. scale, you'd either need it to go from 0 to 1,000,000,000 ...

... or, if you really wanted it to be a linear scale going to 100, you'd have to be OK with this Turkish quake registering a 0.6 on your scale.

A 7.8 quake is about 2x the size of a 7.5 quake. Not an order of magnitude difference, but twice as strong in amplitude and closer to 3x as strong in terms of energy release.

https://earthquake.usgs.gov/education/calculator.php

Since magnitude is a logarithmic scale, showing it on a linear scale is rather misleading.

The 7.8 and 7.5 quakes were ~10x as intense in amplitude as the next highest and ~1000x as intense as all the 4s.

(If we’re talking size in energy released, the difference between 7.5 and 6.5 is 32x — meaning the 7.8 and 7.5 quakes were more energetic than all the others combined.)

Looks like 10 miles west of Boston.

When? Other than cold — which yes, that was a dumb oversight — not according to your official records.

(I’m Canadian by the way)

Find a time Winnipeg has ever had a storm this bad let alone every winter.

Up to 40-50” of snow with hurricane force winds for 36 hours has never happened in Winnipeg, and the worst Winnipeg has had absolutely shut down the city just like Buffalo.

Take 1966: The City of Winnipeg said the blizzard lasted 20 hours, dropping 35.6 cm of snow on top of the city. Winds gusted up to 113 km/h. At the Winnipeg airport there was zero visibility for 14 consecutive hours.

Buffalo’s storm was waaaaaay worse in every measurable way.

Canadian here. I’d hazard to guess that no major Canadian city has ever been hit with anything close to a comparable blizzard to what Buffalo just went through.

More snow? Maybe somewhere in the Rockies. Buffalo airport is at 50” through today, which is way more than double the single storm records in Montreal, Halifax, Winnipeg, Edmonton, Regina and Toronto. St. John’s is the only major city I can find with a comparable record.

Colder? Yes.

But full blizzard conditions with Cat. 1 winds for 36+ hours?

I genuinely doubt that’s ever happened in any major Canadian city, and when big historic blizzards have hit, they also killed a bunch of Canadians, too.

Really, the lake effect conditions that caused this storm basically do not exist anywhere there’s a Canadian city over 100,000.

The only thing comparable might be a big winter nor’easter on the Atlantic coast.

For anyone confused: Same name, different river.

Etymology is probably not the same however, as the Ontario Mississippi is a relatively small tributary of the Ottawa River, so the meaning is likely not the same “great water” as the other Mississippi.

Is there not a genetic effect re selection and survivor bias?

It wouldn’t necessary apply to any given individual, but a population that experiences one or many large malnourishment event(s) — periodic famines or, say, the holocaust — will end up seeing smaller body types survive at higher rates simply because bigger bodies are harder to feed.

So if you are the descendant of a famine survivor whose body was wrecked by the experience, their personal experience may not directly effect their kids’ genetics regarding body size, but it may nevertheless be true that those kids might be more likely to have their genetics tend that way, regardless.

Obviously wouldn’t apply if we’re talking one-off malnourishment events like individual poverty, but then many people in the west who might have parents with these personal histories or malnutrition are from immigrant populations that may have those selection pressures.

ie: if your parents were malnourished, it’s logically more likely they come from a population where malnourishment is common and small size is genetically selected for — meaning you may be more likely to have small-size genes regardless of whether your parents had been malnourished.

The idea that this is a legal NASCAR strategy is the most NASCAR thing that ever NASCARed.

Edit: I mean this as a good thing

Huh.

>>Not long ago the consensus was that autumn leaf colors were the result of the unmasking of the carotenoid or anthocyanin pigments, and could have no function. We now know that the anthocyanins are not un-masked, but are made.

According to this, these pigments are not there year-round at all.

Is there a mechanism by which the pigments only express themselves after a certain time?

I ask because you see maples and other plants that go a vibrant flower red first go through a yellow phase. (You can see this when maples have a colour gradient from green through yellow to red in the canopy in early fall).

I don’t really understand how a leaf that always has a vibrant red pigment inside wouldn’t go straight to red from green.

(Pondering it: Something like a pigment that’s sensitive to Ph might make sense, if removing the chlorophyll changes the Ph balance in a gradual way.)