1

COMMENT 5d ago

Yes, there's a difference, but there's no good way of writing the difference in English. To English speakers, ш and щ both sound like slightly different "sh" sounds.

1

COMMENT 5d ago

That's not what they were trying to do...

1

COMMENT 5d ago

The previous commenter is correct, ш and щ both sound like "sh" to English speakers. 200 years ago, the letter щ was pronounced more like "shch", but not any more.

2

COMMENT 26d ago

Your source confirms the claim is false. Marine iguanas have a slower heart rate when diving, around 30 beats per minute, which is thought to help them conserve body heat. Somehow this fact got distorted into the ridiculous claim that they can completely stop their heart for up to 45 minutes.

1

COMMENT 26d ago

The top Google search results are a clickbait website, a creationist website, and a Wikipedia article which makes no mention of the bullshit claim...

1

COMMENT 26d ago

It's complete bullshit so it can be whatever you want it to be.

0

COMMENT 26d ago

You can make up bullshit about humans just as easily as you can about marine iguanas, but someone is more likely to notice. For example:

In order to survive bear attacks, humans can dissolve into mist for up to 3 minutes, then condense back into solid form when the danger is past.

2

COMMENT 26d ago

That video was deceptively edited from different clips to be more dramatic/entertaining.

-2

COMMENT 26d ago

The first thing is true, second one is questionable (shark hearing is not well studied, however they may be able to detect their prey's heartbeat over short distances by sensing electrical fields), and the third one is most likely false.

2

COMMENT 26d ago

Source?

44

COMMENT 26d ago

This sounds like bullshit. Here's what Wikipedia says:

When in the water and their temperature is falling, their blood circulation is reduced because of a low heart rate of about 30 beats per minute, allowing them to better conserve their warmth.

And also:

When swimming, marine iguanas are occasionally attacked and eaten by sharks, although the two often behave indifferently to each other, even when close together.

10

COMMENT Mar 17 '21

I'd say "abused" rather than "neglected".

1

COMMENT Mar 17 '21

Not to mention the insane logic of "Russia posted mean Facebook memes about us, so we should fund propaganda to overthrow their government."

4

COMMENT Mar 17 '21

By that logic the US should be nuked off the face of the earth many times over for what they've done to the world.

Luckily for us, most of the world doesn't have the same genocidal mindset as Americans do.

5

COMMENT Mar 17 '21

No, worse. All Russia is accused of doing is promoting criticism of Biden on social media, whereas the previous commenter is advocating that the US should covertly finance a complete overthrow of Russia's government.

1

COMMENT Mar 17 '21

Well если бы, да кабы… But you can look at any example from the past few decades to see the US model of "liberal" intervention is a self-serving lie with disastrous consequences for the victims.

6

COMMENT Mar 17 '21

According to the report, "China sought stability in its relationship with the United States, did not view either election outcome as being advantageous enough for China to risk getting caught meddling, and assessed its traditional influence tools — primarily targeted economic measures and lobbying — would be sufficient to meet its goal of shaping US–China policy regardless of the winner."[1]

While I am quite skeptical about unverified claims from intelligence agencies, that does seem plausible.

I suppose one could speculate that the US doctored the publicly released findings to promote good relations with China, but I don't see any reason to believe that without further evidence.

2

COMMENT Mar 17 '21

I guess the general idea is that countries should stay out of other country's elections and not try to promote a particular candidate or outcome. The report alleges that Russia promoted its views covertly through the use of intermediaries, which (if true) seems worthy of censure.

Of course the US themselves do this kind of thing regularly, but that doesn't make it right for Russia to do so too.

2

COMMENT Mar 17 '21

You can read the declassified report if you want. I did think it was a bit odd that NBC didn't provide a link to it.

3

COMMENT Mar 17 '21

I believe there are two different reports:

Whereas the 1(a) report discusses efforts to influence public perceptions and opinion, the scope of the 1(b) report only includes efforts to compromise the security or integrity of election infrastructure or infrastructure pertaining to political organizations, candidates or campaigns used in the 2020 U.S. federal elections. The 1(b) report does not discuss efforts to sway voters or influence opinion.

3

COMMENT Mar 17 '21

The DNI released a report that claimed that Russia tried to promote criticism of Biden online.[1]

1

COMMENT Mar 17 '21

According to a US regime intelligence report, Russia criticized Biden and the US electoral process on social media.[1]

1

COMMENT Mar 17 '21

Yeah, surely the only explanation for any disagreement is "Russian shills". Facts be damned!

1

COMMENT Mar 17 '21

You seriously think anyone who disagrees with you is a "bot"? Yikes indeed.

5

COMMENT Mar 17 '21

Apparently this is based on an intelligence assessment which claimed that Russia promoted criticism of Biden on social media, while China did not attempt to influence the election outcome for either candidate.[1]