But why that metric? What makes that metric a good metric to use? Was that metric genuinely the best, or was it the best to get the answer they wanted to satisfy whoever was funding the study?
we're not voting for president of the mammals.
No, but in general it's worth questioning any stats and figures because people we vote for use them to make policy decisions
Which I think is intentionally disingenuous as it massively favours the large mammals over the far higher number of species of smaller mammals.
For example you'd need over 70 squeal monkeys to make to the biomass of an average American.
Humans and other great apes can be considered mega fauna, so it doesn't seem surprising that us and the animals we consume make up a higher percentage of bio mass. Were bigger.
Thats largely because they've shouted about (and let everyone shout about) the shit stupid things they've done, ans kept quiet about anything decent.
massively improving workers rights
restoring and improving the last labour government's sure start scheme
fixed the doctors strikes and already got NHS waiting lists down
are a few big things that will massively help people. Instead of talking about these they're letting the narrative be that they're basically doing austerity again.
In the cockpit voice recording, one of the pilots is heard asking the other why did he cutoff. The other pilot responded that he did not do so."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cx20p2x9093t
Until there's independent evidence otherwise I'm going to assume either fudged maintenance reports or the switch designer at boeing is about to commit suicide by shooting themself in the back of the head hours before talking to the press.
I see two explanations. One, perhaps by "reading", they're referring to reading of a lengua franca like Federation standard - Nog has learned and is capable of reading the Ferengi language, but not another. When dealing with other languages, the general
expectation is either a universal translator is used or they pick it up as they go.
I feel like this is a potential argument alongside the increased neuroplastisity. Jake and Keiko would not have been able to help him learn to read Ferengi as I very much doubt they could read it themselves.
Still Starfleet seems to have educational
requirements. In LD:"Something Borrowed,
Something Green", Tendi mentions how she wouldn't have gotten into the Academy without having gone to high school, suggesting Nog needs the equivalent of a high school education to train to be a Starfleet officer.
Clearly The Sisko was better at persuading Starfleet / The UFP itself how politically advantageous it would be to have an officer from a world thar, not that long ago, had been expected to be the next major enemy.
Thinking on this, Nog's family had connnections to the Nagus (I'm not sure if it's revealed before or after his joining - but even if it's after the Federation has spies ) so his rise though the ranks could be as much about politics as it is about his raw talent
But why that metric? What makes that metric a good metric to use? Was that metric genuinely the best, or was it the best to get the answer they wanted to satisfy whoever was funding the study?
No, but in general it's worth questioning any stats and figures because people we vote for use them to make policy decisions