wanderer

Despite anti-miscegenation laws being banned as a result of Loving v Virginia in 1967, support for interracial marriages only passed 50% in the mid 90’s.

We’ve known that birds were descended from dinosaurs for a long time. Best I can tell, it was first proposed in the 1800’s, largely abandoned by the early 1900’s and then revived in the 1970’s. It was not new information about the lineage of birds that caused us to start saying ‘birds are dinosaurs’, but a different method of classification: Cladistics.

It is from the link you provided, it was written by a supreme court justice.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf Page 29

Looking beyond the fate of this particular prosecution, the long-term consequences of today’s decision are stark. The Court effectively creates a law-free zone around the President, upsetting the status quo that has existed since the Founding. This new official-acts immunity now “lies about like a loaded weapon” for any President that wishes to place his own interests, his own political survival, or his own financial gain, above the interests of the Nation. Korematsu v. United States, 323 U. S. 214, 246 (1944) (Jackson, J., dissenting). The President of the United States is the most powerful person in the country, and possibly the world. When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune.

Taken directly from the supreme court ruling.

We had known that birds are descended from dinosaurs well before the general public and the majority of paleontologists starting saying “birds are dinosaurs”. So simply saying that “we discovered that birds are descended from dinosaurs” is not sufficient to answering your question.

Traditional taxonomy allows for paraphyletic groups, meaning that not all of the descendants of the most recent common ancestor of the group are required to be in that group. So in this case, even though it was known that birds are descended from dinosaurs, they continued to be considered two separate groups, with dinosaurs being a paraphyletic group. Birds were known first, dinosaurs were later discovered and were considered a distinct group, then the link between the the two groups was discovered, but how they were grouped did not immediately change. That birds were not considered to be dinosaurs was a rather arbitrary effect based on how they were discovered and not on any scientific basis.

One book on dinosaurs from 1997 wrote:

In a phylogenetic sense, dinosaurs are not extinct, for birds are theropodan descendants (but see Feduccia 1996 for a dissenting view). For the purposes of this review, however, the term dinosaur connotes what cladists might term “non-avian dinosauromorph.” We thus (unrepentantly) use a paraphyletic rather than monophyletic (holophyletic) “Dinosauria.” Whatever the scientific merits of the latter, the former is widely understood, and avoids such circumlocutions as “non-avian dinosaur.”

A later edition of that same book from 2012 not only uses “non-avian dinosaur” extensively, it also has an entire section on birds.

So why the change? There is a trend in science to prefer cladistic classification, which requires every group to be a clade, meaning that all descendants of the most recent common ancestor of a group are in the group. This effectively means that paraphyletic grouping is being abandoned. So with cladistic taxonomy birds are dinosaurs.

There are other traditionally paraphyletic groups that are still in the process of changing. For example traditionally monkeys were a paraphyletic group, but any clade that includes all monkeys necessarily includes the apes, so in cladistics apes are monkeys. Though, you will still hear many people say ‘apes are not monkeys’. Fish was also a paraphyletic group, which included all vertebrates except tetrapods, but of course in cladistics, tetrapods are fish.

That’s not the ingredient list, the list is to the left, and that’s not a version number, it’s a reference to a food category system.

12.6.1 Emulsified sauces and dips
Sauces, gravies, dressings based and dips, at least in part, on a fat- or oil-in water emulsion such as salad dressing (e.g. French, Italian, Greek, ranch style), fat-based sandwich spreads (e.g. mayonnaise with mustard), salad cream, and fatty sauces and snack dips (e.g. bacon and cheddar dip, onion dip).

If you are referring to the gemini ai model that identified a deadly mushroom as a button mushroom, then that is also google.

Onan’s crime was greed not lust. He did not want to provide for Tamar or her potential children.

Yes, from a superficial viewpoint they are similar. And from a superficial viewpoint shooting a practice target is similar to shooting a person dead. It would be rather stupid to refer to target practice as murder.

It’s onanism in English. And it’s rather stupid to call it that because Onan didn’t masturbate, he used the pull out method to avoid getting his sister-in-law pregnant with his brother’s kid. (yes, I know that sounds weird but that’s the story)

Monkeys and apes

That’s redundant. Apes are monkeys. There has been a shift in how life is classified, and for the same reason that birds are now considered to be dinosaurs, apes are now considered to be monkeys.

Monkey is a common name that may refer to most mammals of the infraorder Simiiformes, also known as the simians. Traditionally, all animals in the group now known as simians are counted as monkeys except the apes. Thus monkeys, in that sense, constitute an incomplete paraphyletic grouping; however, in the broader sense based on cladistics, apes (Hominoidea) are also included, making the terms monkeys and simians synonyms in regard to their scope.

Your link includes part of Russia.