Linnaean taxonomy classifies apes and monkeys as two closely related groups. This is the classification system most people are taught in grade school.

Cladistics is a style of classification that seeks to organize species and groups of species from when they branched off of other groups of species. In this style, everything is defined by novel features, but they are still members of the more ancient clade. Birds for instance, would be a novel clade emerging from Dinosaurs, and thus all birds are also dinosaurs, but not all dinosaurs are birds.

Because there are two groups of monkeys with unique characteristics (new world and old world), and apes have unique adaptations not found in either group, we have no way of cladistically defining a monkey in a way that meaningfully does not also include apes.

As a side note, this is where the phrase “there is no such thing as a fish” comes from. ‘Fish’ in the Linnaean sense are a huge and diverse category. Two random members of the fish class would likely be far, far more distantly related than a random mammal and a random reptile.

Probably until either the nurses stop panicking in my local area or the immunocompromised people in my life die of a preventable illness.

https://aquamodesta.com/

https://www.splashgearusa.com/

Are some options for people who don’t want clothing that is skintight and revealing.

I’ve very occasionally seen brands like this at box stores. But the vast majority of time if you want something that isn’t skin tight you have to get shorts designed for men and some sort of sports top with a shirt.

Yes. Baggy clothing isn’t optimal for swimming, and trunks will tend to stick awkwardly anyway, but a lot of guys would feel uncomfortable if speedoes were the only option. I know I would.

It’s a double standard plain and simple.

Maybe people are setting it up at home using a numberpad? In that case it would be just running a finger down the left side.

I don’t recall the books well enough to be sure, but knowing Pratchett, there is almost certainly a direct reference to that quote in there.

Of course, “always cheaper” in this case means less money up front, but much, much expensive more down the road than the initial cost.

Of course, the down the road cost isn’t usually that visibly connected to the “make it illegal” plan, so conservative governments love it.

It might be similar to a Motte and Bailey Fallacy. Though that one is more focused on distinct but related definitions than it is for distinct but related situations. Not the exact one that you are looking for, but the related concepts might be a path towards an answer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy

The first few books (and really most of them that feature Rincewind) are not the best examples of his work in my opinion. Honestly the series evolves from cheap parody to suprisingly deep commentaries on life and society. Most of the books are standalone, so you don’t need to read all of them to get the best bits.

Might I suggest ‘going postal’ or ‘making money’ as good examples of his later work that are particularly stand alone.

“Most consumers want fast food companies to label when sawdust has been added to food - but trust restaurants less when they do.”

https://shoptwistedprotein.com/cdn/shop/products/LockingPinBacks_1296x.jpg?v=1592546935

These style of pin backs need to be pulled in order to release the pin. I’ve used them on my daily bag and work coat for years without issue.

Being anti-car is more about being pro-infrastructure-that-does-not-rely-solely-on-everyone-needing-cars. It’s not even completely opposed to using cars/trucks for situations where nothing else will do.

My solution for this sort of arrangement would be to take the dogs and equipment for a walk down the street where a bus or light rail network would arrive every 2.5 minutes to take you to the train station. There, you play with or groom your dogs in a personal cabin on a bullet train that would take you to a similarily networked train station in the destination city.

Much of the required equipment would likely not be needed, since you could entertain your dogs on the trip rather than locking them away while you drive. If you still need a good deal of equipment, you could rent a car to get the station or hire a taxi cab.

Really unless you are making such trips daily, it wouldn’t make sense to need to own a car to transport a lot of stuff to the station in a nation with proper infrastructure. Just like you don’t buy a moving van because you plan to move at some point.

Out of curiosity, why do you take 10 dog crates for 4 dogs?

You don’t even need to go that far. Water used in concrete is locked in as a structural component. That’s why concrete is described as ‘setting’ instead of just ‘drying’.

https://ads.nipr.ac.jp/vishop/#/extent (Click ‘Antarctic’ under ‘region selector’ on the right).

https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/ (click ‘Antarctic’ towards the top left.)

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/dino_game/

“But, when I talk to people in general, most seem to not worry because they “have nothing to hide”, and most are only worried about their passwords, banking apps and not much else.”

Sounds like they have passwords and banking apps to hide, You should demand their bank account and credit card details to verify that they have made no illicit actions.

If they point out that they have no reason to trust you with that information, that’s when you point out that police, government, or corporate groups are made out of people just like yourself. They might have some codes of conduct, or a vetting process, but it just takes one person malicious or careless enough for you to be severely impacted.

The trouble with ‘Slippery Slope’ and ‘No True Scotsman’ is that they themselves are not fallacies. Invoking them without proper justification is the fallacy. The same sort of thing happens all the time with ‘Appeal to Authority’, you can probably trust a scientific consensus about a subject in which they are all experts, but you probably shouldn’t trust an individual expert on a topic for which they are not recognized as an expert.

For an example of Slippery Slope: Fascists will absolutely try to demonize the most available target, and then because they always need an out-group, they continue cutting at what they consider the ‘degenerates’ of society until they are all that remain. (And then they find some new definition of degenerate)

“No True Scotsman” is valid in that there is at some point by definition after which you are no longer talking about something. “No true vegetarian eats meat” is valid, as this is definitional. “No true member of Vegetarians United eats meat” lacks proper justification, and refers to an organization, not a proper definition. This gets really messy when people conflate what group people are in with what they ‘are’ or what makes them a good example of a group. Especially when religion is involved.

Platypuses will fluoresce under UV light. the animation is playing with the idea that a platypus might not know that and assume that the glow is from another common UV florescent substance.

https://www.livescience.com/platypuses-glow-uv-light.html