I dispute "always cute." I knew a guy who had a cat that looked disturbingly similar to Mao Zedong. Like if Mao Zedong was a cat, he would look like that cat. I don't know how else to put it. But it sort of took away the cute factor and replaced it with a major creepiness one.
What a great, well-developed sense of humor! Everyone loves talking with you! You must have no trouble dating, or making friends who actually contribute to society!
This is misleading: Habitat destruction and lawns are a much greater threat to birds. If you do not like cats and want them gone that's fine. Don't use false/misleading information to further your point.
Our findings suggest that free-ranging cats cause substantially greater wildlife mortality than previously thought and are likely the single greatest source of anthropogenic mortality for US birds and mammals.
I am not arguing that, I am saying that populations would still be much high if more and more suitable habitat existed. The issue being that you cannot count lack of animals due to habitat via mortality.
Ah, that is a tragic post history. And not surprising to the tone of your post here. another asshat troll to block. Thank you for making yourself known.
While they physically kill the most birds by volume, the biggest decrease to bird populations is the ecological destruction of the environment. The pesticides we use actually make their egg shells non viable, but for some reason none of the studies count this figure in the "birds killed" category. It would double cats.
On top of that, we have deforestation wrecking their mating areas. People like to measure forestation in ground covered squared, while ignoring that the vast majority of migratory species only mate in specific areas.
Circling back to pesticides, the food supply has been wrecked. The food that is left avaliable is often filled with chemicals still that cause diseases, make their already fragile bones even weaker, cause feather malformation, blindness, organ failure, and cause outright sterilization.
But for some reason that's not listed in the "birds killed" figure.
Cats might kill a bunch of birds, but with a figure that's as broad as 1 to 4 billion, you need to question the validity of the argument and wonder why they leave so many other factors out of these figures.
It's the same kind of thing where they shame us for individual level consumption of pollutants and plastics, while corporations greatly outweigh consumers pollution. Both are a problem, yes cats do kill a shit load of birds, but this reddit level factoid keeps getting spread around and the reap threats aren't being educated on. You can't really say they're the "number one thing killing birds" unless you're using the figures that outright ignore other important information
OK? Either way they kill a shitload of birds unnecessarily. I don't spray pesticides, I buy local produce. I can control my cats, so I do that too. Side benefit is that they'll probably live longer since they won't encounter the same diseases and dangers as they would outside.
The dangers outside again being man-made shit like wanktanks and stroads. Sounds like a ver American problem too. I'm fine with my cats outside in Germany. I just program the cat flap to not let them out in the morning and at night. All they catch that way are mice. Plus they don't get killed by cars as I live in a liveable neighborhood.
Now, if brightness is amplitude of light ... But is it? Is it like sound that we perceive logarithmically? And if it's burning wax at 4x the rate, will it be yet brighter because more of the gases ignite? Why is it burning faster? Has it four wicks? Thicker wick? Different geometry? Or does it imply a better oxygen source? If oxygen, again, maybe the same rate of wax burns brighter. Or maybe not: maybe it's as simple as, the same proportion of wax burns, releasing the same amount of light energy, in the same spectral distribution, as long as you stay within practical parameters (e.g. not hot enough to get secondary combustion - if that even happens for candle smoke). Okay so I think the candle burning 4x the rate will make 4x the light, in which case it's just a question of perception, but we can argue that brightness really is amplitude - or is it the square root because... bother my brain's gone blank but it's like an amplitude Vs magnitude thing but those are the same so it must be something else... But if we call amplitude brightness then I think yes, the same-mass candle burning at 4x brightness will burn out in a quarter of the time. Phew, I think I can correctly upvote your comment.
Wouldn't brightness be proportional to the square root of the amount of light released? Also they didn't mention the mass of the wax in the two candles.
