Answer:
one who speaks too much
Explanation:
censure is a form of disapproval...content or omissions might be contributing factors.
The period of human evolution has coincided with environmental change, including cooling, drying, and wider climate fluctuations over time. How did environmental change shape the evolution of new adaptations, the origin and extinction of early hominin species, and the emergence of our species, Homo sapiens? (‘Hominin’ refers to any bipedal species closely related to humans – that is, on the human divide of the evolutionary tree since human and chimpanzee ancestors branched off from a common ancestor sometime between 6 and 8 million years ago.)
How do we know Earth’s climate has changed? How quickly and how much has climate changed? One important line of evidence is the record of oxygen isotopes through time. This record of δ18O, or oxygen stable isotopes, comes from measuring oxygen in the microscopic skeletons of foraminifera (forams, for short) that lived on the sea floor. This measure can be used as an indicator of changing temperature and glacial ice over time. There are two main trends: an overall decrease in temperature and a larger degree of climate fluctuation over time. The amount of variability in environmental conditions was greater in the later stages of human evolution than in the earlier stages.
Thank you for posting your question here. It can be considered to be consistent with the given facts. As you know, an hypothesis, much less a theory, is never proven. It can be shown to be consistent with given observations. As new observations are collected, the given hypothesis may have to be modified.
If the celery became crisp when it was soaked in ice water, then clearly that the water has rehydrated the celery is a reasonable hypothesis. But did it have to be ice cold water? Would room temperature water work? What about boiling water?
And thus most of the time, the success of an hypothesis leads to the design of new experiments to test and expand the original hypothesis.
Hiya,
A strong Central government is bad because if the government releases a law that just so happens to be bad, it will apply to everyone and this could be horrible for the whole country. If state decisions are bad, it won't hurt the whole nation but only that said state. People fear a strong Central government might even overpower small state governments and lose independence.
Now the trouble with a limited government is that it takes time to make decisions and fraud can easily happen. With a limited government there is also limited happiness.
A solution to this would be to just have a little bit of both. Limited government can increase fairness and give more freedom and power to their people and kick out the terrible leaders whereas a strong central government you can also have the security and freedom.
Hope this helps, government was never fun tbh.
