I had a project with this back in the 2001-2003 era or so and at that time the browser could still do the "modern web" such as it was. It should never have failed like Lisp Machines, Smalltalk, Forth environments, Pascal, and the rest. The nice thing is the web is so borked that you could easily replace it and some entity will. My guess is China.
As a gardener I have noticed that most types of insects tend to visit as many flowers as possible. None seem to show a vast preference. I know that's not what the data shows but it's my experience.
That might be some kind of observation effect. Which isn't surprising either: there are various species out there which have a distinct preference for, or even visit only, one specific family of native plants or even just one particular plant. If those plants are already less common to begin with (due to various reasons, unfortunately often human-induced) there's a lot less chance you'll ever get to see the insects which rely on those plants. Just 2 of the many examples for Western Europe which are in decline and becoming hard to find are Andrena hattorfiana haemorrhoidalis and Andrena pandellei. You'd have to be fairly lucky to just see them in your garden, you'd already need to pay attention to now mow the plants they're after at the correct time, if you already have those to begin with. Likewise the more generalist insects who visit a wide range of plants will be much easier to witness.
I guess most flowers that people will put into their garden are those pollinated by, let's call them "bee-like pollinators", that are attracted to sweet-smelling and/or colorful flowers (although some, like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddleja_davidii, have a preference for butterflies) . For instance, if you would plant one of these https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amorphophallus_titanum (that are pollinated by flies and carrion-eating beetles, and smell really yummy to them, but less so to us humans), your neighbors would probably complain...
Moths have mouthparts, butterflies generally don't. They have a specialized nectar sucking tube type organ with a "tongue" in it.
Moths can rob flowers, which means they cut a small hole inside the bottom of the flower's nectar reservoir and then lap it up. Butterflies can't cut flowers.
>Moths have mouthparts, butterflies generally don't
I'm not sure where you get that information. Butterflies also feed on nectar from plants, so they do have mouthparts.
On another note, some butterflies (and maybe moths) are cannibals [1] and feed on their own caterpillars:
"Some butterflies don’t only look like horror movie stars, but are horrors in themselves. Milkweed butterflies (Danainae) — the same subfamily that includes the regal monarch — are vampiric cannibals that use clawed feet to tear open their own caterpillars and mercilessly suck the guts out of them. But why devour your own offspring from the inside out? It’s an even stranger phenomenon known as kleptopharmacophagy."
I was talking about nectar robbing by moths, butterflies don't do it. And butterflies only have a tube with a tongue, they don't have opposing jaws or a typical mouthpart. Moths are some of many nectar robbers who will cut a hole or slit in the bottom part of the nectar bearing parts of plants and drink that directly rather than playing by 'the rules' and going down the flower past the reproductive organs. Thus getting the benefit of the nectar without abiding by the "rules" that ensure the plant's pollentation.
Some moths have mandibles, but most sorts don’t. Further, ‘nectar larceny’ behavior is still the subject of study and appears to possibly help pollination or have a neutral effect in many cases. There also seems to be an indication that some plants are perforated by bees and that certain moths reuse those holes for access to nectar.
As another curiosity, I believe the death’s head hawk moth (as ‘made famous’ by The Silence of the Lambs) can disguise itself as a bee via scent and just take honey from a beehive.
My guess is that some flowers have a thin shape to force the bees to get covered in polen, the butterfly can use the long tube, but the moth are too wide.
MS-DOS is still widely used in embedded, MS still sells it to OEMs. There is also the Free and Open Freedos. Maybe you have a small program you developed on Linux and maintain on several OS's, and you don't want to go through the nightmare of maintaining a DOS port as well.
You can't beat a mirror, it's just not possible especially in low light situations. Discplay screen based digital cameras will always be worse for many users. It's fine as an option but it's not killing the shutter just yet.
I can definitely argue that mirrorless is always better for most users! Thinner bodies, modern lens selection (so faster autofocus and wider aperture, etc), real-time image previews, better low-light preview (in both rear and viewfinder screens), video recording capabilities better match professional video cameras (by removing mirror complexity) which better matches the hybrid needs of the modern camera buyer.
It had to be said, it's true. Mirrorless camera displays give off light, the screen is brighter than ambient light. It's can't get dim enough preserve night vision if you're using a telescope for instance. You can shoot in very low light with the high ISO speeds available on a modern camera but if you ruin your night vision you lose awareness of everything but what you're shown in the finder, just in general. I'm sure you can think of others.
Unix has always had comprehensive online manuals since the very earliest days. As a kid I was told how to ls and cd and use man and apropos and that was all I needed.
