Not insane. This is true. Iirc, there’s some hormonal changes in the urine that causes the wheat/barley to grow first, depending on the sex of the fetus.
The accuracy of this method is overexaggerated, though. Iirc, when tested, it was found to be something like 75% accurate. For what it’s worth, that’s pretty accurate for the ancient world
Not necessarily an acronym, but here’s a fun one for Japanese: Laughing in Japanese is warau, which gets shortened when typing to just w. If you want to laugh a lot, you would type wwww. That ends up looking like a field of grass, so that in turn gets shortened into 草 (kusa, or grass). Basically, 草 is the Japanese equivalent of lol
Also, in Chinese, thank you is often abbreviated as 3q, because when you say it out loud, it sounds like “thank you” (san kyu)
My thought is the evolution of intelligent life itself. If you think about it, intelligence is contrary to most of the principles of evolution. You spend a shit ton of energy to think, and you don’t really get much back for that investment until you start building a civilization.
As far as we can tell, sufficient intelligence to build technological civilizations has only evolved once in the entire history of the Earth, and even then humans almost went extinct
Not a paleontologist, but I think it’s a mix of both wrong information being spread back then and also new info being discovered.
I’m pretty sure people knew that birds were dinosaurs for a while, but people just liked the idea that dinosaurs were monstrous lizards. Giant monsters just capture the imagination in a way that giant birds can’t.
And then paleontologists started finding fossils that had imprints of feathers still on the body, and it became really hard to ignore that dinosaurs were a lot more bird-like than people would like to believe.
My impression has generally been that once dinosaurs started to be viewed as bird-like, people started to see them as animals rather than as monsters, and that just kinda snowballed into dinosaurs becoming more and more bird-like
I see that Louisiana is run by Clay Puppington… How many “lost commandments” are they going to include?
Dr. Stone. It’s not for everyone, but if you’re into STEM, it’s probably the closest you’ll get to media accurately portraying science and technology.
It also puts into perspective just how much knowledge, expertise, and experience went into basically everything that we take for granted today. Makes you at least a bit hopeful for the future of humanity
I’m at a complete loss - even with the labels, I can only see a rock. I can’t figure out what part is supposed to look like what body part
Any game that isn’t trying to go for realistic graphics. Some off the top of my head:
There are certain careers that can’t be replaced by AI - anything that requires working with your hands will not be replaced by AI unless robots suddenly get invented. But if robots exist, then there’s likely bigger things to worry about than your job.
I would look for non-routine jobs that require a lot of handiwork. Non-routine because it will be hard to replace with general, non-AI automation, and handiwork because AI is currently digital only.
Carpentry, plumbing, engineering, laboratory research, teaching all likely fall into the safe category
Hmm, that’s an interesting question. I’m not an evolutionary biologist but I am a biologist (more specifically, a microbiogist).
The crux of the misunderstanding, I think, is that the definition of what counts as advantageous or “good” has changed over time. Very rapidly, in fact. The reason many diseases are still around today is because many genetic diseases offered a very real advantage in the past. The example that is often given is malaria and sickle cell anemia. Sickle cell anemia gives resistance to malaria, which is why it’s so prevalent in populations that historically have high incidence of malaria.
Natural selection doesn’t improve anything, it just makes animals more fit for their exact, immediate situation. That also means that it is very possible (and in fact, very likely) that the traits that we today associate with health will become disadvantageous in the future.
If we remember that natural selection isn’t trying to push humanity towards any goal, enlightenment, or good health, it becomes easier to acknowledge and accept that we can and should interfere with natural selection
Isn’t that just a government job with extra steps? I thought the point of UBI is that it’s meant to be, you know, universal.
As a side note, people have this tendency to think that government programs must be means-tested. That is, there must be a criteria that is met before someone is eligible for the program. Same with your assumption in the post - you assume that it must be better to add a stipulation. There seems to be this natural skepticism that if there is no criteria, people will take advantage of the program. I want to challenge that skepticism.
Adding criteria for eligibility inherently means the government must establish a bureaucracy for checking that the criteria is met. This has two notable downsides that people tend to not consider. First, it causes an applicant to wait longer before they can hear back from the program. With existing programs, it sometimes takes months before someone hears back. This ends up discouraging anyone from applying, even if they meet all the criteria. After all, what’s the point of receiving aid in 3 months if you need the aid now?
Second, it causes the cost of the program to increase. A bureaucracy is difficult to maintain. The more money that is spent on checking for eligibility, the less money that people in need will get. And what is the work that such a bureaucracy will do anyways? How does it benefit society to hire someone to say that people’s needs aren’t “real enough” to get government aid?
Which leads me to a third, additional point - it’s morally questionable to require people to meet a certain criteria before they can receive aid. To put it in another way, why do you feel like you need to gatekeep other people’s needs? If a person says they’re struggling, why should anyone say that they’re not struggling enough?
It’s like boiling a crab - people don’t realize how much they’re getting shafted if you enshittify slowly enough. And frankly, I fully predict that it’ll continue to get worse. Social media execs have proven themselves to be brazen enough (and dumb enough) to so openly exploit their userbase
I don’t understand what the issue is meant to be. The quotes that OOP gave are like… literally the definition of communism. There is no opinion on whether communism is good or bad. Is OOP complaining that learning about communism is bad?
To be clear, the magic system in this world is essentially technology. There is a set input and a destined output. The MC simply doesn’t care about fighting to learn any advanced fighting spells and just gatling-gun-spams the weakest attack spell until the opponent gets exhausted.
This ends up being brought up later, since a mage who’s sufficiently trained in fighting supposedly has a fair chance of defeating the MC. It’s a bit of a theme throughout the show about juggling the practical fighting applications of magic vs. the mundane but fun uses of magic
Don’t feed the trolls. My rule of thumb is to make a judgement call: is there anything I can say to convince the other person? If the answer is no, then ignore the message
I still have it because it’s still the easiest and most convenient way to message people that you’ve just met. There’s a sort of snowball effect in which having lots of people incentives even more people to stay on the platform. Nobody I know actually uses Facebook as a social media site - they only use it for Messenger.
Although, I’ve found that more and more people are starting to use SMS as their first choice rather than Messenger
I don’t know about your field, but that does seem somewhat suspicious to me. I suppose it depends on which company, which product, and which field.
For instance, I could presumably see an argument for turning down a salesperson applicant to Microsoft for not having used Microsoft Office before. ie, if not using a given product demonstrates lack of experience in the field.
Is the product well-known or a standard in the field?
Thanks for the candid answer. I understand the urge to nitpick. Although, for the life of me I can’t understand how having a dog could be a negative. I feel like at worst that would just be a neutral? I’m guessing you’re not a dog person?
It’s pretty natural, you shouldn’t blame yourself for it. Sometimes it just doesn’t get up and you just literally don’t know why. Or it could be something stupid like you’re too thirsty. You should probably let the girl know though ASAP that you absolutely still are interested. Hopefully she’s understanding - if you’re in the US, sex ed is abysmal, and she may not understand
Honestly, steam deck lol
It’s an odd form factor that people don’t really have much experience with, hence they don’t really know how useful it’ll be to them. To be fair to myself, I had been holding back on purchasing one until maybe a year after the initial launch, so I think I would personally describe my experience as a leap of faith.
In any case, it turns out to be a great little thing. There’s a lot of games in my backlog that don’t feel “desktop-y,” and therefore I’ve never played them, if that makes sense. But with a handheld form factor, now I have more motivation to go through those games. Emulation on the steam deck has also been great, for a similar reason. And sometimes I just want to be in bed than on my desktop. Or sometimes I’m just on the bus or waiting for something.
I think SteamOS also taught me how usable Linux was, and that’s been pretty instrumental in getting me to minimize my Windows dependence