Note that OP is a bot and does not provide a source. It appears this is at least partly true however: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263219913_The_impact_of_sarcoptic_mange_Sarcoptes_scabiei_on_the_British_fox_Vulpes_vulpes_population
If you haven’t seen it already, take a look at !localllama@sh.itjust.works
This might be exactly what his employer wants: e.g. if he works for a consultancy where his time is billed to the client with a hefty markup.
Only 7? Those are rookie numbers
So the starfleet symbol basically comes from a design to decorate an ash tray? How very 1960s
Definitely unpopular. In a strange way I kind of agree about not wanting to burn your mouth, that’s horrible and not worth it. I’ll sometimes sit and wait for several minutes for my plate to cool if it’s steaming hot, even when I’m hungry and other people around me are eating. But there’s always a point where it’s obviously safe and still nicely warm which is much better than being cold.
Next time this happens to you, may the comments here be a reminder: you didn’t screw up, the machine is perfectly capable of screwing everything up all by itself.
Nice! Please keep us updated on your progress on !piano@lemmy.world
Personality is certainly influenced by genes: there have been cases of identical twins separated at birth allowing similarities between the twins to be studied https://science.howstuffworks.com/life/genetic/5-true-stories-twins-separated-at-birth.htm
The idea that memories of lived experience can be inherited was historically popular, but has been very much disproven unless you count quite tenuous examples https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_memory_(psychology)
Of course I knew this exact clip was coming to lemmy when I heard. RIP
Feels like “beating human records” is pretty meaningless for things that are… not human. I was intrigued to see what the entry criteria were since these are meant to be humanoid, but couldn’t find any real information on it.
Vibe coding is dumb and this is funny but I also feel like it’s quite misleading. Plenty of software was messy and full of technical debt long before vibe coding was a thing. And organisations trying to plan software projects in the same rigid way as physical construction has historically been responsible for many of those problems.
The view of Jupiter from there would be super impressive as well. From what I can gather the apparent size is 19 degrees, or 40 times the moon viewed from earth.
Still not quite as extreme as it appeared in the 1998 game Battlezone sadly
Who else is thinking of that one scene near the start of Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country?
Thanks very much for this response! Good information for people like me who are interested to read more.
I think the point I was trying to make is that there are multiple reasons instead of one, and none of them are simple or easy. Understanding how those six things happen is subtly different to asking why they happen, which might be why we’ve got such a range of comments here and why the scientists in the article couldn’t agree on their answer.
In the informal sense that everything breaks eventually then yes. If you’re talking strictly in terms of physics, humans increase entropy just by existing, by eating calories and generating body heat, and that would still be true if we didn’t age.
Yes, I’ve heard similar things before and that’s probably the closest thing to a true explanation. It’s a purely genetic line of reasoning which raises a lot of questions though: What’s the biological clock that controls the timing of when genes activate? Which/how many genes are responsible for aging and does everyone have all of them? Could animals be selectively bred for longevity indefinitely? Some of these questions might have partial answers already but I don’t know them.
Thanks for the paper, it’s interesting and I definitely couldn’t follow the whole thing. It says at one point that the findings are consistent with the theory that organisms age to make way for their offspring. I’ve heard of the slightly different version where it’s just random genes that don’t have any benefit but the downside isn’t bad enough for them to be selected against.
It’s funny how everyone tends to assume that there is a very obvious and well-known reason why we age, and people are usually shocked to find out that, like the article demonstrates, science kind of doesn’t really know. We know a lot of the mechanisms of course and I’m sure any doctors here can explain them, but it’s not like there’s one simple and universal explanation.
Edit: some commenters have pointed out that aging is very well studied so I’m crossing out the part that could be misleading and will add only: it’s complicated
Both mean you’re in danger