The northern most part of Brazil is closer to Canada than it is to the southern most part of Brazil.
What is this sorcery?
Ain’t no way!
Bigger than the earth. That image surely must be right.
If your body healed as fast as your tongue you would starve to death.
Can you elaborate please?
I’m not sure how they got to that conclusion, but we can kinda guess.
The tongue is PACKED with blood vessels, so in case of any damage it can get tons of nutrients to fix itself. But this takes a very energy-intensive.
So if the rest of the body would have the same density of blood vessels, we’d need drastically more energy to feed all of that.
And I guess they’re asserting that all else being the same we wouldn’t be able to ingest or process sufficient food to keep that going.
It’s a bit of a strange argument though, I’m going far outside of my physiology understanding, but you’d have to imagine that had we evolved such advanced healing capabilities, we’d have also evolved the means to feed them. And OP underestimates just how much food someone can eat. As someone dealing with an ED, I can tell you that you can easily triple your calorie intake (though whether that’s sufficient I wouldn’t be able to say…).
All in I’d look forward to OP defending their assertion.
I asked ChatGPT, because everyone knows it is a source of reliable and not hallucinated information.
The human body has a remarkable capacity to heal itself, but the rate of healing can vary depending on the type of tissue and the extent of the injury. While it is true that the tongue, due to its rich blood supply, has a relatively fast healing process compared to other parts of the body, it doesn’t mean that the entire body would be unable to maintain its energy if it healed at the same rapid rate.
The healing process requires energy and resources, including nutrients, oxygen, and metabolic activity. When a specific area of the body is injured, the body redirects resources to that area to facilitate the healing process. In the case of the tongue, the abundant blood supply helps deliver these resources efficiently, allowing for a faster healing time.
If the entire body were to heal rapidly at the same pace as the tongue, it would require a significant amount of energy and resources. However, the body is highly adaptive and has complex systems in place to regulate energy usage and resource allocation. It prioritizes healing based on the severity and urgency of injuries, allowing for a balanced distribution of resources throughout the body.
It’s important to note that healing rates can vary based on factors such as the type of tissue, the extent of the injury, individual health conditions, and other variables. While the tongue may heal relatively quickly, other parts of the body have their own healing mechanisms suited to their specific functions and requirements.
Overall, the human body is designed to efficiently manage healing processes while maintaining energy balance and overall health.
When I asked for sources it started backtracking very quickly
When I asked for sources it started backtracking very quickly
oh, god… its more human than I realized. :(
The USA is not a true democracy in the academic sense of the word.
Could you elaborate?
Air is a fluid.
I was about to argue with you but the dictionary says you are right.
Take my upvote.
The world’s two largest cities by area are both on Greenland.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/world-city-rankings/largest-city-in-the-world-by-area
That would be a diameter of about 800 km. Don’t they have multiple centers that could be called towns? With churches, administration and schools? They just can’t be bothered to split it up.
Oxford University is older than the Aztec empire.
Oxford University founded in 1326, Aztec empire ~1428-1521
Wait, you’re saying that the Aztec empire was just 64 years old when Columbus discovered America and ships with conquistadors followed to butcher and enslave everyone?
Your car keys have better range if you press them to your head, since your skull will act as an antenna. It sounds like some made up pseudoscience that would never work in practice or have a negligible effect, but it actually works.
Edit: idk if it’s actually because your skull acts as an antenna, although that’s what I’ve heard. I looked it up and it seems like it’s your head acting as a reasonance chamber. Since your body is conductive, your head can bounce and amplify the radio signal.
There is absolutely no way this is true. I need to see some evidence to believe this. (I work as a wireless technician)
It’s true, but not because your skull acts like an antenna. It’s because the signal is being reflected by the skull. You can actually just try it out, the range of your car keys will extend when you hold them to your chin.
I doubt enough signal reflect of off your very radio wave observing skull to make much of a difference at all, it’s most likely a placebo effect and the real reason it extends the range is because you are holding the key fob higher, so it has a better LOS with less obstructions, and it has a better chance to bounce waves off of the very reflective concrete on the ground up to the sensor of your car.
Organic materials are absolute crap at reflecting wireless signals, they are much better at absorbing and scattering them.
Try it out, for real! The effect is too strong for being a placebo.
Your skull acts as an antenna
How?
The tinfoil hat you’re wearing amplifies the signal!
The can opener was invented 30 years after the can.
Well, wouldn’t it be weird if it was the other way around?
“Yooo, check this out, I made a new invention, it’s called a can opener!”
What does it do?
“idk”The elevator shaft was invented before the elevator. Tom Scott made a video about that
Today I learned the president of the Screen Actors Guild is The Nanny (Fran Dresher)
Hey me too!
I’ve noticed Americans tend to be surprised that Europe is bigger than the US
As an European I’m also surprised that the US’ vertical Expansion is only around twice that of France.
What do you mean by vertical expansion?
Not the one who said it, but it would imply distance north to south
Oh, I have two good ones:
-
Nuclear power causes less deaths (per energy unit produced) than wind (source)
-
You get less radiation when living near a nuclear power plant, than if that nuclear plant hadn’t been there.
To explain the second: A major misconception is, that nuclear power plants are dangerous due to their radiation. No they aren’t. The effect of radiation from the rocks in the ground and the surroundings is on average 50x more than what you get from the nuclear power plant and it’s fuel cells. (source). Our body is very well capable of dealing with the constant background radiation all the time (e.g. DNA repairs). Near a power plant, the massive amounts of isolation and concrete will inhibit any background radiation coming from rocks from that direction to you. This means, that you’ll actually get slightly less radiation, because the nuclear plant is there.
Regarding the dangers of nuclear disasters. To this day, it’s been very hard to find out, if at all any people have even died to Fukushima radiation (ans not other sources such as tsunami/earthquake/etc.) Nuclear radiation causes much more problems by being an emotionally triggering viral meme spreading between people and hindering it’s productive use and by distracting from the ironic fact, that the coal burned in coal power plants spew much more radiation into the atmosphere than nuclear power plants themselves. (source)
What are you trying to say by linking this article?
I mean, it even says that it was a mechanical issue - and the radiation danger was low. And even then, it’s just a single person. Looking at the bigger picture, the numbers game favors nuclear+wind+solar over fossile.
Not just that, but you might get less radiation swimming in the pool where spent nuclear fuel rods are stored than outdoors.
Haha, that’s a nice explanation
Nuclear power is actually the cleanest way to produce energy. The waste from replacing solar panels and windmills (which have a service life only three to five years) is actually more of a problem than the waste from spent fuel rods. Plus environmental impacts from fuel rod production are less than solar panel and windmill production. The problem with nuclear energy happens when things go wrong. It would have to be absolutely accident free. It never has been and never will be.
Though they’re on the right track with nuclear power. Fusion would be ideal, runs on seawater (fuses deuterium/tritium) and if there’s a problem you simply shut off the fuel. Problem is insurmountable engineering issues, we just don’t have tech for it yet (need anti-gravity). They’ve been working on it for many decades and progress has been painfully slow.
Even when things go wrong, it’s not as bad as with the other classic fossile energy sources. Exactly this calculation is included in the world in data source on deaths per kWh which I linked.
When we have car accidents normalised, massive climate change, air pollution from fossile fuels, then even the occasional nuclear accident isn’t really a problem.
The problem is, that these accidents get much more attention than they deserve given how many deaths are caused by fossile fuels. When calibrating for deaths, fossile fuels should get around 100x the attention
Windmills last much longer than five years. They generally last 20-25. Wherever you heard that bullshit number from, ignore all the other info you got from them.
Not only windmills, but also every for of alternative energy production.
-
Every Rubik’s Cube, no matter how scrambled, can be solved in at most 20 rotations.
An elephant is the only mammal with 4 forward facing knees.
Ok, what does that mean in terms of how an Elefant would wear some pairs of trousers?
The hill I’m prepared to die on on is that I think an elephant is the only mammal that could pull off wearing two pairs of cargo shorts at once.
You’re right, though the front would be perfect for some cargo dungarees.
7% of all homosapien to have ever lived are alive today.
If this percentage trending up or down?
Up as population grows and down as it shrinks.Apparently I’m wrong.
That’s not true. If the population grows only a little, say one more person each year, the relative amount shrinks.
