For anyone uncertain of terminology, "organic" does not mean or even necessarily imply life.
For example, "organic" molecules -- tholins -- are the reason Pluto's got red on it, and there's pretty close to zero speculation of life out there. In Pluto's case, they form just from UV interactions with methane. Both methane and the tholins produced from it are fairly abundant in our solar system out past the sun's frost band.
What this does indicate is even more evidence that Mars at least has at some point been a place suitable for life. These are among the ingredients you need to make a big old bowl of primordial soup.
As long as all the air-conditioning is chugging along, most people won’t even notice. Thank god the texan electric grid is stable enough to never cut out. Wait…
Oh god don't even mention it... I was already afraid it would break down last year (when we didn't have this extreme heat). I'm planning to leave Texas as early as possibly can partly because of all this craziness, meanwhile some of my coworkers don't even notice what kinds of nightmarish scenario is happening down here
My power just went out again. It has failed 3 times in the last 2 weeks. I'm in Houston. The storm that blew through took me out for 3 1/2 day. A week later another storm downed us for 3 hours and now I'm typing this in my powerless house once again. I heard a pop this time so I'm assuming it's a transformer. Centex says it will be back in a few hours. The only reason I'm still in this sh*t hole state is because my husband's parents are here. Thank God I have an appt with a generator company tomorrow. Eff this state in the A
This is why everything you hear from pop-evolution theories in sociology is likely bs.
“Women like shopping because they used to be gatherers” or other such garbage.
It’s all trying to simplify human behaviour based on half-baked knowledge of the past, and to pass it off as scientific insight. It’s not much different than the pseudoscience used to fuel racism 100 years ago.
Human behaviour is complex. And even though our societies are more complex now than 10000 years ago, it doesn’t mean people back then were simple.
Since we’re all here looking at yet another terrifying headline. I have a huge grudge for companies who force people into the office. It‘s unnecessary!! There should be a legislation in all countries ASAP to give workers a right to WFH they can enforce on the company!
We have seen with the pandemic it‘s possible and would free a lot of people from this pathologic need for a car and yet the companies owners and paid for politicians are dragging their feet to save their fucking "office real estate investments" or other bullshit reasons that all amount to control. Elon fucking Musk personally pisses me off the most, cause he pretended to care about the climate to sell cars and then is the absolute worst about this calling WFH "not real work", also to sell cars.
Don‘t even get me started on their private jets and pleasure yachts, all this unnecessary bullshit, there is already a first class the rich assholes can sit down in with extra space, they don‘t need their own plane!!
Assholes like that should be shamed everywhere they go for daring to do something so damaging while also forcing people to rely on cars cause of the hostile infrastructure and hostile work environments they created!
Governments are so good at making up crimes out of nowhere, see how effective they are at fucking over trans people for something as innocent as changing their own gender, maybe use that power for good for ONCE and criminalise environmental damage??
Everywhere we look at distant galaxies, they look like they're moving away from us. We think this because the wavelength of the light they've emitted looks stretched (ie redshifted), similar to how the pitch of sound changes when an ambulance is approaching and passing you.
The fact that this is happening in all directions leads us to believe that space itself is stretching in all directions, because we don't believe that we're in a special part of the universe, like in the center of some event that sent all galaxies flying away from us.
If I understand this article correctly, it proposes that the redshifting could have another explanation. Looking at a distant galaxy is like "looking back in time" because the light takes time to cross the vast emptiness of space to reach us. So what if the redshifting is because the particles back when the light was emitted had different properties than they have now? The model described in the paper explains exactly how those properties could be changing in order to produce the effects that we observe.
To be fair, "95% of the mass/energy in the universe is undetectable to us except for how they impact the movement of entities at a galactic scale" is kinda wild too.
The article never mentions religion, while religions everywhere present themselves as a beacon of morality.
People believe that morality is declining. Is it? Societies keep (or at least leave) reasonably good records of extremely immoral behaviour such as slaughter and conquest, slavery and subjugation or murder and rape, and careful analyses of those historical records strongly suggest that these objective indicators of immorality have decreased significantly over the last few centuries.
This is a very naive view of morality in a country conquered by religion. Ask a christian if he believes that this is morally fine that his neighbour is gay.
Was conquering north america moral? How many native indian did Davy Crockett murder? He is celebrated as a hero even by Disney, is it moral?
How can you qualify all of this as science material?
People clearly perceive moral decline, but to what do they attribute it? There are two possibilities. The average morality of a population may decline between two points in time (T1 and T2) because (1) individuals who are moral at T1 are less moral when they reach T2 (a phenomenon we refer to as ‘personal change’), and/or (2) older people who were alive at T1 but who died before T2 are more moral than younger people who were alive at T2 but who were not yet born (or who were not yet adults and therefore not sampled) at T1 (a phenomenon we refer to as ‘interpersonal replacement’).
Oh, that's why, there is T2 and T1, so We can do T2 minus T1. Sure.
The orthodox church in Russia has blessed the weapons of the russian soldiers, so by definition this war is moral. Do your T2 minus T1 in Russia and ask the russian citizen if Russia acts according to morality right now, you will get fantastic results! I'm not sure that your results would have any scientific value though. I'm very disappointed by Nature.
I think there has to be a differentiation between perceiving an action as moral, an action being moral in some version of morality and an action being moral in your own version of morality. This study among other things, assumes a ground truth for morality that can be measured and agreed on by everyone, read the interview questions they cite from the studies. However, I don’t think that these very basic acts are a good indicator for overall morality. Some people believe very different things to be moral while still having a consistent internal moral construct. Therefore something is moral if someone consistently perceives it as moral in their own opinion. This is overlooked by the study and in my opinion a significant weakness.
I.e. just because the Orthodox Church says the war is moral does not make it so
And that's exactly the problem, they use one axis for morality while you don't even agree with the orthodox church on what axis it is. The study doesn't account for that. This is not science.
Sapolsky, a MacArthur “genius” grant winner, is extremely aware that this is an out-there position. Most neuroscientists believe humans have at least some degree of free will…
Theirs is very much a minority viewpoint. Sapolsky is “a wonderful explainer of complex phenomena,” said Peter U. Tse, a Dartmouth neuroscientist and author of the 2013 book “The Neural Basis of Free Will.” “However, a person can be both brilliant and utterly wrong.”
I think the best part is how the journal told him he was focusing too much on climate change over other factors in peer review, he spends most of it trying to defend only accounting for climate change, then after publication comes out and goes on a media tour about how he was forced, forced i say to only include climate change by the journal, seemingly forgetting that the journals peer review comments are published alongside the paper.
Blaming spambots is one thing, but whoever set up this community should lock it if they’re not going to mod it because there are loads of spam messages here that haven’t been dealt with in days. It’s a pretty bad look. I’m unsubscribing but I also want to add shame on whoever set this up and abandoned it because it reflects poorly on the fediverse.
Is not really abandoned, the owner of this community is also the creator of Kbin. He is still working on developing kbin so there's not enough time for moderation
Science
Hot