• Ada@piefed.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        It depends what you mean. Testosterone makes a difference. It improves blood oxygen levels and cardio capacity, and it increases strength (it’s a steroid).

        And depending on the context, the difference is larger. Men tend to have stronger hand grip than women for example, to the extent, there is very little overlap. But if you look at leg strength, the distributions are different, but they overlap significantly. And when you start to look at things like long distance endurance events, the distributions are even closer.

        However, none of those things align with “men” or “women”. They align with “the dominant sex hormone in your body”, and your capacity shifts as your sex hormones shift.

      • makingStuffForFun@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        That is an interesting one.

        I recall many years a group arm wrestle competition we all got into.

        Men and women, we were all having fun.

        Without exception, every single guy beat every single woman. And usually easily.

        I’m genuinely surprised by your statement.

        I also do pilates regularly. I’m a pretty avg size guy. I’m higher in strength setups (springs, angles, etc) than nearly everyone there, except the other men.

        Where are you seeing what you’re describing?

        • gwl [he/him]@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          30 days ago

          It’s almost like cultural factors discourage most women from growing muscle, but encourages men to gain muscles

          But that would be impossible

          • makingStuffForFun@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            29 days ago

            I would say the women in my class are incredibly strong. They have excellent muscle development, and compared to non fitness folk, are almost intimidating.

            But, by and large, they’re not as strong as the men in the class for raw power.

    • fizzle@quokk.au
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      The word “exosphere” was proposed by Lyman Spitzer to designate the outer part of a planetary atmosphere, defined as the region where the density is low enough to describe it as a collisionless region. Since the beginning of the space era, it was discovered that the major neutral constituent of Earth’s exosphere is atomic hydrogen, and Shklovsky (1959) coined the word “geocorona” to designate the H component of the exosphere.

      I didn’t read the whole paper obviously but this part makes it sound like you’re talking about the exosphere in which, by definition, there might be more gas molecules than elsewhere but few enough that they’re unlikely to run into them, or they’re unlikely to run into each other maybe IDK.

      Obviously, if there was a significant atmosphere the moon would experience atmospheric drag and would fall to earth.

      • mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        Obviously, if there was a significant atmosphere the moon would experience atmospheric drag and would fall to earth.

        Would it?

        The Moon is slowly drifting further away because Earth’s rotation is significantly faster than the lunar orbit. Some of Earth’s rotational energy is bled into the lunar orbit, causing it to increase in height, which in turn lowers its orbital period.

        If there was a significant atmosphere for Earth at that height, you’d think it would actually give the Moon a boost

  • Sanctus@anarchist.nexus
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    If you rub two creatures together just right you get another creature of mostly the same type a little bit later.

    • Nibodhika@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      Sharks are so old that I’ve seen other comparisons, had never seen the milky way one before, that’s very interesting, the other ones I knew is that sharks are older than:

      • The rings of Saturn
      • Trees

      So when sharks first evolved Saturn had no rings and trees didn’t exist yet.

      • TheRealKuni@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        when sharks first evolved Saturn had no rings

        Or at least, didn’t have its current rings. I could be wrong but couldn’t it have torn apart other moons to create a different set of rings that then degraded over time?

      • Deconceptualist@leminal.space
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        Sharks also predate basically all big recognizable surface geology features on earth. They’re way older than the Grand Canyon or the Himalayas. It kind of makes sense once you realize they date back to the Pangea supercontinent.

        Also, biologically modern humans are much older than Niagara Falls.

    • Deconceptualist@leminal.space
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      I don’t understand the clock one.

      The shark fact is impressive though. I like to tell folks that the galaxy is so big that the solar system hasn’t even made 1/4 of an orbit since the non-avian dinosaurs went extinct. Might add some perspective.

      Nitpick: there are many speciea of shark so maybe you meant taxonomic genus or family.

      • gwl [he/him]@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        30 days ago

        Well the specifics are the lineage which includes sharks, we found stuff that might be sharks but hard to prove are definitely sharks that’s 450 million years old (fossil sharklike scales)

        And, this is copypaste from Snopes:

        The earliest known fossil evidence of sharks (or their ancestors) are “shark-like scales” that date back to 450 million years ago, according to the National History Museum in London. However, whether these scales adorned “true sharks” or “shark-like animals” is an issue debated by the scientific community.

        Nonetheless, scientists largely agree that, according to DNA evidence, living sharks, rays, and deep-sea fish called chimeras likely began evolving around 420 million years ago.

      • aramis87@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        I don’t understand the clock one.

        Part of the western Florida panhandle (WFP) is on Central time. Part of southeastern Oregon (SEO) is on Mountain time. That puts them one hour apart.

        In the fall, when we go back into Standard Time, when the clock hits 2am, you flip the clock back to 1am.

        So, during a normal night, WFP would be at 2am and SEO would be 1am. But on the night the time changes, WFP hits 2am and immediately flips their clocks back to 1am - which means that, for one hour a year (until SEO hits 2am and flips their clocks back), part of Florida and part of Oregon’s clocks are showing the exact same time.

        I kinda struggled over how to word this - they’re not in the same time zone, but for this one hour they might as well be.

    • SaraTonin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      Worth pointing out that this is the shark lineage and not modern sharks. Sharks have evolved a lot over the last several hundred million years

      In the same sense, jellyfish are older than sharks, and sponges are the oldest still-extant animal lineage. Or just sounds cooler to say sharks

    • Tattorack@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      30 days ago

      CORRECTION!!

      “Shark” is not a species. A whaleshark is a species. A tigershark is a species. “Shark”, representing multiple species of shark, is a division, specifically the Selachii division.

      The Selachii division is 200 million years old. One galactic year for Sol is 225 million years old. This means that sharks, as we know them, have not existed as a division for two galactic years, barely even for one! Horshoe crabs have been around for 250 million years nearly completely unchanged by evolution, so they have been around for one galactic year… But nobody ever seems to talk about them…

      Officially, what came before sharks are classified as a different division with “shark-like morphology”, but they aren’t sharks.

      Sharks have existed for longer than the North Star, though. So there’s that.

      • Eufalconimorph@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        30 days ago

        The oldest fossils known are stromatolite fossils from 3.48 billion years ago. There are living stromatolites today. They predate Earth having significant oxygen in its atmosphere, because the cyanobacteria that formed them created the oxygen gas through photosynthesis from carbon dioxide. They’ve orbited the galaxy over fifteen times.

      • Tattorack@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        30 days ago

        Trees are 385 million years old. Sharks are 200 million years old. Trees still out-date sharks.

        Although… Trees have evolved multiple times in Earth’s history… So sharks are certainly older than certain trees. But not older than the whole tree concept thing.

      • dkppunk@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        30 days ago

        I haven’t seen it happen, but I wouldn’t be surprised.

        My girl bun does stick her nose up my boy bun’s butt sometimes. But I think that’s just to nip his thighs and get him to move out of her way lol

  • Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    Trigger Warning: Existential Crisis

    spoiler

    Everything about us is young in the context of the wider universe. Human society, the human species, the planet earth, our solar system, our sun. We live near the dawn of creation, even though our universe feels unimaginably old compared to our brief lives. As the skies darken and all the stars burn out, that will take course over a time period longer than our individual solar system will last. When the last light goes out, time doesn’t stop, no the universe goes on and there’s an even longer period of endless empty inky blackness, the deep void. In the end, the universe may spend significantly more time as an endless dead void than it ever did as a universe with hope of life and at least one planet with confirmed organic life. There is no escaping it, and there is probably no way for our species to even survive and adapt to that era as it is.

      • Ada@piefed.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        That’s not an answer, because if life is common, then the chance of us being the first is minuscule.

        Lets say that life can only form around main sequence G type stars (ie, like our sun). There is no reason to believe this is true, but lets say it is for this example. The universe is 14 billion years old, and the sun is 4.5 billion years old. Lets round it to 4 billion years old when life first formed.

        Now, the earliest G type stars formed approximately 1 billion years after the universe formed. Lets say that life can only develop when those stars were at least 4 billion years old. That puts the earliest possible scenario where life formed at 5 billion years after the universe formed, and that was 9 billion years ago. Low balling it, there are approximately 7 billion g type main sequence stars current in our galaxy.

        All together, that means the chance of us simply being the first is very low, and if we are the first, then life isn’t common, and if life isn’t common, the underlying reason for that is the answer to the fermi paradox.

      • queerlilhayseed@piefed.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        We could be the great scourge of this part of the universe. Expanding recklessly through galaxies in the local group, leaving only the dead husks of stars that have been stripped of all usable energy. The exponential nature of scientific discovery means that not only do we have a head start, our head start compounds as time progresses. We become a horrific but very efficient war machine for the sole purpose of controlling and exploiting all available forms of energy for profit. We seem like we’re on that path.

      • Corporal_Punishment@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        To be fair its likely to be the most probable answer.

        Whilst intelligent life is probably quite common at specific points in time, it isnt common at the same time, and if it is the distances involved are so vast it means we will never know they exist.

        The best we can hope for in all likelihood is that we stumble on the ruins of some other species that died out millions of years ago.

        Or we stumble on a bunch of blue monkeys who are as intelligent as dogs, but in 50 million years they will be the ones finding the ruins of our civilisation.

        • Don_alForno@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          but in 50 million years they will be the ones finding the ruins of our civilisation.

          Not if they have the misfortune to be found by us they wont.

      • mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        And it’s the most likely solution. The universe has been hostile to life until very recently (on a cosmological scale). We know we’re rather early in the goldilocks zone of universal habitability.

        I just find it odd when some people argue “humans aren’t special enough to be that lucky. We’re too stupid to achieve more”. It’s odd because calling humans stupid is actually arguing that humans are exceptional. Meanwhile you don’t have to be exceptional to be lucky.

        And if you’re wondering, it’s Lex Friedman that argues this. And no, I don’t listen to him anymore. I stopped once over 50% of the people he interviewed were just AI and crypto shills

    • P1nkman@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      A friend asked me if I’d have the option to live forever, would I? No; I don’t want to spend eternity floating around the galaxy.

  • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    Some fun geography one’s.
    Maine is the closest US state to Africa.
    Alaska is the northern most, Western most, and Eastern most state in the US.

      • iamthetot@piefed.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        For the Alaska one, the Aleutian Islands extend beyond the 180° line of longitude, placing the tip of them within the eastern hemisphere.

      • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        The Alaska one North and West are obvious, but there are some islands that cross the date line, making them technically east.

        Someone else posted a graphic, but basically Maine is significantly farther east which cancels out the North/South difference of other states.

    • ilinamorato@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      My favorite geography fact is that, if you’re on the northern edge of Brazil, you’re actually closer to Canada than you are to the southern border of Brazil.

    • toddestan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      My favorite geography one: You get on a plane on Tampa Bay, Florida and fly due south. Which South American countries do you fly over?

      Answer is none of them. You miss the entire continent because you are too far west.

      • MatSeFi@lemmy.liebeleu.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        30 days ago

        But ambiguity arraises from the lack of a coherent explanation, because there are so many parameters to consider when doing the experiment (especially when doing this with water). Therefore hot liquids can freeze faster than cold ones. Its not a must. That it can happen is proven. A quite entertaining read about the general phenomenon can be found here

        • blady_blah@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          30 days ago

          No, it doesn’t. The ambiguity rises from the fact that it’s not that repeatable. There are many experiments that don’t find this phenomenon to exist when they test it. Then there’s some that do. That’s the problem.

          My memory is that the majority of them find that it doesn’t exist and that a small minority find that it does.

      • blady_blah@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        30 days ago

        No, it doesn’t. The ambiguity rises from the fact that it’s not that repeatable. There are many experiments that don’t find this phenomenon to exist when they test it. Then there’s some that do. That’s the problem.

        My memory is that the majority of them find that it doesn’t exist and that a slim subset find that it does.

  • village604@adultswim.fan
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    Ethanol can help protect your liver from the damage an acetaminophen overdose causes.

    You’d think that doubling up on liver harming substances would have an additive effect, but nope.

    • mic_check_one_two@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      Similarly, ethanol can help protect you from the poisonous effects of methanol (wood alcohol). Methanol by itself isn’t actually harmful, but it gets broken down into harmful byproducts that will make you go blind and then kill you.

      The enzyme responsible for breaking down methanol is also used to break down ethanol. And enzymes have a limited capacity for work. In other words, they can only break down a certain number of molecules at any given time. And the enzyme is more compatible with ethanol than methanol.

      So if you suspect someone drank methanol, (it is a common ingredient in antifreeze), you should have them start taking shots. Pump them full of as much liquor as possible, as quickly as possible. Get them absolutely shitfaced ASAP, and keep them wasted until they get to the hospital. It will prevent the vast majority of the methanol from being broken down, which will prevent the actual poisoning from happening.

      • village604@adultswim.fan
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        It’s ethylene glycol that’s commonly in antifreeze, but ethanol protects against that too. I believe methanol is common in windshield wiper fluid, though.

          • sleepmode@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            30 days ago

            Pretty much. Mazda had an issue with spiders attracted to gasoline clogging up fuel systems while being shipped overseas. And soy-based wire sheathing is apparently quite the delicacy to certain animals.