nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

I bet you didnt know that

Cartouche

As people here work in various jobs / professions they might know things from work or study no one here knows yet. this is what this topic is about.

what do you know that we have never heard of?

Eg: you don't need to be great at maths to be an architect

this is obvious to me but everyone says to me "i wanted to be an architect but i was bad at math,i can barely add"

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

4068ac1elhodqr

fxotoole wrote: »

Dogs only have 2 colour cones. They’re dichromatic.

Artic foxes can see or sense magnetic fields when judging distances and exact locations of their prey under snow. Yes, they mainly use sound to detect (before jumping and pouncing on the snow burried prey), but magnetic sensing, is also used for exact pin-point accuracy.

There was a blind chap (alex levitt) on stan lee's superhuman tv shows that when blindfolded in a dark room is able to 'view' items with accuracy.

Of course it was just an 'entertainment' show, but if there was any validity, might well have been viewing surrounds like the artic fox.

Some other blind folks train their hearing to detect distances by vocally clicking and calculating spatial areas from the return sound radar. A 'plate reverb' would also suggest hard surfaces, whereas 'hall/studio echo types might suggest more organic matter ahead.

Capt'n Midnight

You want good vision the Mantis Shrimp as way more than 4 colour receptors.

https://theoatmeal.com/comics/mantis_shrimp

They can also see ultraviolet and infrared and well as linear and circular polarised light. And each of it's eyes can estimated distance far more accurately than we can.

New Home

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

You want good vision the Mantis Shrimp as way more than 4 colour receptors.

https://theoatmeal.com/comics/mantis_shrimp

They can also see ultraviolet and infrared and well as linear and circular polarised light. And each of it's eyes can estimated distance far more accurately than we can.

Ah, but we knew that already!

1 and 2.

New Home

I think they mean during the whole of 2018.

antodeco

retalivity wrote: »

Only 9% of the population of China hold passports.

The other 91% got sore arms from holding them for so long

Capt'n Midnight

New Home wrote: »

Ah, but we knew that already!

1 and 2.

The bits about UV, IR, linear and circular polarisation are new

The ancient Assyrians called them "sea locusts" , locusts were really bad news back then.

Rubecula

New Home wrote: »

was he running for his life?

New Home wrote: »

I think they mean during the whole of 2018.

I think it must be or it wouldn't make sense

SuperS54

New Home wrote: »

Given some of the things we've learned in this thread about Australian wildlife, I think I might manage that too although I'd be screaming as well as naked!

764dak

Two 16-year-olds faced each other in the 1997 Wimbledon Ladies' Singles Semifinals:

Candlemass

Rubecula wrote: »

was he running for his life?

I think it must be or it wouldn't make sense

Most of those picture facts from that site are incorrect, some made up, as i used to see loads of them on Instagram which were total rubbish, just my two cents:)

rgmmg

fxotoole wrote: »

Dogs only have 2 colour cones. They’re dichromatic.

Bulls are colour blind so only react to the flag being waved rather than it being red.

Wibbs

Candlemass wrote: »

Most of those picture facts from that site are incorrect, some made up, as i used to see loads of them on Instagram which were total rubbish, just my two cents:)

I would say a fair few are exaggerated alright C. The Aussie footprints one funny enough, isn't. Well.. It's the largest collection of such ancient footprints on the planet. Handily Aboriginal folks are some of the best trackers on the planet so really helped the researchers out. The trackways have kids and women strolling around, even a one legged man and one guy who was going at some speed, which they estimate wasn't far off olympic sprint speed. Estimate. It makes a good headline and scientists aren't immune to egging up figures to get one.

Professor Moriarty

Wibbs wrote: »

I would say a fair few are exaggerated alright C. The Aussie footprints one funny enough, isn't. Well.. It's the largest collection of such ancient footprints on the planet. Handily Aboriginal folks are some of the best trackers on the planet so really helped the researchers out. The trackways have kids and women strolling around, even a one legged man and one guy who was going at some speed, which they estimate wasn't far off olympic sprint speed. Estimate. It makes a good headline and scientists aren't immune to egging up figures to get one.

Prehistoric women typically had stronger arms than modern elite rowers and some of them had stronger legs than modern ultramarathon runners.

Wibbs

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Prehistoric women typically had stronger arms than modern elite rowers and some of them had stronger legs than modern ultramarathon runners.

Neandertal women yes, but that's much less the case with Modern Humans P, which those folks were. Their skeletons look the same as current Aboriginal people. They would have been stronger yeah, because of their workload, but not that much stronger. Though I do recall reading that studies of the legs and pelvis of an even earlier ancestor Homo Erectus strongly indicated they were built for speed and could have been faster than modern human olympic runners. One hypothesis goes that part of their food gathering strategy was to get to animal kills more quickly than other scavengers and fast ground speed was their adaptation, or it was a straightforward hunting adaptation. Much like the San Bushmen even today can chase and run down antelopes by wearing them down. Native Americans would run down horses in a similar way.

There are two things about humans that we kinda forget. As far as eye level goes we're one of the tallest animals on the planet and about the tallest predator, and there are very few animals modern humans can't run down over distance. Wild canids like wolves about the only ones we couldn't as they have a similar hunting strategy when it comes to game bigger than themselves. And that's another difference with us, we're one of the very few predators that routinely hunted and took down prey bigger than ourselves. You see that with our pets. Cats are superbly built predators, but they're generally not so daft to go after bigger prey than themselves. On the other hand your average terrier if it sees a deer or cow will figure "fcuk it, let's have a go!" and we're the same. Daft essentially. Though occasionally it didn't go so well...

Professor Moriarty

Wibbs wrote: »

Neandertal women yes, but that's much less the case with Modern Humans P, which those folks were. Their skeletons look the same as current Aboriginal people. They would have been stronger yeah, because of their workload, but not that much stronger. Though I do recall reading that studies of the legs and pelvis of an even earlier ancestor Homo Erectus strongly indicated they were built for speed and could have been faster than modern human olympic runners. One hypothesis goes that part of their food gathering strategy was to get to animal kills more quickly than other scavengers and fast ground speed was their adaptation, or it was a straightforward hunting adaptation. Much like the San Bushmen even today can chase and run down antelopes by wearing them down. Native Americans would run down horses in a similar way.

There are two things about humans that we kinda forget. As far as eye level goes we're one of the tallest animals on the planet and about the tallest predator, and there are very few animals modern humans can't run down over distance. Wild canids like wolves about the only ones we couldn't as they have a similar hunting strategy when it comes to game bigger than themselves. And that's another difference with us, we're one of the very few predators that routinely hunted and took down prey bigger than ourselves. You see that with our pets. Cats are superbly built predators, but they're generally not so daft to go after bigger prey than themselves. On the other hand your average terrier if it sees a deer or cow will figure "fcuk it, let's have a go!" and we're the same. Daft essentially. Though occasionally it didn't go so well...

Actually, it wasn't just Neanderthal women, it was women right up to and including the Iron Age. Basically, they did most of the farming and household chores.There's a good article on it here. It wouldn't be PC for me to mention that modern women might think of doing more housework to tone up. So I won't say it.

Wibbs

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Actually, it wasn't just Neanderthal women, it was women right up to and including the Iron Age. Basically, they did most of the farming and household chores.

Oh sure P there were certainly physical changes in humans, particularly women when the agricultural revolution took off, but in the context of those trackways in Australia 20,000 years ago that wasn't in play.

Markcheese

A lot of the "strength" came from repeated daily grinding grain.. It took something like 4 to 6 a day, hours to grind enough for a family..

Grayson

Malaysia has just elected a new king.

Turns out that they have 9 royal families and the royal families vote on who will have a 5 year term as king. So the King is technically an elected representative (not elected by the country but you know what I mean).

Also, the last king abdicated because he had a secret marriage to a russian beauty queen.

Chancer3001

There's a lot of incorrect use of the term strength in the last few posts.

Strength is the ability to move a maximum force one time.

So hours grinding or chores or farm work isn't the ideal training to build strength.

That builds muscular endurance mainly.

Being able to lift a huge load one time (like weightlifting at the Olympics) is strength.

Loads of push ups or farm work isn't really

4068ac1elhodqr

Early man (or cave lady) owed a lot to throwing 'technology'
- rather than sheer strength, speed or agility when hunting.

This type of 'throwing stick' can be seen in pet shop for doggy 'throw the ball' aids.
This 'atlatl' is a basic tool that uses leverage to achieve greater velocity,
thereby piercing larger animals better, and at greater distances.

Wibbs

They went nuts decorating them too. Vanishingly few from the Palaeolithic are plain.

f0344788a22e5d8cbdd1bb9ebb112868--spear-thrower-prehistory.jpg

f0344788a22e5d8cbdd1bb9ebb112868--spear-thrower-prehistory.jpg

Pretty much all their portable wooden and bone stuff was decorated. Carving bone or ivory with flint tools was not easy to do and is hard going and longwinded. They loved the oul art and interestingly in that early period of wonder human habitation in Europe the art is the same style from the Mediterranean to the other side of the alps. It's also more complex than the later stuff generally is. That seems counterintuitive as we tend to move towards more skill, more complexity. Before accurate dating came along it was usually the most complex stuff was attributed to later periods and when decent dates came along it came as a shock as the fanciest stuff tended to be the earliest. Another interesting thing is the earliest cave art tended to portray few of the animals they actually hunted and ate, so you get lions and rhino and the like, whereas later stuff has more prey animals and more human figures creep in.

The use of bone as a material was really jumped upon by modern humans. It seems an obvious material, but previous folks like Neandertals for example didn't seem to use it much, or we haven't found much evidence they did(they did work wood quite a bit, preservation is the issue there).

Wibbs

Chancer3001 wrote: »

There's a lot of incorrect use of the term strength in the last few posts.

Strength is the ability to move a maximum force one time.

So hours grinding or chores or farm work isn't the ideal training to build strength.

That builds muscular endurance mainly.

Being able to lift a huge load one time (like weightlifting at the Olympics) is strength.

Loads of push ups or farm work isn't really

That's very true C. Never mind that the body doesn't like expending energy on extra muscle it doesn't need as it needs calories even at rest so will tend to just build the minimum required.

They also look at muscle attachments and bone growth and overall size. That gives a much better idea of strength and the levels of power that could be applied. Taking the extremes of hominid strength Neandertals and comparing them to us illustrates those differences. Differences at the genetic and physiological levels too. So for example our limb bones are more oval in cross section, theirs were more circular and were much thicker and heavier in response to the forces they were required to handle. Their muscle attachments were also much larger. The power they could apply can also be seen in how their bones changed over time. Through adolescence their forearm bones actually curved from the pressure of the muscle forces involved. We can see similar if much less obviously in medieval archers who started early and practiced with heavier and heavier bow draws as they grew up to adulthood. They also had shorter and thicker fingers and massive hip shoulder and knee joints.

They were real bruisers. Tonka truck humans. One hypothesis is that they were ambush predators, who would lay in wait and rush at extreme speed and aggression at prey subduing it with sheer physical strength very close in with stabbing spears. Almost all Neandertal males show pretty heavy duty damage and it looks like at least some of this was through this hunting strategy. A good few years back a doctor noted their injuries were almost identical to those he saw as a doctor on call at rodeos in the US. And these guys were taking down wild horses and wild cattle called aurochs. Aurochs make the nastiest bull today look like a goat in a petting zoo.

Dyr

Wibbs wrote: »

, we're one of the very few predators that routinely hunted and took down prey bigger than ourselves. You see that with our pets. Cats are superbly built predators, but they're generally not so daft to go after bigger prey than themselves. On the other hand your average terrier if it sees a deer or cow will figure "fcuk it, let's have a go!" and we're the same. Daft essentially. Though occasionally it didn't go so well...

If we're daft then mustelids are crazier than a sh*thouse rat

Consider the humble weasel

Ipso

Bambi wrote: »

If we're daft then mustelids are crazier than a sh*thouse rat

Consider the humble weasel

Eagles may soar, but weasels dont get sucked into jet engines.
Are wolverines mustelids? They seem like polar bears trapped in a badgers body on speed.

banie01

A quirk of history that I have always found fascinating, is that the Messerschmitt Me109, the most successful fighter ever flown in terms of enemy aircraft shot down and the mount of many of Nazi Germany's top pilots was initially flown in prototype form with a British Rolls Royce engine.
The original flight capable prototypes were designed for the Jumo 210 engine with Daimler as a future option but both were still in early development so Messerschmitt bought 4 Rolls-Royce Kestrel engines to progress testing.

As a further irony, the very last versions of the Me-109 in service.
The Spanish built Hispano Ha112's were equipped with the engine that powered the main UK/US nemesis of the Me-109.
The Rolls-Royce Merlin as flown in the Hurricane, the Spitfire and the Mustang.

So the top German fighter was birthed with, and died with a British engine.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Ipso wrote: »

Eagles may soar, but weasels dont get sucked into jet engines.
Are wolverines mustelids? They seem like polar bears trapped in a badgers body on speed.

Yes, Wolverines are the largest land based mustelids. They can crush the femur bone of an adult moose!

Fourier

New Home wrote: »

Fair play to whoever made this because they avoided a really common mistake on the last one.

I worked it out myself and the value is 64.7 trillion kilometers, which is 6.84 light years.

The distance between Earth and Bernard's star (4th closest star) is 5.96 light years for comparison. So the universe gained enough extra space to fit a sphere holding our Solar system and the triple star Alpha Centauri system.

The Alpha Centauri system has one confirmed planet orbiting the smallest of the three suns, Proxima Centauri, and is within Proxima's habitable zone. There is also most likely a molten rock world orbiting the middle sized sun Beta Centauri, but the data isn't strong enough to confirm it yet.

It's possible that all three stars have planets and there might be planets orbiting all three at once, but we haven't seen any yet.

Say my name

Irish or Gaelic Christian Monks seem to have 'discovered' Iceland before the Vikings settled there.

100's of stone cut crosses and carvings have been found in man made caves dating to the 800's and maybe from beforehand on the island.

http://geographical.co.uk/people/cultures/item/1177-unearthing-iceland-s-heritage

* On the tv series 'Vikings' Floki gets a shock to find a stone cross and chalice in a cave while out exploring his "Land of the Gods".

Ipso

Say my name wrote: »

Irish or Gaelic Christian Monks seem to have 'discovered' Iceland before the Vikings settled there.

100's of stone cut crosses and carvings have been found in man made caves dating to the 800's and maybe from beforehand on the island.

http://geographical.co.uk/people/cultures/item/1177-unearthing-iceland-s-heritage

* On the tv series 'Vikings' Floki gets a shock to find a stone cross and chalice in a cave while out exploring his "Land of the Gods".

I read that Saint Brendans voyage may be based on trips to Iceland, supposedly it's not as bad a journey as you'd think as if you island hop using the Scottish islands, Faroes etc it makes it easier.