These stunning infographics and graphics turn science fact into cannabis art

Nowadays, more and more people are using cannabinoid products for their health and wellness applications. However, these applications and benefits are so many and varied that you practically need a table to keep up with them all. Fortunately, a company called Golden leaf actually makes such graphics and infographics. And contrary to what you probably imagine, they are so beautiful that you are going to want to make this cannabis art the centerpiece of your home decor.

Image via Gold Leaf

Public perception of cannabis has changed a lot over the past decade. As the legalization movement took hold across the country, more and more people realized that hemp isn’t just for stoners and hippies. In addition to their perfectly legitimate recreational uses, cannabinoids such as THC and CBD have been shown to relieve a host of health problems without the side effects that often accompany other prescription drugs.

Sadly, our scientific understanding of cannabis has been held up by decades of draconian drug laws. Now we are finally starting to catch up. But there is so much information coming in all the time, it can be hard to understand.

This is where Goldleaf comes in. Their mission is to make the resort more accessible, dispelling myths and misinformation through the latest peer-reviewed research. To this end, they create unique products that combine a beautiful minimalist design with the most recent information on cannabis. These products include a whole range of information tables and infographics on various cannabis-related topics that are also stylish and educational.

If you are looking for a stylish way to educate yourself, friends, patients or clients on the latest cannabis facts, Goldleaf prints are a great choice.

Image via Gold Leaf

Golden leaf CBD vs THC Comparison Impression is a sleek and modern infographic designed to serve as a starting point for treating twenty common medical conditions. Focusing on two of the most beneficial and studied cannabinoids, this beautiful and useful infographic shows which symptoms respond best to CBD, which respond best to THC, and which respond best to a combination of the two.

This fine art print comes on heavyweight archival paper with a matte finish using a very high quality press for vibrant color and brilliant resolution. It is available in two sizes, with or without hanging rods.

Click here to find out more and order.

Image via Gold Leaf

In many cases, people start to treat cannabis the same way they treat wine, beer, and coffee, analyzing different strains for their very nuanced flavor profiles. If you want to impress your guests at your next dinner you must check out Goldleaf’s Table of food and wine pairings Terpene to print. It is designed to help you pair gourmet food and wine with the right terpenes, which are the chemical compounds that give cannabis plants their flavor. Developed with the guidance of several professional chefs and culinary experts, this chart provides eight beautiful botanical illustrations explaining different flavor profiles of specific terpenes.

This fine art print comes on heavyweight uncoated archival paper using a very high quality press for vibrant color and brilliant resolution. It is available in two sizes, with or without hanging rods.

Click here to find out more and order.

Image via Gold Leaf

Gold leaf created the Cannabis delivery methods table print for cannabis newcomers who want to explore the different methods of cannabis consumption, as well as cannabis veterans who want a quick and aesthetically appealing visual reference for stats like onset times, duration and bioavailability. With Goldleaf’s signature minimalist design front and center, the Cannabis Delivery Method Chart is perfect for dispensaries, doctor’s offices, or the home of anyone interested in the science of cannabis use.

This fine art print comes on heavyweight archival paper with a matte finish using a very high quality press for vibrant color and brilliant resolution. It is available in two sizes, with or without hanging rods.

Click here to find out more and order.

Futurism Fans: To create this content, a non-editorial team worked with an affiliate partner. We may charge a small commission on items purchased through this page. This post does not necessarily reflect the opinions or endorsement of the Futurism.com editorial team.

Futurism readers: find out how much you could save by switching to solar power at UnderstandSolar.com. By registering via this link, Futurism.com may receive a small commission.


Source link

10 Science Facts That Will Ruin Your Favorite Sci-Fi Movies

There is nothing quite like the sinking feeling that viewers get when a beloved sci-fi piece fumbles around a technical detail and ends up embarrassingly distorting scientific reality.

What is that? There is fiction in the name, and just because it’s about science doesn’t he has to shoot with infallible precision all the time?

Maybe, but even the most intentionally silly sci-fi movies need to create tension and get viewers to invest in their characters, which means they need at least a minimum of credibility to make it happen. history has issues.

After all, viewers may not know how the xenomorph developed acidic blood, but given how remote and inhospitable their home planet is, it’s conceivable that even their body makeup is lethal to humans. Likewise, a recent WhatCulture list of wasted twists noted that while M Night Shyamalan’s The Happening offered an in-depth explanation of its killer plants, it is perhaps fondly remembered as more than a laughing stock. These days.

With that in mind, this list is here to uncover the most egregious science missteps, miscalculations, and outright fabrications that have the power to turn compelling sci-fi classics into unintentional comedies.

Okay, get ready to see more Roland Emmerich repeat offenders.

Keep in mind, this is the man who connected an Apple laptop to the operating system of an alien space fleet on Independence Day, when half the time iPhones don’t not even connect to each other.

The cheesy 2004 disaster epic The Day After Tomorrow deserves kudos for being one of the first major blockbusters to take climate change seriously (sorry, Waterworld, but no one could take you seriously), as well as ‘describing a human destroyed by New York after 9/11. pride rather than risky metaphors for terrorists.

However, as the world is now discovering since the release of this film in 2004, global climate change does not happen overnight (or even over the course of three whole days). According to climatologists, the film’s apocalyptic vision of a sudden global catastrophe would actually occur over many years.

Say, at a rate that most of the Western world could comfortably ignore or outright deny until it is too late to correct …


Source link

5 scientific “facts” that are completely wrong

1

Nothing can travel faster than light – FALSE!

Since Einstein, we know that nothing goes faster than the speed of light – around 300,000 km per second. But this is only true in a vacuum, or almost as in space. Under the right circumstances, your neighbor’s turtle can overtake the light. It all depends on the medium.

When light shines through glass or water, it slows down by about a third. It’s still too fast to catch. But use even more exotic materials and you can reduce the speed of light to the rhythm of walking. Recently, scientists have even managed to turn off the light completely and then release it later. Just about anything can move faster than light, as long as you have a world-class lab to cut its heels off.

2

Sputnik was the first man-made object in space – FALSE!

Sputnik 1, launched by the Soviet Union on October 4, 1957, changed the world. It circled the globe for three months, as the first man-made object to enter orbit. But it was not the first to reach space. Hundreds of previous rockets had fired well beyond the recognized limit, only to immediately fall back to Earth on a ballistic trajectory. These were the German V-2 missiles, which rained devastation on England, France and Belgium during the last years of World War II. It was not a good start to the conquest of space.

Read more amazing facts:

3

Glass is a liquid – FALSE!

Stroll through an old building with a knowledgeable friend, and they are sure to refer you to old windows. “See how thicker the glass is at the bottom?” », They will say. “It’s because glass is a liquid, not a solid. Over the centuries, gravity has caused the glass to sink downwards ”. Sounds convincing, right? It is in fact an urban myth.

Old glass is thicker at the bottom because it was made that way. The first glass technologies could only produce small panes of varying thickness and transparency. It made sense to install these imperfect panels so that the heaviest edges were at the bottom. This is the reason why old windows seem thicker at the base.

4

Fish were the first animals to leave the oceans – FALSE!

We’ve all seen the illustrations. Millions of years ago, a particularly brave fish learned to venture on land for short periods. Over time, his species have spent longer and longer stays on land. Gradually, the gills gave way to the lungs to produce amphibians first, then reptiles, birds and mammals. Then, we. But this adventurous fish was not a true pioneer. The land was already teeming with life, including insects, centipedes, plants and fungi. This fact is often overlooked in a human-centered life story.

5

Your body is entirely yours – FALSE!

Here is a scary thought. About half of the cells in your body are non-human. Rogue agents are bacteria, fungi and archaea. Your body is full of these tiny intruders. Between 500 and 1,000 species have taken up residence in your folds, ducts, shutters and rooms, and they are each present in the billions. Even your human cells are not entirely yours. Many mothers store their baby’s cells in a process known as microchimerism. These cells function and divide alongside the mother’s native cells, while remaining genetically distinct.

These leftovers can be passed on to other babies and even persist into the next generation. Your grandmother’s cells might hang around in your abdomen; a tincture from your uncle can sequester in your spleen.

Everything you know about science is wrong by Matt Brown is out now (Batsford, £ 9.99)


Source link

The Guardian’s Take on a Public Health Calamity: The Scientific Evidence Needs to Be Hardened | Editorial

Fgetting rid of the fear of a fatal disease is a luxury by historical standards, enjoyed by most Britons. But luxury cultivates complacency. This is one of the explanations for the decline in the number of children receiving routine vaccinations. NHS data released this week showed absorption of the first dose of the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine to drop from 91.2% to 90.3% in England. This is the fifth consecutive annual decline. This moves the UK away from the World Health Organization’s 95% coverage target – the point of “herd immunity” where collective defense can stifle contagion. Last month, the WHO revoked Britain’s “measles-free” status just two years after that milestone was taken. There were around 1,000 cases last year, double the number recorded two years earlier. Mumps is experiencing a similar resurgence.

There is something particularly troubling about a society choosing to make itself vulnerable to infection. There is no new pathogen to defeat. The means of prevention are available on the NHS. Their rejection points to a different trend – the spread of toxic disinformation online and contempt for science in a culture that has devalued rationalism and expertise. Suspicion about the MMR vaccine peaked around the turn of the century and scared stories of association – completely debunked – with autism. This lie was first defeated by the facts, but is now enjoying a second life online as part of a much larger apparatus of fear and fraud. Parents who search Google or Facebook for information on vaccinations encounter mounds of deception, camouflaged in pseudoscience. Some of them channel the profits to charlatans and charlatans. Some are a gateway to paranoid sites on the far left and far right of the political spectrum. Some people, for whatever reason, just don’t trust vaccines, even though we wish they would. Tech giants have been reluctant to take control of this area as the “anti-vaxx” culture fuels a lucrative advertising market in hokum. Claims of social media companies to be responsible corporate citizens collide with their commercial interest in clickbait poison. Anti-vaxx content may not contain hate speech or glorify terrorism, but it still poses a danger to public health and should be regulated accordingly. Late, some companies act on the threat, but measures are not enough.

Meanwhile, the need to restore collective immunity is forcing the government to consider stronger measures: compulsory vaccination or a requirement of proof of immunization as a condition of occupancy of places in nurseries and schools. Such measures would entail additional bureaucracy and the risk of a counterproductive backlash against the state. These are important objections, but not insurmountable when the associated benefit is preventing epidemics and saving lives. Ideally, information campaigns, combined with more effective postnatal care, would be sufficient to strengthen the defenses against the disease. Not all vaccine refusals are anti-science activists. Many are simply bewildered and lend themselves to persuasion. With the right methods, more can be done to help the facts win this battle before coercion becomes necessary. But there might still come a time when the government may have to draw the line and declare that the refusal of a minority to get vaccinated is a luxury our society can no longer collectively afford.

This article was modified on October 1, 2019. An earlier version omitted the word “no” in the last sentence.



Source link

Science, facts and truth matter most when human lives are at stake

In politics, it is common to have disagreements over values ​​and goals. What makes government decision-making even more difficult today is that we disagree not only on goals but also on facts.

Is the planet getting warmer? Are asylum seekers in danger if they are sent back to their country or if they have to wait in Mexico? Would a single-payer health care system bankrupt the government?

The easy problems are those on which we agree on facts and goals: the bridge has collapsed and needs to be replaced. There are a lot of additional issues that will need to be addressed (design, contractors, and how to pay for it), but we know how to build a new bridge. Agreement on facts and purpose makes subsequent decisions easier to make.

When we agree on facts but not on values ​​and goals, then we need a political process.

For example, if a city has a million dollar surplus, what should we do with the money? We agree on the amount of the surplus, but not on what to do with it.

Disagreements over goals and values ​​can only be resolved through negotiations, compromises or the exercise of power. We have the voices; you lost.

There are even political situations where we agree on goals but disagree on facts, or don’t know how to achieve the goal.

During WWII we wanted to defeat our enemies, but at the start of the war it was not clear how to do it. During the space race, we decided to send a man to the moon, but no one in Congress had the scientific and technical knowledge to do so.

In both of these cases, we brought in experts to investigate the problem, find solutions, and get the job done. This often involved trial and error until a good solution was found.

Research and science, however, are corrupted when people play quickly and freely with the facts. Bias researchers are usually funded by special interest groups who want the facts on their side. Politicians use “alternative facts” to back up their case. Disputes over fact have become so common that they have created a new branch of journalism devoted to fact-checking statements by politicians on both sides.

Saint Augustine believed that the prohibition of lying was absolute for Christians, even if it cost them their lives. In his eyes, lying was an inherent evil. Later moralists argued that one can lie to protect oneself from an evil person or state.

Today we are so far from Augustine that people are lying just to make an argument or make money. The end justifies the means. And when they are caught lying, they have no shame or a sense of guilt.

The immigration debate is one in which we see disagreements over values ​​and facts, which makes it so difficult to resolve.

Values: What kind of immigrants do we want in terms of wealth, education, ethnicity, race and religion? Should we favor the reunification of families or immigrants who boost our economy? How should we treat those who have come here illegally? Should families be separated at the border?

But there are also disagreements over the facts: what happens to asylum seekers when they are returned to their country? Do immigrants commit more crimes than native born citizens? Are immigrants or native-born citizens more dependent on government assistance? Does immigration help or hurt the economy? Do immigrants pay more taxes than they receive government benefits?

Confusion over the facts makes decision making more difficult. Ignoring or lying about research already done makes things worse.

If we want to make progress in our country, we must value the facts and the truth. We must promote research and science.

There is no doubt that sometimes researchers and scientists are wrong. But science at its best is a process of self-correction, in which other scientists can critique and improve the work of their peers. But when politicians and the public reject scientific findings because they don’t like the results, then we’re in trouble.

The plight of asylum seekers worries me a lot. Asylum seekers are people who say they fear harm if returned to their country of origin. Jews fleeing Nazi Germany were a classic example of asylum seekers. Some Jews were refused entry and returned to Germany, where they were killed in concentration camps.

Today’s asylum seekers from the Middle East, Africa and Central America claim that their lives have been threatened for political, religious or identity reasons or simply because they refused to cooperate with the gangs prevalent in their country. Some refugees are women fleeing domestic violence. Sometimes the government is the persecutor; sometimes he just looks the other way and allows the violence to take place.

The Trump administration claims that most asylum seekers are fraudsters who really come to the United States for economic reasons. The administration says they can be safely returned to their country.

It is a question of fact which should be studied. The Trump administration has already returned thousands of asylum seekers to Central America. What happened to them after their return? We have a few anecdotal reports of returned asylum seekers, but no comprehensive study.

Congress should demand that the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Homeland Security and the State Department do research to find out what happened to these people after their return. were they killed? Are they still threatened? Did their governments protect them?

Academics, non-governmental organizations and the Catholic Church should also do this research. We need to know what happens to people who are fired.

Policy making must be influenced by facts. Making decisions ignoring the facts is irresponsible. It’s shooting in the dark when you don’t know who you’re going to hurt.

But our values ​​must also be taken into account. When the facts are uncertain, when the research is incomplete, we must look to the solution that is safest for those affected. Playing with people’s lives is not acceptable.


Source link

5 well-known scientific “facts” that turned out to be myths – FlipScience


(Updated March 26, 2021) We humans love anecdotes. In fact, here are some fun facts for you:

1) Three out of five people are likely to share an anecdote they found on their social media feed.
2) One on three will find a way to bring it up in a future conversation.
3) Only 13 of 27 take the time to verify whether the incredible fact they just read was in fact too good to be true.

Oh, and in case you haven’t already figured it out, these are just dummy stats that I made up on the fly.

mad scientist myth

“Trust me on these numbers – I’m a scientist! Now stay still while I clip them to your eyelids… ”(Image: Universal Pictures)

Still, it’s not that far-fetched to think that if there’s one thing people love more than getting smarter, it’s looking at more intelligent. More often than not, the easiest way to do this is to drop some random, out of this world, hyper specific scientific fact designed to leave everyone in awe.

Unfortunately, this also means that many so-called “facts” circulate without any fact checking. And as they repeat themselves out of the blue, the line between fact and fiction blurs faster than you can say “fake news!” “

Here are five of the many, many pieces of “science trivia” that don’t quite hold up when real science – or sometimes, even just common sense – kicks in.

Myth # 1: You only use ten percent of your brain.

Made: There are many ways to dispel this long-held myth. Indeed, the neuroscientist Barry beyerstein willing Seven. Conclusion: we use 100% of our brain… and perhaps the easiest way to prove it is from a practical point of view.

Think about it. What exactly are we talking about when we say “ten percent”? Are we talking about a physical region of the brain? If so, then what’s the point in leaving 90 percent unused? From an evolutionary standpoint, it would make absolutely no sense for our brains to be this big. In fact, the brain consumes about a fifth of our body’s energy, although it only accounts for two percent of the human body’s weight. Or do we assume that our neurons stop receiving signals from other neurons when we hit that “ten percent” quota?

Moreover, no existing study or research supports this silly idea. Also, if this is really the case, then any brain injury or head trauma that does not reach that “ten percent” magic zone should not hinder mental performance.

deadpool myth
“On the bright side, at least we have a Scarlet johansson movie about this one, isn’t it? (Image: 20th Century Fox)

Myth # 2: It takes seven years to digest chewing gum.

Made: Nope. In fact, you’re just going to poop him straight away. Seriously.

It is true that today’s gum uses synthetic polymers. However, things that are less than 2cm in diameter usually exit the digestive system safely. This myth was invented by your parents to prevent your teen from swallowing chewing gum, and for good reason. While this wad of chewed gum does not semi-permanently live in your gut, it can certainly be a choking hazard, both for children and adults.

jubilee x-men myth

Warning: Excessive chewing gum can give you brilliant mutant powers and an outdated fashion sense. (Image: Marvel Comics)

Myth # 3: Goldfish have a memory duration of three seconds.

Made: Research shows that contrary to popular belief, a goldfish’s memory lasts beyond a few seconds. In fact, an experiment has shown that they are able to remember things for as long as Five months!

If you own some of these shimmering swimmers yourself, you’ve probably noticed how much they tend to come to the glass of their tank when you walk into the room. What they are exhibiting is in fact associative learning. Your pets have come to associate human presence with feeding time, so they will come closer in anticipation of a delicious goldfish larva. The fact that commercially available goldfish food doesn’t even look like anything they would eat in the wild is proof of this.

In other words, it’s time to stop believing a myth that a fifteen-year-old boy managed to refute with a simple experiment.

goldfish

“Now stop believing in false scientific ‘facts’ and give me some food, a meaty dispenser. (Image: Roberto Machado Noa / Getty Images)

Myth # 4: The color red makes bulls angry.

Made: Red alert: This is absolutely false. It’s not the red cape (or muleta) worn by a matador who charges his horned enemy in a bullfight. Rather, this is the way the cape moves that enraged the bull. It has been shown that bulls will charge on a moving cape regardless of its color; red happens to be the preferred color for muletas because it helps to hide the blood (whether it is that of the matador or that of the bull) much more easily.

Still not convinced? How about this: just like other types of cattle, bulls are color blind to red (and green).

Michael jordan

“Do bulls hate red?” What a ridiculous idea. (Image: Beth A. Kesler / Associated Press)

Myth # 5: Bats are blind.

Made: You’ve probably heard the expression “blind as a bat”, usually to insult someone else’s supposed poor eyesight. The truth, however, is that on the 1,300 known bat species, none of them are completely blind.

In reality, different species of bats have different levels of visual acuity. Some of the very small bats (microbats) tend to have poorly developed eyesight. On the other hand, larger bats (megabats) have much better eyesight; in fact some of them can see three times better than we can. As for echolocation (the ability to determine the position of an object through sound waves and echoes), many bat species use it in tandem with real vision to hunt for food, especially in the dark caves.

bat

Oh, wait. We are pretty sure this we can not see. (Image: ministicks.com)


The references

  • https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-we-really-use-only-10/
  • https://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/pdf/tenper.pdf
  • http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20130625-does-gum-take-years-to-digest
  • https://www.healthline.com/health/how-long-does-gum-take-to-digest
  • http://www.gumassociation.org/index.cfm/facts-figures/frequently-asked-questions/what-are-the-risks-of-choking-while-chewing-gum-is-swallowed/
  • https://animals.howstuffworks.com/pets/how-much-can-a-goldfish-remember.htm
  • https://www.jpost.com/Health-and-Sci-Tech/Science-And-Environment/Fish-have-longer-memories-than-previously-thought-say-Technion-scientists
  • https://www.livescience.com/33700-bulls-charge-red.html
  • https://www.scienceabc.com/nature/animals/do-bulls-really-hate-red-colour-blind.html
  • https://www.livescience.com/55986-are-bats-really-blind.html
  • https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/10/141031-bats-myths-vampires-animals-science-halloween/

Author: Mikaël Angelo Francisco

Bitten by the virus of scientific writing, Mikael has years of writing and writing experience to his credit. As the editor-in-chief of FlipScience, Mikael has vowed to help make science more fun and interesting for geek readers and the casual audience.


Source link

Science and data comics get the word out


YOHAN BONNET / AFP / Getty Images

What if reading comics was not only fun, but also educational?

According to a paper presented earlier this year at a conference on Human factors in computer systems, comics can help convey complex data. In a small study, researchers at the University of Edinburgh and others tried to find out which method was best for presenting different sets of data: a text written with a picture, an infographic or a comic strip. They gave study participants information in each format, then tested them on their understanding of the data they learned.

A small majority of participants were able to retain more information from the comic book than from the other two formats. In general, people thought that one of the biggest advantages of the comic book format over computer graphics was that the comic immediately indicated which direction you were supposed to read the information. Infographics don’t have a fixed reading order, so it’s not always clear what information needs to be seen first.

In contrast, research subjects thought the comics were sometimes too repetitive. To maintain the narrative structure, the same image often appeared in multiple panels with only a small change, but some readers found that boring. One participant was cited as saying “every time I see new images (panels), I expect something new ”.

It was only a small study, and there wasn’t a huge difference between comics and infographics when it came to getting the point across, but educational comics can have other purposes. than to explain data.

One of the co-authors of the Data Comics Effectiveness study was a scientific comic artist. Matteo farinella. Last week he also spoke about science comics at the World Conference of Science Journalists in Lausanne, Switzerland. Here he demonstrated how he uses visual aids to convey complex ideas. For example, a comic book allows you to introduce new types of characters to drive the story. In a regular written non-fiction sci-fi article, these characters are always real people – usually the scientists who did the work, or sometimes patients who received some scientific breakthrough. But in a comic book, you can get creative, and introduce fictional characters or even characters representing scientific objects.


Eva amsen

This round table also included two other scientific comic artists: Claudia Flandoli and Tailgate. Flandoli showed how the peculiar reading style of comics allows you to introduce many details and asides that would be extremely tedious to include in the prose. If she wants to develop a concept, she can add a panel to “zoom in” on the detail, or add an aside. The layout of the comic makes it clear to the reader that it involves a larger story detail. In the written text, it would be tedious paragraphs of examples.

Comics also have the potential to inspire people to explore scientific ideas. Hayanon, who has been making comics for over 15 years, shared the story of a researcher who was inspired to become a scientist after reading one of her comics years ago.

The image-based nature of comics also allows them to cross language barriers. While some of Hayanon’s Japanese comics have been translated into 25 different languages, others don’t use text at all. For example, a recent article in PLOS One describes how textless comics were used in Madagascar to communicate scientific recommendations on farmland management.

Even though this medium has been around for a few decades now, only a few studies have investigated whether comics are effective in teaching people complex scientific concepts. It has always been a ‘good to have’ rather than an essential part of science education, and comics may not be suitable for all types of information. But who knows, if science and data comics prove to be more effective than other media, maybe we’ll see more of it.


Source link

Fence flatworms with their penises and other fun science facts

It sounds like something out of a grimy fairy tale: The mountain shrew visits some species of pitchers to grab a bite of nectar and poop in the plant dresser cup. These plants seem to have evolved so that their openings adapt perfectly under the shrew is behind, and they are strong enough to support the weight of the animal.

It’s a crappy relationship, in the sense that the pitcher plant is actually shit – but the pitcher plant gets nutrients from the deal by extracting them from the shrew’s droppings. “Everything that has led to this is incredible,” said Ethan Kocak, illustrator of the new book True or Poop? The Definitive Field Guide to the Facts and Lies About Dirty Animals. The book, due out in the US on October 23, explores the stories people tell about animals – speaking the real facts and pooping lies. The pitcher toilet is, deliciously, real.

The authors of the book, graduate student in zoology Dani Rabaiotti and postdoctoral researcher Nick caruso, are the same team that brought us the best-selling guide to animal gas, Does it fart?. Corn True or Poop? covers a wider range of topics, from tapeworms fighting with their genitals (true) to the myth that camels store water in their bumps (poo). The team disagrees somewhat on what the book is. really In regards to. Rabaiotti says he covers the poo and coarse habits of animals. But Kocak, the illustrator, says it’s actually a quest for truth.

The mountain shrew, Tupaia montana, pooping in his jug.
Illustration by Ethan Kocak /True or Poop?

Ultimately, the team’s goal is to debunk some of the most common myths surrounding animals – like this, if you cut an earthworm in half, you end up with two earthworms. (You don’t. You just get a sliced ​​worm.) They set out to find the origins of these fictions and supplant them with incredible facts. “You don’t have to make things up about them,” Rabaiotti says. “They’re doing enough weird stuff already.”

Rabaiotti works in the UK, and Caruso and Kocak are both in the US – so even though this is the team’s second book together, they always have never met in person. For this book, too, they relied heavily on tools such as email and Google Docs that allowed them to work together remotely. Caruso says his inbox still hasn’t recovered after last year’s deluge of fart emails. “Now it’s just poo and penises,” he says. “So that’s pretty good. “

The edge talked with Rabaiotti, Caruso, and Kocak about elephants that eat poop, glands adjacent to the anus, and why electric eels are liars.

This interview has been edited for clarity and brevity.

Were there animal facts that were almost too much gross to include?

Dani Rabaiotti: There was one thing in particular that there was a disagreement between the American and British editors, because our British editor found it so disgusting: that baby elephants would reach for their mother’s buttocks and eat their poo in order to get them. good bacteria in their digestive systems. Our editor just highlighted and just said, “Too rude? ”

Ethan Kocak: I didn’t think I was going to get away with the penis fencing illustration. It’s two flatworms but they fight with penises, and I literally draw them like fences, with the masks and so forth. I didn’t think it was going to do it, but it did.

Hermaphroditic tapeworms can produce both eggs and sperm. They fight with their stretchy and pointed penises, and the loser of the fight gets a cum squirt.
Illustration by Ethan Kocak / True or Poo?

Can we talk about beaver butts? Because I keep hearing that the vanilla-scented secretions from beaver butts flavor my food – but your book tells me that’s usually not true?

Nick Caruso: Yes, there is some fear, because it’s like, “Oh, this substance is produced pretty close to the beaver’s butt – I would describe it as adjacent to the anus – and it’s in your food.” Even if it does, it’s perfectly certain: just because it’s near the buttocks doesn’t mean it’s poo. But also it’s just very expensive. You’re thinking of producing something where you actually have to milk it from an animal to get excretion rather than producing it artificially. It is much easier to not go take some beavers and milk them, their uh –

Rabaiotti: – buttocks!

Why demystify animal myths? What’s the harm in believing that there are beaver butt gland secretions in my vanilla ice cream?

Kocak: In the climate of fake news and all that, I think it’s more important to be truthful and not allow even “harmless” myths. It may not be very funny, but it is how I feel.

Rabaiotti: Even some of the most harmless can change the way a person treats an animal and have a negative impact. For example, many people believe that if you cut an earthworm in half, you end up with two earthworms. If a child believes this, he could cut tons of worms in half. And it’s not cool because you just damaged this animal for no reason.

What turned out to be poop that you thought was true?

Rabaiotti: This vulture poo is disinfectant and it poops on its legs to kill bacteria. But actually, when I read it and talked to vets and vulture experts, they were like, “Oh my god no, vulture poop is really full of horrible bacteria. Don’t touch that thing. It was a bit of a shock to me.

Kocak: I should stop rubbing that in my wounds …

Caruso: I should have known, but in jurassic park, where the T. rex I can’t see you if you stand still. I guess I never really thought about it too much, but I was like, “Why would they lie to me about this?” But that’s not true, they can definitely see you – and even if they couldn’t, they could smell you!

What’s your favorite thing you’ve learned?

Kocak: Parrotfish poop sand. The principle being that the humpback parrotfish eats coral, digests it and poops white sand, and so this is where white sand beaches come from.

Rabaiotti: And that’s true. Not all white sand beaches, especially the Maldives. It must be so uncomfortable being a humpback parrotfish. I’m glad I didn’t have to poop sand.

Kocak: I like the idea of ​​people paying extra money to go and lay on fish crap.

Rabaiotti: For me, the most surprising thing was that platypuses don’t have a stomach. It was the one where I was like, “Noooo, that can’t be true!” And then it was absolutely true. They eat their food and then it passes directly into the intestines without there being a pocket that produces acid. Weird.

Humpback parrotfish poop sand (true).
Illustration by Ethan Kocak / True or Poo?

Were there any myths that puzzled you and made you investigate?

Rabaiotti: The one about the fact that you’re always within six feet of a rat. It was the one where it was like, “Ooh, not sure.”

Caruso: So this myth began in the early 1900s when WR Boelter asked country residents how many rats they saw. He was writing a book on the rat problem. And then he estimated on the basis of this little survey how many rats there are in the whole country. And from there it was like, “Oh [the number of] rats are equal to people all over England. It took some pretty big assumptions that clearly weren’t correct to get these numbers.

Rabaiotti: One of them that I found very difficult to verify was that black widows ate their mates, as many species of spiders share the same name. In the United States, apparently, the species that people call a black widow does not eat its mate, and many spiders in the widow family do not eat their mate, or at least very rarely do. But the Australian widow actually eats her mate most of the time. So it was quite difficult to understand. So we opted for a sort of myth that not all black widows eat their mates. But some do.

A bunch of them – like those fire-born salamanders, or ostriches bury their heads in the sand, or earwigs lay eggs in their ears – come from a Roman naturalist whom you write “was very wrong about. a lot of things ”, right?

Rabaiotti: Three words: Pliny the Elder. He invented so many of these myths. Every time you think to yourself, “Oh, I wonder where this myth came from? It’s like, “And then Pliny the Elder made it up.” Basically he just wrote this really big book about the natural kingdom, but that was around the time when they were almost looking for morality in animal behavior. He sort of merged animal behavior according to his agenda at the time, which meant that not everything was quite right. Classical Pliny.

Caruso: We are cursing Pliny as we write this. Waving our fists to the sky.

Are there any that you are just devastated to find out that are wrong?

Kocak: Electric eels not being eels. I am crushed. It is a beautiful fish.

Caruso: Didn’t you draw it by saying “liar” in electricity?

Kocak: I did.

Rabaiotti: That’s how crushed Ethan was.

Did you learn anything by posting Does it fart? has it changed your approach to this book?

Kocak: Don’t shout “asshole” in an interview.

Rabaiotti: I obviously did not learn that …



Source link

New data science method makes charts easier to read at a glance – ScienceDaily

Doctors reading EEGs in emergency rooms, first responders looking at multiple screens showing live data streams from sensors in a disaster area, brokers buying and selling financial instruments all need to make informed decisions very quickly. The complexity of visualization can complicate decision making when looking at data on a chart. When timing is critical, it is essential that a chart is easy to read and interpret.

To help decision makers in scenarios like these, computer scientists at Columbia Engineering and Tufts University have developed a new method – “Pixel Approximate Entropy” – which measures the complexity of a data visualization and can be used to develop visualizations that are easier to read. . Eugene Wu, assistant professor of computer science, and Gabriel Ryan, then a master’s student and now a doctoral student at Columbia, will present their paper at the IEEE VIS 2018 conference on Thursday, October 25 in Berlin, Germany.

“This is a whole new approach to working with line graphics with many different potential applications,” says Ryan, lead author of the article. “Our method gives visualization systems a way to measure how difficult it is to read line graphs. So we can now design these systems to automatically simplify or summarize graphs that would be difficult to read on their own.”

Besides visually inspecting a visualization, there are few ways to automatically quantify the complexity of a data visualization. To solve this problem, Wu’s group created Pixel Approximate Entropy to provide a “visual complexity score” that can automatically identify difficult graphics. They modified a low-dimensional entropy measure to work on line graphs, then conducted a series of user studies that demonstrated that the measure could predict how well users perceive graphs.

“In fast-paced environments, it’s important to know if the visualization is going to be so complex that the signals can be obscured,” says Wu, who is also co-chair of the Data, Media, & Society Center at the Data Institute of Sciences. “The ability to quantify complexity is the first step in automatically doing something about it.”

The team expects their system, which is open source, to be particularly useful for data scientists and engineers who are developing AI-based data science systems. By providing a method that allows the system to better understand the visualizations it displays, Pixel Approximate Entropy will help drive the development of smarter data science systems.

“For example, in industrial control, an operator may need to observe and respond to trends in readings from a variety of system monitors over time, such as in a chemical or power plant,” adds Ryan. “A system aware of the complexity of the charts could tailor the readings to ensure that the operator can identify important trends and reduce fatigue from attempting to interpret potentially noisy signals.

Wu’s group plans to expand data visualization to use these models to automatically alert users and designers when visualizations may be too complex and suggest smoothing techniques, and to develop other quantitative perception models. that can assist in the design of data processing and visualization systems.

Source of the story:

Material provided by Columbia University School of Engineering and Applied Sciences. Note: Content can be changed for style and length.


Source link

12 amazing science facts you probably didn’t know

We all had the same science lessons in high school. We’ve learned how to dissect a frog and that mitochondria are the powerhouse of the cell, but they haven’t taught us everything. Whether you’re feeling a little nostalgic for your high school science class or just need some random new facts for your next conversation, here are some science facts that will absolutely blow your mind.

Antigravity helium

We all know that helium in its gaseous form is lighter than air: it fills our balloons and makes our voices squeak. Did you know that it also has anti-gravitational properties when in liquid form? Supercooled helium has two different liquid forms.

The first type, Helium 1, occurs between -455 and -452 degrees Fahrenheit, where it is almost impossible to see. The second type happens when it’s colder than 2.18 Kelvin and that’s when things get weird.

Helium supercooled below 2.18K ceases to obey the laws of gravity. It turns into a superfluid that can climb up the walls and come out of its container. Supercooled helium is as close to a frictionless material as we have discovered so far.

Flame retardant DNA

DNA isn’t the kind of substance you normally associate with flame retardant, but researchers have found that treating cotton fabric with DNA made it more flame retardant.

This is due to the DNA itself. DNA molecules contain phosphate. When heated, phosphate replaces the water naturally present in cotton fibers with phosphoric acid, which is more heat resistant than fibers alone. Now, we’re not suggesting treating your tissues with genetic material, but it’s a nice little treat to ditch at the parties.

Source: Pixabay

Not enough blood

The average human body contains between 1.2 and 1.5 gallons of blood. That’s why you can give a pint every now and then without hurting yourself. However, you wouldn’t want a baby to donate blood. When a newborn is born, it only have 0.007 gallons of blood in their body, assuming the baby weighs eight pounds at birth. That’s less than an ounce of blood!

A Pythagorean disorder

Do you remember the Pythagorean theorem? A squared plus B squared equals C squared to find the hypotenuse of a triangle. It’s probably one of the few things you remember from your algebra class because your teacher spent so much time shoving it in your head.

Instead of doing the math, you can prove the theorem with water. All you need is a triangle, three square containers the same thickness as the triangle, and a circular platform to attach them. By filling both sides of the triangle with water – A and B – then turning the platform upside down, the water on both sides will exactly fill the container on the third side – side C.

Watch it here if you don’t believe us.

12 amazing science facts you probably didn't know
Source: Pixabay

Cat physics

We all know cats always land on their hind legs, but it’s not just because of some crazy magic, it’s because of physics.

When you drop a cat, it instinctively retracts its front legs and extends its rear legs. This creates positive body rotation in the front and negative body rotation in the back. Essentially, the cat can use the two parts of his body separately to make sure he always lands on his feet. By creating two different types of spin, it can spin in the air very quickly. With the front legs turned down, it can easily pull its rear legs into the right position to allow it to land on its feet.

Brain Freeze Twister Tongue

We’ve all had a brain freeze at one time or another – you drink a cold drink or eat an ice cream cone too quickly, and you have an instant headache. Here’s a nice little treat to drop into the conversation, but it will take a bit of practice to get it right.

Repeat this – Ganglioneuralgia sphenopalatine. That is to say scientific name for that brain freeze that causes headaches. If you do get one, press your tongue against the roof of your mouth to reduce the pain and get back to your frozen treat much faster.

Toxineering

No one likes being bitten by a spider or being stung by a bee unless you are an addict. The title may make you think of a 90s comic book supervillain, but the toxin is a new kind of science trying to turn the venom of snakes, bugs, and arachnids into pain relievers.

Fortunately, you don’t have to be bitten or stung to experience the benefits of these pain relievers. Just take a pill or take a shot and you are good to go. If you ever need a really exciting job title for your first blind date, think call you a toxiner – just make sure you know enough about the topic to back it up.

12 amazing science facts you probably didn't know
Source: Pixabay

Don’t drop your phone

There is nothing worse than dropping your phone in the bathroom. Even if you have a waterproof case on it, it’s still gross. Thanks to some scientists, you might want to drop your phone in the toilet more often. New research has now found a way to charging cell phones while peeing in an electric battery designed to use minerals from your urine to generate electricity.

About 2.5 cups of urine is enough to charge a cell phone for three hours. Kill two birds with one stone by charging your phone in the bathroom without ever having to plug it into the wall.

Hold your breath

Always wanted to explore an awe-inspiring underwater environment, but felt bored of having to keep searching for air or lugging around a big tank of oxygen? Scientists have discovered an oxygen nanoparticle that allows you to live up to 15 minutes both without breathing.

It’s not like injecting oxygen into your bloodstream, which is stupid and could kill you if the bubbles reach your heart or brain. These particles are suspended in a liquid but carry enough oxygen so that the injected rabbits can survive for up to 15 minutes with their airways blocked. This is not a permanent solution – fresh nanoparticles need to be infused into the bloodstream at regular intervals to ensure that there is enough oxygen for the body to keep functioning. However, holding your breath for ten minutes or more could be a great party trick!

12 amazing science facts you probably didn't know
Source: Pixabay

Dance in the rain

We all try to eat a healthy diet and take supplements on a daily basis to make sure we get all the vitamins and minerals we need to stay healthy. Instead of taking that vitamin B12 supplement, why not just dance in the rain?

Rain is the last part of the water cycle – water falls, is absorbed into the soil where it takes up natural vitamins and minerals, then evaporates in heat and sunlight before returning to the ground. rain. Scientists have found that microorganisms in the air and on surfaces such as roofs can create vitamin B12 as a metabolic by-product.

It may not be enough to supplement your diet or replace your vitamin pills, but do we need an excuse to get out and dance in the rain?

13 inspirational Einstein quotes that Einstein never said

Radioactive sunflowers

Sunflowers are beautiful. Their bright yellow flowers reach five feet or more in the air, and their seeds are some of the tastiest snacks. These beautiful plants can and are also used to cleanse radiation.

Sunflowers are known as hyperaccumulators in the scientific community. They absorb large amounts of chemicals or toxic materials and store them in their tissues. These chemicals are stored in the stems and leaves of plants. They grow so fast that a field contaminated with radioactive material can to have cleaned in three to four years.

It may take a little longer than traditional cleaning methods, but it is much easier to get rid of a field of sunflowers than it is to dig up and move contaminated soil.

Folding paper

You probably know that you can’t fold a piece of paper in half more than eight times, regardless of the size of the paper. Even with a piece of paper the size of an airplane hangar, the Mythbusters could not handle more than 11 folds with a steamroller and a forklift in their arsenal. But what if you managed to fold a piece of paper more than eight or 11 times?

When you fold a sheet of paper in half, you double its thickness. The medium piece of paper is approximately 0.0039 inch thick. Bending it ten times gives it roughly the thickness of your hand. If you could bend it 23 times, the thickness increases up to a kilometer. 30 folds put you in orbit 100 kilometers away. 51 folds will reach the sun, and you will get a piece of paper larger than the observable universe with 103 folds.

Are you not happy that you can only fold a piece of paper eight times?

12 amazing science facts you probably didn't know
Source: Pixabay

Blow someone else’s mind

If you have nothing to say at your next party, you weren’t looking for enough. Go ahead and re-read this article – we’ll wait. Hope you have learned something new and have some interesting facts in your arsenal to wow your friends and wow them.


Source link