You know how when your hand is relaxed, your fingers are curled?
When birds relax, their feet curl in a similar way, and this provides enough grip that if they're on a perch, they will automatically hold on as easily as if they're awake.
There's a bit more to it, as the way the tendons in their feet and legs are attached, the foot will automatically grasp when the ankle is bent, so it's a much stronger grip than our floppy relaxed fingers would provide. Here's a quick rundown with a good gif illustrating how it works. https://windycityparrot.com/birds-sleep-standing-one-leg/ They also have an extra balance organ between their hips that help them sray upright, so the whole anatomy lends itself to sleeping like this.
Additionally, when we're awake and moving, we're constantly on our feet, so our feet and legs will get tired and need a rest. However, our arms don't generally get tired just from walking around, right?
Birds are the opposite. They spend a lot of time flying, and their feet are mostly relaxed and resting while they're in the air. It's the wings and chest muscles that get tired.
So sleeping on their feet has a whole other connotation to them.
I've read multiple times (over the years) that swifts are known for sleeping while in flight during their migrations between Africa and Europe. The best reference I could find right now is https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/three-swi... which doesn't confirm but strongly implies (presuming a bird cannot go for 200 days without sleeping, and it was apparently up in the air all that time, it must have been taking "power naps" in mid-air).
Our parrot came with a crooked toe (probably dislocated when he was a baby) and he has a permanent pressure sore in his foot, to add even more nuance. It’s the foot he preferences when standing or sleeping so I don’t think it’s a big problem.
I don't have a crystal ball but maybe. It wouldn't be instant, it would be an escalation itself. Maybe they could launch dozens without anyone catching on over time though. At the same time, if North Korea started launching a bunch into orbit the world would probably react on both fronts (launched satellites and launch facilities) before they actually got to the nuclear war part. Or maybe not.
Anyways, what I'm getting at is I'm not saying one way or another said satellite layer would actually prevent certain WW3 scenarios for sure or not. I'm saying the report is in agreement with the above conversation in that it was never claimed the satellite layer itself would be unaffected by a full scale WW3 taking place. I.e. its mention is out of place.
Brainstorm: Artificial sugars, chemicals in so many products from Amazon, hormones in meat, vegan substitutes, new preservatives, new herbicides, pesticides and fertilizers
Empirical observation: the two young people I know who had cancer (one died, other survived) frequented marijuana and had high levels of radon detected in their homes. But that doesn't necessarily support younger cancer trends.
Why artificial sugars, which have been extensively studied as a food, when there are so many pollutants that are actual poison that we ingest every day? This meme never dies, just like the one about MSG
The name is new but "ultra processed" - which is to say processed - has been with us for 50 years nowadays. Deleterious effects are known: obesity, diabetes and, yes, uptake in cancers.
Still, an unlikely candidate for a recent uptake in cancers amongst the young at least as a general category and not aiming at a specific new class of additives.
Its hard to make assumptions like this though. There is always the possibility that prolonged exposure to processed foods impacts reproduction over time. We could be seeing a delayed spike now because parents were exposed to the food for a decade or two before they had children.
This is all hypothetical, I'm not claiming this is the case. Its just worth considering delayed responses that require a generation or two before the symptoms are easy to spot.
If WW3 happens anytime in the next 100 years, a colony on Mars would not survive because they would eventually stop receiving shipments of earth made tech. For example, replacement IC's or other silicon wafer based technology. Not like you are going to see a fab built on Mars in the first 20-50 years of a Mars colony.
It probably won't survive, but it doesn't mean that it shouldn't be tried for all different sorts of reasons. We don't know when a danger will occur or materialize, but we should begin to make sure our eggs are spread out as soon as possible to have the highest odds of survival as species.
Well yes, but I wouldn't be surprised if Starlink was for nuclear?
Why am I being downvoted here?
US, Europe, west, and democracy in general, at current times needs to be 100% at its game on the most significant power in human history.
Ultimately dictatorship is not going to give up, and they want to prove democracy is wrong, and at some points nuclear weapons are going to be used for that.
We are at pre-war right now. But it's a matter of time for all of it to escalate to all out war. We must be prepared for it.
Humanity cannot attain harmony because disparity exists. People are different, we have different beliefs in how rule should be attained and held, and we are willing to fight each other to the death to prolong that way of life. The concept of "perfect order" is nonsense, because it would require so much concentrated bigotry that nothing would possibly ever change or be unique. There is no harmony for us to reach, besides the mutual acceptance that we exist in constant resource competition with our fellow man. That's all there is.
Elon Musk isn't your savior, he's a fickle authoritarian that would destroy society like he destroyed his own image, if he got the chance. You guys need to stop obsessing over the same three popular celebrities and move on, this stuff is embarrassing (even by HN standards) and a waste of both our time. Send it to TMZ and get ignored by them, if you're desperate for attention.
There is no harmony at current state, because that is how natural selection has developed us. Although it would still be better if democracy ruled the World rather than dictatorship together with democracy. Elon Musk is not the saviour, but none the less the goals he set make sense. The other part of your reply is quite ugly unbased attacks from you.
No. Climate change will be bad but won't render Earth uninhabitable. It probably won't even be as bad as any of the major mass extinctions we know about. WW3 is not assured, and all the major powers understand why nukes are a terrible idea. Even if things go hot between US/CN I bet it'll stay conventional.
Furthermore if those disasters do happen, they will surely kill a martian colony, since it won't actually be independent of earth for decades, in terms of spare parts, genetically viable population, etc, even if they do manage to grow their own food and oxygen.
When birds relax, their feet curl in a similar way, and this provides enough grip that if they're on a perch, they will automatically hold on as easily as if they're awake.
There's a bit more to it, as the way the tendons in their feet and legs are attached, the foot will automatically grasp when the ankle is bent, so it's a much stronger grip than our floppy relaxed fingers would provide. Here's a quick rundown with a good gif illustrating how it works. https://windycityparrot.com/birds-sleep-standing-one-leg/ They also have an extra balance organ between their hips that help them sray upright, so the whole anatomy lends itself to sleeping like this.
Additionally, when we're awake and moving, we're constantly on our feet, so our feet and legs will get tired and need a rest. However, our arms don't generally get tired just from walking around, right?
Birds are the opposite. They spend a lot of time flying, and their feet are mostly relaxed and resting while they're in the air. It's the wings and chest muscles that get tired.
So sleeping on their feet has a whole other connotation to them.