Was this writen by AI?

The researchers found surprisingly high levels of microplastics in the brain tissue. The concentration of plastics in the brain was much greater than that found in the liver or kidney samples. It was also higher than levels previously reported in placentas and testes. The median amount of total plastics for 2024 brain samples was 4917 micrograms per gram, and for 2016 samples, it was 3345 micrograms per gram. For comparison, the 2024 liver and kidney samples were 433 and 404 micrograms per gram, respectively.

Even more concerning was the finding that the amount of plastic in the brain was increasing over time. Brain tissue samples from 2024 had significantly higher levels of microplastics than samples from 2016, representing an approximate 50% increase in just eight years.

Isn't that the same information just repeated after each other?

To measure the microplastics, the researchers first chemically dissolved the tissue. This created a liquid mixture. They then spun this mixture at very high speeds in a machine called a centrifuge. This process separated out any undissolved materials, including plastics, into a small pellet. Next, they heated this pellet to a very high temperature (600 degrees Celsius), a process that breaks down the plastic.

Why does this sound like somebody explaining this to a 10 year old?

Yay for bringing up Mander :-)

Came here looking for this, was not disappointed.

This was the only possibility for the Incel Movement to ever get touched by a ~~women~~ female. Congrats to them.

Can... Can we wreak Istanbul on our way there again? Just out of tradition.

This meme is not true and missleading. I know it fits the narrative of "companies bad". But it's not based on fact.

It's based on an article by the guardian.

Just 100 companies responsible for 71% of global emissions, study says

The article is based on the Carbon Major Report.

It describes itself like this:

Carbon Majors is a database of historical production data from 122 of the world’s largest oil, gas, coal, and cement producers. This data is used to quantify the direct operational emissions and emissions from the combustion of marketed products that can be attributed to these entities.

As you can see, they speak about "entities", not companies. Who are said entities?

75 Investor-owned Companies, 36 State-owned Companies, 11 Nation States, 82 Oil Producing Entities, 81 Gas Entities, 49 Coal Entities, 6 Cement Entities

As one might realize, only 75 are Companies. Most of them are either States, or producers of Oil, Gas, Coal and Cement.

The 71 % is not at all about global emissions. This is wrong.

72% of Global Fossil Fuel & Cement CO2 Emissions

So it's 100 entities that are responsible for 72 % of the world's fossil and cement Co2 emission.

https://mander.xyz/pictrs/image/05dfb9e1-ace2-4072-9fc5-7ed6f6eddfb2.png

Looking at them you can see how the top emitter are very much not companies. Also, it's historical Co2, a fact made prominent by the former Soviet union beeing the top emitter.

Let's look at some more findings:

The Carbon Majors database finds that most state- and investor-owned companies have expanded their production operations since the Paris Agreement. 58 out of the 100 companies were linked to higher emissions in the seven years after the Paris Agreement than in the same period before. This increase is most pronounced in Asia, where 13 out of 15 (87%) assessed companies are connected to higher emissions in 2016–2022 than in 2009–2015, and in the Middle East, where this number is 7 out of 10 companies (70%). In Europe, 13 of 23 companies (57%), in South America, 3 of 5 (60%) companies, and in Australia, 3 out of 4 (75%) companies were linked to increased emissions, as were 3 of 6 (50%) African companies. North America is the only region where a minority of companies, 16 of 37 (43%), were linked to rising emissions.

Here the report mixes state and private companies. The rise is most prominent in countries with state owned companies. Privote companies, as seen in Europe and North America, haven't increased that much.

So, all in all: The idea that 100 companies are responsible for the destruction of earth is plain wrong.

I know the ideas that companies are responsible and to blaim for the current state of affairs fits our world view (it fits mine!!), but please don't run into the trap of believing everything you read just because it does.

Good point. If the wizard did this you also would never know that such a song existed. Hence your "worst song in the world" spot would be filled with a different song the instant the spell hits.

It shows how such categories as "the worst" and "the best" are only constructions of our mind.

Ich verstehe, warum wir uns wehren müssen gegen den Rechten Haufen und warum Menschen dabei zu Gewalt greifen.

Es trägt nur auch dazu bei, dass die Rechten sich zu Opfern machen können und im Falle solcher inzwischen recht gehäufte Angriffe auch objektiv korrekter Weise. So machen man es halt noch einfach ein (ohnehin schon verwendetes) Feindbild der Linsextremen aufzumachen. Ich frage mich ob das nicht noch mehr Menschen in die Arme der rechten Menschenfänger treibt oder dafür sorgt, dass bereits nach rechts tendierende Menschen sich davon beeinflussen lassen.

Gewalt kann man schon benutzen. Ich frage mich halt ob es dafür nicht noch zu früh ist. Noch haben wir andere Mittel des Kampfes. Und ja, ich sehe das wir diesen Kampf derzeit verlieren. Und das macht mir auch Sorgen. Aber ist Gewalt wirklich eine Lösung dafür?

I am not very well read in political theory, but I would agree with the idea that capitalism HAS to end in crisis because exponancial groth just can't be sustained.

I would further point out that, to my limited knowledge, capitalism is a (or even the) root cause of the current climate crisis (altough things like humans inability to solve long term problems, as well as other factors come into play too. After all, things like the ozon hole have been solved even under a capitalist system).

Thank you for engaging with the article in this depth. I might be able to help you clear up some of your concerns and will try to do so best i can.

Mounting evidence from exercise science indicates that women are physiologically better suited than men to endurance efforts such as running marathons.

This has been an ongoing discussion for years now. There have in fact been several scientists who have made the same claim. You are right to be critical here.

This study from 2015, that analysed the performance differences between men and women from 1971 to 2012, in 50 -mile to 3100-mile ultramarathons, comes to the conclusion that men outperform woman, although they point out that one reason for the gender gap might be that less women participate in marathons.

But this preprint (!) from 2023 suggests that, even with equal participation numbers, men still outperform woman.

Either way, it still is an ongoing debate. While the quoted sentence you chose is clearly not backed up by data the authors at least hint towards this by stating that "We still have much to learn about female athletic performance [...].". I still agree: the statement as made is incorrect.

I'd like to point to this article and this study, that seem to point towards men and woman using different pacing strategies in marathons, possible showing how they could have fulfilled different roles during hunting.

The article addresses a relevant point a bit further down: "The inequity between male and female athletes is a result not of inherent biological differences between the sexes but of biases in how they are treated in sports. As an example, some endurance-running events allow the use of professional runners called pacesetters to help competitors perform their best. Men are not permitted to act as pacesetters in many women's events because of the belief that they will make the women “artificially faster,” as though women were not actually doing the running themselves."

Still, i would say the evidence is at least unclear and does not back up the statement made and therefore rightfully criticised by you.

Also I’d like to point out that all of this might be of no relevance at all to the question, if woman hunted alongside men or not, since the idea that humans outran animals as a hunting techniques (e.g. "persistence hunting") has been heavily challenged and, to my limited understanding, debunked. But this is not my field, so i am not familiar with a lot of sources on the topic. I am happy to be corrected here.

I wouldn’t say “superior” like a value judgement that muscle strength is the most important thing in terms of physical ability, but I don’t think that it’s controversial that the average man is physically stronger than the average woman, or that being pregnant interferes with your ability at physical tasks. This article keeps going on about how it’s clear that there’s not any physical difference when it is blatantly clear from sporting events that (in the average, accounting for individual variation) there is.

Have a look at the sources they give in the article. This paper seems to be the main source for the article. In regards to your concerns it states that:

"While there are real, uncontroversial mean biological differences between females and males, the differences that give females an advantage are not only regularly ignored but also understudied. Because of this, science poorly understands female athletic capabilities in terms of strength, endurance, and fatigue. Until this uneven understanding is rectified, our reconstructions of past sexual divisions of labour will be biased and limit the likely broad repertoire of activities females participated in during our evolutionary past."

In regards to your question why movies and gender roles are part of the article, i would like to ask why this seems to be problematic for you? The context for both seem quite clear? "Gender" (not Sex) is, according to Gender-Studies, something "performed". Movies and how we talk about Gender-roles very much form, how people frame a Gender and assign roles to it. The article is stating (and in my opinion correctly so) that it makes a difference if a society "performers", or believes in the idea of male only hunters, as this leads to a bias in the scientific literature and field. Why would this not be included in a scientific article? Its based on quite solid science (other than the whole endurance idea they are promoting). Maybe you could elaborate a bit why you find it not relevant?

You can talk about the biology and anthropology of XX chromosome people and XY chromosome people without getting into this

But that’s not the only topic at hand, isn't it? They clearly state that in scientific literature it is not made clear when they are speaking of biological or social genders. And it makes a difference if you are addressing gender or sex. Further, it is important to differentiate between the concepts of gender and sex, because they want to make clear where they speak about biology and where they speak about the constructed (or "performed") gender of female.

What the fuck is this I feel like I’m taking crazy pills

Why? What is the crazy part to you? Do you disagree with the statement that science has been extreme male focused? As far as i can tell it indeed has been and still is. What’s crazy in pointing that out? Or do you disagree?

This was the first part that made me think, oh shit, maybe I am the wrong one, all this stuff has been valid and I’ve just been being Joe Rogan and poo pooing it all. Nope, it’s just more made up stuff. If Hitoshi Watanabe is sexist (which apparently he is), then this is off the fuckin charts.

I don’t get why it’s a bad thing when male scientists bring their biases into their papers to the point of ignoring that data and just inventing their own imagined world to fit how they like to see it (which, it is, of course, a very bad thing), but all of a sudden if a feminist does it, it turns into a good thing.

Yes! I absolutely agree. None of their three chosen examples showes any female dominating in any category, neither once or "regularly". It is bad practice to make such a claim. I wouldn’t label it as sexist. It's just really bad science. And it invalidates a lot of the very sensible and very much proven point the authors make. And I agree with you: It is not a good thing when anybody does this, regardless of agenda.

Ukraine will lose because Russia has managed to turn up their war time economy to 1000 while the West has given away most of the stockpiles it was willing to commit and has failed to put their money where their mouhts are and actually start a real war economy.

We are giving Ukraine just enoth to not lose at this point. And with Israel taking away the spotlight and adding another nation that is in need of war supplies, Ukraine will run dry eventually.

All the big words of the west on the end will habe been but a lie. And the rest of the world will see this and see it very well, when it comes to who they pick as their allies.

It takes about ~30 years to see the effects of emissions on the climate

This is a long debunked myth.

Here is an article that goes into some detail.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-will-global-warming-stop-as-soon-as-net-zero-emissions-are-reached/

So there is some hope, if we can stop emoting CO2 ASAP. If one finds that a realistic path to belive in on the other hand is a matter of opinion.