CharonY

That does not make sense. How do you harvest more than you should? Do you mean it would be beneficial to leave crop out? If you mention that intensive agriculture could make problems with water and other resource use, that would more sense. Sell by dates are arbitrary to some degree and have no bearing whatsoever with the rest. And give it a rest with the UN, they are not involved in that.

It is not suspicious at all, if you understand population dynamics a little bit. Roughly speaking, higher standard of living, health (especially reduction of infant mortality) and education reduces fertility rates. This is most visible in industrialized nations many of which are close to zero growth (and in some cases below). Likewise, countries who moved out of poverty have seen drastic reduction in growth rates and a trend to (much) smaller families. It is an observation that you yourself can easily make.

So in other words you think the UN and virtually everyone working on population growth is wrong and you are right, despite it being biologically impossible? You do know that humans do not replicate via budding, right? Just for to illustrate the silliness (assuming this is not obvious), currently we are at 7.7 billion. Roughly, there are 2 billion women of child-bearing age. Even if every woman in the world gets one child per year, every year, it will increase the population by 10 billion, which is still insufficient to reach your number. So to re-iterate, please operate on facts not on conspiracy theories.

Well, here is the thing, chimpanzees are also hominids and they also have developed tool use with rudimentary development of culture. And the split between our ancestors are as close as 4 million years ago, due to ongoing hybridization. While the current outcome in humans seems to be fairly unique for humans, it is not quite clear how much of a biological difference it really took . And with respect to uniqueness, I could argue that the development of photosynthesis is something that took evolution to a completely new level on Earth. Or perhaps the development of organelles as a means to partition cellular function. Or perhaps the rise of multicellularity as that opened quite a few doors. Perhaps the difference viewpoint we have is outcome vs mechanism? To OP, however, it is clear that tool use has developed independently from bipedal movement. So there is no obvious connection between those two developments. The focus of research in that area (to my limited knowledge) tend to focus on changing environmental conditions (including transition from arboeral lifestyle to ground-based) and the question that is more commonly asked is whether foot evolution shaped our tool use (rather than vice versa). There is interesting evidence out there highlighting that bipedal development could have coincided with adaptation to rough terrain as a transitional phase (i believe Winder et al. called it the topography hypothesis in their papers).

I think I am unsure whether "unique" really applies. Of course if we use the term hominids in the strictest sense and include chimpanzees it may be true, but then there is quite a divergence in the development of humans are other extant hominids, despite that all have developed various degrees of tool use. So in the end I do think it is more matter of degree rather than uniqueness per se.

Even the development of tool use is not necessarily unique. Rather the cognitive abilities to make more elaborate ones are. Also tools use by hominids predates that of Homo sapiens. A few years ago (in Nature, I believe) folks reported stone tool findings that are dated 3.3 million years ago.

Note that there are a lot of complexes that qualify as molecular motors.

First, it is dangerous to presume that all traits are under selection of sorts. It invites speculations that do not hold well under scrutiny (the areas of sociobiology and evolutionary psychology are evidence to that). Second, plasticity cannot simply be ignored. OP describes a situation of strong selection of the genetic aspect, which again is very unlikely arising from a variable trait.

! Moderator Note There have been a lot of assertions that the phenomenon described in this thread is somewhat unusual. As they all have been very speculative the thread is moved. Going forward I request that folks put a bit more thought and reading into it and contrast it with related effects, e.g. due to meditation/yoga/exercise/whatnot before claiming strange superpowers. See the sticky in the thread for general guidelines.

No, it is about connecting people and their friends. And then their data without asking.

Same here (minus Sopranos, have not watched that). In both cases the slow start meticulously paints a picture of the world that was vaguely familiar but had interesting undertones. I was more interested in the view of the society than the underlying mystery, at first. I think one of the first things that got me interested in the Expanse was the use of the Belter dialect, hinting that it would go deeper beyond the typical good society/ bad society tropes. In many ways the main protagonists are not that interesting, compared to the world building that is present in the series. Though it may actually feel more interesting because there is mostly explained indirectly.

I wonder about the lack of normalization. In some cases (e.g. sliding doors, perhaps tank design?) there may be simple mechanical reasons. Or perhaps different sides optimize the use of filling stations, which can be easier be used from the opposite sides? I wonder whether there are statistics on which cars have the tank on either side, or perhaps trucks vs sedans and so on...?

! Moderator Note Discussion about the geometry of graphene has been split here.

The interesting bit is that even in a trait that arguably shows the highest sexual dimorphism, there is still a huge overlap over the middle range. Thus MigL's point largely stands. However, if the difference in this particular trait is already not hugely categorical already (assuming the data is correct), how much smaller do you think are differences in behaviour that are even more subtle (say, withstanding insults).

And how does any of this connect with the claims in OP? To give an example, all you are saying that men are more aggressive. You are omitting two important questions. The first is how does it connect to your initial hypothesis. You claimed, for example that men just laugh things off, whereas women get upset. Is it because men are inherently more aggressive? How does that follow. In other words, does this trait actually have any tractable impact on what you experience to be gender differences? The second aspect is even assuming the difference is significant. How is distribution? Are all men more aggressive than all women? Or is there an overlap? How large is it? Note that the second aspect is really less important. Rather, you should figure out whether a perceived difference in behaviour is really linked to biology or is it just that you select a biologicak difference and then try to use it to explain all differences you see (whilst neglecting the arguably larger impact of societal behaviour modulation). Edit: crossposted with MigL who made my second point much clearer.

Why should they? You are implying there are important differences, so why not outline them? That way we can take a look at the literature and see whether you are correct. How, for example, do any of your examples correlate with hormones and which ones in particular? The overall point you should be thinking about is whether the differences you perceive are indeed connected to biological mechanisms or not. Just because there is different biology, it does not mean that it has a meaningful difference in the aspects you are looking at. It is not to say that there may not be differences, but the question then is also how large are these differences (especially psychological ones) and how much do cultural aspects magnify or minimize them. What, in other words, is the effect size?

! Moderator Note I will reiterate swansont's note above, since it was missed. Even though this is in the Lounge, I'm going to request that first-time posters stay away. If you are joining just to advertise your YouTube Channel, your links will be removed. We are not here to advertise for you. IOW, you can link to other peoples' youtube channels. If you're new, we aren't going to bother verifying if there's a question about who owns it. We will just disappear the post

! Moderator Note Posts discussing a history forum have been split as there is already a thread discussing it.

Sure, I just wanted to note that it should not have any bearing on the trial itself, based on the defendant's claim.

Well, his claim was that was a misfire. But even then (and I understand that parts of the USA have really silly laws in that respect), a warning shot after someone (a kid no less) who is running away? What would the warning be that is not already conveyed by a guy running after you with a shotgun? agreed.

Most research is supportive of the latter as a factor. i.e. mate selection. Often it is contrasted with erect chimp penis sizes, which are close to human sizes (genitalia display also plays a role). There is also the hypothesis that higher promiscuity could play a role.

It may indicate that one may need a different type of doctor.

... I mean, it has to be satire, right?

It's "Trottel" . But still gives hits.

While we are at it, they also come in 60 g as well as 360g. There are also 35g ones and the individual triangles (but no idea about the weight. Already consumed those). Aside from pit vipers, some members of the pythons and boas, also detect IR, but at lower sensitivity.