SaintUlvemann t1_jdy8cbq wrote

>Why can't we enjoy others music without violence? What are they losing?

Gold mine money. It's not the music to blame. From the article:

>Now, though, the murders are not just over accordion music. Rival Famo groups also battle for control of the lucrative illegal gold mines in South Africa where many of their followers work. Last Christmas, one miner, Sello Ntaote, came home for the first time in three years to visit his wife and two small sons in Lesotho. Days later he was shot dead at a New Years Eve feast - along with three other guests.
>His friends believe he was killed for alleged "treachery", because he'd just moved from a mine controlled by one Famo gang, to another, taking his earnings with him.

They could've put that in the title, but "deadly accordion wars" gets more clicks... and of course, clicks also equal money, so... *shrug*


SaintUlvemann t1_jd93bf9 wrote

This is the real answer. I know the name "Shinzo Abe" and I know the name "Ban Ki-Moon" but I could not have told you until a few seconds ago when I looked it up which of either is the family name and which is the personal name. Wiki has an overview of Japan's Meiji-era decision to swap name orders in contexts using Western languages.


SaintUlvemann t1_j9wv6ek wrote

>But I'd imagine people would have to settle for a lot less than their ideal partner...

Well I grew up in a rural area, a town with fewer people than my intro biology class at undergrad. I've also lived in cities, including as a kid prior to moving to the rural community that I now consider my hometown.

I think that people who haven't been in small-population social contexts radically, radically underestimate just how strongly one's preferences are shaped by one's environment. Love is a sociological phenomenon, and I can't really explain it any better than that article does.

When you're living in a social context with fewer people, your sense of what makes an ideal relationship changes to fit the social context that you find yourself in. Maybe you won't have as much in common with your partner... and maybe that will be okay, and you will still enjoy the time you have together. Maybe there will be more things that annoy you about your partner... or, maybe not, since, having grown up in a similar restricted social context, you'll be more likely to share certain habits.

I'm not offering any rose-colored glasses here; life in a small community is only as good as the people around you, and people are not always good. But we people have a habit of growing and changing in accordance with our circumstances.


SaintUlvemann t1_j8yz6pi wrote

All the efforts of all the cryptocurrencies in the world haven't yet reached the level of day-to-day practical utility as a McDonald's giftcard; because I can spend the giftcard to buy the hamburger, but there is no store anywhere around me that accepts Bitcoin, or any other cryptocurrency.


SaintUlvemann t1_j0hf0os wrote

Açaí is the dumbest superfood. It is delicious, don't get me wrong, it's a perfectly normal fruit. But that's the problem: it's a perfectly normal fruit.

But they’re touted for things like vitamin A and calcium content. Well here’s a link to the USDA’s Food Data Central database, specifically their record for a fortified açaí berry drink. (Fortified, meaning, it’s had nutrients added above and beyond what the berry itself contains.) Amounts are given on a per 100 gram basis.

  • Vitamin A: 9698 IU
  • Calcium: 19 mg

Here’s the link for carrots:

  • Vitamin A: 16706 IU
  • Calcium: 33 mg

That fortified açaí berry drink still has less vitamin A and calcium in it than fucking carrots do. Are carrots the next superfood? No, because they're not fancy, pretty, or exotic, which is what really makes a superfood a superfood.


SaintUlvemann t1_isjfsoh wrote

Ah, thanks for that: that second one was paywalled, yeah, and ostensibly my institution doesn't have a subscription. I'd even written something saying so, but, I lost it 'cause of whatever bug it is leads comment text to go missing after copypaste, was too lazy to rewrite.

>I think this is just a case of silo'd science.

Yeah... I'm pretty sure a pretty core chunk of my thesis is essentially just a case of me speaking into the silence of missing knowledge, created by siloed science... a siloed science silence, if that ain't too pretentious.


SaintUlvemann t1_ish61aq wrote

Right, but assuming you are referring to page 370 of the first link, this is the reason they gave for this spiral motion:

"The Flagellata and Ciliata are as a rule asymmetrical in form. One of these organisms, as, for example, Loxodes (Fig. 2), or Paramecium (Fig. 3), when it leaves the bottom and starts to swim freely through the water, cannot go in a straight line, but owing to its lack of symmetry continually swerves toward one side, so that it tends to describe a circle."

This is not a disputation of how the cilia or flagella beat, but rather a description of the effect such beating has on an asymmetrical object. This does not apply to sperm cells since, in terms of their form, they *are* symmetric in shape, apart from the shape deformations caused by the flailing of their flagellum itself.

In contrast, the paper we're talking about purports to have found that sperm cells fundamentally do not even beat back and forth in the first place; they only beat in one direction, and then they continuously rotate the mass of the entire "head" of the sperm, in order to keep themselves moving forward.

That's different than what your paper shows.


SaintUlvemann t1_isgnvv3 wrote

Eukaryotic flagella aren't helical, though. There are multiple types of flagella. Description:

>Bacterial flagella are helical filaments, each with a rotary motor at its base which can turn clockwise or counterclockwise. ... > >Archaeal flagella (archaella) are superficially similar to bacterial flagella in that it also has a rotary motor, but are different in many details and considered non-homologous. > >Eukaryotic flagella — those of animal, plant, and protist cells — are complex cellular projections that lash back and forth. Eukaryotic flagella and motile cilia are identical in structure, but have different lengths, waveforms, and functions.

...and diagram.

That's why the rotary motion is a surprise.