Human females are 2-3x less likely to die between 18-45 so I wouldn’t just assume humans in particular could “use more females”.

Bummer

Thanks Father Ted

I have not the mental fortitude to make a comment here that isn't immature, so I will simply express that much.

This. I can't recall the details, but I remember that the "Disco Demolition" was first and foremost motivated by racism and not a "hate for disco music".

There is no single cause. In aggregate, more males than females are born. Some of it is from the dna distribution in viable sperm, some of it is viability in the womb, some of it is generations of selecting for male babies (post birth abortions of females) making a those that naturally abort female fetuses because of genetic flaws more likely to pass on their genetics, and some of it is still not known.

This is literally how sweat works.

Entrophy isn't an issue because it would still take energy to revert to its original liquid form.

Yeah… but what have the Romans really ever done for us?

[deleted]

The process of boiling is endothermic, meaning the boiling water would rapidly cool without a source of heat. Which is probably what they're referring to.

Ahh the bs Clark had to put up with.

>The actual danger of removing his helmet in the situation above is that it wouldn't solve the problem

Without pressure, wouldn't the water immediately boil away? There literally wouldn't be anything holding the bonds together anymore.

So, old story my dad told me. Not 100% on the accuracy, but basically if you want a male, wait and let the male spermies accumulate before attempting. While there are less of them, they typically swim faster and waiting for a bit gives a chance for them to accumulate to sway the odds. If you want a female, just keep going at it. Body produces more female sperm so chances are higher for this outcome. Evolution wise I guess it would make sense as you need more hosts than seed slingers...

[deleted]

It's also legal to eat the placenta in at least some parts of the world.

This means that you can have your baby and eat it too.

They did, this article is utter madness!

The writer is either joking or clearly never opened a book about classical architecture.

It probably ended quite as "well" as I think it did. With plenty of overtime for police, ambulances, hospitals, firefighters, judges and companies installing new window panels.

Just not as well as the organisers thought it would.

WHAT? I swear sometimes I read stuff on here and think, have I slipped into some parallel reality?

There's an entire sub category of Roman Villas, called Corridor Villas. We have them here in Britain, and they can be found across most of Western Europe.

Chedworth Roman Villa (late 3rd early 4th C) has TWO nearly 50m long corridors, The majority of that Wiki article is utter bobbins and bum guff,

So they come armed & ready?

Edit: No Michael Schenker Group fans here apparently.. 🤣

there are some other theories, including that Y chromosome sperm swim slightly faster than X chromosome sperm or that female embryos have a slightly higher chance of miscarrying. so they’re saying that the current view is that the ratio of X and Y sperm produced is what makes the difference, not the other theories.

I wonder how long that's been the case, and if via evolutionary theory it gave rise to physical and indeed cultural gender norms, around strength and competition and such.

​

After all, while it's a bit of a stretch, just to hypothesize: in a world with 8 billion people, having a 51/49 ratio means there's 3.90 billion women to 4.1 billion men.

​

In other words, there's 200 million men who by definition will not be in a relationship, assuming 100% of possible people engage in an exclusive relationship. That's 200 million men constantly competing to become one of the group of 3.9 billion men. Depending on status, men are able to join the group, or fall out of it. But the default state is to compete, as there's no partner for the bottom rung, which is statistically not true for women. It creates a bias to compete, also in evolutionary terms, which may have caused men to evolve to become physically stronger (an important trait for competition in the last 300 thousand years), and to become biologically or perhaps just culturally geared towards competition.

​

I understand this is a super black & white view of the world that enormously simplifies a much more complex world. But I do wonder if this birth ratio difference is one of the drivers of the physical, biological and cultural differences we see (on average) across genders. Would be cool to see a sci-fi show which explores different birth ratios (e.g. 60/40 or 40/60), and what effect that would have on via evolution on biology, and on culture.

As you might expect, fault in both cases was primarily assigned to the destroyers rather than the carrier. What fault that lay with the carrier was mostly in not screaming "wtf are you doing?" early enough at the destroyers.

Given the US Navy destroyer caused the second collision, not really.

Yet another sad example of racism in America.

I don't think so. My high school was directly across from the original location and they used old checker cab car with a domino on the top as a delivery vehicle.