For me it is the fact that our blood contains iron. I earlier used to believe the word stood for some ‘organic element’ since I couldn’t accept we had metal flowing through our supposed carbon-based bodies, till I realized that is where the taste and smell of blood comes from.

  • Urist@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    There is about 8.1 billion people in the world. Assuming romantic cliches to be true and that we all have exactly one soulmate out there, we would have a very hard time sifting them out. If you were to use exactly one second at meeting a person it would take you 257 years to meet everyone alive on earth at this moment, which due to human life span being significantly shorter and the influx of new people makes the task essentially impossible without a spoonful of luck. Moral of the story: If you believe you have found your soul mate, be extra kind to them today.

    • Cass.Forest@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      it would take you 257 years to meet everyone alive on earth at this moment

      Sounds like a terrible sorting algorithm /jk

    • Damage@feddit.it
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Soul mates are made, not found. You get with someone compatible to you, and through the sharing of experiences and affection, if nothing goes excessively wrong, they become unique for you.

      • d3Xt3r@lemmy.nz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Soul mates are made, not found. You get with someone compatible to you

        That catch is, you need to find that someone in the first place, and that takes a bit of looking around. So in effect, soul mates are found.

    • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      If you were to use exactly one second at meeting a person it would take you 257 years to meet everyone alive on earth at this moment

      Well I don't need to meet everybody. There's no need to meet anyone who doesn't match my sexual preferences, so that's half right there. Then we can also cut everyone who's sexual preferences I don't meet, as well as anyone outside of a given age range (most of the people on earth are much younger than me and would be inappropriate for me to date). We can probably get that down to about 50-60 years. (At one second per person).

      • Urist@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        The thought experiment was just an attempt to show how hard it is to wrap our minds around big numbers. Even a tangible number such as the amount of people in the world.

  • Mothra@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Time relativity always boggles my brain, I accept the fact but I find crazy that if I strap my twin and his atomic clock to a rocket and send them out to the stratosphere at the speed of light, when they return he’ll be younger than me and his clock will be running behind mine. Crazy

  • SargTeaPot@lemmy.nz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Your asswhole can stretch up to 8 inches without permanent deformation.

    Also an adult raccoon can fit into a 4.5 inch hole.

    Do with that info as you wish

  • axont [she/her, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    There are only 24 episodes of the initial run of The Jetsons and only 25 of Scooby Doo. They got aired as reruns for decades before more episodes were made. There are only 15 episodes of Mr. Bean.

  • Elon_Musk [none/use name]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    The speed of advancement from the industrial revolution to present.

    The relatively short time humanity has been around

    The universe is finite but expanding

    The Monty Hall problem

    The absolute scale of devastation created by humanity

    • rubpoll [she/her]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      The speed of advancement from the industrial revolution to present.

      This one makes Fermi’s Paradox far more confusing and terrifying to me. The time it took to go from agriculture to the steam engine is nothing compared to the age of the universe, absolutely nothing, and from the steam engine to modern technology is fuck ton nothing.

      An intelligent species could go from stone age technology to nuclear weapons in the blink of an eye.

      And that’s just life as we understand it. We have no idea if we’re the equivalent of Flatland in a higher spatial dimension or something. There could be stars with entire civilizations of plasma-based intelligent life churning inside of them. There could be intelligent civilizations lurking in each and every single subatomic particle.

      It’s possible no matter how far out or far in we look, we just keep finding more universe, more space for something to inhabit, forever…

      As they said on chapo-boys , if we look everywhere and we’re the only intelligent species anywhere in this universe … well that would be weirder than if life is hiding all over the universe.

  • starman2112@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Planets and stars and galaxies are there. You can see them because they’re right over there. Like, the moon is a big fucking rock flying around the earth. Jupiter is even bigger. I see it through a telescope and think “wow that’s pretty,” but every once in a while I let it hit me that I’m looking at an unimaginably large ball of gas, and it’s, like, over there. Same as the building across the street, just a bit farther.

    The stars, too. Bit farther than Jupiter, even, but they’re right there. I can point at one and say “look at that pretty star” and right now, a long distance away, it’s just a giant ball of plasma and our sun is just another point of light in its sky. And then I think about if there’s life around those stars, and if our star captivates Albireoans the same way their star captivates me.

    And then I think about those distant galaxies, the ones we send multi-billion dollar telescopes up to space to take pictures of. It’s over there too, just a bit farther than any of the balls of plasma visible to our eyes. Do the people living in those galaxies point their telescopes at us and marvel at how distant we are? Do they point their telescopes in the opposite direction and see galaxies another universe away from us? Are there infinite distant galaxies?

    Anyway I should get back to work so I can make rent this month

    If I point my finger at one of those galaxies, there’s more gas and shit between us within a hundred miles of me than there is in the rest of the space between us combined

    • zirzedolta@lemm.eeOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      What’s even more fascinating is that most of the stars we see in the sky are afterimages of primitive stars that died out long ago yet they shine as bright as the stars alive today

    • raptir@lemdro.id
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I mean, you may think it’s a long way down the road to the chemist’s, but that’s just peanuts to space.

  • evatronic@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    The sun could’ve gone nova 8 minutes ago and we wouldn’t know for another 20 seconds or so.

      • Kazumara@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah mitochondrial RNA is separately inherited and only from the mother, because the egg cell has mitochondria whereas the sperm does not.

      • AnarchistArtificer@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        A book that I love that covers this in an accessible manner is “Power, Sex, Suicide: Mitochrondria and the Meaning of Life” by Nick Lane

        Basically, it looks like a single cell, predatory amoeba of some sort engulfed a parasitic bacterium that was the ancestor to mitochondria, and instead of being digested, it ended up living inside the amoeba, helping to produce energy.

        This is a big deal because the way that cells harness energy is by doing some cool biochemistry across a membrane. When a cell has to rely on its main, cell membrane to do this, then the energy production is proportional to the cell’s surface area, which means that it’s proportional to the cell’s radius squared (E ∝ r^2 ) . However, the energy requirements of the cell are determined by its volume, which means that energy requirements are proportional to cell radius cubed ( E ∝ r^3 ). For small numbers the difference between r^3 and r^2 isn’t much, but as radius increases, the cell volume far outstrips its surface area, which means that there was an upper ceiling on how big a cell could get while still fulfilling its energy requirements.

        Mitochrondria allow cells to break this size limit by decoupling energy production from cell size, because scaling up energy production is as simple as having more Mitochrondria. Mitochrondria have their own independent genome - in the years since the endosymbiotic event, the mitochrondrial genome has shrunk a lot, because it’s sort of like moving in with a friend who already has a house full of furniture - no sense in having duplicates.

  • StinkySnork@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    A day on Venus is longer than a year on Venus. One day takes 243 Earth days, while a year takes 225.

    Maybe it’s not “well known”, but still interesting in my opinion.

    • loobkoob@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      I mentioned this one to my friends the other day and it took so much convincing before they actually believed me! Definitely an interesting one. Venus also spins the opposite direction to all the other planets in the solar system, meaning the sun rises in the west and sets in the east.

  • rakyat@artemis.camp
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Not exactly bizarre, but it’s fun to learn that the delicious fragrance of shrimps and crabs when cooked comes from chitin, and chitin is also why sautéed mushrooms smell/taste like shrimps.

    And since fungi are mostly chitin, plants have evolved defenses against fungi by producing enzymes that destroy chitin, which is how some plants eventually evolved the ability to digest insects.

    EDIT: a previous version of this post mistakenly confused chitin with keratin (which our fingernails are made of). Thanks to sndrtj for the correction!

    • Mothra@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Wow I didn’t know this and I’ve never felt a similarity between seafood and mushrooms either in flavour or smell. But, still a cool fact.

      • Squids@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s one of those things that feels really obvious if you cook a lot of east/south Asian dishes - shrimp sauce and mushroom soy sauce have a pretty similar aftersmell to them because they’re so concentrated

    • Sombyr@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      I used to be like this, but with movies. When I first met my wife, she was utterly baffled at the concept of somebody not enjoying movies, and she made it her mission to make me enjoy them.

      Come to think of it, she actually doesn’t like music much. I’ve failed to change her opinion on that though because my taste in music is shit (and I’m proud of it.)

      • Eris235 [undecided]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        I am still like this with movies and TV.

        It just doesn’t appeal to me. I’ve seen a handful of movies/shows that I’d call “not boring as shit” ever, and even then, its not something I’d choose to do myself, but is fine if I’m, like, chillin and chatting with people or whatever.

        Might be my neurodivergence, might also just be how much of a reader I am. Movies are just so slow compared to reading.

        • JoYo@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          Good movies demand attention.

          Good audio books I can listen to while I play my favorite video game.

          • Eris235 [undecided]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I’m the opposite. I can’t ever ‘zone out’ while listening/watching/reading/playing stuff; I can’t even listen to music while playing games, and usually turn background music on low or off.

  • ProfessorOwl_PhD [any]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Quantum superpositioning. Schrödinger was right, it’s absolutely ridiculous and the cat can’t be alive and dead at the same time, box or not.

    The problem is it provably does work that way, or at least in a way that is indistinguishable from it, ridiculous or not, and we don’t really know why. We’ve learnt many of the rules, managed to trap particles in superimposed states, even discovered that plants take advantage of it to transport energy more efficiently, and it’s just a thing that happens, an apparently fundamental rule of existence. And it doesn’t make any fucking sense.

    • somename [she/her]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Something that’s important to note though, is that the Cat example isn’t a great way to envision this phenomenon in general. Schrodinger’s Cat was actually made as an argument against this interpretation, by blowing the behavior up to a macro scale, where it seemed absurd. While you can draw analogues and all that, I’d recommend against really thinking that macro scale objects are in a multitude of obviously different states at once, all the time. It’s a path to some of the really kooky fake-science “quantum” stuff that get’s repeated.

      Like, you’re never going to see a physicist argue that a person is both alive and dead in another room, because of the technical chance that they tunneled halfway through the wall.

    • Meowoem@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      That bomb detecting thing is absolutely crazy, I think it’s one of those things most people have heard of but consigned to the bin of things that couldn’t possibly be true

    • freagle@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      It makes a lot more sense if you stop believing in the fiction of objects. There are no objects. Particles are a fiction, waves are a fiction. There is a single process, that we call the universe, and every single thing we refer to is a portion of that process from a subjective perspective. Once you give up on objects the idea that a process can be observed to produce subjective experiences that appear to violate expectations of object-oriented conceptual frameworks becomes less difficult to grasp.

  • Carlos Solís@communities.azkware.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    The fact that things are able to float, despite of gravity pulling all objects towards the big mass of Earth. You would think that the push of gravity should be more than enough to overcome the slight fluid displacement that allows balloons and boats to push away from the Earth’s surface.

    • sloonark@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Your comment has made me realise I don’t understand how floating works.

      • rbesfe@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Think of the fact that pressure increases with depth, so when something is floating there’s a higher net pressure at the bottom than at the top which results in an upward force as the fluid tries to equalize.