bkydx
bkydx t1_jb0tasp wrote
Eating supplies energy for moving and protein for building muscles.
CWD makes the proteins not fold and build correctly and eating more protein does nothing if your body doesn't use it. The muscles and brain proteins are dying faster then they are replaced and they are slowly wasting away.
bkydx t1_j8juijt wrote
Reply to comment by runawaycluetrain in The brain can rapidly detect and process fearful faces that are otherwise invisible to the eye. There appears to be a neural pathway for detection of fear, which operates automatically, outside of conscious awareness. by Wagamaga
Thanks for being extra stupid while trying to sound smart but that isn't true.
X-rays/gamma rays/radio waves are not invisible to humans and they are part of the electromagnetic spectrum.
bkydx t1_j8joe2m wrote
Reply to comment by zulu_candles in The brain can rapidly detect and process fearful faces that are otherwise invisible to the eye. There appears to be a neural pathway for detection of fear, which operates automatically, outside of conscious awareness. by Wagamaga
Invisible is the correct scientific term for when you can see something but not process the information.
So yes it is invisible. "Not perceptible by vision"
Your understanding of what that word means scientifically is what is wrong.
Go back to reading comic books and fiction and stop making up incorrect meanings for words.
bkydx t1_j8jm6iw wrote
Reply to comment by Chris-1235 in The brain can rapidly detect and process fearful faces that are otherwise invisible to the eye. There appears to be a neural pathway for detection of fear, which operates automatically, outside of conscious awareness. by Wagamaga
Normal parlance is based off of fiction and fantasy and super heroes has no bearing on scientific meaning.
Invisible is 100% the correct term according to science.
"Not perceptible by vision"
A Hunter standing in front of his prey is considered "invisible" if the prey is not able to process what is about to occur and not because he is bending light around his being.
bkydx t1_j8jlim6 wrote
Reply to comment by Feudamonia in The brain can rapidly detect and process fearful faces that are otherwise invisible to the eye. There appears to be a neural pathway for detection of fear, which operates automatically, outside of conscious awareness. by Wagamaga
Invisible is the correct term and just means "not perceptible by vision".
Your Amygdala is perceiving the "fear" and aware of the visual stimulus and receiving and relaying information even if your conscious is not aware and the image is not being processed by your visual cortex, so technically imperceptible would be incorrect unless you specify imperceptible by vision which is literally the scientific meaning of "Invisible"
bkydx t1_j8jkmfj wrote
Reply to comment by Feudamonia in The brain can rapidly detect and process fearful faces that are otherwise invisible to the eye. There appears to be a neural pathway for detection of fear, which operates automatically, outside of conscious awareness. by Wagamaga
According to science if something is in sight but your brain is not consciously perceiving then it invisible is the correct term.
The people that are arguing against you probably have more knowledge about invisible super heroes then any sort of science.
bkydx t1_j8jkdnl wrote
Reply to comment by walksineternity in The brain can rapidly detect and process fearful faces that are otherwise invisible to the eye. There appears to be a neural pathway for detection of fear, which operates automatically, outside of conscious awareness. by Wagamaga
Invisible is the correct scientific term and should be used.
Your "very" specific understanding of invisible is based of super hero's and television and not what it actually means in science.
bkydx t1_j8jinuw wrote
Reply to comment by zulu_candles in The brain can rapidly detect and process fearful faces that are otherwise invisible to the eye. There appears to be a neural pathway for detection of fear, which operates automatically, outside of conscious awareness. by Wagamaga
Seen by the eye but not perceived by your visual cortex.
Eg. A hunter can stand directly in view of an animal it is hunting and sometimes the animal's brain is unable to process what it is looking at and it will not react to the threat that is in plain sight.
So to the prey, the Hunter is "Invisible" according to Science because the visual input isn't being processed and not because the Hunter is Bending light and becoming see-through.
bkydx t1_j8jh3yc wrote
Reply to comment by thissexypoptart in The brain can rapidly detect and process fearful faces that are otherwise invisible to the eye. There appears to be a neural pathway for detection of fear, which operates automatically, outside of conscious awareness. by Wagamaga
Invisible is to correct scientific term for an object that is seen and not perceived.
"Not perceptible by vision"
People trying to use what they think it means.
Probably related to Fantasy writing and super heroes and bending light and making things see-through and incorrectly arguing over pedantic details.
The Faces are Invisible and this is not a poor description.
bkydx t1_j8jfm2w wrote
Reply to comment by runawaycluetrain in The brain can rapidly detect and process fearful faces that are otherwise invisible to the eye. There appears to be a neural pathway for detection of fear, which operates automatically, outside of conscious awareness. by Wagamaga
Invisible is the correct term and just means "not perceptible by vision"
Your Amygdala is perceiving the "fear" and aware of the visual stimulus even if your conscious is not aware.
bkydx t1_j8jes52 wrote
Reply to comment by Ok_Skill_1195 in The brain can rapidly detect and process fearful faces that are otherwise invisible to the eye. There appears to be a neural pathway for detection of fear, which operates automatically, outside of conscious awareness. by Wagamaga
People cannot tell and are often wrong when they have that gut feeling for no reason.
In This study there is a visible stimulus that triggers the fear and not Magic.
bkydx t1_j2e97by wrote
Reply to comment by courageous_salmon in ELI5: Why does putting one foot out from under the blankets bring so much relief of heat while laying in bed? by SirDuke6
Science has the exact unarguable answer but lets just ignore it and be idiots.
Glabrous skin is good at transferring heat.
Cutaneous skin is bad at transferring heat.
bkydx t1_j2e8mxy wrote
Reply to comment by jerpha in ELI5: Why does putting one foot out from under the blankets bring so much relief of heat while laying in bed? by SirDuke6
It's biology
Cutaneous skin is bad at heat transfer.
Glabrous skin is good at heat transfer.
Any other explanation is wrong.
bkydx t1_j2e8bul wrote
Reply to comment by royalsilk in ELI5: Why does putting one foot out from under the blankets bring so much relief of heat while laying in bed? by SirDuke6
Glabrous skin vs cutaneous skin.
bkydx t1_j2e845c wrote
Reply to comment by SirDuke6 in ELI5: Why does putting one foot out from under the blankets bring so much relief of heat while laying in bed? by SirDuke6
No.
You have 2 types of skin.
Cutaneous - Thick, harry, pigmented, less pores, Doesn't transfer heat in or out of your body well.
Glabrous skin - Hairless, pigment less, Lots of pores. Transfers heat well.
​
Glabrous skin is located on your palms/soles and forehead.
bkydx t1_j2e7pse wrote
Reply to comment by BuildANavy in ELI5: Why does putting one foot out from under the blankets bring so much relief of heat while laying in bed? by SirDuke6
Incorrect.
Soles and palms are made of glaborous skin design to let heat out.
Cutaneous skin keeps heat in.
A fan or creating airflow is airflow has absolutely nothing to do with biology.
bkydx t1_j2e6wvh wrote
Reply to comment by SirDuke6 in ELI5: Why does putting one foot out from under the blankets bring so much relief of heat while laying in bed? by SirDuke6
Except its wrong.
bkydx t1_j2e6ucd wrote
Reply to comment by ImReverse_Giraffe in ELI5: Why does putting one foot out from under the blankets bring so much relief of heat while laying in bed? by SirDuke6
Palms and feet and forehead all work better.
Glabrous skin is designed for heat transfer and only located in these 3 spots.
The skin on your wrist does not transfer cold as effectively beneath the skin surface.
Other suggested locations are Neck/arm pits because they are thinner cutaneous skin similar to wrist but the blood flow is direct to your brain.
De-oxyginated blood from your wrist goes to your heart and not your brain and there would be little cooling effect and less benefit then using any of the medically recommended cooling areas.
bkydx t1_j2e5yqb wrote
Reply to comment by SirDuke6 in ELI5: Why does putting one foot out from under the blankets bring so much relief of heat while laying in bed? by SirDuke6
Glabrous skin is located in 3 parts of your body, the sole of the foot, palms of your hands and forehead.
It lacks the hair and pigmentation and has extra pores for heat transfer.
The skin on the rest of your body is thick and well insulated and designed to keep heat in and everything else out.
bkydx t1_j24h81v wrote
Ren - The Tale of Jenny & Screech (Full)
Ren- Jenny
Ren - Screech.
Ren - Violets tale
(Warning/Spoiler: Contains abuse)
bkydx t1_ixw1x36 wrote
Reply to comment by JKUAN108 in A study of NFL games during the 2020 season suggests a link between attendance and COVID spikes in surrounding counties 14 and 21 days later. The inferred connection held strongest for games attended by 20,000-plus fans by Wagamaga
51 NBA games happened this week with close to 20,000 fans in attendance indoors and there were are no 200% covid increase outbreaks happening.
Thanks for your input but there is far too much evidence proving you wrong.
One single snap shot during the 95% of the worst of the Beta variant is just showing the effects of the beta outbreak. All of the data agrees.
bkydx t1_ixw1821 wrote
Reply to comment by Korwinga in A study of NFL games during the 2020 season suggests a link between attendance and COVID spikes in surrounding counties 14 and 21 days later. The inferred connection held strongest for games attended by 20,000-plus fans by Wagamaga
One set occurred Aug-Dec 2020 and they also looked at NCAA games.
This paper looked Sept -February 2020-2021
Beta Variant October-Feb 2020-2021.
​
Many of the NFL games were in both studies but one is 95% Beta variant and the other is balanced 50% before and 50% during beta which cancels out.
51 NBA games happened this week with close to 20,000.
Where are all the outbreaks? It's indoors and should be worse then NFL games and yet nothing.
bkydx t1_ixvzcxa wrote
Reply to comment by JKUAN108 in A study of NFL games during the 2020 season suggests a link between attendance and COVID spikes in surrounding counties 14 and 21 days later. The inferred connection held strongest for games attended by 20,000-plus fans by Wagamaga
You do not understand sarcasm.
There is no back-peddling and my argument stands.
NFL/ncaa attendance Data collected pre Beta variant shows no increase.
NFL attendance Data Collected during Beta variant, inconsistent, sometimes no effect with no explanation as to why.
The Strong relationship when over 20,000 fans is explained by population density being higher in the larger cities and outbreaks effecting higher populated areas significantly harder.
I provided Mechanisms, Reasoning, Comparing papers and variables.
​
You provided "both papers show no covid problems with less then 10,000 people" which agreeing with me and contradicts yourself.
Conclusion
NO COVID PROBLEMS FROM NFL GAMES.
bkydx t1_ixvvdz0 wrote
Reply to comment by Korwinga in A study of NFL games during the 2020 season suggests a link between attendance and COVID spikes in surrounding counties 14 and 21 days later. The inferred connection held strongest for games attended by 20,000-plus fans by Wagamaga
I got the idea from the source sited in the paper where they took all of their data from.
Should I get the data the paper analyzed from the paper from some else?
bkydx t1_je9v0ku wrote
Reply to The reason we scream when were scared is to try and scare off animals attacking us. by Razur_1
Roaring is a display of intimidation. (Humans don't really roar)
Screaming is to alert others for help.
Neither is to "scare" animals.
Humans hunted every single animal on the planet.
If an animal goes near a pack of humans it's likely to be eaten and they are more scared of us.
We did not evolve to run around scaring our food away.