Corrected a few of my own misconceptions:
- Microwave ovens do not heat food due to resonance with water molecules.
- Spacecraft reentering the atmosphere are not heated due to friction.
- Worldwide poverty has not been increasing.
The rest of those statements are pretty clearly facts. A statement like this is very a matter of statistical interpretation. A lot of the claims of decreasing world poverty stem from a decrease in those said to make "pennies per day" however, such a group could also be describes as "those outside the money economy" and thus an increase in assigned earnings to this group represent decreased poverty is debatable.
See: Bill Gates says poverty is decreasing. He couldn’t be more wrong
Really? Back in the 1400 life was just an awesome experience without money, everyone living off unlimited land and having a great time, not worrying about anything, sitting in the jungle or the beach with plenty of food.
Yeah, damn, take me back to 1400, life was so awesome then for everyone.
And I believe almost all people are better off than cavemen, not just more.
Two people can be using the term in a conversation and be talking about radically different things.
For example, are you talking about the inability for people to find food, shelter and clothing?
Or about level of lifestyle once those needs are met?
And I think the answer is yes, for reasons of momentum. If you try to push air out of the way it in turn needs to move other air, etc, etc. Even with zero viscosity, it still needs to to that, which means the pressure goes up, and will therefor heat up.
The first time I read through it I was surprised at how many of those things I’d always just assumed to be true.
Is the article correct that we still have never seen eels mate and have no idea how/where they do it?
It's interesting when you compare it to species such as salmon where their life cycle has been understood fairly in depth, independently on two continents for well over 1000 years. Yet salmon also have a fairly complicated that varies from species to species.
Like unexpected weather, scientists are regularly stumped by extraordinary unexpected amounts of salmon returning to streams both wildly over and under expectations.
It was understood what Fry and smolts were. The different species and their specific breeding cycles, including which rivers would contain which species in a given season were known and there was generally a large 'industry' and culture built around them on both sides of the Pacific.
Likewise, from what that article says, eels were a heavy part of many cultures, yet the beliefs around them were fairly ignorant, for lack of a better word, by comparison.
Why dint they break down the supply chain linearly?
This article is not the best of its kind, but it is very, very good. Writing that excels it would frustrate you more, in proportion to its quality. The frustration you feel reading it is a pale echo of that experienced by the myriad scientists and amateurs who puzzled in and out of decades over these questions, originally obscure but enlarged by their obdurity to have become symbolic of questions of our own existence.
Your bloviation about great writing offers nothing except a great example of a style you won't find in the New Yorker.
From the New Yorker!
If you don't like long form articles and you see it is the New Yorker, then don't read it.
There is no such rule.
TLDR: They spawn in a few places out in the ocean, then migrate toward coasts as they mature.
European & American eel: North of the Antilles, Haiti, and Puerto Rico
Japanese eel: Near the Mariana Islands
South African eel: North of Madagascar
I also had no idea that no one has ever seen them mate.
Nope, nom, nom, we don't know, nom, nom, why they got so scarce. Is a mystery.
Pvaldes was here, 2020
This is how you present information if you care about your reader. The reason it's not done almost anywhere is because maximizing profit is done by minimizing utility, so that you can drag the curious reader through as many ads as they have patience to bear.
New Yorker stories have a different purpose and a different audience. People who subscribe to the New Yorker like it because it gives them stories written just this way. If you don't, wikipedia is right there. You can tell it will be a New Yorker story because it says so.
I guarantee you that the writing is not that way to "drag" anyone through ads or to strain their patience.
Also, to be less cynical, some people are after entertainment as much as education, and will enjoy reading a story rather than a lecture.
I love the New Yorker and enjoy all of its quirks.