The chemicals in their nearby environment are what make the embryos develop into Queen bees. It makes one wonder what sort of nearby chemical environments do to human embryo development.
Since human fetuses are usually encapsulated within the womb of an adult woman, they’re far more insulated from arbitrary chemical environments than bee larvae. But of course we know of many cases where chemicals make it through the mother’s body and into the fetus’s immediate environment, affecting its development: https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/fetal-alcohol...
Temperature is another factor. IIRC amphibian embryos have to develop in a wide range of temperatures (an egg might be stuck to a leaf), so their cells have many more variants of proteins, where each variant is most-effective in a different temperature band.
In contrast, a mammal blastocyst or embryo already has the multicellular mother keeping temperature within a narrower band.
Another interesting example is sea turtles, whose eggs are in a relatively stable environment (sand), but its temperature changes year to year. Based on the temperature of the eggs, you see a different distribution of offspring sex.
I guess having just read about the positive impact the bees have to develop into Queen bees I was wondering if there are positive chemicals a human female could produce to give better than average outcomes.
If you think fetal alcohol syndrome is bad, check what the consequences of lead poisoning are, knowing that just about every state has mass-contaminated their population with lead and then refused to help with the consequences.
You can avoid fetal alcohol syndrome. You cannot realistically avoid fetal lead poisoning.
Well you can't really undo lead poisoning. Nor microplastics, etc. Once those have gotten into a population that's just how the population's gonna be. So it makes sense that there's nothing to do about a lead-poisoned population other than stop adding more.
The best example of AI writing I've seen so far was caused by my six year old narrating a prompt ( to me to type in ) to Gemini in story mode. The results were so unexpected and wild I couldn't stop reading it.
Strangely I have yet to get such a compelling result with my own prompts. I think for myself it is tainted with the expectation of what I really wanted and would have written had I taken the time to write the words of the story instead of the prompt.
This is a situation where the work to write the prompt is equivalent to the work to just write the story.
This sounds intense... I'm a small female and I recently started at 5g a day and now I've dropped down to 2g a day because even at just 5g I was getting signs of dehydration, despite tripling my water intake. It does seem to make a difference in my physical performance so I'm overall happy with it.
Also the NIH fact sheet for creatine specifically recommends against higher starting doses.
I did the 25g a day loading phase and I could not tell any sort of effect at all one way or another. I do lift either more weight or do more reps pretty much every time I work out now. What was repping to failure a month or two ago is not even a working set now.
LinkedIn worked out for me, but I was being very selective, looking at companies to see if the company research is something I'm really passionate about. Then applied for multiple open positions at the targeted companies repeatedly. This was cold applications I did not know anyone at the companies I found.
I keep an AI use policy on my website. It explains how and why I use AI across a variety of use cases. Part of the includes not using AI for posting or commenting on public but yes using AI to finalize most writing on my website, including things like turning transcripts of my YT videos (which are fully human authored by me) into written blog posts with additional SEO help provided by the AI.
As a reader I don't think I notice and if I do, I don't care. I rarely get annoyed at anything I read, I love reading anything and everything, including AI output. I think part of the joy in reading is learning from the journey of watching an author develop.
At first I thought it was a Ferrari custom built for Jony Ive made just to his specifications. But once I saw the first image I could easily understand it was designed by him. It's a talent to be an industrial designer with such a clean recognizable style that it's like a signature, easily recognizable as to who it belongs to.
The article didn't really help me understand what it was about bipedalism that resulted in a right handed preference. Also in my family left hand dominates, we are a cluster of left handed people. My theory is if any child wants help with fine motor control the help is provided by a left hand to a left hand.
The original paper is titled "Bipedalism and brain expansion explain human handedness". It doesn't seek to explain why we have a right-handed preference specifically (vs left-handed), but rather why humans have such a strong handedness preference compared to ancestors who had only a mild right-handed preference.
IOW, why handed vs ambidextrous, not so much why left-handed vs right-handed.
Did it even explain that? I'm ambidextrous, I have no handedness bias, so whichever I pick up to first learn something is the hand I use. So I'm a mix of left-handed and right-handed depending on the task. And yet I didn't really understand why that's odd because of my bipedalism?
There is also a category of people who are “mixed-handed”, who have a strong handedness preference for a given task, but which hand one prefers varies based on the task. I didn’t know about this category until recently, but it describes my personal experience.
Ambidextrous means: "that the person has no marked preference for the use of the right or left hand".
Unlike what is normally assumed, it doesn't mean you've mastered both hands, it doesn't imply you can write equally well with the left or the right, but that you could have just as easily learned either. You had no marked preference when you picked up the activity initially.
Cross-dominance seem to imply there was a marked preference, but that it is the left or right hand differs per activity.
That said, I wonder if they're really the same. Often people say ambidextrous as you are equally good with both hands, which would always require practice on both side. But maybe cross-dominant people can equally learn?
Under that reading, cross-dominance could be what ambidexterity actually looks like in practice. If you genuinely have no preference, there's no reason you'd consistently land on the same hand across all activities, you'd be influenced by context, who taught you, which hand was free, etc.
Have you ever tried your other hand at activities? And are you surprisingly good with it, even if not as good? I tend to be better using my other hand at most things than say a fully right handed person, but never as good as the hand I've been using for that activity consistently.
I'm like that, except for those things I can do both ways, because it's useful and sometimes necessary - like using a shovel. There are a bunch of things I only do with either the left hand only, or the right hand only. A right-handed friend always throw balls with his left hand. Most other things he does with his right hand.
I'm right-handed. I'm definitely sure of that. It's just that what hand I use depends on which hand I start with from the beginning. And that'll be the preferred hand, except for things where it's natural to switch from the very beginning.
But there are also some things I've learned to do with both hands much later, e.g. washing dishes - there was a reason for having to do that for a while, and now I just switch when I like it, or if the kitchen happens to be arranged in a way which makes one side more preferable.
(BTW, when building carpenters still used common hammers it was completely normal to use either hand, as access space may be limited and there's basically no choice sometimes.)
may be high dexterity is expensive, brain-wise, i.e. may be the choice given average brain is either 2 hands with mild dexterity or a one of high dexterity at the expense of the other. With tools, etc. the latter choice seem to be preferable and was selected for (and the lucky ones get to have 2 of high dexterity) Bipedalism and brain expansion in this situation are indirectly connected to the handedness as they are enablers and drivers of tools use.
Kind of feel like preference probably comes from a compounding effect of practice. One starts learning how to do simple things with a chosen hand as a baby and as one tries to learn more complicated things they develop an ever-growing preference to use the one that'll necessitate less practice for the new skill due to already having some practice.
As for which hand is chosen as a baby, it might be most typical to mirror one's parents, but it doesn't always have to be like that. Some babies may just randomly start doing things with a hand different to the preference of their parents due to not having them or other adults in their sight at critical moments. As for parents trying and failing to stop their kids from using their left hand, they might've just caught it too late.
So, I guess what I'm saying is that both you and GP can be correct.
Funny enough, this made me realize that although I'm right-handed, I'm left-footed when it comes to football. As an amateur player, using my right foot with proper shooting form still feels surprisingly awkward to me.
All our maths teachers were at school were left handed, along with 25% of the top maths set in our year. The teacher and student population of left handed people were close to the normal 10% levels too.
As someone who is fairly ambidextrous, but predominately a lefty - the things that are harder to switch between are some of the gross motor skills.
For example, throwing (or kicking) with your non-preferred side is not as simple as picking up and throwing a ball or simply kicking it. You have to adjust your position and stride to lead with the correct foot. I found learning right-handed pace bowling in cricket (for fun) especially challenging as you have to land your back foot in the right place as you bowl through the popping crease. A few steps and rolling the arm over to spin was easy, and I actually can get more spin on the ball with my right hand.
My theory is that the handedness came about through learning basic survival activities such as running and jumping, throwing spears or rocks, etc that require using a preferred or learned hand.
This is true for me as well. I can't really play volleyball, because you are supposed to hit the ball with both hands, but my left hand is constantly ahead of my right hand. All my shots are crooked.
I have a strong urge to listen to pink Floyd and "10 years have got behind you" song. The years just flow past, Winter, Spring, summer, fall each day so busy and the time so short and also long.
What is a model anyways? There are so many answers to say you that. The models are almost the same models, but at a different abstraction away from the original experienced in reality.
A model is an idea, activity, or object that represents some other idea, activity, or object. A good model is one that helps you understand or manipulate the thing that it represents.
reply