Australian marine biologists recently captured video of a large, deep-water squid attacking one of their cameras over 3,000 feet below the surface of the ocean. The deep-sea hooked squid is one of the largest deep-dwelling squid species, but rather than the animal’s size, it was the glowing lights on the end of its tentacles that […] The post Rare Deep Sea Squid with ‘Headlights’ Captured on Video–Mistaking the Camera for Food–WATCH appeared first on Good News Network.

A woman escapes a man trying to sexually assault her when her dog helped her by biting the man's face on Sunday, May 05.

HARVARD/HARRIS: Americans Are With Israel and Dislike Protesters

A new study on toxicity in gaming has found that 69 percent of gamers admit to smurfing, despite hating it when others smurf against them. The uninitiated may be wondering what smurfing is, or perhaps are envisioning 69 percent of gamers daubing themselves in blue and replacing all their verbs with "smurf" for the duration of a gaming session. If that is what you are guessing, you are pretty smurfing far from the truth.When you play an online game against other players, the game tries to match you to players of similar skill level, as game developers know it's less fun for players if you are constantly being crushed by opponents far above your skill level. But people find ways around this – creating new accounts or borrowing them from other gamers – in order to play people of a lot lower skill level than their own. In 1996, two players of Warcraft 2 became so notoriously good at the game that fellow gamers would back out of matches if they saw their usernames. In order to play the game they had purchased, they created second accounts named PapaSmurf and Smurfette, and continued to crush all their opponents under these new profiles. The term "smurfing" caught on from there, and is used to describe any player deliberately creating new accounts in order to play against players of lower skill levels.  Gamers report smurfing taking place a lot, with 97 percent of participants in the new study saying they believe they play against smurfs sometimes. The behavior is viewed as toxic by the gaming community, and yet 69 percent admitted to smurfing themselves at least sometimes, and 13 percent saying they do it frequently or almost always."Relative to smurfees, participants perceived smurfs as more likely to be toxic, to disengage from the game, and to enjoy the game," the team from Ohio State University wrote in their study. "There were also pronounced self-other effects. Relative to themselves, participants thought that other gamers were more likely to be toxic, less likely to keep playing the game, and less likely to enjoy the game."At the end of the study, the team asked for feedback and found that gamers (recruited from Reddit) informed them of a number of reasons why they smurfed, ranging from wanting to play alongside friends of different skill levels, to wanting to crush a bunch of noobs. The team conducted a second study, asking players to evaluate these various reasons for smurfing, having been told that they were real reasons given by smurfs who had won the game they were smurfing in. They were also asked what level of punishment should be given to the smurf.The team was expecting people to use a “motivated-blame perspective", or to generally think that smurfing is wrong no matter the justification.“This perspective says if something is wrong, it doesn’t matter your reason for doing it, it is always wrong," lead author Charles Monge explained in a press release. “The idea is that it shouldn’t matter if you were just smurfing so you can play with your friends, you made me lose this game and now I am mad.”However, the team found that gamers evaluated whether smurfing was wrong on individual basis, ranking some types of smurfing as more blameworthy than others and wanting harsher punishments for smurfs with less justifiable reasons for smurfing (e.g. wanting to crush less-skilled players). A third study found that non-gamers had roughly the same socially regulated perspective, seeing nuance in smurfing behavior. While interesting in its own right – given the toxicity often associated with gaming – the team hopes that the findings could be applied elsewhere.“Games may offer a really potent tool to test things that are not about games,” Monge added. “How we attribute blame in an online context may allow us to understand how people place blame more broadly.”The study is published in New Media & Society.

Corneous scales are a type of skin appendage most associated with reptiles, but they are thought to have made fur and feathers possible, thus playing a big part in our own evolution. A new fossil provides evidence they evolved in the Permian era, before the first major split in land-dwelling vertebrates’ family tree.Few things are as fundamental to an organism as a way to maintain the separation between what is inside and the outer world. Fish have long dealt with the problem through a layer of scales over their skin, the strength adapted to suit their lifestyle. Among land-living vertebrates, there is more diversity, but a fossil-rich slab suggests it may all stem from common origins.The piece of Permian rock from Bieganów, Poland, is, according to a team led by Dr Sebastian Voigt of the Urweltmuseum, “remarkable in three ways.” The slab contains hundreds of footprints and impressions of bellies, some of which are so clear that the impression of scaly skin can be seen. Moreover, it provides clues allowing Voigt and co-authors to identify the maker of the prints as a diadectid, considered the ancestor of amniotes – a category including reptiles, mammals, and birds.This, in turn, suggests that corneous scales – those formed from keratin – were with us from the very start of the amniotes.Keratin has since proven a most useful and adaptable protein, one that is in our fingernails and hair, as well as the feathers, beaks, claws, horns, and hooves of other animals. The world would look a very different place without it.Although most amphibians have found a different path to maintaining structural integrity, some also have corneous scales. This has led to the question of whether these appeared separately through convergent evolution, or if scales made of keratin predate the time before amphibians and amniotes diverged.Although the authors admit the possibility the scales that made these impressions had a different composition, they argue this is unlikely. “The relief thickness and sharpness of the impressions suggest that they are owing to hard and sharply contoured scales. As most skin appendages in tetrapods, especially those used for mechanical protection, are made of hardened keratin, this is also the most parsimonious explanation in this case.”Given how recently the diadectids had broken away from the ancestors of amphibians, this appears to make the case for corneous scales being a common heritage, although even older fossils will be required to confirm it.The next task, the authors suggest, is to look for evidence that keratin was being deployed in more ways than simply scales at this point, such as claws.The study is published in Biology Letters.

The US remains a deeply religious – and deeply Christian – place, especially compared to other high-income “Western” countries. However, dig into the data and you’ll find the nation’s religiosity varies wildly from state-to-state and contains a fair amount of diversity.According to the 2020 US Religion Census, the states with the highest percentage of their population that's actively involved in religious congregations: are Utah (76.1 percent), Alabama (63.6 percent), Louisiana (63.3 percent), Oklahoma (61.2 percent), and Mississippi (59.4 percent). On the opposite end of the spectrum, the states with the lowest rates of involvement in religious congregations are New Hampshire (27.2 percent), Maine (30.8 percent), Oregon (33.2 percent), Montana (34.8 percent), and Alaska (35.2 percent).While Utah is commonly cited as the most religious state, it is also one of the least religiously diverse. Up to 65 percent of the state’s population are Adherents of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, better known as Mormons.The Mormon church is showing no signs of slowing down either. Between 2010 and 2020, the number of followers grew 11.3 percent from 1,910,504 to 2,126,216 people, according to a recent report from the Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute [PDF].A 2016 poll by the Pew Research Centre asked Americans in every state if they identified as “highly religious” and reached similar, although slightly different, results. The top five states were: Alabama (77 percent), Mississippi (77 percent), Tennessee (73 percent), Louisiana (71 percent), and Arkansas (70 percent). Utah was further down the list with 64 percent of the population identifying as “highly religious”.Nationwide, the most followed religious tradition is Protestantism, which accounts for around 49.2 percent of religious people, as per the US Religion Census. This is followed by Catholicism (38.4 percent), Latter-day Saints (4.2 percent), Islam (2.8 percent), and Judaism (1.3 percent). There is evidence that the US is becoming less religious, though. In 1972, up to 90 percent of Americans identified as Christian. By 2020, that number had slipped to about 64 percent, while around 30 percent reported being religiously unaffiliated and all other religions – including Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism – accounted for just 6 percent of the population.A 2022 report by the Pew Research Centre looked into how different demographic changes could drive this trend in the decades ahead. If “religious switching” – whereby people don’t identify with the religion they grew up with – among young Americans continues at current rates, Christians would slip below 50 percent of the population by 2060, accounting for 46 percent of the population in 2070.If the rate of switching increases, the percentage of Christians in the US could fall to between 35 and 39 percent by 2070. The proportion of religiously unaffiliated Americans could rise to around 52 percent. 

Researchers have finally figured out who might own the skull that was recently found in China. Scientists believe that the skull of an unknown human ancestor found in China may be the fruit of love between two different species, reports the Daily Mail. The 900,000-year-old skull is believed to have belonged to a hybrid of Homo sapiens and Homo longi, also known as the “Dragon Man.” The skull, called “Yunxian Man”, has baffled scientists due to its strange shape and other features. A new study was able to recreate a complete 3D model of the skull. She revealed that the hybrid had the facial bones of a human, but a denser skull, bulging eyes, and a thicker brow bone, like the “Dragon Man”. Thus, scientists believe that the found “Yunxian Man” refers to our “long-lost sister line.” “It is reasonable to assume that the hybrid is morphologically and chronologically close to the last common ancestor of the lineage of Homo sapiens and Homo longi,” the study authors write. Over the past 50 years, two more similar skulls have been found in China, the origin of which was unclear. According to Boston University archaeologist Anna Goldfield, comparing bones from different species might not seem like a difficult task. But the fact is that science has yet to determine how many human-like species there were in our recent archaeological history. There are generally recognized two archaic species of humans – Neanderthals and Denisovans, who lived on Earth in separate groups approximately 30 thousand years ago. The skull of the “Yunxian Man” was difficult to attribute to one of these species. Based on its physical characteristics and location, the researchers suggested that it could be a member of the Denisovan family, which appeared in Asia about 500 thousand years ago. Although “Yunxian Man” had an elongated skull like Denisovans, it also had distinct bulging eyes, which Denisovans did not have. But later, researchers suggested that the hybrid could have received Denisovan traits from the “Dragon Man,” since both of these groups lived on Earth at about the same time. After analyzing the new skull, the researchers concluded that “Yunxian Man” is a descendant of “Dragon Man” and Homo sapiens. The post Million-year-old skull found in China belongs to “dragon man” appeared first on Anomalien.com.

In a heartwarming video, viewers are introduced to Caesar, a bear who endured unimaginable suffering in a Chinese bile farm. This video chronicles Caesar’s harrowing journey from captivity to freedom, shedding light on the cruel practices humans often employ for profit. It also showcases the incredible transformation Caesar underwent after being rescued by the dedicated... The post Bear forced to wear awful steel vest most of his life finally gets it removed appeared first on Animal Channel.

Amber Lavigne's 13-year-old daughter had gender dysphoria. At least that was the diagnosis the teen came up with; how better to explain her persistent anxiety and depression? When she went to her counselors at the Great Salt Bay Community School in Damariscotta, Maine, they agreed. They began a simple treatment protocol. Daily use of a chest binder (they instructed her in its proper use), as well immediate adoption of a a new name and pronouns, to be used by all staff and students at the school. They neglected to inform Lavigne; this was a private mental health matter between Lavigne's daughter and school authorities. Lavigne found out anyway and sued the school. While the judge in the case acknowledged that it was reasonable for Lavigne to expect the school to keep her in the loop about the decision to "trans" her child, he could find no legal basis to hold the school liable and dismissed the lawsuit. Yesterday Lavigne filed an appeal. In the meantime she has begun to homeschool her daughter. Lavigne's case is far from unique and is a cautionary example about the limited legal resources parents have once school or government has usurped their authority. While the school overstepped its bounds, where did Lavigne's daughter get the idea that she was the wrong gender in the first place? It's not hard to imagine potential sources. Take Scholastic books. Any parent of young children is familiar with the company's colorful book order forms, which are sent home with students every quarter or so. The latest such form comes with a "Read with Pride Resource Guide" highlighting “LGBTQIA+ children’s and young adult literature." The guide features children's books like "Llama Glamarama," which depicts the titular character's "coming out" party, and "The Beautiful Something Else," about a girl's realization that she is "nonbinary" after being sent to live with her transgender aunt. Subscribers to the American Parents Coalition's new, free text-based notification service, the Lookout, were quick to learn about this latest incursion of ideology into children's education. It featured in the service's inaugural alert. According to APC founder Alleigh Marré, the Lookout is meant to be "an informative tool to keep parents up to speed on the latest threats to parental involvement, state and local school policies, social media trends, and more." The Lookout is just the latest tool APC has created to help parents protect their right to oversee their children's education and health. Last month, Align spoke to Marré about "TikTok is Poison," the nonprofit's guide advising parents how to fight the influence of TikTok, which arguably does more than any other platform to amplify and disseminate gender ideology to children. TikTok's Chinese-owned parent company, ByteDance, has fought back against a potential ban recently signed into law by President Biden. The company claims that as an "online publishing platform" incorporated in the United States, it is protected under the First Amendment. Contacted by Align, Marré scoffed at such claims: "TikTok is flat-out lying to the American public. Counting celebrities and elected officials among its users does not erase the fact that Chinese-owned TikTok manipulates millions of Americans every day and is particularly harmful to children."

“A liberal,” the poet Robert Frost once said, “is someone too broad-minded to take his own side in a quarrel.” The brouhaha over Kansas City Chiefs kicker Harrison Butker’s commencement address at the seriously Catholic Benedictine College in Kansas was a clarifying moment for traditional religious people and other ostensible “conservatives.” Whatever their own particular place within the right’s broad array, too many looked at the ritualistic denunciations of the football player and decided that where Frost’s two roads diverged in a wood, they would take the one less criticized — whether it was their own road or not. In this public struggle session, they, too, would be Frostian liberals. It's not that one couldn’t criticize the speech. Nobody believes Butker is a theologian, a philosopher, or even a poet. He’s a traditionalist Catholic and a football player. Looking at it as a text to study, one could surely find a few small errors of fact, a few bad phrasings, things that might be easily misunderstood outside the conservative Catholic community to which he was asked to speak. Maybe even something to disagree with. It’s an intellectual and rhetorical war out there. When the battle is going, don’t be a liberal too broad-minded to take your own side. But — and let me be as nuanced as possible — who cares? Butker didn’t deliver an inspired text or infallible pronunciation of dogma. He delivered a commencement address received by everybody at the ceremony (except a few malcontent graduating seniors) with a standing ovation. The people present, and most normal people, understand that a speech isn’t going to be perfectly phrased or calibrated even by serious academics, intellectuals, or writers. They understand that when anybody talks about the challenges of living a serious Catholic Christian life and hot-button challenges such as abortion, in vitro fertilization, and transgenderism, he won’t be perfect. It’s the thought and heart that count. Butker had them in spades. Yet what did supposedly conservative sources say? On CNN, conservativish Jonah Goldberg labeled the speech “reactionary,” implying it would have been hard to make the speech in the days before social media provided an amplification of such views. At Goldberg’s old stomping grounds National Review Online, the first piece published was an attempted takedown. Haley Strack’s “Harrison Butker Misses the Point” made a few worthy observations but needed some misinterpretation and uncharitable accusations to finish the job. Butker’s reference to “diabolical lies” women are told about career and promotions and titles being the most important thing in life was taken by Stack to mean that women should never value career or accomplishment. In fact, he said they weren’t the most important and not most valued by young women themselves. He also told the young men that putting career and work ahead of the vocation of father and husband was a mistake that his wife helps him avoid. Strack also claimed Butker promoted a view of women in which the time before marriage and motherhood was “a period of limbo” because Butker said his own wife “would be the first to say that her life truly started when she began living her vocation as a wife and as a mother.” An incredibly wooden reading. Strack closed her piece by mentioning Butker’s wife, Isabelle, and saying some lines of Pope Paul VI about loving one’s spouse for his or her own sake were “worthy of reflection.” The rather gross implication was that Butker doesn’t love his wife for herself. NRO was, thankfully, smart enough to follow up with Rich Lowry’s column, “Harrison Butker Is Right About Men and Women,” which backed up some of the kicker’s points with social science data. There were plenty of other “conservative” criticisms of Butker issuing on X (formerly Twitter) and elsewhere. Lots of “I generally agree” combined with laments about “tone,” “nuance,” and “culture warring.” Such nitpicking showed that too many on the right don’t understand the way in which media mobs work. Or maybe they do and simply have given in. If a person on the right is being crucified for saying something that you generally agree with, the right thing to do is support that person. “Nuanced” critiques will be taken as surrender by the leftist enemies of all you believe who don’t want you to say certain things with or without nuance. They will be taken as betrayal by the people on your side who will see you — probably correctly — as trying to curry favor with the ruling class and keep your social and professional status. We do live in polarized times. We can’t help that. It’s an intellectual and rhetorical war out there. When the battle is going, don’t be a liberal too broad-minded to take your own side. Wait till the smoke is cleared and then make your critiques. You’ll be less likely to make it seem as if you’re on the other side and less likely to misinterpret the people speaking for your own.