If Rumors About Who's Running the Show Are True‚ It'll Be a Very Houthi Christmas

It may be odd to think about‚ but the strangest of the strange creatures‚ octopuses‚ may hold information related to Antarctica’s ice sheets. In a new study‚ scientists have examined the genes of one species of tentacular cephalopods that live in this cold environment‚ and they have reached some worrying conclusions.According to the paper‚ a geographically isolated population of octopuses‚ the Turquet’s octopus‚ mated freely around 125‚000 years ago‚ at a time when three seas surrounding the continent were connected by a temporary corridor through the ice. At this time‚ global temperatures were similar to those we have today.The results suggest the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) may be closer to collapse than previously thought. If this enormous marine-based ice sheet were to collapse‚ then it would result in a 3.3-5-meter (10.8-16.4 feet) rise in global sea levels – which would drastically transform the world map as we know it.That‚ the authors urge‚ is the likely outcome if the world is not able to hold human-caused global warming to the 1.5 degrees Celsius target of the Paris Agreement.The team’s research is novel. As an evolutionary biologist focused on marine invertebrates‚ lead author Sally Lau of James Cook University in Australia explained to AFP: “I understand and then apply DNA and biology as a proxy of changes to Antarctica in the past."In particular‚ the Turquet’s octopus (Pareledone turqueti) was an ideal candidate for this study as the species is found in the waters around the continent and we already know much about it‚ including its lifespan (12 years) and when it emerged as a species (around 4 million years ago).When the ice sheet originally collapsed‚ this species of small octopus (they are about half a foot long‚ or 15 centimeters‚ without their arms) were able to interbreed for thousands of years. Then‚ when the ice reformed‚ the animals were isolated again. This story of connection and separation is recorded in their unique genes.Lau and colleagues sequenced the DNA across the genomes of 96 samples of Turquet’s octopuses that were collected from animals that had accidentally been caught by fishing vessels and then stored in museums for 33 years.During their analysis‚ they found evidence of trans-West Antarctic seaways that connected the Weddell‚ Amundsen‚ and Ross seas‚ suggesting the WAIS had collapsed on two separate occasions. The first was during the mid-Pliocene era – around 3-3.5 million years ago – and the second during the Last Interglacial – a warm spell that lasted from 129‚000 to 116‚000 years ago."This was the last time the planet was around 1.5 degrees warmer than pre-industrial levels‚" Lau added.Since the late 1700s‚ human activity – primarily by burning fossil fuels – has raised global temperatures by 1.2 Celsius.Although there is other evidence that the WAIS has collapsed in the past‚ the findings were far from conclusive. That is‚ until now."This study provides empirical evidence indicating that the WAIS collapsed when the global mean temperature was similar to that of today‚ suggesting that the tipping point of future WAIS collapse is close‚" the authors explain in their paper.Despite the gravity of their conclusions‚ the study still leaves a few unanswered questions. Firstly‚ it is not clear whether temperature changes alone led to the collapse of the ancient ice sheets. Could changes in ocean currents and the complicated interaction between ice and solid ground play a role? It also isn’t clear whether the ensuing sea level rise would happen all at once or over a much longer period.Regardless‚ in the face of climate change‚ the results are worth considering. As geoscientists Andrea Dutton of the University of Wisconsin-Madison and Robert DeConto of the University of Massachusetts‚ Amherst‚ wrote in an accompanying commentary piece: “This latest piece of evidence from octopus DNA stacks one more card on an already unstable house of cards.”According to these commentators‚ this latest study is “pioneering”‚ and begs one question above all others – will ancient history repeat itself?The study is published in Science.

Hunting and gathering are two subsistence roles that describe how humans used to get their food‚ with females typically being associated with passive gathering‚ while the aggressive ancient men folk were considered to have gone off and done the active hunting. Not so‚ says a growing body of research that shows there’s both archaeological and physiological evidence to support the idea that females were proficient and intentional hunters of large animals.The stereotype has been so persistent in the past that scientists reviewing literature and research from the last 100 years found that even in cases where tools were found alongside the remains of ancient females‚ previous papers had been reticent to assume these amounted to hunting projectiles. However‚ a 2020 study into a 9‚000-year-old burial site in the Andean highland area of Wilamaya Patjxa‚ Peru‚ concluded that there was evidence to support the idea that a “nontrivial” number of females were once hunting big game here."We've actually discovered a number of burials at the site. But perhaps the most interesting was Individual 6‚" Randy Haas‚ study author and assistant professor of anthropology at the University of California‚ Davis‚ told IFLScience. "[They were] interred with a big-game hunting toolkit that included stone projectile points‚ sharp stone flakes (presumably for butchering)‚ a possible flaked stone knife‚ hide-scraping tools‚ and red ocher presumably for tanning animal hides."Ancient humans typically didn’t go to their graves with valuable tools or trinkets unless they were significant to their life‚ so being buried with hunting tools can be considered an indicator that an individual used and treasured those objects before their death. We also see archaeological evidence of females hunting large animals in the injuries preserved in their remains that match those seen in ancient males‚ as well as modern rodeo clowns that suffer kicks to the face and abdomen.The work of Cara Ocobock‚ an assistant professor in the Department of Anthropology and director of the Human Energetics Laboratory at the University of Notre Dame‚ further supports the idea that females were capable hunters. Combining both archaeological and physiological evidence‚ Ocobock and her colleague Sarah Lacy‚ an anthropologist with expertise in biological archaeology at the University of Delaware‚ published two recent studies that show how prehistoric women not only engaged with hunting‚ but were anatomically and biologically better suited to it. They provide physiological evidence that females may be metabolically better suited for endurance activities such as running thanks to the roles of estrogen and adiponectin – both of which are found in higher quantities in female bodies. They modulate glucose and fat‚ encouraging the body to use stored fat for energy before it turns to carbohydrates. “Since fat contains more calories than carbs do‚ it’s a longer‚ slower burn‚” Ocobock explained in a statement‚ “which means that the same sustained energy can keep you going longer and can delay fatigue.”Ancient females may also have had an anatomy that was better suited for the test of endurance that is hunting on foot for large game.“With the typically wider hip structure of the female‚ they are able to rotate their hips‚ lengthening their steps‚” Ocobock added. “The longer steps you can take‚ the ‘cheaper’ they are metabolically‚ and the farther you can get‚ faster. When you look at human physiology this way‚ you can think of women as the marathon runners versus men as the powerlifters.”While females have of course foraged throughout history‚ it seems it’s time for the fallacy that men exclusively led the hunt to die. We’ll raise a cup of 50‚000-year-old bison stew to that.

Just because something is a classic‚ doesn’t mean everybody has heard of it. You might want to give the cowgirl position a spin in the bedroom (though please dismount before you do) but aren’t quite sure how to get started; you might want an explanation that doesn’t require clicking an “I am over 18” button; heck‚ you might just be hoping to better understand your pals’ dirty jokes. Whatever the reason‚ we’ve got you. Saddle up.What is the cowgirl position?It’s no coincidence that the cowgirl position – also known as the cowboy or rider position – is named after a profession famed for sitting on top of things. It’s a penetrative sex position‚ in which the receiving partner (or should that be… pardner) sits on top of the one penetrating – it’s usually thought of as a penis going into a vagina‚ but with the right combination of accessories‚ angle‚ and attitude‚ any combination of gender and genitalia can make it work.To do so‚ the partner doing the penetrating lies down on their back‚ while the receiving partner kneels over the top with their legs to either side. In the classic cowgirl‚ the partners are facing each other‚ but flip the rider round to face their partner’s feet‚ and you’ve got the reverse cowgirl; alternatively‚ the person on top can lower themselves until they’re chest to chest with their partner‚ and assume the so-called horizontal cowgirl.Whichever way you choose‚ you’ll next need to engage those thigh muscles: the movement aspect of the cowgirl position is not unlike doing a 5.4-minute squats-only HIIT session. That’s not to say the partner on their back must be totally passive (and‚ in fact‚ they’ll probably be thanked if they’re not) – they can thrust from below‚ or use their hands and body to help give some leverage and stability to their rider.Benefits of the positionAccording to sexperts (sex experts) and sexveys (sex surveys… okay we’re still working on that one)‚ the cowgirl is the second favorite sex position out there for men. But the pros of the pose aren’t one-sided: read just one line further‚ and you’ll see it’s also third best for women‚ too.Why? In a word: orgasm. In two: clitoral stimulation (don’t worry‚ that’s SFW). “There aren’t many positions that truly provide the ability to grind the clitoris against the pubic bone for stimulation during the natural motions of sex‚” Jill McDevitt‚ resident sexologist at sex toy company CalExotics and author of Sex Positions for Every Body‚ told Women’s Health. “[But] cowgirl is one of them.”Not only that‚ but the position is highly versatile. We’ve already touched on a few variations on the classic version‚ but even more subtle changes can make all the difference: the depth of penetration‚ the speed‚ even the angle are all in your hands – or‚ we suppose‚ between your legs. “The same position can have different movements that totally change the experience‚” McDevitt said.Is it dangerous?When people talk about “risky sex”‚ simply putting the receiving partner on top isn’t generally what they mean. But the cowgirl position doesn’t come without a little danger: according to one 2014 study‚ 50 percent of penile fractures sustained during sex occurred while enjoying this most erotic form of dressage.Reverse cowgirl might be even more of a worry for those with penises: “The angle is a little unnatural‚” sex therapist and author of She Comes First Ian Kerner told Men’s Health‚ “[so] take it slow.”Most of these injuries associated with the position come down to “erratic thrusting‚” according to doctor and influencer Karan Raj‚ when “the movements of the two parties are not in sync”. This can lead to the rider’s pubic bone crushing the penis‚ and yeah‚ we bet you just crossed your legs in sympathy‚ too. Luckily‚ there’s an easy way to reduce the risk – and‚ as with pretty much everything sex-related‚ it’s communication.But by making sure everybody involved is comfortable and enjoying themselves‚ you can avoid an X-rated trip to the emergency room‚ and discover just what makes this position one of the most universal favorites. Happy trails‚ partners!All “explainer” articles are confirmed by fact checkers to be correct at time of publishing. Text‚ images‚ and links may be edited‚ removed‚ or added to at a later date to keep information current.

There’s a gap between the way scientists usually describe astronomical distances‚ and the units that make sense to non-astronomers. Space‚ as Douglas Adams so authoritatively told us‚ is really big. This means we need big units to describe it. You can measure the distance from Earth to the Andromeda Galaxy in centimeters if you really want to‚ but you end up with a lot of pointless and confusing zeros at the end.The units for cosmic space that the public are most familiar with are light years. This‚ as the name suggests‚ is the distance light will travel through a vacuum in the time it takes for the Earth to orbit the Sun. True‚ it is well beyond the range of most people’s capacity to envisage‚ but at least the name is familiar. Moreover‚ the nearest star to us‚ other than the Sun‚ is a little over four light years away‚ so it gives a sense of scale when talking about more distant stars.Light years as a unit also got a rather comprehension-handy boost from Monty Python's The Meaning of Life‚ where the galaxy is described as being; “A hundred thousand light years side to side.” That figure was not only quite accurate at the time‚ but hasn’t been changed much by subsequent research‚ despite the discovery of some rare outlying stars. Light years also instantly tell us something intriguing‚ if not always useful – how long the light has taken to reach us. Thus‚ when we say that a supernova we just saw is 21 million light years away we don’t need to do any recalculations to know it exploded 21 million years ago. Indeed‚ light years are such useful units that sometimes it’s handy to use their derivatives‚ measuring the distance between stars in light months‚ or the distance to the Voyager spacecraft in light hours. It’s the unit we at IFLScience use most often for astronomical stories. If you read the original scientific papers we’re reporting on‚ however‚ light years seldom get a mention.Instead‚ the three most referenced units for astronomical distances are astronomical units (AU)‚ parsecs (pc)‚ and redshift (z). Now and then‚ we and other popular science sites will use these as well‚ particularly AU‚ so it’s useful to know what each means.Before we start‚ however‚ it’s worth noting how Earth-based all these are. No alien civilization would use these units (redshift aside)‚ because their planet would be a different distance from its star and take some other time to complete an orbit. In other words‚ our local conditions are imprinted in the way we measure the universe. Our view of the universe is seldom objective‚ it’s shaped by where we come from.Astronomical units are used for measuring distances within the Solar system‚ and sometimes within other star systems. An AU is equal to the average distance between the Earth and the Sun: 150 million km‚ 93 million miles‚ or 8.3 light minutes. This has several advantages. Most of us may not know exactly how far we are from the Sun‚ but it’s still a useful measuring stick for assessing whether a passing object is a threat‚ or understanding why other planets are so much hotter or colder. Meanwhile‚ light years are too large to describe these sorts of distances well‚ like trying to use miles to measure the width of your finger.Parsecs are a much less intuitive unit. A parsec is the distance a star must be to show a parallax of one arcsecond. That is‚ it appears to move one 3‚600th of a degree against more distant stars‚ as the Earth switches between opposite ends of its orbit.That’s hardly a snappy description‚ and it’s also not obvious why it is a better unit than the light year. One parsec is equal to 3.26 light years‚ so it’s not as though it is sufficiently bigger or smaller to be a much better way of describing certain distances. Indeed‚ parsecs are so poorly understood that the original Star Wars film appeared to use them as a measure of time‚ not distance – although a very clever explanation has since been invented to save face.Despite this‚ most papers refer to the nearby stars in parsecs‚ distances within the galaxy in kiloparsecs‚ and nearby galaxies’ distances in megaparsecs. Converting to light years just involves dividing by 3.26.The reason astronomers prefer parsecs seems to be more out of force of habit than any advantage over light years. Some might cynically argue that it’s a holdover from the days when using jargon that excluded non-specialists was considered desirable‚ not a hindrance to public appreciation of science.The reasons for using redshift are more evident‚ but it’s still the most confusing unit of all.Redshift is a product of the expansion of the universe. As the universe grows‚ galaxies move apart from each other‚ which leads to light from them being shifted to longer wavelengths. For nearby galaxies‚ this shift is small and can be overwhelmed by localized factors so that some galaxies are even moving towards us (or‚ more accurately‚ us towards them). However‚ at greater distances‚ the further away a galaxy is the more the wavelength will be lengthened‚ or redshifted. The relationship between the redshift and the distance is not known perfectly‚ depending on a still uncertain measure known as the Hubble Constant. Since in most cases it is the redshift we can measure‚ it makes sense to describe a galaxy this way‚ rather than its distance in light years or parsecs. Any translation would be imperfect.More confusingly still‚ converting redshift into light years is not straightforward. It depends on a variety of assumptions about the universe‚ which are not universally agreed on. Different online calculators exist‚ and they don’t always produce the same answers‚ because they see these answers differently.As a result‚ when popular science articles talk about the distances to galaxies from the early universe‚ there are several layers of uncertainty to the figures.All “explainer” articles are confirmed by fact checkers to be correct at time of publishing. Text‚ images‚ and links may be edited‚ removed‚ or added to at a later date to keep information current.  

The bond between a soldier and their family is unbreakable‚ and this includes their loyal canine companions. When Devin Ekstrom‚ a soldier from Northwood‚ New Hampshire‚ returned home after 10 months of U.S. Army Basic Training in 2018‚ his family‚ including his unique husky-malamute and timber wolf mix‚ Indus‚ eagerly awaited his return. Morgan‚ Ekstrom’s... The post Giant wolfdog won’t stop barking at ‘stranger’ soldier until he smells familiar scent appeared first on Animal Channel.

Imagine a snowy wilderness‚ the kind you see in movies‚ where the air is crisp and the ground is blanketed in white. In this serene setting‚ a pack of big‚ hungry wolves roams‚ their presence enough to make anyone’s heart race. It’s a classic scene of nature’s raw beauty and potential danger. Then‚ out of... The post Brave horse proves it’s not afraid of a pack of a wolves appeared first on Animal Channel.

One month ago‚ MRCTV reported that Saint Mary’s College in Notre Dame‚ Indiana‚ an all-girls school‚ would admit transgender girls - also known as biological boys - starting in the fall. But as of Thursday morning‚ the school has made a U-turn and reversed course. Back in November‚ the school's president‚ Katie Conboy‚ sent an email to school faculty insisting that “Saint Mary’s will consider undergraduate applicants whose sex assigned at birth is female or who consistently live and identify as women.” She also quoted Pope Francis in the email and talked about how much he loved the LGBTQs‚ with the president insisting that she “seeks to advance just this kind of community.” Think of how detrimental it would be to not only the moral compass of the Catholic school‚ but to biologically female students‚ to allow male students into a school intended for girls. Imagine if a biological boy parading around as a woman decides he’s attracted to one of the biological girls at the school. Allowing him access to all women's spaces‚ including dorms‚ locker rooms‚ bathrooms‚ etc.‚ is a complete and utter recipe for disaster.  Bishop Kevin C. Rhoades was disgusted at the news. “To call itself a ‘women’s college’ and to admit male students who 'consistently live and identify as women' suggests that the college affirms an ideology of gender that separates sex from gender and claims that sexual identity is based on the subjective experience of the individual. This ideology is at odds with Catholic teaching‚” he’d said in a statement at the time. "The desire of Saint Mary’s College to show hospitality to people who identify as transgender is not the problem. The problem is a Catholic woman’s college embracing a definition of woman that is not Catholic." Thankfully‚ following Rhoades' statement and massive backlash condemning this decision‚ Saint Mary’s got some sense knocked into it and is reversing course.  In an email to staff obtained by The Daily Signal‚ Conboy explained that the school would reverse its admissions decision amid the controversy.  Conboy insisted that the decision “has weighed heavily on our minds and in our hearts‚” and confessed that her initial decision was perceived as a “dilution of our mission or even a threat to our Catholic identity.” Moreover‚ we clearly underestimated our community’s genuine desire to be engaged in the process of shaping a policy of such significance. As this last month unfolded‚ we lost people’s trust and unintentionally created division where we had hoped for unity. For this‚ we are deeply sorry. Taking all these factors into consideration‚ the Board has decided that we will return to our previous admission policy. Although this has been a challenging time for our community‚ we believe that the College should continually grapple with the complexity of living our Catholic values in a changing world. Related: Catholic All-Girls College to Admit Transgender Girls (Men) For Fall 2024 Praise God that the decision was reversed - but honestly‚ it shouldn’t have ever been a decision in the first place. Follow us on Twitter/X: Joe Scarborough makes ridiculous claim Donald Trump would execute his political enemies if elected President. pic.twitter.com/h3VY7VjR4V — MRCTV (@mrctv) November 21‚ 2023

The founders of Substack rejected efforts that seek to punish egregious content that is otherwise protected by the First Amendment‚ delivering a rebuke against widespread censorship plots to thwart free speech. Substack co-founder Hamish McKenzie authored a Dec. 21 article announcing that the newsletter and article-hosting platform would not demonetize nor de-platform “fringe voices.” The move came in response to over 200 Substack authors pressing the platform on why “Nazis” are allowed to publish content. However‚ McKenzie wrote that he — along with Substack co-founders Chris Best and Jairaj Sethi — “have been listening to all the views being expressed” concerning “fringe voices on the platform (and particularly‚ in this case‚ Nazi views).” McKenzie further wrote that censorship will not make the “problem go away—in fact‚ it makes it worse.” McKenzie added‚ “We believe that supporting individual rights and civil liberties while subjecting ideas to open discourse is the best way to strip bad ideas of their power. We are committed to upholding and protecting freedom of expression‚ even when it hurts.” MRC Free Speech America Vice President Dan Schneider hailed Substack’s move: "Nobody despises Nazis more than I do‚ but I cherish free speech even more. Hamish is spot on; the way to defeat terrible ideas is by rebutting them with better ones‚ not by using fascistic censorship tactics.” Substack’s free speech position directly contrasts those of writers who issued a “collective letter” posing the following question to the company’s founders: “Why are you platforming and monetizing Nazis?”  The concerned Substack writers cited a report by The Atlantic accusing Substack of becoming a “home and propagator of white supremacy and anti-Semitism.” The Atlantic named as examples in its allegations AndKon’s Reich Press and white supremacist site White-Papers‚ both of which have amassed a scant few dozen likes on some of their posts.  McKenzie declared that he does not agree with the views spewed by these alleged “Nazi” Substacks‚ but he rightly cautioned that censorship is not the proper solution. By contrast‚ McKenzie warned‚ “history shows that censorship is most potently used by the powerful to silence the powerless.” The Substack co-founder said that the platform already has guidelines that prohibit incitement to violence‚ which is notably not protected by the First Amendment. “We will continue to actively enforce those rules while offering tools that let readers curate their own experiences and opt in to their preferred communities‚” he added. “Beyond that‚ we will stick to our decentralized approach to content moderation‚ which gives power to readers and writers.” In 2022‚ McKenzi wrote that Substack would position itself as an alternative for the free exchange of ideas‚ directly criticizing social media platforms for making it “almost impossible for productive‚ civil discourse to take place there.” On its “About” page‚ Subtack touts its “hands-off approach” to content moderation. “A free press and free speech are fundamental to a trustworthy media system‚” the platform notes. Conservatives are under attack. Contact your representatives and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency‚ clarity on hate speech and equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored‚ contact us using CensorTrack’s contact form‚ and help us hold Big Tech accountable.

As the in-house ‘misinformation’ expert at NBC‚ Ben Collins peddles enough falsehoods to kill a fully grown African bull elephant. On Thursday when Ben took to X (formerly Twitter) to whine that some media outlets were actually covering the plagiarism scandal plaguing Harvard president Claudine Gay‚ commentators from across the political spectrum united to rake him over the coals. Collins’s objection to the plagiarism allegations against Gay was not that they was factually inaccurate‚ but rather that they had originated anti-Marxism activist Chris Rufo. On Thursday‚ Collins tweeted‚ without a hint of irony: If you’re a mainstream outlet and you’re being gamed this easily by a guy [Chris Rufo] who is laying out his playbook days or months in advance‚ maybe the problem isn’t the right-wing grifters. Maybe the problem is you. In other words‚ NBC’s supposed expert on disinformation‚ misinformation‚ malformation‚ and all of the other made up idiot synonyms for “inconvenient truths” that leftists use‚ believes news outlets ought to suppress Claudine Gay scandal‚ because otherwise they’d be handing a win to someone he disagrees with politically. Robby Soave of Reason magazine savaged Collins that same day in a scathing piece‚ titled “If You Ignore Claudine Gay’s Plagiarism‚ Shame on You‚”: That declaration—"maybe the problem is you"—is fairly telling. Collins evidently thinks that mainstream outlets should not report on the president of Harvard’s well-documented plagiarism because he loathes the politics of the people who first identified it. This a journalist whose specialty is correcting misinformation‚ mind you. Soave added: “Media outlets are being told to ignore true information because the information is inconvenient. One cannot find a stronger cautionary tale than that.” He's right‚ of course. Ben was attempting to shame media outlets for reporting on a story because he disliked it‚ not because of any factual error. Then came Nate Silver of 538‚ who was apparently shocked by Collins’s cynical stance: “It’s just kinda crazy to me how obviously and self evidently partisan some of these ‘misinformation reporters’ are‚ in ways that cause tangible harm to journalism.” Independent left-wing journalist Glenn Greenwald‚ a frequent critic of Collins and the rest of the censorship-industrial complex‚ threw his hat into the ring as well: If Ben is so eager to grow up and one day become a real journalist who is actually regarded by people as uniquely "dangerous" -- to the point they try to take action against him -- he'll have to try to do reporting that actually challenges‚ rather than serves‚ those in power. And that’s really the crux of all of Ben’s nonsense. Anytime he and his remarkably stupid ilk call a story “misinformation‚” that determination conveys next to nothing about how true or false the story actually is. All it means is that Ben wants people not to believe or discuss it. What a clown show the “fact checking” beat has become. Truly embarrassing.