Eindhoven, the Netherlands, looks poised to become something of a 3D-printed architecture boom town. Following the construction of a 3D-printed bridge in the city, a total of five rental homes made using the cutting edge tech are now planned too. Read more
by Conner Flynn
I thought that the urinal was the only safe place left to get away from ads being played, but nope. And once you start peeing you are a captive audience as long as that stream is going with these new video urinals from Dutch toilet company Mr.Friendly. Brilliant idea, marketing guys.
This high-tech urinal actually has several nice features like a waterless/flushless function and an anti-bacterial surface, but the big new upgrade is the built-in display with an automatic sensor that’ll play advertisements while you pee.
I know that online they use ads based on your browsing and buying habits, so I can only guess that this thing chooses the ads based on peeing technique? I hope it doesn’t have any other sensors that give it info about your junk because it could be pretty embarrassing if several guys are peeing and watching ads, and one guy gets the erectile dysfunction ad.
Also, we probably shouldn’t be distracted in the bathroom unless you want pee everywhere. Let’s just focus on the task at hand and leave the urinal an ad-free zone, guys. And how many people are going to be pissed off at the ads so that they piss on them for real? People are nasty after all. This is a bad idea.
(Article source: https://technabob.com/blog/2018/04/20/video-ad-bathroom-urinal/)
Over 15 years ago, a strange counter-intuitive bit of data was identified in patients undergoing hemodialysis for chronic kidney disease. Across several studies, overweight or mildly obese patients were displaying greater survival rates than those with healthy weights. The phenomenon was dubbed the “obesity paradox” and for well over a decade scientists have debated what could be causing it. Several new studies presented recently at the European Congress on Obesity have added further weight to the hypothesis of an obesity paradox, finding several strange correlations between obesity and survival rates across a variety of conditions.
The first study looked generally at patients admitted to hospital for an infectious disease. Tracking more that 18,000 patients admitted to hospitals in Denmark over a four-year period, the study found that within 90 days of discharge those patients of a normal weight displayed a significantly higher chance of dying when compared to both overweight and obese patients.
Two more studies presented at the conference examined mortality rates from patients admitted to hospitals for pneumonia and sepsis. Both studies examined large banks of data tracking admissions from over 1,000 US hospitals.
The pneumonia study, which included data from 1,690,760 hospitalizations, found that obese and overweight patients were between 20 and 30 percent less likely to die from the condition than those of normal weight. The sepsis study impressively gathered data from 3.7 million hospital admissions and found obese and overweight patients were around 20 percent more likely to survive following admission than patients of normal weight.
(For more information visit: https://newatlas.com/obesity-paradox-overweight-survival-sepsis-pnemonia/)
I’m going through a divorce. It’s amicable, mature, and adult. We just don’t work together as a couple anymore, but we’ll try and remain friends. As a writer, I work from home. I’m alone all day and now, no one is coming home at night. As a result, I’m taking great pains to be social, to go out, to see friends and family, to make phone calls, and to avoid social isolation. There’s no shame in admitting as much, although our rugged individualist society may look down on opening up about such things, especially as a straight male. Aren’t we supposed to be stoic mavericks, able to set out on our own, without anyone’s help at all? Turns out, not so much.
A young man sits by himself in a stadium. Image credit: Getty Images.
In fact, staying connected is the healthiest thing to do, and not just psychologically. According to a 2014 University of Chicago study, loneliness can have a significant negative impact on physical health. It can increase the rate of atherosclerosis—the hardening of the arteries, increase the risk of high blood pressure and stroke, and decrease retention, which can even hurt learning and memory. What’s more, the lonely often make worse life choices and are more prone to substance abuse.
Some research suggests loneliness is worse for you than smoking or obesity. It can even increase the risk of type 2 diabetes. Seniors are often the focus. Those who face social isolation actually see a 14% increased risk of premature death.
(To continue with this article visit: bigthink.com/philip-perry/theres-a-loneliness-epidemic-in-the-us-and-its-getting-worse/)
Ireland gives us whiskey, Bitcoin gives us… hmm.
In addition to being insufferable, Bitcoin is also absolutely terrible for the environment. According to a letter published today in the energy journal Joule by financial economist and blockchain specialist Alex de Vries, the Bitcoin network is consuming roughly 2.55 gigawatts of energy annually, at the absolute minimum. To put that in context, that’s nearly the same amount of energy consumed by the entirety of Ireland. That’s just the conservative current estimate; De Vries predicts that by December, the Bitcoin network could be using almost triple that.
Bitcoins cost energy to “mine,” because mining is just a computer running calculations; the longer Bitcoin is around, the more energy it takes to mine each subsequent unit (it takes four times as much energy to mine a single Bitcoin now as it did when the currency launched in 2009). There is a finite amount of Bitcoin, and the most recent projections show it will take about another 120 years to mine all 21 million Bitcoins. There is also, theoretically, a tipping point somewhere in there where the amount of energy it takes to mine a piece of Bitcoin is more valuable than the Bitcoin itself, though it all depends on the market value. But Bitcoin transactions, not just mining, take energy (one transaction could currently power a home for a week), so the more widely used it is, the more carbon we are pumping into the atmosphere.
There’s been a considerable amount of debate over the last couple of years surrounding the extent of the energy impact of Bitcoin (for instance, is it pretty bad, or really really bad?), not least because energy use in most parts of the world contributes carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, which contributes to climate change. But in the wake of Bitcoin’s wild valuation ride throughout most of 2017 up to nearly $20,000 per coin, cryptocurrency mining doesn’t seem likely to slow down anytime soon. Researchers need concrete answers before it becomes far too late enact institutional restrictions and regulations on the practice, writes De Vries.
De Vries’ figure doesn’t even include the energy expenditures of other popular cryptocurrencies like Ethereum and Ripple. The altcoin market’s potential for comparably sky-high energy consumption levels is unfortunately all too serious. According to the Digiconomist’s Ethereum Energy Consumption Index (which is technically still in beta), Ethereum production already makes up .09 percent of the world’s total energy consumption. While this may seem like a relatively small amount, it’s not. It’s already more than the total yearly energy consumption of countries like Iceland, Jordan, and Cuba. And given that Ethereum is only just getting started (ugh), this figure will likely only rise.
Energy use of Bitcoin will likely stop growing so fast and even decline in the near future; Grist estimated that at current trends Bitcoin would cost as much energy as the whole world uses now in only two years, an incredibly unlikely situation. It may also be possible to improve mining algorithms so they don’t use as much energy. Still, when the energy use is so high and interest isn’t waning, De Vries is trying to draw attention to the currency’s impact.
“We’ve seen a lot of back-of-the-envelope calculations, but we need more scientific discussion on where this network is headed,” said de Vries in a press release. “Right now, the information available is pretty poor quality overall, so I’m hoping that people will use this paper as a foundation for more research.”
(Article source, and for more information, see: https://theoutline.com/post/4561/bitcoin-is-consuming-as-much-energy-as-the-country-of-ireland?zd=1&zi=zh754dcw)
One bicycle burst
In the momentary dash of a flat-out sprint, the average cyclist can eke out a single horsepower. Pro pedalers can generate twice that. Horses, however, have humans beat on staying power; even Tour de France elites can’t sustain more than a few tenths of a horsepower over the full length of a race.
One coffee maker
In electrical work, we measure power in watts, a unit named for dear James. A lone watt is tiny—only enough to power an LED night light. That’s why we almost always talk in terms of kilowatts, especially on electric bills. Still, 1 horsepower’s worth, or 746 watts, is enough to power a standard drip coffee maker.
One enormous dead lift
A foot-pound is the work it takes to lift 1 pound a distance of 1 foot. To exert 33,000 of those all in the space of an extremely sweaty minute, the equivalent of 1 horsepower, an eager equine could drag 10,000 pounds up 3.3 feet, 3.3 pounds up 10,000 feet, or (more realistically) 330 pounds up 100 feet.
One pasta party
Pull power and heat are two sides of the same coin (a coin made of energy). To convert, you’ll have to work with British thermal units. One Btu provides roughly a kitchen match’s worth of warmth (or, more specifically, one penny match’s worth). A single equine could pound out 2,545 Btu per hour, enough to boil 2.2 gallons of room-temp water (assuming a tight lid and no heat loss in a perfect, imaginary world), which would cook 14 servings of pasta.
work (n.) The amount of force exerted over a distance. Units include foot-pound, kilowatt-hour, and BTU.
en.er.gy (n.) The capacity to do work. has multiple forms, including mechanical, thermal, and electrical.
pow.er (n.) The rate of work, calculated as the amount of work done divided by the time it took to do it.
This article was originally published in the January/February 2018 Power issue of Popular Science.
Note: this article has been updated to add statements and rearrange clauses so as to be more clear. Thank you to the Redditors who checked our work, though we stand by our inefficient method of cooking pasta.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) wants public input on a “scoping study” intended to justify calling some nuclear waste “very low-level waste” or VLLW. We call it “Very Large Loophole Waste.”
Radioactive gasses seep into concrete lodging and decay becoming other radioactive elements. Metal parts in the reactor are bombarded with neutrons during nuclear power production process and become activated radioactive metal.
As reactors and other processing factories that are a part of the nuclear fuel chain shut down, the buildings and their parts, the soil, the uniforms employees wore, the tools used to service reactors and other machinery, etc., all have become contaminated with radioactivity, and must be isolated from the environment and the public.
Instead of paying to manage these contaminated items as the nuclear waste they are, the Department of Energy (DOE) and nuclear industry are attempting to reclassify the waste as “Very Low-Level” and allow it to be dumped in landfills and/or incinerators, or recycled with consumer goods.
Huge amounts of dangerous but hard-to-detect nuclear wastes would no longer be regulated as radioactive and would have “alternative methods of disposal,” not at licensed radioactive waste sites.
The term “low-level” radioactive waste is already deceptive and can mean very high risk to humans and other life. Help protect us, our communities, and future generations!
Thanks for all you do, Diane D’Arrigo, Radioactive Waste Project Director
Nuclear Information and Resource Service, 6930 Carroll Ave, Ste. 340, Takoma Park, MD 20912,(301) 270-6477, www.NIRS.org
What’s in a name? There are lots of reason to choose one name or another when naming a child — family tradition, or as a tribute to a beloved relative or friend — but does a name really matter? Research suggests, yes, maybe it does, when it comes to the level of success you’ll achieve in your career and love life, and even where you choose to live. The reasons for this remain in the realm of conjecture, but research has revealed some surprising — and some not so surprising — correlations.
The difference from A to Z
You may not think this matters, but the alphabetical position of the first letter of your name may have two effects:
- A 2007 study found that people whose names start with a letter early in the alphabet are more likely to be admitted to schools, even when those late in the alphabet have higher scores. Obviously, this foot in the door can ripple through adult life since it may affect a person’s career choice. Are admissions staff tired and cranky by the time they get to poor Xander?
- A 2013 study suggests that if you have a name that comes later in the alphabet, you’re more likely to be an impulse shopper. The study’s authors theorize that this is a product of a lifetime of waiting for your name to be called, leading to impatience.
Familiarity helps in work and love
- Marquette University found that people with common names are more likely to be hired for a job than others.
- This is even truer if your name is super-easy to pronounce, as an NYU study found, probably because we tend to like what’s easy.
- According to one 2008 study, you’re even actually statistically more likely to have a career at a company whose initials mirror your own. Benicio del Toro is welcome any time at Big Think.
- Familiarity even seems to affect where we live. We tend to gravitate to places named like us. Did you know St. Louis has an unusually higher percentage of residents named Louis? How about Philadelphia, packed with Philips? Or Jacksonville’s Jacks or Virginia Beach’s Virginias?
- In school, a boy with a girl’s name is more likely to be suspended according to one 2007 study.
- In romance, a surprisingly high number of people connect with others whose names start with the same letter as theirs do. Xander and Xavier sitting in a tree…
- On the other hand, a 2009 study found that if your name is difficult to say, you may have more trouble dating because hard-to-say names are associated with higher risk. Unless of course, you’re hitting on a thrill-seeker.
- According to psychologist Frank McAndrew, unfamiliar names are even penalized in a romantic context.
Unless you’re dating online and have one of these names
According to The Grade, these are the “hottest” names of the moment:
- Jeff (Hey, that’s double-dipping!)
The image your name conjures up
- Unusual names can be viewed as a sign of juvenile delinquency, and make one less likely to be asked in for a job interview, according to a 2009 study.
- Sad but true, if your name sounds “white,” you’re more likely to get hired thanks to subliminal or overt racial bias. A study by the American Economic Association documented this pernicious type of labor market discrimination.
- The European Journal of Social Psychology found that use of a middle initial makes you seem smarter and more competent. More initial? More better.
Names in the management class
- If your name sounds worthy, you’re more likely to rise to the top of the company. A study of German names found that people whose last names were “Kaiser” (“emperor”) or “König” (“king”) were more likely to be bosses than those named “Koch” (“cook”) or “Bauer” (“farmer”).
- For some reason, says LinkedIn, men in upper management are more likely to have short names. Maybe it has something with powerful people wanting less intimidating monikers?
- On the other hand, LinkedIn notes, powerful women are more likely to use their full names, likely to present a business-like impression.
- According to The Atlantic, women with gender-neutral-sounding names are more likely to be promoted in some industries.
That’s what’s in a name. Maybe.
Some of these studies are more convincing than others, and few get into the reasons behind these sometimes-odd correlations. If you’ve got an apparently problematic name according to it all, don’t worry. People do change them. (Joseph’s “Stalin,” which means “steel,” is clearly more imposing than his original “Dzhugashvili.”) And since correlation doesn’t equal causality, we’d better keep studying this.
Can you raed this?
Olny 55 plepoe out of 100 can.
I cdnuolt blveiee that I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd what I was rdanieg. The ph aonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid, aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it dseno’t mtaetr in what oerdr the ltteres in a word are, the olny iproamtnt tihng is that the frsit and last ltteer be in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can still raed it whotuit a pboerlm. This is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the word as a wlohe. Azanmig huh? Yaeh and I awlyas tghuhot slpeling was ipmorantt! If you can raed this forwrad it.
Walk With Me While I Age
Ads You No Longer See Today….