Jump to content

Science News Thread (for articles that don't relate to ongoing discussions)


Recommended Posts

44 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

That's now, when it's known and usual.

But somebody should be the first one who tried to add a handful of dung to someone's barbecue.

And his counterpart was probably enough hungry to ignore.

Depending on how they cooked, one way is to heat up stones who then heat up the food, its one way to make stew without ceramics. And with ceramics its not much of an problem. 
Going from wood to coal also changed cooking. 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, magnemoe said:

Depending on how they cooked, one way is to heat up stones who then heat up the food, its one way to make stew without ceramics. And with ceramics its not much of an problem. 

That's when they started using ceramics.

13 000 years ago they were probably grilling in charcoal.

Edited by kerbiloid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/16/2022 at 1:34 PM, Codraroll said:

It's that time of year again!  The time when the most prestigious prizes in all of science are awarded. The 2022 Ig Nobels have been handed out!

https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/09/maya-ritual-enemas-and-constipated-scorpions-the-2022-ig-nobel-prize-winners/

The URL alone should give you some idea of the absolute insanity that is science sometimes.

I shall stress this study: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010027722000580?via%3Dihub#!

Mostly because all three of my (now official) subordinates are to some degree law graduates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/17/2022 at 1:47 PM, DDE said:

I shall stress this study: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010027722000580?via%3Dihub#!

Mostly because all three of my (now official) subordinates are to some degree law graduates.

Legalese: when you are required to say something but you are motivated and incentivized to be obscure and opaque

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, darthgently said:

Legalese: when you are required to say something but you are motivated and incentivized to be obscure and opaque

Legalese and the broader bureaucratese are also driven by the constant neuroticism about leaving any ambiguity; the desire to cram as many caveats as possible into a single phrase can produce utter monstrosities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Taupo-28761-lge_GEONET.jpg?1522313074

Yeah... that lake is a volcano

Quote

The Taupo volcano last exploded around 1,800 years ago - when it spewed more than 100 cubic kilometres of material into the atmosphere. Almost 700 small earthquakes have now been detected below Lake Taupo, the caldera it created.

Alert level raised on New Zealand's giant Taupo volcano - source of Earth's largest eruption in past 5,000 years | World News | Sky News

The-Taupo-Volcanic-Zone20160118-19307-1i

Exploding Taupō — Science Learning Hub

Map:

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Taupo+Volcano,+Waikato+3382,+New+Zealand/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x6d6b931a8a2f3d3b:0x8e61f4b2b11234bb!5m1!1e4?sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiJw4qAxqT6AhVchYkEHfzLAmIQ8gF6BAhxEAE

(hint: zoom out)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, DDE said:

Can Eyes on a Car Reduce Traffic Accidents?

https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3543174.3546841

Once again shifting the burden of responsibility for preventing pedestrian involved accidents onto the pedestrian rather than the driver where most responsibility belongs. It's a trend that the auto industry successfully employed in the earliest days of car integration in cities by making "jay walking" an offense where it never was before; and insuring that the ease of travel for private automobiles is the #1 priority over ever other means of transportation, including walking.

The most effective means of improving protection for pedestrians and drivers is to build streets that physically reduce the speed of automobiles via narrowed lanes, fewer lanes, meanders, changes in grade, bumps and barriers that force drivers to naturally slow their rate of travel and maintain awareness of their situation. But state codes across the country require roads to prioritize fast, wide, flat, straight, numerous traffic lanes that only increase traffic speed, driver inattention and injury.

It's our roads that are built wrong. Speed kills.

Edited by HvP
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, HvP said:

It's our roads that are built wrong. Speed kills.

I don't disagree with you at all. But I seem to remember a study that showed, statistically (yeah, I know), that speeders pay more attention and have less crashes but worse crashes when they do. So, speed kills is still true but I wouldn't put most of the problem on speed. I would put most of the problem (in no particular order) on poor driver preparation (not knowing where they are going), poor driving ability(they give licenses to nearly anyone), driver inattentiveness (cell phones that connect to your car!, radio, french fries, .....), Lack of perceived danger and responsibility (cars are safe but not 100%. Every time you turn the ignition on you should think "I could die or kill someone" because driving can be dangerous), large to oversized vehicles (harder to control, gives a sense to drivers of more right of way than is deserved), and roads, like was mentioned.  And sure, speed kills.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@AngrybobHWell, we happen to have had a nationwide experiment in driving behavior and accident rate during the pandemic lock-downs the past few years. And unfortunately that data contradicts the assumption that speeders drive more attentively or have fewer accidents.

The percentage of drivers speeding increased, the accident rate increased, injury and fatality rates increased.

https://blog.burnsmcd.com/understanding-the-data-behind-pandemic-speeding-and-fatalities

https://newsroom.aaa.com/2022/02/solving-a-puzzle-with-fewer-drivers-on-the-road-during-covid-why-the-spike-in-fatalities/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/the-coronavirus-pandemic-emptied-americas-highways-now-speeders-have-taken-over/2020/05/10/c98d570c-8bb4-11ea-9dfd-990f9dcc71fc_story.html

Over and over again we see that when drivers believe it is safe to drive fast the roads actually become less safe. The solution is to design roads in which it is physically impossible to drive too fast.

Edited by HvP
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/20/2022 at 1:14 PM, darthgently said:

Legalese: when you are required to say something but you are motivated and incentivized to be obscure and opaque

I have to do this at my job from time to time and I haaateeee ittt. Unfortunately Im also very good at it, so when things get dicey they make me write the emails. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, HvP said:

@AngrybobHWell, we happen to have had a nationwide experiment in driving behavior and accident rate during the pandemic lock-downs the past few years. And unfortunately that data contradicts the assumption that speeders drive more attentively or have fewer accidents.

The percentage of drivers speeding increased, the accident rate increased, injury and fatality rates increased.

https://blog.burnsmcd.com/understanding-the-data-behind-pandemic-speeding-and-fatalities

https://newsroom.aaa.com/2022/02/solving-a-puzzle-with-fewer-drivers-on-the-road-during-covid-why-the-spike-in-fatalities/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/the-coronavirus-pandemic-emptied-americas-highways-now-speeders-have-taken-over/2020/05/10/c98d570c-8bb4-11ea-9dfd-990f9dcc71fc_story.html

Over and over again we see that when drivers believe it is safe to drive fast the roads actually become less safe. The solution is to design roads in which it is physically impossible to drive too fast.

Ugh. Without outright lockdowns, in some places Corona has boosted road traffic as people avoid mass transit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, HvP said:

when drivers believe it is safe to drive fast the roads actually become less safe.

 

7 hours ago, DDE said:

Ugh. Without outright lockdowns, in some places Corona has boosted road traffic as people avoid mass transit.

I don't disagree with either. I do remember reading about the studies during the pandemic lockdowns. It's really interesting but, lockdown traffic and pre-lockdown traffic general behavior isn't exactly an apples to apples comparison. I do believe they are close enough to draw some conclusions and generally agree with the findings. My earlier comment was to point out that while better roads would help, better cars and drivers are needed. Possibly even less drivers by way of better mass transit and better designed roads/cities(for pedestrians). Only fixing one of them could leave results lacking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, HvP said:

Over and over again we see that when drivers believe it is safe to drive fast the roads actually become less safe.

I've heard that the biggest danger is cars moving at different speeds on the same road. Lane changes become quite dangerous when traffic is coming up the other lane 30+kph faster (speaking from experience...)

Edited by StrandedonEarth
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/21/2022 at 8:35 PM, HvP said:

Over and over again we see that when drivers believe it is safe to drive fast the roads actually become less safe. The solution is to design roads in which it is physically impossible to drive too fast.

Speed itself is not the problem, it is relative speed that kills.

Everyone going 80mph is much safer than everyone going back and forth between stopped and 30mph again and again due to speed bumps and other control measures.

Adding in turns and swerves just adds lots of speed zero buildings, trees and pedestrians into the forward vector of the vehicle.

This is not mentioning the possible loss of control due to hitting an unexpected curb or speed-bump.(or the additional wear that can cause a sudden mechanical loss of control)

Also, reducing the maximum speed of a route only increases the numbers of cars on that route at a given point of time, and usually both the stress and fatigue levels of those drivers.

 

The vast majority of US roads are in places where it is just not economical to have mass-transit in a useful form, and if it is not useful, then it will not be used enough to matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Terwin It's fair to say that there should be a distinction between roads designed for high speed travel point-to-point, and streets designed for accessing destinations in the local area. The former might be a freeway or highway; the latter might be a residential, or main street.

The problem is that statewide standards engineered for the efficient high speed travel of only motor vehicles on freeways and highways between destinations was extended to cover many streets that serve destinations used by pedestrians  and cyclists.

8 hours ago, Terwin said:

Adding in turns and swerves just adds lots of speed zero buildings, trees and pedestrians into the forward vector of the vehicle

Adding turns, narrowing lanes, adding bumps, planting trees and moving buildings closer to the roadway has the psychological effect of making drivers slow down intuitively. People drive more slowly when they are cued into thinking that it is unsafe to drive faster. This is why traffic calming measures work. It is also implicitly acknowledged by highway design standards which admit that the purpose of widening lanes, flattening grade, straightening streets and widening shoulders is to allow increase vehicle speed.

8 hours ago, Terwin said:

This is not mentioning the possible loss of control due to hitting an unexpected curb or speed-bump.(or the additional wear that can cause a sudden mechanical loss of control)

Only a problem at high speeds. As I've stated, the point is to condition people to go slower in the first place.

8 hours ago, Terwin said:

reducing the maximum speed of a route only increases the numbers of cars on that route at a given point of time, and usually both the stress and fatigue levels of those drivers.

But it reduces the overall number of cars moving through an area over time. Reducing the volume and speed of cars moving through what should be pedestrian oriented spaces is my priority. Increasing speeds does increase traffic due to induced demand. I do not view this as a positive. And it only does so as long as the exits and connecting arteries can keep up otherwise congestion still results. The inverse is to reduce auto-traffic demand for those roadways in which pedestrians, cycling and public transit are preferred local means of travel. People who are uncomfortable driving through an area designed to reduce car traffic should be changing their route to take advantage of roads designed to bypass areas not meant for a high volume of car traffic.

 

8 hours ago, Terwin said:

The vast majority of US roads are in places where it is just not economical to have mass-transit in a useful form, and if it is not useful, then it will not be used enough to matter.

Induced demand in reverse. Modern cities are not designed to take advantage of public transit on purpose. They have been designed to prioritize car travel since the 1950's or earlier. Everything is spread out; high speed transit hubs are rarely placed near anything anyone needs on a daily basis like grocery stores, schools, shopping centers; and buses and trams are not given priority lanes over road traffic so they end up getting stuck going just as slowly in congestion as every other driver. We design our cities so that public transit will fail, and then complain that no one wants to take it.

Anyway, I've droned on enough and I'm afraid of monopolizing the thread.

Edited by HvP
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, HvP said:

But it reduces the overall number of cars moving through an area over time. Reducing the volume and speed of cars moving through what should be pedestrian oriented spaces is my priority. Increasing speeds does increase traffic due to induced demand. I do not view this as a positive. And it only does so as long as the exits and connecting arteries can keep up otherwise congestion still results. The inverse is to reduce auto-traffic demand for those roadways in which pedestrians, cycling and public transit are preferred local means of travel. People who are uncomfortable driving through an area designed to reduce car traffic should be changing their route to take advantage of roads designed to bypass areas not meant for a high volume of car traffic.

A good way to drive away business(traffic is life for retail businesses), lower property values(reduced convenience=lower desirability) and create new ghettos while still allowing politicians to crow about how they are helping the community.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/21/2022 at 7:35 PM, HvP said:

Over and over again we see that when drivers believe it is safe to drive fast the roads actually become less safe. The solution is to design roads in which it is physically impossible to drive too fast.

Don't really care. I'll drive exactly as fast as I think it's safe to drive. The fact that some people that want to live in a bubble think driving across the western US at 55 is sensible doesn't concern me in the least—speed limit now is 75, and virtually everyone drives >80.

 

4 hours ago, HvP said:

Reducing the volume and speed of cars moving through what should be pedestrian oriented spaces is my priority.

That ship has sailed.

US zoning followed a German model, but broke it by assigning all business to "non-residential," instead of having businesses required to live as part of residential (small shops, etc, for daily needs). As a result we tend to have Housing <—>Shopping<—>Housing sorts of arrangements. Even the small town I grew up in in CT was spread out houses (some formerly farms from before the Revolutionary War), and a small town center with shops, churches, etc.

Cities could be infilled with housing in areas zoned for commerce, but good luck convincing people in residential neighborhoods to infill businesses—they freak out if anyone tries to infill medium density housing. Even in urban areas. I used to visit San Francisco about once a year. I remember reading in the paper about a few developments being fought hard by locals. They complain about housing, and prices—and it's already a walkable city, with mixed use everywhere (part of why we like it there)—yet are 1000% NIMBY when anyone wants to build more housing.

A walking city someplace like Albuquerque or Phoenix is sort of hard to do. There are many times of day when it's impossibly hot for that. 300+ sunny days, near vertical sun and over a mile above sea level here in ABQ. Even otherwise comfortable temps in the 70s are hot in high-alt blazing sunshine.

Edited by tater
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SunlitZelkova said:

Reading comments from both sides, I feel like this isn’t a problem with a magical fix.

The biodrivers replacement. Then every car motions will be predictable, and the cars will live together in peace.

***

The street should be enough wide to prevent its complete blockage with rubble and allow the emergency services eliminate the consequences of a nuclear strike.

Also to prevent the fire transmission from one city block to another one.

And of course to have the backup exits of the shelters unrubbled.

And to let the washing machines clean a passage between the radioactive scrap to evacuate the survived population.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/24/2022 at 3:38 AM, Terwin said:

A good way to drive away business(traffic is life for retail businesses), lower property values(reduced convenience=lower desirability) and create new ghettos while still allowing politicians to crow about how they are helping the community.

Meanwhile, across the Atlantic, the Pacific, and the US-Mexico border, reducing vehicle traffic in pedestrian oriented areas is simply the default way of building cities, and it hasn't led to any of the things you describe. Property values are sky high, retail is booming, and ghettos are nowhere to be seen in the downtown of most big European and Asian cities, even though there are really few cars around and driving is a nightmare. Most people just get around by other, more convenient means. The US and Canada are fairly unique in designing urban spaces exclusively for cars, and it has led to some of the worst urban hellscapes the planet has to offer for those without a vehicle.

One of the main issues is the lack of a good distinction between streets and roads. To give a short recap:

  • Roads - transport thoroughfares that take cars from A to B, where A and B are intersections with streets or other roads. A road is never a destination. A highway is usually the typical image of a road. You would never have your driveway on a highway. The lack of crossing traffic streams means the road can be fully designed with capacity and speed in mind.
  • Streets - low-speed branches of the transport network, where driveways are connected. Your destination is always a street, or more probably on a street. Low speed is necessary because there are crossing traffic streams everywhere. Also, since you're not meant to drive for long along a street, speed is not important. Driving along a street means you're at the beginning or end of your journey, not the "must go fast" stretch in the middle.

The problem starts arising when traffic engineers begin to mix up the two and create the unholy hybrid, the "stroad". A transport corridor built to accommodate high transit speeds/volumes and driveways. Lots of crossing traffic streams from cars driving out of/into driveways, and lots of cars that are simply on a thoroughfare, trying to get from A to B. Those unholy hybrid stroads are almost impossible to navigate without a vehicle (lots of turning lanes makes the stroad too wide to cross without a signaled pedestrian crossing, and those exist very sparingly because they slow down the thoroughfare traffic), and still difficult if you're in a vehicle, because of the high speeds and crossing traffic streams. Stroads are inherently dangerous for that reason. The US experienced an increase in traffic fatalities as traffic went down during Covid lockdowns, because what prevented stroads from killing more people under ordinary circumstances was that they are usually too clogged with cars for drivers to build up speeds that cause fatal collisions. There's an upside even to induced demand, I suppose.

Car-dependent city design is just plain bad. It wastes ungodly amounts of space, it reduces your number of transport options to one, it's too low-density to facilitate public transit, it does not reduce the amount of time residents spend in transit compared to a conventionally-designed city, and it bankrupts the cities that have to pay for so many square miles of asphalt (and miles of water/sewage pipes, electrical wires, Internet cables, road signs, etc.) with the tax revenue from so few people. The YouTube channel "Not Just Bikes" has an excellent series of videos on the subject, I recommend starting here:

 

Edited by Codraroll
Added some more info, cleared up wording.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/24/2022 at 6:16 AM, kerbiloid said:

The biodrivers replacement. Then every car motions will be predictable, and the cars will live together in peace.

***

The street should be enough wide to prevent its complete blockage with rubble and allow the emergency services eliminate the consequences of a nuclear strike.

Also to prevent the fire transmission from one city block to another one.

And of course to have the backup exits of the shelters unrubbled.

And to let the washing machines clean a passage between the radioactive scrap to evacuate the survived population.

One pretty permanent problem with cars who also is present with mass transit is that the demand is filled up because people will use it. 
I live there I live because I can take an train to work at the other side of the city. 

In short the majority of rush traffic is people going to and from work. Its an pain limit on how long you will travel so you either move or don't take that job. 
Better transport will increase that distance, it might be highways, rail or subways. But cars are more flexible so making an highway better might move people from public transport to cars as people will select that is most convenient. 

Its not an solvable problem, automated cars will not solve it, might make it worse having all the empty cars driving slowly around as its no parking spots. Done that 30 years ago, ran an small business with an friend, had to go to physical bank and no parking spot so I role played Michael Collins orbiting the quarter until flagged down. 
Now this don't say you don't want good transport, just realize its not an solvable problem just something you have to mitigate

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...