Or it could just have likely evolved multiple times in different primate branches.
As we have absolutely no way to document how early it first happened in our own branch. To assume it is linked is just more attempts to try and indicate the human branch is special. Use of tools has been seen in many many branches. We don't assume that came from a joint ancestor that crawled out of the water. Or before.
My s.o. and I were discussing tests for animal intelligence being too anthropocentric, and we've both come to the conclusion (based on more recent work in the field that is getting better at trying to assess an animal's intelligence on its own grounds, rather than our's) that there's going to be a major existential reckoning as this field progresses, because so many people do not realize the extent to which animals reason, think, and feel. If we ever reach the point of truly being able to understand what animals are thinking, we're likely going to be horrified at what we've been doing to them (even more than many of us already are).
Yea, I always knew dogs were smart. But after having them myself, the depth of emotional understanding and support they really provide was mind blowing
I've always thought the idea that consciousness just suddenly starts with us makes no sense. I can't believe it exists within a vacuum.
Take the eye as analogy. Eagles might have the best eyes in one sense, but dragonflies have a panoramic view and see more colors.
There's also convergent evolution happening all over the place. If consciousness is useful for us, it must be for other animals too. Same for intelligence and so on.
My Labrador uses one toy to push another toy around the yard when he’s playing around. Technically he’s using tools. As far as i’m concerned, he’s pretty damn smart. We as humans just have the faculty to destroy the planet for our own personal gain. There are plenty of other creatures who have intelligent thoughts, we as humans can’t kill them fast enough I guess.
She underlines that although there is some artistic interpretation in the face reconstruction, actual scientific data derived from the skull parts forms the basis.
Isn't facial reconstruction from a skull almost entirely speculative?
You can get some information of the musculature from the bone structure, attachments are often fairly visible. But fatty tissue and skin, plus the uncertainty of the musculature still, all combine to be fairly high uncertainty ya.
While true, it's not like there's a monopoly on the market like in many other fields, I don't like Musk but he's a pioneer in many fields, besides SpaceX and Tesla he founded PayPal
Well, to get humans to space today you have either the crew dragon on a SpaceX falcon 9, or a Soyouz.
And relations with Russia are a bit tense nowadays, so if you are not Russian, there are currently no other options than SpaceX.
Kinda looks like a monopoly, with another actor starting to compete (and SpaceX is historically very competitive on prices, so without huge government subsidies, I doubt Boeing would consider maintaining their crewed vehicle)
Looks like a monopoly because SpaceX invented that niche and others lag behind RnD-wise, companies like Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and other companies behind the American space program are more in monopoly position and were more subsidized by the government than SpaceX ever was
He didnt found paypal, his company was merged with another one that became paypal. He was the CEO of PayPal early on, but was so universally disliked he was booted after 6 months.
He then took his Paypal money and did invest it in a fledgling startup named Tesla that had a working prototype of an electric sports car based on a Lotus frame. He later sued the actual founders so that he could claim he was a founder.
SpaceX is there because he had money to fund it and to entice Gwynne Shotwell, a renowed name in aeronautics, to his new space startup. Shes run it the entire time.
Musk is a "money guy" who lies a lot and has had some lucky hires. Hes a pitch man who has lived his entire life with a silver spoon in his mouth, which makes it easy to gamble on high risk projects.
Yep, he’s not anywhere near the visionary, the inventor, or the genius that he has made sure surrounds his persona in media.
He got handed money, invested it, and got lucky twice. A monkey could do that with a couple of levers.
I believed the hype as well, for quite some time. Then I listened to the bullshit he was saying and realized he’s just a copy of Donald Trump or Rupert Murdoch — people who happen to have money and are able to fool millions of other people that they’re intelligent because they happen to have money.
Science
Oldest
This magazine is not receiving updates (last activity 0 day(s) ago).