Today I Learned

[sbrothy]

... the exeedingly morbid "fact" which Benjamin Labatut's mentions in his book When We Cease to Understand the World, that ~40% of all people lack the gene that make them capable of detecting the odour of cyanide. This begs the question if 40% of those gassed to death in the Nazi death camps didn't realize something was wrong before the battle upwards for one last breath of air began, and only by looking at their fellow victim's behavior?!

I realize it's probably not so clear cut cf. Abillity to smell Solutions of Potassium Cyanide and Cyanide, Inability to Smell. Also, the gas was visible was it not?

Still, it's a pretty spooky fact, if indeed it is a fact.

Incidentally, Benjamin Labatut's book is shock full of crazy facts I didn't know about, but should probably be taken with a grain of salt as it is, after all, categorized as fiction.

 

[TensorCalculus]

Today I learned about the the intriguing yet horrifying history and science of the Buck v Bell court case, thanks to what is so far a very good book by Siddhartha Mukherjee -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gene:_An_Intimate_History

 

[BillTre]

 

[pinball1970]

Heard that term a lot as a child...

Probably not when discussing statistics ;)

 

[pinball1970]

T I.L. That Dr Becky has been diagnosed with breast cancer. In terms of YouTube she is one of the good guys.
Tells amateur astronomers what to see in the night sky every month and reviews key papers.

She sticks it in at the end of her monthly video here.

 

[sbrothy]

Today I learned about the the intriguing yet horrifying history and science of the Buck v Bell court case, thanks to what is so far a very good book by Siddhartha Mukherjee -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gene:_An_Intimate_History

Looks like there's a documentary too. Maybe it's worth a peek..?

 

[sbrothy]

TIL my brother has the exact same recurring dream as I do. I thought it was my special thing.

I dream that I can stand at the top of a flight of stairs, tilt my toes down at an angle, and surf down the edges of the steps to the bottom on one fluid motion. (The kind of thing people do by accident when they slip and slide down a flight of stairs, but I am doing it deliberately and with controlled grace).

It is such a strong feeling, even awake, that I am still not entirely convinced I have only done it in my dreams and not in real life.

(Of course, I also have a recurring dream that I can "skate" in the air for an indeterminate time. Like through a grocery store. I can run and leap, and sort of not land again, as long as I keep on one just touching, I can even steer, like having a rudder in the water.)

There are some things which are common to most, if not all, dreamers. Light switches don't work, digital displays show garbage and looking at your hands in dreams is pretty spooky. I don't know why the dreaming mind can't do hands, but it seems to be universal.

(On a more personal note recreational drugs never work. Probably because there aren't any.)

 

[sbrothy]

I once saw an animated (short?) film on TV about an entire dream sequence containing many of the dream-tropes I mentioned above, but I cannot seem to find it now. It was pretty "undergroundy" and artsy, but very fascinating. The protagonist just floated around, jumped and, as mentioned, experienced a lot of these tropes. I seem to remember there being no, or very little, sound.

It annoys me I can't seem to find it now...

If anyone knows which one I'm thinking about please give a beep. Fat chance I know. Still...

 

[TensorCalculus]

Looks like there's a documentary too. Maybe it's worth a peek..?

Oh cool: yes, maybe! I was never much of a biology person but Siddhartha Mukherjee has made it very enjoyable to learn about.

T I.L. That Dr Becky has been diagnosed with breast cancer. In terms of YouTube she is one of the good guys.
Tells amateur astronomers what to see in the night sky every month and reviews key papers.

She sticks it in at the end of her monthly video here.

Yes, I was so sad when I watched this video!!! Dr Becky has been a huge inspiration to me as a girl aspiring to be an astrophysicist and this is very tragic indeed

 

[TensorCalculus]

Today I learned that you need an ID to buy superglue

(At least, in the shop I went to)

 

[symbolipoint]

Today I learned that you need an ID to buy superglue

(At least, in the shop I went to)

Must 'been in last several years, or, depends your district where you buy the glue.

I bought either "crazy" glue or "super" glue several years ago, and I did not need to show any identification.

 

[DaveC426913]

Today I learned that you need an ID to buy superglue

(At least, in the shop I went to)

In England??

 

[Ibix]

Today I learned that you need an ID to buy superglue

(At least, in the shop I went to)

Some places age restrict it because some people abuse the solvents they contain, I think. I'm not sure if it's a legal requirement or a voluntary thing. And some places have an "if you don't have ID we don't know how old you are" policy even if you dodder in bald and leaning on a zimmer frame, probably because staff get abuse if they are allowed to exercise discretion and the customer doesn't like their decision.

 

[fresh_42]

Some places age restrict it because some people abuse the solvents they contain

I have actually seen this in the UK (teens in a suburb in the countryside), although I can't say whether it was a solvent or gas from a lighter. We currently have a similar problem with laughing gas.

 

[TensorCalculus]

Yeah, in Britain, in TKmaxx. I was very clearly not 18 so they wanted me to show ID (which, I obviously did not have). I have seen multiple incidents of teens misusing solvents so it's not rare, and even playing pranks with superglue so...

FYI: It was nail glue for my mom, I just realised nail glue and superglue aren't just the same thing packaged differently (upon asking my mom) I don't know why I thought they were but I just sort of assumed it...?
So I guess today I also learned that superglue and nail glue aren't the same. Maybe nail glue has stricter guidelines around it, I don't know. Anyone who wants to enlighten me and add to my list of things learned today, go ahead

 

[Ibix]

So I guess today I also learned that superglue and nail glue aren't the same.

What do you mean by "nail glue" here? There's a brand of glue called "No More Nails" which is a similar kind of product to superglue, but I first read "nail glue" to mean whatever it is you attach false nails with, which I suspect is quite a different thing.

 

[Swamp Thing]

TIL how an aha moment yielded a key insight into the analogy between electrical and mechanical systems, leading to a secret device that contributed to McLaren's success in Formula-1 for several years.

 

[TensorCalculus]

What do you mean by "nail glue" here? There's a brand of glue called "No More Nails" which is a similar kind of product to superglue, but I first read "nail glue" to mean whatever it is you attach false nails with, which I suspect is quite a different thing.

Yes, the glue you attach false nails with. My mum always refers to it as "superglue" anyway so I thought they were the same thing (now I think about it, of course they're not the same thing... But at the time that was my thought)

 

[symbolipoint]

Attempting at least an online search seems appropriate especially for the people who are not specialists about glues or adhesives.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyanoacrylate

https://mersicosmetics.com/blogs/blog/what-is-nail-glue

 

[pinball1970]

T.I.L. A martian meteor sold for $5.3M

https://phys.org/news/2025-07-largest-piece-mars-earth-meteoric.html

Even @davenn would probably pass on that

 

[TensorCalculus]

Attempting at least an online search seems appropriate especially for the people who are not specialists about glues or adhesives.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyanoacrylate

https://mersicosmetics.com/blogs/blog/what-is-nail-glue

Fair enough - I should have done this earlier. Thank you for the links they were helpful!

Today I learned what nail glue is made of I guess

 

[fresh_42]

T.I.L. A martian meteor sold for $5.3M

https://phys.org/news/2025-07-largest-piece-mars-earth-meteoric.html

Even @davenn would probably pass on that

I only thought: pretty expensive for a piece of iron ore, when I read it, and an embarrassing waste of money. It only once more shows how unequal money is distributed in the world.

 

[DaveC426913]

... an embarrassing waste of money. It only once more shows how unequal money is distributed in the world.

...assuming it goes to rot in a dusty private gallery or storage room...

But consider it as a business investment. Could a travelling show with this piece in it, moving from museum to museum over years, pull in $5 million+?

 

[fresh_42]

...assuming it goes to rot in a dusty private gallery or storage room...

But consider it as a business investment. Could a travelling show with this piece in it, moving from museum to museum over years, pull in $5 million+?

That didn't make the fraud any less serious, only greater. It is and remains a piece of iron ore, no matter where it comes from. Pay the finder his travel costs and give it to scientists. Everything else is - in my opinion - worthless.

 

[DaveC426913]

That didn't make the fraud any less serious, only greater. It is and remains a piece of iron ore, no matter where it comes from. Pay the finder his travel costs and give it to scientists. Everything else is - in my opinion - worthless.

I don't see why.

This isn't (necessarily) an artificial valuation. That's my point. If it draws in paying customers then that's a real, quantifiable - and not to put too fine a point it - profit-making value.

What you're really saying is, in essence, all you science/astro geeks are wasting you time and money going to Science and Nature museums to cast your eyes on the largest piece of Mars within 50 million miles.


This raises the question: How do you place value on things? Not at a car dealership or in a bank vault or at a natural history museum?

 

[fresh_42]

This isn't (necessarily) an artificial valuation. That's my point. If it draws in paying customers then that's a real, quantifiable - and not to put too fine a point it - profit-making value.

Sure, but I don't think that anyone should pay money to watch a piece of iron ore. They are around in any big harbor, so go watch these. Where is the benefit between 75 billion and 7,500 km?

What you're really saying is, in essence, all you science/astro geeks are wasting you time and money going to Science and Nature museums to cast your eyes on the largest piece of Mars within 50 million miles.

If that is the only exhibit, yes. I expressed my opinion, not any kind of absolute truth. I also miss the point of watching an aurora. I mean, nobody wants to watch a nuclear reactor from inside. That's what it basically is: radiation interacts with molecules of air.

This raises the question: How do you place value on things? Not at a car dealership or in a bank vault or at a natural history museum?

This is rhetorical, isn't it? Are we still speaking of a kilogram of iron? I looked it up. I currently value it around 10 Ct.

 

[pinball1970]

Please do not look up how much the dinosaur went for @fresh_42

 

[pinball1970]

That didn't make the fraud any less serious, only greater. It is and remains a piece of iron ore, no matter where it comes from. Pay the finder his travel costs and give it to scientists. Everything else is - in my opinion - worthless.

It is a big one Fresh, so I am hoping that samples were taken and distributed to the relevant science institutions for analysis.
Also, there are instruments on Mars that have sampled this stuff in situ.
This has obvious benefits over a sample, large though it be, that has had the trauma of being ejected from Mars to earth through and into our atmosphere and biosphere.

It IS a lot for a rock though. @davenn

 

[DaveC426913]

This raises the question: How do you place value on things? Not at a car dealership or in a bank vault or at a natural history museum?

This is rhetorical, isn't it?

Well, no.

I mean, what things do you think are valuable - in terms of your personal time, effort and/or money - and why?

Virtually all material things and experiences have a value based on what others will pay for them. So I'm trying to figure out what makes this one different, in your eyes, in that it is apparently more fraudulent?

Gold is as artificial a value as a rock form Mars, since both can be sold for whether the market will pay for them. Same with visiting a natural history museum. Same with a car dealership.

 

[fresh_42]

I mean, what things do you think are valuable - in terms of your personal time, effort and/or money - and why?

To me, this is a piece of iron. The fact that it is from far away doesn't change this rock. It has a scientific value if there is more to it than iron ore, which I doubt it is, but no value simply because it's extraterrestrial. It is more or less indistinguishable from a piece from a mine on earth. And that attaches the value in my opinion, 8-10 cents, depending on whether it's Euro cent or Dollar cent.

 

[DaveC426913]

To me, this is a piece of iron. The fact that it is from far away doesn't change this rock. It has a scientific value if there is more to it than iron ore, which I doubt it is, but no value simply because it's extraterrestrial. It is more or less indistinguishable from a piece from a mine on earth. And that attaches the value in my opinion, 8-10 cents, depending on whether it's Euro cent or Dollar cent.

OK, that doesn't really tell me much about what I was asking. You don't seem to acknowledge the value of something based on how much other people value it, as opposed to whether you personally want the object. The bust of Tutankhamen isn't a "fraud" simply because I personally don't care to have it in my living room, no?


I'm not sure why you think it would be indistinguishable from a piece from a mine of Earth. Iron ore is full of impurities (TIL: a sample of iron ore might only be 25% iron ore to be called iron ore. That means as much 75% is impurities). The ratios of those impurities can tell us a lot about our solar neighborhood. It's how we learned that Moon is not made of green cheese. It's also how we were able to form the leading hypothesis that Earth and Moon were once the same body - because the composition of Moon rocks and Earth rocks are the same in some very important ways.

Likewise, the number of things we can learn from that Mars rock - both from how it may be different - but just as much from how it might be the same - is invaluable. Imagine if the Mars rock had the same ratio of impurities as Earth. We would have to speculate that both were once the same body! That would throw our view of the formation of our solar system out the window.


Anyway, you're entitled to your view, I just thought it was a rather strange view.

 

[BillTre]

The price of something is determined by the market for it.

 

[fresh_42]

Anyway, you're entitled to your view, I just thought it was a rather strange view.

There's so much suffering and hardship in the world that I find this kind of luxury absurd. As an object of scientific research, it's acceptable, although in this case, its value should be equivalent to the expense of finding it. As a prestige object, it's ridiculous. Any lump of iron ore would look the same.

Using money for such purposes is what you should call strange.

 

[fresh_42]

The price of something is determined by the market for it.

Sure, that's what it is. But that doesn't mean I have to like it. It was just yesterday that I read a comment from an astronaut who spent hundreds of days (beat me, I don't remember the exact number, I think in the high 200s) on the ISS, and he basically said (quoting from memory):

We all live in such a small spaceship that we should consider ourselves crewmates, and we should rethink our priorities. It should be Planet - Ressources - Money and not the other way around.

I think he had a point.

 

[DaveC426913]

There's so much suffering and hardship in the world that I find this kind of luxury absurd.

I still don't get it. It's like you're not even reading my words.

The rock doesn't go into a sealed vault where it rots unseen. It has quantifiable, concrete dollar value, like any currency.

And the money paid for it doesn't go up in smoke. The meteorite hunter from Niger is now gonig to inject that $5.3 million into the economy that probably wasn't in circulation before. Money moving in the economy (indirectly) helps those who suffer, because that money is circulating instead of sitting in a bank. The world runs on money being exchanged, which is good for everyone, as opposed to hoarding wealth.

As an object of scientific research, it's acceptable, although in this case, its value should be equivalent to the expense of finding it.

I don't follow that logic at all.

As a prestige object, it's ridiculous.

Who says prestige has anything to do with it?

Any lump of iron ore would look the same.

"Look"? Value is not based on surface looks. An original manuscript of Hamlet with Shakespeare's thumbprint on the back is not worth the same as a high-quality photocopy of the same manuscript.

Using money for such purposes is what you should call strange.

"such purposes" is a total and unwarranted - preconception.

 

[jack action]

@fresh_42 :
If you are not willing to pay $5.3M for a piece of rock, how would you launder your money?

 

[fresh_42]

The rock doesn't go into a sealed vault where it rots unseen. It has quantifiable, concrete dollar value, like any currency.

But what made the bid 5.3 million? Probably not scientific interest or competition among museums; at least I hope so since this would have been taxpayers' money. I simply ask what it is that makes it valuable. You say the market, and I answer: I know, but I don't like it since I cannot see any value beyond its material value besides a possible scientific value, which I cannot rule out.

And the money paid for it doesn't go up in smoke. The meteorite hunter from Niger is now gonig to inject that $5.3 million into the economy that probably wasn't in circulation before. Money moving in the economy (indirectly) helps those who suffer, because that money is circulating instead of sitting in a bank.

I do not see what development aid has to do with it. By that argument, you could as well justify child labour and human trafficking because you demand quid pro quo.

 

[DaveC426913]

... I don't like it since I cannot see any value beyond its material value besides a possible scientific value, which I cannot rule out.

You can't accept that perhaps other people do know?

I do not see what development aid has to do with it. By that argument, you could as well justify child labour and human trafficking because you demand quid pro quo.

I'm simply poking the idea you seem to have that any large purchase of an item with an sliding market value must be bad. Like a TV cliche.

 

[fresh_42]

You can't accept that perhaps other people do know?

You misunderstood me. I know how things work. I just find it wrong. You define value by market prices, and I define value by what it takes to achieve or produce something. Sure, it would cost millions more to fetch it from Mars, but that stone isn't significantly different from what can easily be found on Earth. The fact that it is from Mars doesn't make it valuable in my mind; only rare. But nobody needs such a stone.

I'm simply poking the idea you seem to have that any large purchase of an item with an sliding market value must be bad. Like a TV cliche.

No. I only think that this money could have been used much better than buying a rock, which, in the end, is just that - a rock. If you want to spend it on a Nigerian lottery, since this is what it was, if I understood you correctly, fine, but don't pretend it would be something special. It's a piece of iron ore. We have those in masses. It's just not worth marveling at. The iron in it is probably even from the same star explosion.

 

[BillTre]

A thing can be greater than just a simple sum of its parts.
Most are functional assemblies of various atoms. The relationships and organization of the parts in the thing in question will determine its uniqueness and therefore maybe its value.

Although it might usually be thought of as machined, fabricated or otherwise produced by people.
Natural objects can be finely assembled by natural processes that store aspects of it history (of interactions) in its detailed structure.

These could reasonably be analyzed or marveled at.
The value of marveling might be gauged by the amount people will pay to see it.

 

[fresh_42]

Yes, that's how prices are built. I know this. Does that mean I understand those who are willing to pay to see it? No. I, and that is only my opinion, find this stupid, and the price tag way too high. It's simply not fancy enough.

 

[BillTre]

Well, yeah. But there are all kinds of people, including those who you will not interact with much, due to socioeconomic reasons.
Otherwise, who can afford that much for a largely functionless thing.

 

[Borg]

Bouncing around on Snopes this morning when I ran across this true story:

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/kix-lone-ranger-atomic-bomb-ring/

In 1947, Kix cereal ran a promotion for an "Atomic Bomb Ring" that contained radioactive polonium-210, one of the deadliest radioactive substances known to man.

 

[pinball1970]

Bouncing around on Snopes this morning when I ran across this true story:

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/kix-lone-ranger-atomic-bomb-ring/

Polonium 210 always makes me think of this guy.

 

[Borg]

Polonium 210 always me think of this guy.

View attachment 363567

Which is why the story is so disturbing.

 

[Hornbein]

TIL that there is an anime entitled That Time I Got Reincarnated as a Slime.

 

[fresh_42]

Which is why the story is so disturbing.

They used to sell radioactive compounds in drug stores in the early years:

or this one

 

[Borg]

Yeah, I used to have a glow in the dark watch when I was a kid. Probably radioactive.

 

[BillTre]

One time I was goofing around with a gieger counter measuring radioactivity around and about the lab. Ran into this professor who had a big watch with glowy numbers on it. We measured it and saw it was radioactive. The prof. said there's a lot of metal in the watch so his wrist should be protected from it. I flipped his arm over and measured the radioactivity going through the back of the watch and his arm. He stopped wearing the watch after that.

 

[fresh_42]

One time I was goofing around with a gieger counter ...

It's Geiger.

I also had such a watch, but I don't know whether it was radioactivity or simple fluorescence.