Show newer
dtpolet boosted

To celebrate of the work of the scientists who publish in the Company of Biologists journals, we are currently planting a tree in the Forest of Biologists for each paper that we publish. We recently celebrated Dowd & Somero's JEB paper journals.biologists.com/jeb/ar
by planting a small-leaved lime (Tilia cordata) forest.biologists.com/landscap to at our forest at the Woodland Trust's Young People's forest woodlandtrust.org.uk/visiting-

See the virtual version of the forest forest.biologists.com/landscap
#zoology

dtpolet boosted

My first release of #XROMM toolkit for Blender (#b3d) is now out, v0.1: github.com/pfalkingham/XROMM_B

Not everything implemented yet, but you can:
import cameras + image planes
Apply rigid body transforms to objects
Create axes w/ locators
Calculate relative motion between objects.

Youtube video run through here: youtu.be/zRH4XBChrgA

@elduvelle @kordinglab it took me a while. This meme is a riff on the "motte and bailey fallacy", which states that often people will publicly pronounce a controversial statement (the bailey) and when challenged on it will retreat to an uncontroversial statement (the motte), and claim that the challengers are against the uncontroversial statement. Once the challengers disappear, the controversial statement is broadcast again.

This meme takes this idea and gives topical examples. In this case, OP is comparing the logical operator ∀ ("for all") as the bailey and ∃ ("there exists") as the motte.

The idea is arguments often start out with someone arguing for a general phenomenon (e.g. "Nuclear power is unsafe!"), and when challenged will retreat to a specific case (e.g. "Chernobyl killed a lot of people. Are you saying we shouldn't care about those people?").

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-an.?wprov=sfla1

dtpolet boosted

@BarrenPlanet @angelteeth

"the sheer size and brutal power of the capitalist behemoth is bewildering"

It is - from one perspective. But there is another.

I know I'm odd, having for many years been immersed in history - not the dates and battles and kings and queens kind, but the how people thought and felt and looked at the world and won their livelihood kind of history.

So I was thinking about an old oral history study - 'Quarry Roughs' by Raphael Samuel - that is about how part of an Oxfordshire UK village, right up to the First World War, refused to get into wage labour, and instead carried on getting a living from growing and grazing on the remaining common land, poaching and collecting seasonal wild foods (literally 'hunting and gathering'), and doing casual work for cash in hand. Just the sort of mixture, in fact, that #graeberandwengrow see as typical of human life for thousands of years (as opposed to agriculture suddenly replacing hunter-gatherers). But this was in the very heart of British Imperialism at its absolute height.

So I've been wondering if capitalism really is that strong. Do we naturally take to its exchange relations, wage labour, etc, in our family life, with our friends and neighbours and local communities? Or is our 'natural' inclination to freely share and co-operate?

But apart from this businesses are everywhere, aren't they?
I agree – but ‘the private sector’ is not one thing. Mainly, it’s small businesses (around 95% of all UK businesses have less than 10 employees, and 75% have no employees at all); it’s also anti-capitalist but market-oriented organisations like co-operatives and social enterprises; and it’s civil society, much of which also trades. Oh, and comparatively few middle-sized, and even fewer enormous ‘shareholder value’ capitalist behemoths.

And here’s the thing: most small business is not really ‘capitalist’ at all – it is not very different from traders, artisans, musicians, etc, that worked in pre-capitalist economic systems. In the small business development/investment world, practitioners always try to distinguish ‘growth’ and ‘lifestyle’ businesses – they are looking for the actually rare ‘growth businesses’ that will repay their input. But most small businesses are in fact ‘lifestyle businesses’ – people that want to make a living doing something they love, and hopefully are good at, that serves and is pretty integrated in a local (or online) community, and has no desire to either grow too big or make vast fortunes. Such businesses would be sustainable in an economy where money actually had the ‘means of exchange’ function most people think it has. Many of these 'lifestyle businesses' are really rejecting capitalism - the discipline of wage-labour, the elevation of profit above enjoying your work, your life - just as surely as the 'Quarry Roughs' consciously rejected it.

Yes - there are a few thousand 'shareholder value' capitalist behemoths in the world, and they own many politicians - and they have in many places succeeded in marketising our social lives with their mass media and cloned high streets - and our own bodies with their 'you don't look right but this product will fix you' propaganda - but everywhere, many of us see through it, refuse it - and we have proven - and are proving ourselves strong too.

dtpolet boosted

#introduction Hi there! 👋 I'm a PhD Student at the Structure and Motion Lab in Royal Veterinary College and Moazen's Lab at University College London. I’m into the fascinating world of #biomechanics and #evolution in animals. When I'm not deeply engrossed in my research, you can find me advocating for #conservation and #AnimalWelfare issues. Feel free to say hello if you share the same passion in nature and science! 🌿🎨 #phdstudent #researcher #scientist #biomechanics #evolutionarybiology

@StephenBHeard Yes, I remember them from growing up in Alberta. Haven't seen the European species yet either- I look for them whenever I'm in the north or England or Scotland!

@StephenBHeard I miss red squirrels! All of the local squirrels in south of England are the grey American invaders

@Cleopatra@c.im @stavvers

So the default object looks and tastes good, but is annoyingly loud, smells bad and is overly sensitive 🤔

The results are in! Although a majority said (a), for this particular setup, (b) jumps higher.

This is NOT a general rule in biological jumpers, and is particular to how we've set up the problem (notably, no force-velocity relationship)

All that matters is the amount of work done by the muscle. Since there is no force-velocity relationship, the work done is proportional to the shortening distance. Case (b) wins because the larger in-lever allows the muscle to shorten more

We have an intuition that (a) should be better because biological jumpers look like that. But this is to accommodate power-velocity relationships in muscle, which this setup doesn't have.

My intuition was initially drawn to (c), but the physics clearly show (b) as the winner here. A good reminder to check model assumptions!

If anyone has a good real-world example analogous to this setup, let me know! Force-velocity is pervasive, though

Show thread

Which will jump higher?

Show thread

Is it better to jump with a long foot or short foot?

The cases below only differ by whether the in-lever or out-lever is bigger. Which will jump higher?

Ignore contraction dynamics & imagine the body is constrained to go straight up.

Answer and discuss below 👇

Thanks to all who made it to my talk at ! For those who couldn't, here's a prerecorded version youtu.be/BIwkG6a5WEo

Watch to find out when it's better for a foot to be a foot vs a leg... And how toes are a bit like wheels 🦎🛞

What does this device have to do with feet? To find out, come to my talk Fri at 9:30 in Tinto for the Open session: "Plantigrade feet avoid work through serial linkages"

You might even get a copy to take home (while supplies last)! 🦎👣

dtpolet boosted

Hoping to connect over here with #evolution #biodiversity and #biomechanics folks! Will aim to post and support others. Here is a cool surgeonfish (Ctenochaetus) we dissected recently.

dtpolet boosted

For the record, I acknowledge that the wrist contacts the ground, so the forelimbs are unambiguously plantigrade. To my eyes, though, the hindlimbs are digitigrade.

Also, not everyone agrees in the literature; some authors explicitly say mice are digitigrade - e.g.
doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2018.000

Show thread

Are and plantigrade or digitigrade?

I've seen a loooot of studies that code them as plantigrade (e.g.
doi.org/10.1073/pnas.181432911)

... but their ankle is well above the ground (e.g. video from doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2016.000)

What am I missing? 🐀

Show older
Qoto Mastodon

QOTO: Question Others to Teach Ourselves
An inclusive, Academic Freedom, instance
All cultures welcome.
Hate speech and harassment strictly forbidden.