Laser hair removal only works if there's contrast between the skin and the hair. So if you have white or blonde hair and white skin, it doesn't work; or if you have brown skin and brown hair, it also doesn't work.
For cases where laser hair removal won't work, there's electrolysis, which involves inserting an acupuncture needle in each and every hair follicle, but it's expensive, slow, and can be pretty painful.
The hair one is a fascinating one to me... We have some many examples of people like Bezos, Jobs, Ballmer, Brin, Slim... I mean, if the ultra rich have not figured it out, I don't think there much hope for anyone else really... haha of they can pull a Musk, but that's not the point, the point is to reverse balding...
It's not what you meant but toupees have gotten really good, the only problem is you can't be a public figure and have pattern baldness one day and a full head of hair the next. There's actually something called "the toupee fallacy" which means assuming an entire category of something is bad based on only noticing bad examples.
nah, but I mean, the guy went trough the same instant pipeline as Steven Seagal where he was definitely all thin in Above the Law and a film later his hairline had won the battle. Come on!
> The results revealed that Jonathan has “unique gene variants in most aging pathways” including DNA repair, insulin regulation, mitochondrial function, and “low entropy” methylation, reports the study.
My supplement company has a product, PeptiShell Vital Peak, that has been selling in volume to a mystery buyer for the past few months. Things that make you go hmmm.
It's both, though. Yes, the Earth can support more humans with a lifestyle closer to that of the West in the 19th century than with a lifestyle closer to the the West in the 21st, but even in the 19th (and earlier) deforestation and the like were happening. And it's just reality that as societies prosper they use more resources per person. 50 years ago the vast majority of Chinese didn't use cars but walked and and bicycled. Now they are quite car dependent.
I'm not sure that's an easy argument to hold up. Where would you draw the line on lifestyle that can and should reasonably change?
We've populated large portions of the planet that we really have no business living in without climate controlled indoor environments. HVAC is also a huge energy suck with all the externalities that come along with it. If we were to really want to cut energy use, for example, and climate control had to go we almost certainly couldn't continue to sustain as many people as we have today.
If they keep it up, their population will remain stable up to the 22nd century. There will be no further noticeable ageing and thus no threat to anyone's retirement.
Just imagine how many more grandpas and great grandpas will be around for you to shout this at.
The problem with the population isn't (yet? only?) the absolute number of individuals but the age distribution. Most societies rely on young people to support themselves and the old, and this only works if there's a good balance between the numbers of each. Living longer isn't guaranteed to offer a longer productive period. We might just end up with more old people in need of support and not necessarily more children. This is already a major problem today in most developed countries.
There are probably so many more factors to consider. Like the psychological impact of living substantially longer. Even things like that crappy boss who won't retire from another 60 years, the dictator who won't die for another hundred years, or any number of the many society destroying tech CEOs getting to entrench themselves for decades more.
This is the oldest land animal currently living and whose age is known with certainty.
It is believed that other tortoises may have lived close to 300 years.
The greater age reached by animals living in an environment that is cold and with a constant temperature and which need a much lower average power for living (i.e. a lower energy consumption and a slower metabolism) is very much expected.
But far fewer than modern nation states that are younger. E.g. Norway as a modern nation state is typically dated to either 1814 (constitution), or 1905 (independence), but the country is considered to have been united between 872 and ~1130 depending on exactly how consolidated control you're willing to count.
And we europeans consider them young. What we are pointing is that people in US (and America in general) talks about pre-1776 stuff as they were prehistoric, and pre-1900 stuff as they were comparable to Roman ruins. Add to that that we love to bomb each other to a ruble, and buildings and countries younger than 200 years are viewed as temporary stuff. Nothing pedantic or snobby here, just pointing that we live in different scenarios that affected our views.
Isn't the USA older then pretty much every country in Europe? Maybe the UK could be considered older depending on how you count it and San Marino is there but all the other major ones like Germany, Italy, France, Spain, etc aren't even 100.
How in the world can you claim that France is not even 100? The German empire was established in 1857, which is definitely more than 100 years ago; it's also not unreasonable to say that the HRE could be equated to the German state, that Spain is the continuation of Castille, and that the Roman empire can be considered the direct precursor to Italy
There's a cultural through line for all these countries, often stretching back thousands of years, which means that they reach further back than the definition of the modern state
Perhaps, but that would by all accounts still be a pretty silly thing to do. It's not like another group of people with a different cultural background invaded France and displaced/killed everyone already living there
A person with a French citizenship from the fourth republic was still a French citizen when the fifth republic was established
If you're gonna give them credit for stuff like that, then you need to at least give credit to the United States as far back as the Pilgrims in the 1600s.
Perhaps, they were certainly foundational in establishing traditions that are now part of American culture, but even 1600 is young compared to many, if not most, European countries
The Franks made Paris their capital in the 5th century, so that still ~1100 years earlier
The Germanic people exists in records from the 1st century
Whether you can consider Spain as originating from Hispania of the Roman Empire, which would place it in the BCs, or you are more conservative and say that it doesn't count until after the reconquista from the Umayyad, we're still around the 10th or 11th century
As for Italy, we're again in BCs with the Roman empire
So yes, in comparison to many European countries, the US is a very young country
No point staying alive if you're not healthy. This is a great podcast about the difference between lifespan and healthspan: "To start our new series about what it means to live in a world of ageing populations, David talks to geneticist Adam Rutherford about the benefits and pitfalls of increasing longevity. Are GLP-1s – drugs like Ozempic, Wegovy and Mounjaro – miracle cures that will extend human lifespans? What happens if longer lives do not coincide with better health? How far can life extension be pushed? And who wants to live forever anyway?" https://www.ppfideas.com/episodes/an-ageing-world-lifespan-v...
Maybe not for you, but others would beg to differ?
Darwin apparently had debilitating illnesses at 72 (one year before his death) when he published a book on earthworms and their role in forming soil. And Pasteur was apparently paralyzed at 63 when he developed the rabies vaccine. Etc.
Should they have just kicked the bucket when they lost their health, because of the pointlessness of living past that?
That's an uncharitable reading of what I mean, but I suppose I could have been clearer. Perhaps "no point staying alive if you're so unhealthy that you're perpetually miserable" would be closer to what I meant, particularly having seen a number of elderly relatives living through their last years in unrelenting misery, impatient for death. One in particular sticks with me, an uncle who had been a doctor and knew exactly what was coming because he'd seen plenty of it in his career, but without the means to end it in a dignified way. These people absolutely didn't want to be kept alive longer - which is the point of the distinction between lifespan and healthspan in the podcast.
A bit more charitable read on the GP is that people should focus on having as many healthy days as possible rather than as many total days as possible.
That doesn't mean those already I'll should just give up, it means those looking to their future should consider whether living 20 more healthy years is better than living 40 more years if 30 of those are increasingly focused on just treating symptoms to wake up tomorrow.
Chopin had tuberculosis most of his life and died at 39 weighing only 45kg. Euler became almost blind before 60. Give a chance to sick and feeble, folks.
English isn't my native language, but to my eyes it looks like writing "'Jonathan' is the oldest land animal" lacks context/completeness for an article title. Perhaps "'Jonathan' is the oldest known land animal" could add some mystery, but "'Jonathan' is the oldest land animal on Earth" sounds more attention-grabbing.
He still has quite a ways to go to 1485715964481761497309522733620825737885569961284688766942216863704985393094065876545992131370884059645617234469978112000000000000000000000. :-)
The struggles for limited resources among humans marooned in a finite ecosystem will not allow us to defy death. When natural causes no longer reduce our numbers sufficiently, we will be winnowed through an unceasing epidemic of violence. So long as there are births, there will be deaths.
If you thought the carnival of dementia brought about by modern medicine's gradual reduction of quick death was grim, just wait until medicine solves natural death entirely.
Tortoises who give up their secrets to humans won't survive the cataclysm.
You think it's cringe because it was created by Trump (Musk wasn't involved, not sure where you got that).
The Space Force's role was previously split across military branches with overlapping budgets and poor communication. And since space duties weren't the primary focus of any of those branches, they weren't taken seriously and career tracks within them were stunted, making it hard to attract talent.
Hate Trump all you want, but if your analysis stops at "cringe", consider that you have nothing to contribute to the conversation.
They did opt to swab his mouth rather than draw blood to minimize his discomfort. That seems like a pretty reasonable compromise for the value of learning and science
If I’m going bald, then I’d love to shortcut the process.
Shaving is awful no matter where it is on your body. It takes time, it’s irritating and you never look fresh for more than a day.
For cases where laser hair removal won't work, there's electrolysis, which involves inserting an acupuncture needle in each and every hair follicle, but it's expensive, slow, and can be pretty painful.
How much such hairline can cost, $10?
min-maxing longevity vs speed and charisma
Wait till he gets his hands on turtle semen and peptides
We've populated large portions of the planet that we really have no business living in without climate controlled indoor environments. HVAC is also a huge energy suck with all the externalities that come along with it. If we were to really want to cut energy use, for example, and climate control had to go we almost certainly couldn't continue to sustain as many people as we have today.
https://www.populationpyramid.net/france/2026/
If they keep it up, their population will remain stable up to the 22nd century. There will be no further noticeable ageing and thus no threat to anyone's retirement.
Just imagine how many more grandpas and great grandpas will be around for you to shout this at.
The problem with the population isn't (yet? only?) the absolute number of individuals but the age distribution. Most societies rely on young people to support themselves and the old, and this only works if there's a good balance between the numbers of each. Living longer isn't guaranteed to offer a longer productive period. We might just end up with more old people in need of support and not necessarily more children. This is already a major problem today in most developed countries.
There are probably so many more factors to consider. Like the psychological impact of living substantially longer. Even things like that crappy boss who won't retire from another 60 years, the dictator who won't die for another hundred years, or any number of the many society destroying tech CEOs getting to entrench themselves for decades more.
It is believed that other tortoises may have lived close to 300 years.
The greater age reached by animals living in an environment that is cold and with a constant temperature and which need a much lower average power for living (i.e. a lower energy consumption and a slower metabolism) is very much expected.
And sponges older than pyramids.
Remember the saying : in the US, 100 years is a long time; in Europe, 100km is a long distance.
You are overgeneralizing. In much of Europe plenty of architecture was erected after 1945, and most of architecture around and after 1900.
The point was to emphasize the longevity of some animals, as for us humans the US constitution is 8/9 generations away.
There's a cultural through line for all these countries, often stretching back thousands of years, which means that they reach further back than the definition of the modern state
A person with a French citizenship from the fourth republic was still a French citizen when the fifth republic was established
The Franks made Paris their capital in the 5th century, so that still ~1100 years earlier
The Germanic people exists in records from the 1st century
Whether you can consider Spain as originating from Hispania of the Roman Empire, which would place it in the BCs, or you are more conservative and say that it doesn't count until after the reconquista from the Umayyad, we're still around the 10th or 11th century
As for Italy, we're again in BCs with the Roman empire
So yes, in comparison to many European countries, the US is a very young country
Maybe not for you, but others would beg to differ?
Darwin apparently had debilitating illnesses at 72 (one year before his death) when he published a book on earthworms and their role in forming soil. And Pasteur was apparently paralyzed at 63 when he developed the rabies vaccine. Etc.
Should they have just kicked the bucket when they lost their health, because of the pointlessness of living past that?
That doesn't mean those already I'll should just give up, it means those looking to their future should consider whether living 20 more healthy years is better than living 40 more years if 30 of those are increasingly focused on just treating symptoms to wake up tomorrow.
Shouldn’t they find a younger researcher?
(writing that just gave me mini goosebumps)
Me and a couple hunters
Like to row in from the Isle of
Astonishing M*erf*ers
He still has quite a ways to go to 1485715964481761497309522733620825737885569961284688766942216863704985393094065876545992131370884059645617234469978112000000000000000000000. :-)
The struggles for limited resources among humans marooned in a finite ecosystem will not allow us to defy death. When natural causes no longer reduce our numbers sufficiently, we will be winnowed through an unceasing epidemic of violence. So long as there are births, there will be deaths.
If you thought the carnival of dementia brought about by modern medicine's gradual reduction of quick death was grim, just wait until medicine solves natural death entirely.
Tortoises who give up their secrets to humans won't survive the cataclysm.
...why space force?
The Space Force's role was previously split across military branches with overlapping budgets and poor communication. And since space duties weren't the primary focus of any of those branches, they weren't taken seriously and career tracks within them were stunted, making it hard to attract talent.
Hate Trump all you want, but if your analysis stops at "cringe", consider that you have nothing to contribute to the conversation.
Somehow, I wish we would leave that creature alone. For once.
[I am being sarcastic here, XD]