The difficulty of debating the subject of genetically modified (GM) foods is they are so new that we don’t really know how they affect the human body–they just haven’t existed long enough to draw conclusive facts. However, we don’t need to wait around for decades to see how scientifically engineered foods will impact our nutritional health, since they’re already causing enough trouble in other ways to prove they’re not worth our while.

Consider the following.

10Create Superbugs and Superweeds

The good thing about designing a plant with an insecticide gene is it eliminates a lot of unwanted bugs. The downside is that only the strongest insects survive, resulting in a new class of superbugs resistant to both the crops’ implanted toxins and spray-on chemicals.

In 2011, scientists examined 13 major pests and found that five were immune to the poisons genetically bred into GM plants like Bt corn and Bt cotton. Similarly, farmers are battling ultra-hardy weeds which aren’t responding to glyphosate–the herbicide marketed as Roundup. As a result farmers are forced to use even more chemicals to combat these superweeds. According to the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Sciences Europe, GM crops cause herbicide use to increase 25 percent per year.

What sometimes confuses people and the data, however, is that farmers may actually experience a lower need for chemicals in the first few years of growing a GM crop. Yet, once the pests and weeds develop immunity, farmers have little choice except to spray ever-increasing amounts of herbicides and pesticides–effectively raising their own operating costs and pollution levels.

9Kill Bees and Butterflies

One of the advertised benefits of GM foods is they are pest and weedkiller resistant, which supposedly leads to greater crop yields. Unfortunately, the methods GMO companies use to pest-proof their crops is also suspected to kill vital beneficial bugs, like bees and butterflies. At first consideration it might seem like more food for the world should trump the lives of a few annoying bugs, but that’s shortsighted thinking since the elimination of pollinating insects could eventually lead to a collapse in the food supply. This is because insect pollination supports one-third of food crops (with honeybees responsible for 80 percent of that number). Thus, instead of solving food shortage problems, GM foods may actually make things much, much worse.

Why are GMO producers allowed to grow their butterfly and bee-killing crops? Unfortunately, with the slurry of insecticides, fungicides, genetically modified crops, and high-powered weedkillers present in modern farming, it’s hard to prove if GMOs are truly the variable to blame. Just as one study proves GM crops are the problem another study is released claiming they are totally safe. Meanwhile, honeybees continue to decline at a rate of 30 percent per year and butterfly populations have reached an all-time low.

Although it’s unclear whether GM crops are inherently bad for beneficial insects, they’re at the very least perpetuating the widespread use of chemicals, which undoubtedly harms insects and the “weeds” they depend on (such as butterflies which lay their eggs on milkweed).

8Farmers Can’t Harvest Seeds

Fundamentally, farming is a simple process: plant seeds, grow crops, harvest crops, and gather seeds from the plants for the next season. Sadly, GMO companies like Monsanto take this last step away from farmers and raise expenses even further by forcing the farmers to continually buy the premium-priced GM seeds every growing season. In fact, as was shown in the Bowman v. Monsanto court case, it is illegal in the US for someone growing a Monsanto crop to harvest the seeds and use them later. The Bowman case went all the way to the Supreme Court and, despite public outcry, the 70-year-old farmer was unanimously found guilty of patent infringement after he purchased and used second generation Monsanto seeds.

Preventing farmers from harvesting seeds means big businesses could eventually have total control over the world’s seed supply and prices. Currently, just three mega companies control over half of the global seed market, which has caused prices to skyrocket. For example, the average price of planting an acre of soybeans has gone up 325 percent since 1995. Things get even scarier when you consider Monsanto has developed and owns a patent on a “terminator gene” which can make a plant produce sterile seeds–but don’t worry, they’ve promised not to use the technology.

7Cross-Pollination Contaminates Regular Crops

One of the major problems with GM crops is they are difficult to contain, which means they could be extremely hard to get rid of if we later decide they are a bad idea. Scientists have yet to figure out a way to control cross-pollination, so no matter how diligent a small, organic farmer is in using natural growing methods, he can’t stop pollen from a GM farm from blowing in, fertilizing, and turning his crops into hybrids. While it’s fairly easy to reduce contamination in some plants, with others–like canola and corn–it’s nearly impossible.

Early on, Monsanto and others claimed cross-pollination wouldn’t be an issue if farms were sufficiently spread apart, yet this proved inaccurate when they found pollen could travel much farther than expected (several kilometers or more). As GM crops grow in popularity, we may not be able to choose between consuming or avoiding them as all plants will be “infected.” Even buying food with an organic label doesn’t put you totally in the clear as some governing agencies, like the USDA, don’t revoke a farm’s organic status if a few plants were cross-pollinated with a GM crop.

6It’s Illegal to Accidentally Grow a GM Plant

It seems there’s a basic flaw in how GM crops are governed. For one, they’re illegal to own unless you buy them directly from an approved distributor every season, but on the other hand the seeds and pollen from these plants are flying around everywhere. What happens to a farmer who, from cross-pollination, unintentionally grows a Monsanto plant? While Monsanto has never sued anyone for having trace amounts of non-purchased GMOs in their fields, they have sued farmers who claimed to be growing large amounts of patented crops by accident.

For instance, Percy Schmeiser, a 74-year-old Canadian canola farmer, was sued by Monsanto when it was discovered a majority of his crop contained the patented Roundup Ready gene. Schmeiser said he didn’t know how his fields became contaminated, yet he suspected it was from a neighboring farm that grew GM crops. His best guess was the plants closest to the neighbor’s farm were most likely to survive his own herbicide treatments and those were the plants and seeds his hired hands unwittingly harvested. In the end, the courts sided with Monsanto, saying Schmeiser “knew or ought to have known” his seeds were resistant to Roundup.

Complicating matters further, farmers often buy “commodity” bags of seeds that come from a mishmash of sources–including GMO farms. So, if a farmer plants a Monsanto seed that was randomly mixed in with the rest of the bag and later harvests more seeds from the plant, he can be sued for not paying royalties to the GMO giant. This is exactly what happened to Vernon Bowman in the Bowman v. Monsanto case.

5Increased Suicide Rates

Farming is always a gamble, especially in places like India, where farmers depend on a strong monsoon season to provide enough water for their crops. If the monsoon fails, so does their livelihood. For this reason and a myriad of other socio-economic challenges, suicide numbers among Indian farmers are staggeringly high (about 1,000 per month). GM crops are making matters worse as desperate farmers borrow money at extortionate rates to pay for “magic” GM seeds that, unfortunately, require twice the amount of water and don’t live up to their pest-free claims. When bollworms continue to decimate their plants or the monsoon doesn’t deliver, hopeless farmers crushed with insurmountable debt see no way out except to drink a deadly glass of insecticide.

Despite there being over 125,000 suicides since the introduction of GM crops in India, and, as reported in a New York Times article, the ridiculously high prices of seeds and pesticides are causing farmers to make less money than ever. Additionally, as pests and weeds become increasingly immune to insecticides, farmers have to spend more and more money on chemicals. And let’s not forget, they are also legally required to buy new seeds every season unless they want to be sued or forced to burn all their plants.

While Monsanto sticks to its story of creating higher crop yields, there are many who disagree, including India’s Agricultural Ministry. The ministry says Monsanto’s Bt cotton was successful for five years, yet now produces no better than any other crop. It blames GMOs for the current rash of suicides among cotton farmers. In 2012, a panel of scientists commissioned by India’s Supreme Court recommended a 10-year moratorium on field trials for all GM crops until further testing was done and stricter regulations created. It’s uncertain when or if the government will put the advice into effect.

4Little Government Oversight

The sad thing is, the “superbugs” created by Roundup Ready plants may have been avoided if farmers were required to adhere to safe farming practices. For example, farmers who follow GM guidelines and plant “refuges” (areas of non-Bt crops) adjacent to their GM fields, have extremely lower rates of pest resistance. However, a lack of training, resources, and enforcement means many farmers don’t follow the refuge technique and superbugs continue to proliferate. This is likely what has led to the resurgence of the bollworm in India as the bug has become unaffected by Bt cotton, which was supposed to be bollworm-proof.

Additionally, while 64 countries–including China and the European Union–require labeling of genetically engineered foods, the United States (the largest producer of GM crops) still has no such laws. This makes it incredibly difficult for people to choose whether or not they want to consume GM foods, as many folks aren’t even aware when they’re eating a GM product. For instance, the USDA says 94% of soy and 75% of all corn grown in the U.S. is genetically modified. When you consider some type of corn, corn syrup, or soy is in just about every pre-packaged food, there’s a good chance Americans are eating a lot more GMOs than they realized. On top of that, many farm animals are consuming these engineered foods and passing them along in their meat.

3Revolving Door between Government and Biotech Workers

As often as GMO protestors shout out the dangers of “frankenfoods,” biotech companies respond, scientific studies in hand, that GM foods are perfectly safe. It’s admittedly hard to make sense of the endless contradictory information, but there’s at least one fact that should raise the eyebrow of even the most neutral party: the former attorney and vice president of Monsanto, Michael Taylor, is now the Deputy Commissioner at the United States Food and Drug Administration. Taylor has also held positions at the USDA and is often criticized for being in the “revolving door” of the public and private sector.

Even those who don’t gravitate towards conspiracy theories can’t help but wonder if Taylor genuinely took the position with the FDA for his love of food safety and civil service or if he has ulterior motives to protect his agribusiness buddies. This makes it hard to trust the FDA when they say GM foods pose no other risks than their natural counterparts. Trust diminishes even further when you consider that, back in the ’90s, FDA scientists warned that gene-sliced foods were significantly different and could lead to “different risks” as compared to conventional foods. For some reason, those findings didn’t match official policy.

2Harm Biodiversity

Biological diversity, or biodiversity, refers to the variety of lifeforms in a particular region or on the earth as a whole. Maintaining biodiversity is important since every living thing plays a pivotal role in the circle of life we currently enjoy.

Industrial farming reduces biodiversity as agribusinesses clear the land of all native plants and focus on producing only one type of crop. This large-scale monoculture crop production has resulted in a 75 percent reduction in plant diversity since the 1900s. GM farms make things worse because not only do they produce a single plant species (e.g. corn, soybeans, rice), but all the plants within the species come from one modified source plant and are genetically identical. Having such unvaried crops is troublesome as it makes our food supply particularly susceptible to climate change, disease, and pests. And it’s not just the biodiversity of plants that are affected. As mentioned, insects like bees and butterflies are already suffering, and herbicides are known to result in birth defects and population decline in amphibians, birds, soil organisms, and marine ecosystems.

Businesses like Monsanto are further hampering biodiversity by systematically buying up seed firms and replacing tried and true conventional varieties with their higher-priced, genetically engineered versions. While some argue Monsanto’s ultimate goal is to control the world’s food supply, it’s more likely their motivation is simply higher profits. After all, they make much more money by selling their patented, expensive, must-buy-every-season seeds than by offering quality traditional seeds.

1Distract from Healthy, Environmentally Friendly Technologies

One of the main strategies GM companies have used to push their way to the agriculture forefront is the promise of preventing a world food crisis and being the solution for hungry people in Africa and elsewhere. However, that assurance hasn’t exactly panned out since GM crop yields are highly variable and many countries simply don’t want to eat food designed in a laboratory.

In fact, in 1998, 24 delegates from 18 African countries told the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization, “We strongly object that the image of the poor and hungry from our countries is being used by giant multinational corporations to push a technology that is neither safe, environmentally friendly nor economically beneficial to us. We do not believe that such companies or gene technologies will help our farmers to produce the food that is needed in the 21st century. On the contrary, we think it will destroy the diversity, the local knowledge and the sustainable agricultural systems that our farmers have developed for millennia, and that it will thus undermine our capacity to feed ourselves.”

So, if GMOs aren’t the answer, how are we to feed the world’s rapidly growing population? Fortunately, there are many viable solutions being advocated by farmers and scientists alike. For example, as reported by the 1996 National Research Council in the U.S., there are currently many crops such as pearl millet, fonio, and African rice that are nutritious, tasty, and produce well in harsh climates. Additionally, environmentally friendly, low-water farming methods, such as the System of Rice Intensification (which improves rice production by 50-100 percent) is being used as a model for growing other crops in a sustainable manner. Other ideas include the decentralization of farming, urban farming, greenhouses on top of grocery stores, aquaponics, and more. Diverting funds and resources away from GMOs could allow one or more of these natural, wholesome practices to flourish.

Content and copy writer by day and list writer by night, S.Grant enjoys exploring the bizarre, the unusual, and topics that hide in plain sight. Contact S.Grant at [email protected].

Medical Research and the study of Human Health are subjects that offer an extensive and ever expanding range of puzzling and in some cases, disturbing phenomena. The lesser known, exceptional or downright weird occurrences in the medical field thus continue to fascinate Listverse readers and scientists alike. In this new and unusual account, we discover how contact lenses can trigger blindness, consider cases of infant development outside of the womb, learn why potato chips could make you angry, and explore a mysterious infection that discriminates by sex.

10Cold Urticaria

While most allergies are in response to physical stimuli, Cold Urticaria is an allergic reaction to cold temperatures. It is triggered when the immune system is exposed to sudden drops in temperature or contact with a chilled object. Hives, swelling and severe itching may result from attacks of Cold Urticaria, while falling in cold water or spending too much time in a walk-in freezer could prove fatal for the most severely affected. The condition is diagnosed by testing with ice cubes, and immune support therapies may be prescribed in addition to relocating to a warmer climate.

9Ectopic Pregnancy

Pregnancy begins when the sperm successfully merges with an egg, which begins to develop inside the uterus as an embryo. However, in around one percent of pregnancies, the fertilized egg becomes lodged outside the uterus and the embryo develops in what is known as an ectopic pregnancy. The fallopian tubes linking the ovaries to the uterus are the location accounting for the majority of ectopic pregnancies. As the fetus develops outside the normal location, severe medical complications may result, leading to death when proper medical care is not provided. Ectopic pregnancies are normally terminated to prevent fatal complications, but in rare cases, babies have been delivered alive and healthy after developing entirely outside of the womb.

8Smoker’s Penile Reduction

Smoking is often associated with lung cancer or increased respiratory illness, but one of the primary effects of smoking is its ability to constrict and interfere with circulation. Nicotine tightens blood vessels, while calcification and increased carbon monoxide levels associated with the practice further impair the human cardiovascular system. The potential for heart disease comes to mind, but it turns out for men that lighting up sticks may affect another very important stick: The blood vessels in the penis are only half the size of those in the heart, and are even more rapidly compromised by the effects of smoking. Studies suggest that men who smoke may experience a certain reduction in both flaccid and erect penis size as a result.

7Human Spinal Cord Redundancy

The spinal cord forms a tightly wired nerve bundle that is both complex and easily injured. While complete severing of the spinal cord will generally remove all function below the injury site, the spinal cord is different from a manmade electronic cable in that impairment levels do not correspond to the degree of spinal damage. The spinal nerves are in fact highly redundant and interconnected, so even a 90 percent gap in the spinal cord may not deprive a victim of the ability to walk. The implications of this include the fact that a cure for spinal cord injuries may be easier to achieve than once thought. Partial, “random” regeneration, rather than nerve by nerve reconnection, may suffice to return mobility. In an even more bizarre finding, blue dye injections dramatically reduced the impact of spinal cord injuries in rats, a treatment that must be tracked for humans.

6Situs Inversus

Situs Inversus is a rare condition affecting less than 1 in 10,000 individuals where the main visceral organs in the abdomen and thorax are reversed, or “mirrored” in position. The heart will typically be transposed to the right hand side, while the stomach and spleen trade places with the liver and gall bladder, while the intestines and other organs are “misplaced”. Complications can result from misaligned blood vessels, and those affected often carry a special note affixed to their person to ensure a surgeon would not operate “backwards” on them in the case of a medical emergency. Many with the condition do not realize they have it until it is discovered by a medical professional. Although the condition is rather odd, patients appear normal externally, and can usually live normal lives.

5Contact Lens Blindness

Acanthamoeba Keratis is the scientific term for the way contact lenses can blind you. While developing nations face the worst water quality threats, most tap water in the United States contains Acanthamoeba microbes. When contact lens users rinse their lenses with tap water, the lenses become coated with the bacteria. If a slight, imperceptible scratch occurs during replacement of the lens, the amoebas may invade the eye, causing an infectious inflammation known as keratitis. The effects of the attack may include swelling, redness and irritation, while severe cases can actually cause blindness. 85 percent of reported infections occurred in contact lens users, suggesting sterile wash, and not tap water should be used to clean contact lenses.

4Whipple’s Disease

A man may have to eat a peck of dirt before dying, but the potential to contract Whipple’s Disease means it may have been the dirt that killed him. Tropheryma whipplei bacteria cause a potentially fatal suite of including gastrointestinal lesions symptoms if not properly treated with a round of antibiotics. However, the exact method of contraction remains a rather disturbing mystery of medicine. The organism is far more prevalent in the environment than one would expect based on rates of infection, suggesting infection is highly dependent on body condition, rather than exposure. Especially bizarre is the fact that 87% of infections involve men. Disturbingly, Whipple’s Disease may mimic almost any neurological disorder as bacteria affect the nervous system, hindering detection.

3Potato Chip Rage

Potato Chips—you cannot have just one. But what you might possibly have, according to preliminary researchers, is a case of trans-fat induced personality change. Researchers at the University of California at San Diego conducting a controlled study of several hundred male and female participants found statistically significant increases in hostility and aggressive behaviors resulting from consumption of fast food. The study was controlled for variables such as Caffeine and Nicotine use, and pointed towards an apparent correlation between levels of trans-fatty acids in the diet and behavior. The mechanism for the effects is thought to stem from the ability of trans-fats to interfere with the body’s natural levels of DHEA, a long chain fatty acid that is known to impact mood and act as a natural anti-depressant.

2Muscle Tissue in the Lungs

Abbreviated as LAM, Lymphangioleiomyomatosis is an exceedingly weird lung condition that only affects women, at an average age of around 34, in the vast majority of cases. LAM involves the uncontrolled growth of an unusual type of smooth muscle tissues throughout the lungs, airways and blood vessels of the respiratory system, leading to serious impairments in breathing, and sometimes death. In an even odder twist, the runaway smooth muscle cells may arise from cloned tissue when LAM is of the type associated with the non-malignant tumor disorder known as Tuberous Sclerosis. The disease may be managed to a certain degree, but the fact that symptoms may be mistaken for Asthma may hinder treatment until the disease reaches an advanced stage.

1Parrot Fever

Though a great source of intelligent companionship, pet birds can also give you a potentially fatal case of Psittacosis. Also known as “parrot fever”, Psittacosis is an aggressive, avian form of Chlamydiosis, closely related to the disease better known as a sexually transmitted infection in humans. The infection reached pandemic proportions in the late 1920s following increased importation of parrots from South America, and deaths have occurred from time to time since. The disease may manifest as high fevers, muscle rigidity, and eye irritation, all the way to spleen enlargement, heart distress and brain swelling. Fortunately, death is usually preventable through appropriate antibiotic treatment.

Mike Williams is an ardent follower of science with a passion for the unexplained or unusual. His writing interests include strange medical facts, world mysteries and new technology.

The ancient world gave mankind some of its most brilliant thinkers and philosophers. From Socrates and Aristotle to Master Kung-sun Lung, they forever changed the way we looked at the world. Some of them posed thought problems and paradoxical situations that we’re still musing over more than 2,000 years later.

10 The Floating Man

Islamic physician and philosopher Ibn Sina (also known as Avicenna) wrote extensively about the soul and intellect, among other topics. His work formed the basis for European philosophy for centuries after his death in the 11th century. In Sina’s work on the concept of self and self-identity, he posed a question that has become known as The Flying Man or The Floating Man:

A man is created floating in the air or in a substance that completely isolates him from physical feeling. His arms and legs do not touch each other or anything else. His eyes are always closed, it is completely silent, and he receives no sensory input whatsoever. Does he still recognize his existence and the concept of the self without being aware of the existence of a physical form? What does that mean for the idea of an independent, immortal soul?

9 Meno’s Paradox

Meno’s Paradox is named for a student of Socrates. Socrates was famous for his exploration into the ideas of ignorance and inquiry, but it was Meno who developed the paradox that defined the problem between the two.

The paradox states that nothing can be learned by asking questions. If a person already knows the answer, then there’s no point in asking. If they don’t know the answer or what they’re looking for, then there’s no point in asking because they wouldn’t be able to recognize a correct answer or even the information they’re searching for. The very nature of inquiry makes it pointless and unnecessary, if not outright impossible.

The paradox falls apart when you consider most people exist in varying states of partial ignorance and know just enough information to be guided in the right direction, e.g. looking up words in a dictionary.

8 The Cosmic Edge

In the fifth century BC, philosopher and soldier Archytas posed a seemingly simple question. He asked, “What happens to a spear when it is hurled across the outer boundary of the universe? Does the spear rebound, or vanish from this world?”

Later philosophers, including Lucretius the Epicurean, would cite Archytas’s question as they formulated their own arguments for an endless, infinite universe. Lucretius states that there could only be two possible answers—an infinite universe or some sort of boundary. Others have weighed in on the riddle, saying that as unthinkable as an infinite universe is, it is more unthinkable to imagine standing on the edge of it and reaching into nonexistence.

Since it made no sense for the spear to rebound off the edge of the cosmos, there must be no edge.

7 The Chicken Or The Egg?

A riddle that has stumped philosophers and scientists for centuries, the question of whether the chicken or the egg came first was recorded by the Greek historian Mestrius Plutarchus. When he devoted an entire section to the question in his book of essays, it was already a well-known dilemma, and he posed the idea that it was far from being a question simply about eggs and chickens. The dilemma could be put to all of creation.

Aristotle took a very practical approach to trying to determine the answer. Embryology had been studied for centuries by that point, but he examined chicken eggs in various stages of development to help map the growth of embryos. In the end, he decided that neither came first, as the egg couldn’t exist without the chicken, and the chicken couldn’t exist without the egg.

6 The Plank Of Carneades

Carneades was a Greek scholar born in Cyrene around 214 BC. By the time he was representing the interests of Athens in Rome, he was also writing extensively on the ideas of justice. He is the one usually credited with developing the plank riddle (although it might have originally been formulated by one of his contemporaries).

The scenario describes two shipwrecked men, lost at sea. The only thing left of their ship is a single wooden plank. They both swim for it, knowing it is their only chance for survival. In one version, they reach the plank at the same time. One man shoves the other away and saves himself. In the other version, one man is on the plank, while the other pushes him off and drowns him to save himself.

Either way, the person on the plank is ultimately rescued. Can he be tried for taking another human life to save his own, or is necessity a valid excuse?

5 Chrysippus’s Paradox

The Stoic philosopher Chrysippus wrote extensively on the existence of virtues and characteristics in a single body to make up the self. He posed the bizarre case of Dion and Theon to illustrate the idea of what constitutes the self:

Take a person, the puzzle says, and name him Dion. Take the same person and assign the name Theon to every part of him save one foot. Cut the foot off to make them identical. Since two people cannot inhabit the same space at the same time, one of them must die with the removal of the foot. Chrysippus argues that Theon dies while Dion lives, because Theon cannot lose something he never had and ceases to exist.

Although the Stoic school generally agreed with this analysis, the Academic Philo argued that it was Theon who would survive. His argument was that since Theon would have nothing to lose, he would escape the incident unharmed, and Dion would perish.

4 The Debtor’s Paradox

In the fifth century BC, Epicharmus of Syracuse was penning some of the early Greek comedies. In one, he posed a scene that was meant to be humorous but ultimately spawned an entire debate about the nature of the self:

A character has borrowed money from another and cannot pay him back. The borrower asks the lender if he has a number of pebbles and adds another rock or takes one away, if he has the same number. When the lender says, “No,” the borrower states that since mankind is always growing and changing, he is no longer the same person who borrowed money, and he doesn’t have to repay it.

The story continues with the lender giving the borrower a good thrashing and then claiming that he is no longer the same person who beat up the borrower and shouldn’t be held responsible.

Metaphysics still grapples with the relationship between our physical forms, intrinsic change, and whether or not we can ever be considered a completely new or different person.

3 A White Horse Is Not A Horse

This not-so-straightforward observation comes from Chinese philosopher Master Kung-sun Lung and his Treatise on the White Horse, written around 250 BC. The argument simply states that a white horse is not a horse, and it has spawned countless arguments on the nature of language and logic.

People have been debating the logic of the statement for more than 2,000 years, but one of the basic arguments is that since “horse” defines the shape of the beast and “white” refers to a color, “horse” is color-neutra,l and it cannot be the same as a “white horse.” No one would say that a “white horse” and a “yellow horse” are the same, and since “horse” and “white horse” do not always refer to the exact same things, they are not equal.

Therefore, a white horse is not a horse.

2 The Paradox Of A Grain Of Millet

Zeno of Elea was a philosopher from fifth-century BC Greece, and he was known for his paradoxes. He developed the paradox of the grain of millet but never gave his own thoughts on it, simply leaving the observation out there for the rest of the world to argue about:

When a bushel of millet falls, it very clearly makes a sound. But when a single grain of millet falls, there is no sound. How can a bushel of millet make a sound, when none of its individual parts do?

The paradox has been interpreted in a couple of different ways. One simply states that there’s nothing wrong with parts having different properties from the whole, while another states that the single grain does make a sound; we just can’t hear it. With this interpretation, it becomes a lesson in how we shouldn’t necessarily trust our own hearing.

1 Epicurean Paradox

Epicureanism is a school of thought that teaches the pursuit of tranquility and freedom from pain and discomfort, but its foremost thinkers delved into the problems they saw with religion, too. Epicurus and his students depicted their idea of God (or gods) as having a sort of hands-off stance on human affairs, and they also developed the Epicurean Paradox.

The paradox is also known as the problem of evil, and it says that if God is all-powerful, He should be able to defeat all evil in the world. Since evil exists in the world, He either has chosen not to defeat it or cannot defeat it. That either makes God not as powerful as claimed or a malevolent being that is absolutely fine with the presence of evil in the world.

For Epicurus, the only rational explanation is that there is no such thing as an all-powerful, ever-present, benevolent God.

We all know about the fundamental problems faced in the ancient past. People had too little food, too much disease, shabby clothes, and inadequate shelters. Human filth was inescapable.

But past cultures also experienced more obscure problems. From supplemental fungus ingestion to prehistoric lead exposure and even prehistoric bedbug infestations, history is full of fascinating problems.

10 They Had To Eat Fungus

The Pueblo in the southwestern US began their agricultural adventure in 400 BC. For the next 800 years, they grew and ate mainly maize, which constituted 80 percent of their calories.

With a diet that included little else, maybe a bit of yucca or rarely some rabbit, the Pueblo people should have been malnourished. But they didn’t suffer the expected pellagra that comes with nutrient deficiency.^[1]

Their nutritional savior was the maize-infecting Ustilago maydis fungus (aka corn smut). It’s an annoyance today. But back then, maize fungus was purposely included in the diet because it boosted overall protein levels thanks to its essential amino acid profile. This huitlacoche is still eaten in Mexico today.

9 They Had To Share Their Beer

Chemical analysis has just offered direct evidence that the Mesopotamians loved beer. Researchers studied various items from Khani Masi, now the Kurdish region of Iraq, and found residue from beer consumed between 1500 and 1000 BC.

Mesopotamian beer was like ours, made from barley rather than rice or corn like ancient Chinese and Peruvian “beer.” But the drinking of the beverage was different. Instead of using personal vessels, the Mesopotamians drank from sizable communal containers by each dipping a long, metal-tipped straw into the brew.

Mesopotamians did eventually start drinking from personal, handheld containers as social traditions grew weaker. These containers held up to 600 milliliters (20 oz) of brew, or nearly two modern-day beer bottles.^[2]

8 Even Ancient People Were Exposed To Lead

Even Neanderthals suffered from lead exposure, and scientists found the telltale signs in teeth from two Neanderthals from southern France.

Researchers studied teeth because teeth are like tree rings. Fetuses and the very young get a new layer of enamel every day, and these layers trap chemicals that the individuals were exposed to.

Researchers can also tell that the 250,000-year-old Neanderthals ingested their lead during the colder weather. Based on oxygen isotope ratios, the Neanderthals experienced harsher, more pronounced autumns and winters and their children faced malnutrition and illness.

It’s likely that they ingested the lead from contaminated food or water or inhaled it from fires as they frequently populated caves with subterranean lead deposits.^[3]

7 Everyone Got Parasites

There’s a lot to learn by studying dried old poo. Like the 700-year-old parasites recovered from stool samples acquired from 31 medieval latrines in Lubeck, Germany.

Lubeck was one of the Middle Ages’ most bustling ports, and its people’s intestines were riddled with tapeworms and roundworms thanks to a diet heavy in improperly cooked freshwater fish.

The poo also shows a shift in parasites, revealing that residents switched to a more meat-centric diet around the year 1300. The change might have been due to the concurrent uptick in leather-making and butchery, two industries that polluted the freshwater ecosystem.^[4]

6 They Had Holes Drilled Through Their Skull

The ancient Chinese knew a lot about disease and described numerous ailments and their pathologies on pieces of bone or tortoise shells. They even knew how to perform craniotomies more than 3,000 years ago.^[5]

Archaeologists at the Ruins of Yin found two skulls with drill holes. One of the skulls belonged to a 10-year-old boy and featured a circular, 1-centimeter-wide (0.4 in) perforation. The bone showed signs of healing, so the boy survived as a result or in spite of the surgery. The operation was likely performed with bone needles, four of which were discovered at the ruins.

It’s not the first time that ancient Chinese skulls have been found with perforations, as 13 such skulls, bearing multiple holes, were previously unearthed at ruins in Xinjiang.

5 Women Weren’t Spared The Violence

Women weren’t spared from violence in ancient society according to a study of 378 Scandinavian skulls ranging from 3900 BC to 1700 BC, or the late Stone Age that saw a shift to farming.

Researchers found that up to one in six of these Stone Age skulls showed signs of violent injury. Nearly 10 percent of skulls from Sweden and 17 percent from Denmark exhibited signs of smashing, with women as likely as men to suffer lethal cranial trauma.

The discovery challenges the notion that women were spared, and researchers believe the injuries came about as a result of local warfare, family feuds, or raids.^[6]

4 They Were Preyed On By Bedbugs

Bedbugs aren’t a modern problem according to recent finds from the Paisley Five Mile Point Cave site in Oregon. Inside the caves, researchers discovered the oldest members of the bedbug genus.

The recovered ancient bedbug fragments date all the way back to 11,000 years ago. They handily beat out the previous oldest, a 3,500-year-old specimen found in Egypt in 1999.

Unlike the bedbugs of popular culture, the types discovered in Oregon are all parasites of bats rather than humans. Researchers say that these creatures probably would have fed on and annoyed humans as the caves were occupied seasonally by hunter-gatherers.^[7]

3 They Had Limited Choices For Entertainment

In spite of their busier lifestyles, Bronze Age humans knew boredom. And when they were bored, the gaming selection was limited. One game which quickly spread from the Near East was called 58 Holes, or Hounds and Jackals.

Researchers found a “game board” etched into a 4,000-year-old rock shelter in Azerbaijan. The game features rows of dots, usually 58 dots total. Gamers would have used a type of dice to move their pieces, with the ultimate goal to reach the top hole.

Hounds and Jackals may be the predecessor of backgammon and definitely served as a “social lubricant” to help disparate groups share their cultures.^[8]

2 They Had Surprisingly Bad Teeth

A communal grave site at the Grotte des Pigeons caves in Taforalt, Morocco, surrendered 52 adults who lived between 15,000 and 13,700 years ago—and their horrible teeth.

Only three of the bodies were free of cavities. More than half of the surviving teeth showed evidence of decay, with 49 of the 52 suffering from cavities. That’s comparable to modern people who stuff themselves with loads of refined sugars.

Preagricultural people don’t usually have such rotten teeth as tooth decay exploded with the introduction of domesticated carbs like barley and wheat.^[9]

But these hunter-gatherers apparently snacked often and overly relied on nuts, North African acorns, legumes, and oats. They likely used a grinding tool found at the site to transform these foods into flatbreads or sweet, sticky porridges that would have stuck to teeth and fed cavity-causing bacteria.

1 They Ate Their Dogs

The Xoloitzcuintli, or Mexican hairless dog, emerged around 3,500 years ago, making it one of the oldest dog breeds.

In the Aztec language, Nahuatl, “Xolotl” was the god of death and lightning (who supposedly created the breed) and itzcuintli less surprisingly means “dog.”

Aztecs revered the dogs as protectors and guides in the afterlife, helping the dead through Mictlan, or Aztec Hades. In the region encompassing Colima, Nayarit, and Jalisco, little Xoloitzcuintli ceramics accompanied 75 percent of burials.^[10]

Although the Aztecs tucked in their hairless little buddies at night, they also ate the creatures as a delicacy . . . because history is brutal. When the conquistadors arrived, they also ate xolo, nearly wiping out the breed.

Ivan writes about cool things for the Internet. You can contact him at [email protected].

If you’ve ever been to college, you’ll be familiar with those three magic words: “Don’t reference Wikipedia”. Yet in spite of its reputation for unreliability, Wikipedia is the 5th biggest website on Earth, and a major source of information for people all over the world. But when something becomes as big as Wikipedia, any issues it has can suddenly affect millions, or even billions, of people. That is what makes the following problems so worrying.

Top 10 Disturbing Facts About Facebook

10 Blatant Bias

Let’s start with the most obvious flaw. The fact that Wikipedia is edited and maintained by the general public means that anyone’s personal biases can easily leak in. A 2012 study looked at over 28,000 Wiki articles on US politics, searching for key phrases used by either Democrats or Republicans. They found that, over time, articles tend to go from being left-leaning to more neutral, which sounds good. But this is a result of editors and contributors waging edit wars, not because they become fairer over time. In fact, a follow up study from 2016 found that editors are more likely to edit pages that present the opposing viewpoint to theirs, highlighting the fact that most people have an agenda of some sort.

In 2018, the same researchers compared 4,000 Wiki articles on US politics to Encyclopaedia Britannica. They found that 73% of articles on Wikipedia were biased, compared to just 34% of those in Encyclopedia Britannica.

Unfortunately, the bias doesn’t just apply on a personal level, but also on a macro scale. For example, 84% of editors are male, there are more articles written by Europeans than the rest of the world combined, just 16% of Sub-Saharan African topics are covered by people from Sub-Saharan Africa, and articles covering the same topic vary wildly depending on what language they are written in.^[1]

9 Equal Weight to Unequal Voices

One of Wikipedia’s biggest advantages is that by allowing anyone to edit, it can attract some of the brightest minds on the planet without paying a penny. This is the fundamental principle that drives their success, as it enables them to provide detailed information on some of the most niche topics imaginable. But while this one-size-fits-all approach allowed them to grow from nothing, it did so at the expense of quality.

William Connolley is a software engineer who specialises in climate modelling. In addition to running a number of climatology websites, he was the Senior Scientific Officer in the Physical Sciences Division in the Antarctic Climate and the Earth System project until 2007. Despite all this, his edits are treated as the exact same as yours, mine, or anyone’s would be.

As you may have guessed, Connolley eventually found himself on the front lines of an edit war over the page on Climate Change. He accused his rival of watering down science, and the rival accused him of silencing opposing views. Wikipedia sided with the other person, and limited Connolly to one edit per day. His case is frequently cited by those in the scientific community as an example of how problematic Wikipedia’s policies can be.^[2]

8 Inconsistent Fact-checking

Whenever issues surrounding the accuracy of information on Wikipedia arise, the defence is usually that these problems are fixed over time, often quite quickly. Logically, you might assume this is particularly true for bigger pages, as more people reading it would increase the likelihood of an error being identified. This is not the case.

Lots of silly misinformation has been whipped back almost instantly, such as the page of Alan Mcilwraith, who wrote an elaborate entry about his decorated military past. But the page was composed entirely of lies, as Mcilwraith had never been in the army. While he was able to use his stolen valor to worm his way onto charity boards and steal identities by “recruiting” people, he somehow wasn’t able to fool Wikipedia.

Then you have the likes of Hillary Clinton, one of the most famous, divisive public figures in the world. Surely her page, which receives millions of views a day, would suffer from both positive and negative bias, but benefit from incessant fact-checking. Nope. She was listed as the Valedictorian speaker at her graduation for 20 months, even though she wasn’t. Not a lie worth telling to win support. Not a scandal worth framing her for. Just wrong. And while that may seem like a minor issue, it highlights the fact that even basic, easily verifiable facts can remain on the site for extended periods of time.^[3]

7 Falsehood Spiral

But does it really matter if something on Wikipedia is wrong? If you’re doing real research, you should be checking multiple sources. The issue now is that so many of those sources are using Wikipedia. Take the case of John Seigenthaler, an American journalist whose Wikipedia page was edited to (totally falsely) state that he is a suspected assassin who lived in the Soviet Union. It is worth noting that no government will ever plant a spy among journalists (Project Mockingbird not withstanding), clergy, and charity workers, as those 3 groups are seen as too vulnerable and often the only source of aid for people in need. This means that a journalist being accused of spying is a lot more serious than most other professions.

Other sites, such as Answers.com and Reference.com started pulling these claims and posting them on their own sites. The misinformation was only discovered when a curious colleague searched his friend’s name, and immediately phoned up. After a lot of legal fighting and arbitration, Seigenthaler got the lies taken down, but was not given the identity of the editor. An internet sleuth intervened, identifying the person who made the edits. That person was fired, and wrote an apology letter claiming to have thought Wikipedia was a joke website. In response, Seigenthaler successfully campaigned to reverse the firing.

Another incident in 2008 saw a number of teens add “Azid” as a synonym for “Korma”, which a Redditor later claimed was a term used to bully an Arabic classmate. The entry remained up until 2014, by which time “azid” had found its way onto thousands of sites as a genuine term. In fact, the prank was so successful that some people even claim azid has always been a synonym for korma, which just goes to show how powerful revisions can be.^[4]

6 Background Actors

So considering the fact that biased people can post whatever they like without much fear of reprisal, you have to wonder who these people actually are. As already mentioned, one of the site’s saving graces is its diversity of thought, but it turns out it’s not as diverse as it could be.

One study, analyzing 250 million edits over a ten year period, found that 77% of the content comes from just 1% of the editors. With roughly 132,000 active editors, that means about 1,300 people are responsible for shaping over three quarters of one of the most used sources of information in the world.

These figures can be even more startling for the non-English language versions of the site. There is a famous example of one man, Sverker Johansson, and his bot, Lsjbot, who are responsible for creating 80-99% of articles on the Swedish, Cebuano, and Waray language versions of the site. Although their content mostly deals with geography, they were instrumental in shaping how bots are used to contribute. Even this is an issue, as the tasks bots execute are shaped by their creators biases, such as which topics to address, and how. And with so few, unaccountable people making decisions without proper consideration, the results will inevitably suffer.^[5]

9 Sinister Facts About The Dark Side Of Instagram [WARNING: Disturbing]

5 Spy Vs Spy

As you would expect, pretty much all major corporations and institutions pay people to ensure that Wikipedia makes them look good. There has been no shortage of unflattering content being removed or inserted, only to be traced back to someone with a motive. Political parties such as the DNC and GOP edited their pages, and those of their rivals. In Britain, Chuka Umunna’s staff were accused of referring to him as the “British Barack Obama”, while a mysterious editor chose to use 75% of their time flattering Grant Shapps, and 25% besmirching his rivals.

Meanwhile, the CIA and FBI weighed in on such topics as Guantanamo Bay, and the war in Iraq. British Intelligence, Australian Intelligence, Israeli Intelligence, and even Swedish Intelligence have also been caught in what is known as “conflict of interest” bias on Wikipedia, employing people to make flattering edits full time.

Similar tactics have been confirmed in the private sector as well, with the likes of Microsoft, BP, the Koch brothers, and the Church of Scientology all using paid employees to edit Wikipedia. Maybe you feel this is something we should have already known, but with so many people being paid to edit, how many of the 1,300 top editors are genuine?^[6]

4 Fundraising

Once a year, every year, Wikipedia users will see a banner, asking them to donate in order to keep the site up and running for free. This is reasonable enough, as nobody is obliged to pay, and the site is famous for refusing to run ads. Even the fact that they have about $100 million in reserves shouldn’t raise any eyebrows, as they have to plan for unforeseen circumstances.

If you glance at the Wikimedia Fundraising Report, it looks alright. Major Donations only make up 12% of the total, which seems to suggest that big money isn’t a major issue. But it is strange that a major charity that regularly receives donations of $1 million would define “major” as over $1,000. This makes it impossible to get an accurate picture of large donations, as the average is dramatically pulled down. Only 2 major donors, Google and the Brin Wojcicki Foundation, are identified as giving over $1 million. Removing just these two makes the average donation size drop 14%. Furthermore, even though a major gift is defined as one over $1,000, smaller donations are also included, distorting the average even more.

When you look at the other information, it doesn’t get much clearer. 8% of donations come through chapters, meaning they are classed as chapter donations, even if they are large. Recurring donations have long been used as a way for companies to make donations anonymously by staying just below the threshold, and they represent another 8%. And 7% comes from the always useful category, “Other”.^[7]

3 Contextual Revision

Last week, the Wuhan virus (Covid-19) had infected just one-fifth the amount of people as Spanish flu. This week, that figure has jumped to over 100%. Not because the number of coronavirus cases has suddenly skyrocketed, but because the number of people affected by Spanish flu over 100 years ago has apparently seen a very sudden and dramatic fall.

The Wikipedia entry for Spanish flu originally read “an estimated 10% to 20% of those who were infected died”. After coronavirus hit the news, it was then changed to “2-3% of those infected died”. This number does in fact come from a WHO report, but not one dedicated to Spanish flu, and it doesn’t quote a reference. Most likely, it was an error that has been seized upon, as it is the lowest “estimate” by far, meaning the coronavirus will match it sooner. This makes it possible to say that Covid-19 has killed as many people as Spanish flu in less time, and multiple news agencies now stating this as fact. This is very helpful to those who are benefiting in some way (I’m looking at you mainstream media) from Chinese flu hysteria.

The article still included other, unchanged claims, such that 50-100 million people died. Or that one third of the world was infected at one point. If you combine these conflicting figures and work backwards, you’ll realise that there were as many as 4 billion cases of Spanish flu, more than double the population of the Earth at the time.^[8]

2 Subtle Redirection

In the same way people argue that you shouldn’t believe a Tweet, people say you can’t trust Wikipedia. The issue is, people do anyway. And unfortunately, it’s not as simple as writing it off as “their problem”. In the same way that falsehoods on Wikipedia can end up on other websites, in cookbooks, or on the news, they have a huge impact on what scientific papers are written, and the information they examine.

A huge amount of scientific papers have students working on them. One of the first things a student will do when given an assignment is go to Wikipedia, get an overview, and then go from there to find better references. So the information that has been included or omitted from Wikipedia has a direct influence on scientific research before it has even begun.

This isn’t just speculation or extrapolation. A study conducted by students in MIT found that if Wikipedia covers a topic, it can influence up to 250 scientific papers on that subject. There is a direct correlation between whether something is on Wikipedia, and whether it will appear in a scientific paper. Even scientists aware of this effect can’t escape it, as it’s perfectly possible that seeking alternative sources would simply take you to one that had already been influenced.^[9]

1 Outright Lies

While a lot of the misinformation on Wikipedia probably comes from genuine error, different perspectives, and a desire to paint oneself in a flattering light, some of it is deliberately false. Take the case of Moose Boulder for example. You may have already heard of it being referred to as “the largest island in the largest lake on the largest island in the largest lake on the largest island in the largest lake in the world.” It took two people to not only trek to the site of the alleged island, but also trace the origin of its only known photo before anyone realised it isn’t real. How or why it was made up remains a mystery.

But these fabrications can be far more insidious than creating imaginary islands. For example, Wikipedia listed KL Warschau as a major Nazi extermination camp. In reality, it was a minor concentration camp used for forced labor. The article also claimed that 200,000 non-Jewish Poles were gassed there, bringing the total number of Poles killed to 400,000—the same amount, and method, as the Jews that perished in Poland. With this lie, it became possible to argue that the holocaust is overblown, and its really the Jews who are to blame for distorting history. The page has also been repeatedly edited to remove statistics relating to Jewish victims.

To be fair to Wikipedia, they removed the misinformation as soon as it was brought to their attention. It’s just a pity that took 15 years.^[10]

Top 10 Disturbing Facts About Google

We probably do not think much about fonts. Most of us can’t recognize the majority of them, let alone name them. However, history has proven that fonts are more important than we think they are.

Fonts have sometimes become symbols of progress and political allegiance. They can also be used to expose fraud or delay court judgments. They have caused centuries-old disputes, brought down governments, and fomented protests and public outrage.

10 A Two-Century-Old Dispute Over A Font Ends After Hitler Intervened

From the 1800s until World War II, Germany was enmeshed in a weird controversy over the use of two fonts: Fraktur and Antiqua.

Fraktur was the major font used in Germany until Antiqua came along in the 16th century. Antiqua had been adopted in the non-German parts of Europe, including France and Italy, but not in Germany. However, German printers used it to print non-German words and maintained Fraktur for German words.

Antiqua started to gain prominence in Germany in the 1800s. Several Germans resisted it because it was the preferred font for several political events, including the Renaissance and the French Revolution. The German resistance to Antiqua became more heated after Napoleon was defeated at Waterloo.

Conservative Germans considered Antiqua to be a symbol of the French and deemed its use to be unpatriotic in Germany. Radical Germans supported the adoption of Antiqua because they considered it progressive. Soon, German printers were divided over the two fonts. Printers who used Antiqua were called Altschrift, while those who used Fraktur were called Frakturbund.

The Frakturbund continued to win. In 1911, Germany even banned Antiqua in schools and introduced Sutterlin script in its place. The Nazis found themselves at the center of the heated Fraktur-Antiqua dispute when they got into power. They supported Fraktur until January 1941 when Hitler declared it a Jewish script. So they abandoned it and switched to Antiqua.^[1]

9 A Font Brings Down The Pakistani Prime Minister’s Government

On April 3, 2016, German newspaper Suddeutsche Zeitung released 11.5 million pages of damaging documents belonging to the Panama-based law firm Mossack Fonseca. The documents exposed how Mossack Fonseca set up fake companies to help several high net worth individuals hide money in tax havens.

Several top celebrities, businesspeople, and politicians (including currently serving and past world leaders) were implicated. This included Iceland’s Prime Minister Sigmundur David Gunnlaugsson and Pakistan’s Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif. Gunnlaugsson resigned the day after the leak, while Sharif managed to hold on for some months.

The Panama Papers revealed that Sharif and his family possibly wired state money through the fake businesses to buy homes in London. Sharif and his family denied the accusations. His daughter, Maryam, even provided documents to prove that the homes were owned by a private business. She claimed that her family only acted as the trustee.

The key document was dated February 2006. However, it was printed in the Calibri font, which was released in 2007. The Sharifs’ attorneys and supporters claimed that Calibri was designed in 2004, which was true. The designer, Lucas De Groot, started work on the font in 2002 and completed it in 2004.^[2]

However, Microsoft only released test versions to a closed group of people before its official 2007 release. According to De Groot, it is unlikely that an unknown and unreleased font would have been used to print official documents in 2006. Nawaz Sharif later resigned after the Pakistani Supreme Court declared that he was not honest enough to remain in office.

8 Telecom Executive Loses Homes After Using The Wrong Font

In December 2017, Gerald McGoey, the chief executive officer of Look Communications, filed for bankruptcy. He was ordered to sell his properties to repay the $5.6 million he owed creditors. These creditors appointed some trustees to audit McGoey’s properties to see what they could lay their hands on.

The trustees found two homes. However, McGoey claimed that the homes belonged to his three children and even provided paperwork as proof. He was soon busted after the documents were revealed to have been printed with fonts that did not exist at the time the supposed trusts were signed.^[3]

One document dating back to 1995 was printed in Cambria, which was designed in 2002. The other paper dated back to 2004, even though it was printed in Calibri. As we mentioned earlier, Calibri only became available in 2007. McGoey’s attorneys later claimed that the couple had made mistakes with the dates but insisted their claims were true. The court decided otherwise.

7 Everyone Hates Comic Sans

Vincent Connare designed Comic Sans in 1994. He made the font for Microsoft Bob, a new program that Microsoft was working on at the time. Microsoft Bob turned the screen of a computer using the Windows 95 operating system into the image of the inside of a home. Users could launch programs by clicking on similar objects in the home.

For instance, clicking on the clock opened the calendar. Clicking on the pen and paper opened Microsoft Word. A dog guided users through the home and spoke in a speech bubble in Times New Roman font. Connare thought that Times New Roman was too serious for the new program, so he created the playful and friendly looking Comic Sans.^[4]

Although Comic Sans never made it into Microsoft Bob, Microsoft released it with Windows 95. The font became popular and was soon used for important and official purposes like tombstones, warning signs, and lifesaving hospital equipment. This whipped up outrage against the font.

Having a playful-looking font on official and important items was a big no-no. It was like having a clown in a business meeting. So the font ended up as the most hated font out there. There is even a movement calling for its ban. Nevertheless, it is still good for children and people with dyslexia.

6 Outrage After IKEA Changes Font

In August 2009, IKEA quietly dumped the trademark Futura font it used in its signage and catalog and switched to Verdana. Unfortunately, customers noticed and started a backlash that we remember today as Verdanagate.

IKEA agreed to the change a few months earlier when executives decided to standardize the fonts they used online and offline. Before then, IKEA used Verdana on its website and Futura on its signage and in its catalog. Futura was not available online at the time, so executives settled for Verdana.

Unfortunately, Verdana was created for online use and flops badly when used offline. It looks unusual when the font size is increased or is printed at a high resolution, which is what IKEA did. This was why it was quickly noticed and generated such negative publicity that IKEA was forced to revert to Futura.^[5]

5 A Money-Saving Font Won’t Save The US Government Any Money

In 2014, Suvir Mirchandani, a 14-year-old student, revealed that the US federal and state governments could save around $467 million a year if they changed the font they used in official documents to Garamond.

Mirchandani made the claim after comparing Garamond with Century Gothic, Comic Sans, and Times New Roman. He discovered that Garamond was thinner and used about 25 percent less ink than the other fonts. He later calculated that US federal and state governments could save $467 million a year if they switched to Garamond.

Mirchandani’s experiment was later determined to be flawed because Garamond is 15 percent smaller than the other fonts at the same size. This means that Garamond would use the same amount of ink as the other fonts if its size was increased to match that of the other fonts. Similarly, other fonts will save the government the same amount of money if their sizes are reduced to match the smaller size of Garamond.

Besides, the US government does most of its printing with printing presses and not with office printers. Mirchandani’s experiment was done with inkjet printers, even though the government also uses laser printers which require toner. Toner is cheaper than inkjet inks, which would affect any cost savings.^[6]

Lastly, the US government does not actually buy ink. Instead, it has deals with other businesses to provide office printing services. These businesses charge based on the pages printed and not the amount of ink used. So the government spends the same amount of money to print a color photograph as it does to print a page with just a single letter on it.

4 Font Size Used To Delay Judgment Over A Controversial Michigan Law

In 2011, Michigan governor Rick Snyder signed a controversial law that allowed the governor to appoint emergency managers to take over the affairs of mayors and city councils in periods of crisis. The law quickly became infamous, causing protests, controversies, and a legal battle.

On one side was Michigan Citizens for Fiscal Responsibility that opposed the law. On the other was Stand Up for Democracy that supported the law. The state agreed to call for a referendum in November 2012 to decide if they wanted the law to remain.

Michigan Citizens for Fiscal Responsibility sued, asking the Michigan Supreme Court to cancel the referendum because the Stand Up for Democracy movement used a small-sized font in the documents it submitted to request the referendum.

Michigan Citizens for Fiscal Responsibility claimed that the small font made the petition illegal. This did not fly with the court, which later ruled that the state could appoint emergency managers.^[7]

3 Controversy After The US Federal Highway Administration Revokes Approval Of A Font For Road Signs

The US Federal Highway Administration approves only two fonts for highway signs. The first is the Highway Gothic typeface that has been in use for over seven decades. The other is Clearview, a newer and supposedly clearer alternative to the Highway Gothic typeface.

The Federal Highway Administration first approved Clearview for use in 2004 after researchers proved that it was clearer than the Highway Gothic typeface. A 1997 test indicated that Clearview was 16 percent more readable at night. A 2001 experiment proved that it increased reading distance by 12 percent on the highway. This meant that drivers could read Clearview 23 meters (74 ft) farther away than they could read Highway Gothic.

However, later tests indicated that Clearview was no better than the Highway Gothic typeface. The supposed clarity was credited to the quality of materials used in making road signs bearing the Clearview font.

There were also concerns that the Federal Highway Administration only approved Clearview for monetary reasons. Town and city councils that opted to use Clearview paid a $175 to $795 licensing fee for the font. The Highway Gothic typeface is available free of charge. Nevertheless, the Federal Highway Administration approved Clearview for use again two years later.^[8]

2 Researcher Gets Funding Approval Rejected For Using Wrong Font

A few years ago, Susannah Maidment, a paleontologist at the Imperial College London, tweeted that her research grant application to the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) in the UK had been rejected because she submitted it using Calibri.

Apparently, NERC had stringent guidelines and required that grant proposals be submitted in “Arial 11 or other sans serif typeface of equivalent size to Arial 11.” Maidment had used a font that did not fit the guidelines. She claimed that the initial guidelines mentioned “Arial or other sans serif typeface of equivalent size,” which did not ban Calibri.^[9]

NERC later explained that it rejected 4 percent of funding proposals over wrong fonts. The organization said that its font requirement was necessary to ensure that applicants had an even playing field because smaller fonts took up fewer pages and allowed applicants to give more details.

1 Ad Agency In Trouble Over Font

In 2017, Cliff Ross, an advertising agency based in Philadelphia, released 10 new fonts that it felt would resonate with the city. Each font was modeled after a different neighborhood. For instance, the font modeled after Center City, which contains much of Philadelphia’s offices, resembled skyscrapers.

However, the font modeled after North Philly proved controversial. It resembled boards of wood held together with nails. This provoked outrage because it suggested that the African-American–dominated North Philly was filled with shanties. Users called the font everything from offensive to gross and disturbing, forcing Cliff Ross to retract it.^[10]

Everyone is excited about the possibility of a manned mission to Mars. There is even speculation that the first humans will land on Mars in the 2030s. Well! That could be true. But it is actually harder than it looks. A manned mission to Mars could remain a pipe dream considering current technology and political trends, especially in the United States.

There are also several problems over which we have no control. This often involves our bodies and the conditions on Mars itself. It seems like Mars is out to kill the first humans who set foot on it—an opinion shared by several people including Elon Musk, who may revolutionize space travel. Nevertheless, we will keep our fingers crossed.

10 Money

NASA cannot afford a manned mission to Mars. This was revealed in July 2017 when William Gerstenmaier, NASA’s chief of human spaceflight, revealed that the agency does not receive enough funding from the US government to make NASA’s first Mars landing scheduled for the 2030s realistic.

NASA, private space agencies, and nonprofits give vastly different figures when estimating the cost of a manned mission to Mars. This ranges from $1 trillion spread over 25 years (as proposed by the nonprofit Mars Institute) to $100 billion spread over 30–40 years (as proposed by NASA). However, NASA cannot afford their estimate.

NASA received $19.5 billion in funding for the 2017 fiscal year. That amount seems like a lot until we realize that the agency splits this money between several space missions, programs, and research. Considering current trends, NASA’s funding drought is unlikely to end anytime soon. Its budget has only grown by a measly 2 percent a year within the past few years.^[1]

9 Loneliness

Humans are social creatures and often require interaction. Researchers fear this could become a problem during an expedition to Mars. A few years ago, researchers had a group of people live in an isolated habitat in the Arizona desert for a considerable period of time.

They noted that some participants soon suffered from depression and mood swings. Some also became hostile and mostly did not talk to each other for 18 months. Their few interactions were limited to brief conversations about running the facility. Although the team later had psychologists to help them, astronauts on Mars will not have the same privilege.

The results of this test have made some researchers question future plans to send just two astronauts to Mars in a single spacecraft. The astronauts will probably become bored, depressed, and could even start to dislike each other, which could lead to their doom. However, some researchers think this is unlikely to happen if the two astronauts have compatible personalities.^[2]

8 The Dust Storm

In January 2004, the NASA space rover Opportunity landed on Mars for a 90-day mission (in Mars days) to find evidence of water on the Red Planet. Opportunity completed its assignment almost immediately and went on to complete more missions over 15 years. Its surprising survival streak ended in June 2018 when it lost contact with NASA during a dust storm.

Opportunity often hibernated at night because it ran on solar power. However, it probably switched to its backup battery after the dust from the storm covered its solar panels. Opportunity ran on its batteries until it died. NASA fears a repeat incident could happen with the solar-powered stations used by astronauts on Mars.

Mars experiences two types of dust storms. The first and commonest are the regular storms that could cover large swathes of land as wide as a whole continent on Earth. Thankfully, these storms are light and only last for a few weeks. The other type—like the one that killed Opportunity—is the rarer but stronger “global dust storm” that covers the entire planet.

Global dust storms occur every 5.5 Earth years (three Mars years) and could last for months. Besides covering the solar panels, they could also block sunlight from reaching Mars, which could put the stations and astronauts in jeopardy. Thankfully, Mars dust storms are unlikely to cause serious physical damage to the stations. They are more of a breeze than a storm despite the name.^[3]

7 Food

A study by PhD students at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) revealed that a human colony on Mars could die of starvation. The group based their study on the manned mission planned by Mars One.

The organization wants to set up a human colony of 25–40 individuals on Mars by 2025. Food will be provided by crops grown inside the habitat of the colonists. An MIT study to simulate that habitat has revealed that the astronauts will need to choose between getting enough food or oxygen.

The food and oxygen levels in the habitat are linked because plants produce oxygen as a by-product. On Mars, that oxygen will be used to sustain the lives of the astronauts. The MIT study revealed that the plants will produce excessive oxygen if they produce enough food to feed everyone in the habitat.

This will clearly be detrimental to the lives of the astronauts because breathing excessive amounts of oxygen could kill them. However, the oxygen levels would be balanced if the plants produce lesser amounts of food, which would not be enough to feed everyone. The researchers say that this problem could be solved by developing an “oxygen removal system,” which does not exist for now.^[4]

6 Spacecraft

The race to land the first human on Mars is currently led by NASA, SpaceX, and Blue Origin. In fact, all three organizations already have spacecraft that could take us to Mars. However, their rockets use dangerous fuels and would take too long to get to Mars from a human safety perspective.

NASA is trying to solve this by developing the Space Launch System that uses liquid hydrogen and some other chemicals for fuel. SpaceX is considering altering its spacecraft to use liquid methane for fuel, while Blue Origin is settling for liquid hydrogen. However, some still doubt whether these new spaceships and fuels will get us to Mars.^[5]

One is Chris Hadfield, a former NASA astronaut, who likened traveling to Mars—in even the latest spaceships in development—to crossing an ocean in a canoe. Hadfield believes that the dangers of space and the unpredictability of the spaceships will kill most astronauts long before they land on Mars.

Curiously, this opinion is shared by SpaceX CEO, Elon Musk, who once mentioned that the first manned Mars mission will probably lead to death.

5 Surgery

As the possibility of long-term manned space missions to the Moon and even Mars becomes a reality, scientists have started to grapple with the problems posed by performing surgery in space. The unique environment of space means sick astronauts are likelier to die of minor wounds and infections there than on Earth.

Astronauts sent to the International Space Station (ISS) are often trained to perform certain medical procedures like administering injections, stitching wounds, and even extracting a tooth. However, they would need to quickly return to Earth on a spacecraft permanently docked at the ISS if they have more severe medical issues.

This is because the sick bay on the ISS is no better than a first aid kit. Even if the sick bay rose to the same standard as a hospital and had a permanent doctor (which it does not), the lack of gravity would be a real challenge.

Among other problems, blood from the wound or surgical incision could float and obstruct the view of the doctor. Worse, it could contaminate the entire cabin. Also, anesthesia does not work as well as on Earth, which means lots of pain for the astronaut.

These problems could be worse on long-term space explorations to the Moon and Mars. One suggestion is to use robot surgeons controlled in real time by human doctors on Earth. While this could work on the Moon, it would be impossible on Mars where information takes 20 minutes to reach Earth and vice versa.^[6]

4 Mars Toxic Dust

Mars is filled with toxic dust that could hamper a manned mission to the Red Planet. Mars dust exists as round, fine, electrically charged silicate particles that will stick to astronauts’ suits. The dust will be difficult to remove, raising concerns that it could get into the astronauts’ base and clog crucial instruments and systems including water purifiers and air filters.

This could be deadly because the fine silicate particles could seep into the lungs where it will react with water to form harmful chemicals. The effect of the dust becomes worse when we realize that it contains gypsum and perchlorates. Gypsum is not dangerous on its own, but long-term exposure could cause eye, skin, and lung problems. Perchlorates could cause thyroid gland problems.^[7]

3 Exposure To Space Elements

Space is filled with dangerous cosmic rays and irregular solar storms that could cause intense radiation. Scientists predict that astronauts traveling to Mars will be exposed to radiation levels up to 20 percent more than they will ever receive during their lifetimes on Earth. This intense radiation could cause heart, lung, and eye problems as well as neurological disorders and even cancer.

This could be a huge problem because a one-way trip to Mars could last six months. Solar storms are also unpredictable, which makes the situation worse. One solution is to develop a spacecraft that could get astronauts to Mars much faster. However, astronauts are not free from these radiation risks even when they get to Mars.^[8]

Although Earth’s atmosphere shields us from dangerous radiation, Mars’s atmosphere does not provide the same protection. Scientists propose to solve this by covering the human habitat on Mars with a thick anti–solar storm material just like the shielding on parts of the ISS. Others propose that humans will be protected from the radiation if they live in the any of Mars’s numerous lava tube caves instead.

2 Our Bodies Cannot Cope

Human bodies have a hard time adjusting to the zero gravity levels experienced in the nearby ISS. This would become even worse during and after a trip to faraway Mars. Astronauts would have to cope with three different gravitational fields during a voyage to Mars.

Astronauts will experience the first gravitational field here on Earth (before and after the trip). It is the regular one we are used to. The second is the zero gravity that astronauts experience while traveling the distance between Earth and Mars. The third is the gravitational field on Mars, which is one-third the gravity on Earth.

Moving between gravitational fields causes a distortion in our senses of balance and movement. It also affects the coordination between our eyes, head, and hands. The lower gravity levels outside Earth will cause astronauts to lose valuable bone density. This makes their bones susceptible to breakage when they return to Earth.

The lower gravity level outside Earth will also cause body fluids to escape into the head. This could cause a myriad of problems including kidney stones, dehydration, loss of calcium, and eye problems. Drugs would have reduced the effects except that they work differently in space.^[9]

1 The Return Trip

Using current technology, an expedition to Mars will be a one-way trip because astronauts who travel to Mars will be unable to return to Earth. While NASA is already developing the Mars Ascent Vehicle (MAV) to make a return trip possible, the technology is not without its own problems.

When completed, the MAV will weigh 18 tons and will carry an extra 33 tons of fuel to take off from Mars. This massive weight means that it will be unable to land safely on Mars due to the planet’s thin atmosphere, which could make the MAV burn up in the atmosphere or slam straight into the ground. For comparison, the heaviest thing we have landed on Mars is the Curiosity rover, which weighs just one ton.

NASA intends to solve this by reducing the weight of the MAV and developing an inflatable heat shield that will slow the craft’s speed during its descent to Mars. The MAV will have a minimalist interior and might not even have seats. However, the astronauts will not be standing all the way back to Earth. Instead, they will be transported to the Earth Return Vehicle (ERV), which will orbit Mars and return them to Earth.^[10]

The ERV was also created to reduce weight. Instead of making a single spacecraft that will take off from Mars and bring the astronauts back to Earth, NASA will create a two-part system consisting of the MAV and the ERV. The MAV will take off from Mars’s surface and transport the astronauts to the ERV, which will bring them back to Earth.

Scientists will also reduce the weight of the MAV by having it create its fuel from Mars’s atmosphere. The MAV will extract methane (carbon and hydrogen) and oxygen, which it needs to make its fuel, from the underground water and the abundant carbon dioxide (CO₂) in Mars’s atmosphere.

Dedicated to probing the unknown, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has designed its fair share of unusual studies. Tasked with keeping astronauts safe, they threw lunar dust at oysters and had a man sniff at 800 space-bound items.

Curiosity also saw their scientists turn photographs into music and create oceans in cups. NASA’s problems are often equally weird. From cussing crews to the threat of a rogue Martian colony, the agency is proof that real life is better than fiction.

10 NASA Followed A Weird Iceberg

In 2018, a photograph surfaced that many would have dismissed as a fraud if not for its source—NASA. It showed an iceberg resembling a floating tabletop. The flat rectangle had sides so perfect that it looked surreal. Scientists call these oddities tabular icebergs. They snap off ice shelves, and many are straight-edged.

NASA scientists reckoned that this one’s flawlessness meant the iceberg had a recent birth. The blunting forces of nature eventually destroy a tabular’s perfect shape.

Curious about its origins, they used satellites to find the parent. When the images revealed its source—and subsequent journey—it became clear that the sheet had endured a lot of abuse. This tabular beauty fell from the Larsen C ice shelf in Antarctica.^[1]

However, it was not born geometric. The tabular drifted north into a narrow passage so violent that scientists have likened it to a nutcracker. Anything that moved along this route was smashed between a mammoth iceberg and an ice shelf, a process that often whittled clean-cut shapes.

The satellite pictures confirmed that the channel, not the Larsen C shelf, produced the perfect tabular.

9 The Nasalnaut

By the time 2018 rolled by, George Aldrich had hit his 44th year as a NASA chemical specialist. He is also the proud recipient of the Silver Snoopy Sniffer Award. This is a real NASA award for people who smell things before the objects go into space. It may sound ridiculous, but offensive smells are problematic in space.

If astronauts get stuck with a bad odor in a confined area, they could become sick or less productive. To prevent this, NASA has an odor panel. Five volunteers snort at objects destined for space and give them a rating between 0 and 4. NASA is so serious about preventing bad smells that any object with a grade higher than 2.5 is abandoned.

Before sniffing anything, the panelists undergo a medical examination to ensure that their noses are in fine order. NASA staff call George Aldrich “NASA nose” and “Nostrildamus,” but Aldrich likes “nasalnaut.” After 800 smelling missions for the space agency, he certainly is.^[2]

8 The Failed Robot

During the 1960s, NASA wanted the perfect spacesuit. Human feedback was not reliable because NASA required numbers and degrees. They didn’t need to hear: “Gee, the elbow is a bit stiff.”

Engineer Joe Slowik created a robot instead. The articulated dummy could perform a range of humanlike movements. Adorably, it could even shake hands. Unfortunately, it leaked oil. Try as they might, the problem could not be fixed. To stay mobile, the machine’s hydraulic valves had to be small, but this also compromised their integrity against the pressurized fluid.

Back then, a spacesuit cost the modern equivalent of $750,000. In 1967, the robot was fired before it could ruin any suits. The following year, it was briefly employed by bionics researchers at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Ohio. Then it was auctioned off before being donated in 1986 to the National Air and Space Museum in Maryland.^[3]

For decades, the staff did not know who built it or why. Only when Mike Slowik, the creator’s son, recently contacted the museum did they learn about the robot’s NASA history.

7 Earth’s Adoption Agency

In 2017, NASA tried a trusted conservation method. Copying the fundraising tradition of adopt-a-rainforest and adopt-a-puffin, the agency made Earth available for adoption. The project was designed to raise awareness for the Earth sciences and environmental issues.

The “Adopt the Planet” project divided the global surface into 64,000 hexagons. Each measured 88 kilometers (55 mi) wide. Anyone could sign up and get a randomly assigned tile. The proud new parent also received an adoption certificate and decades’ worth of Earth science data about their block.^[4]

The project celebrated Earth Day and aimed to have the entire surface adopted by the time it arrived on April 22. However, it also raised awareness of NASA’s dedication to studying Earth and space despite facing severe budget cuts from the White House.

6 NASA Dosed Animals With Dust

Lunar exploration awakened a new fear. If noxious germs returned with the astronauts, humanity risked exposure to pathogens for which they had no immunity.

After 1999, the agency decided to run safety tests. They were weird. To assess lunar contamination on nonhuman life on Earth, scientists ground up some of NASA’s precious Moon rocks. The dust was divided. One-half was baked to ensure that the material was sterilized. Meanwhile, the other half remained natural and potentially dangerous.

They sprinkled the dust into aquariums full of fish. For shellfish, they dusted oysters and shrimp. Mice, chosen as land mammals, were injected with the powder. Birds were represented by the Japanese quail and got the shot. Insects, like cockroaches and flies, ate the bits with their food.

After a month, the menagerie was fine. Except for the oysters. Most of them died whether they were in clean or lunar water. The microscopic analysis also found that the Moon rocks had no microorganisms. Apparently, lunar soil is harmless and the oyster die-off was blamed on testing them during their breeding season.^[5]

5 The Solar Wind Trap

The Genesis spacecraft was an ambitious project. When it launched in 2001, it carried an array with high-purity materials, including gold, sapphire, silicon, and aluminum.

The bling had a purpose. Their composition could trap solar wind. These charged particles are released by the Sun’s corona and could reveal more about our star’s own composition and the solar system’s earliest elements.

For years, Genesis circled Lagrange point 1, where the gravity of the Sun and Earth are in perfect balance. The craft collected the precious particles and returned to Earth in 2004.

The excitement quickly turned into horror when both parachutes on the capsule failed. Genesis smashed into Utah at 310 kilometers per hour (193 mph). The crash was blamed on two sensors that were designed to react to gravity and deploy the parachutes. Somebody had installed them backward.

The impact wrecked several arrays and contaminated the solar samples. Luckily, several others were intact and gave scientists their particles and the sought-after glimpses into the Sun’s components.^[6]

4 NASA Created Mini Primitive Seas

Around four billion years ago when life first appeared on Earth, solar radiation battered the planet’s surface. Since the deadly rays could not fully penetrate the sea, life probably started in the ocean.

Deep hydrothermal vents have ecosystems independent of the Sun’s energy. They rely on chemicals and heat instead. One theory suggested that hydrothermal environments could have sparked life.

To test this, NASA astrobiologists recreated primordial seafloors in beakers in 2019. Two molecules from hydrothermal conditions—pyruvate and ammonia—were added with other minerals to the water.

To reflect the conditions of the ancient sea, the scientists removed the oxygen, tweaked the alkaline pH, and added iron hydroxide. Additionally, the water was heated to 70 degrees Celsius (158 °F), the average temperature around a vent.^[7]

Once a tiny squirt of oxygen was added, alanine and alpha hydroxy acid lactate formed. Alanine is an amino acid, and the other is its by-product. Combined, they can create organic molecules that could lead to life. It remains a mystery how that first miracle happened, but the beakers proved that hydrothermal conditions had the right stuff to spawn it.

3 NASA Hypnotized A Cursing Astronaut

The early space race was avidly followed by the US public. As a result, NASA wanted a family-friendly image. There was one problem. Most of the astronauts were rough ex-military types. They dropped f-bombs and other profanities, marring NASA’s wholesome reputation.

The agency dealt with this by editing footage. The films that aired to the public were sanitized, and the agency made a huge effort to keep its struggle with cussing astronauts a secret. For this reason, the name of one offender has never been identified with certainty. The man cursed like he was aiming for the championship.

NASA decided that hypnosis was the answer. Before his mission, a psychiatrist planted the urge to hum whenever he felt like cussing. While the astronaut’s name remains unconfirmed, only one man hummed like a champion while skipping over the Moon’s surface—Commander Pete Conrad.^[8]

2 Music From Hubble Photos

In 2019, NASA found a way to turn space into a musical. First, they chose a photograph taken by the famous Hubble Space Telescope. Taken the year before, the image was special. The snap captured around 1,000 galaxies together, leading researchers to call it a “galactic treasure chest.”^[9]

The image was programmed to produce various notes, guided by the differences in location and type of object. Short sounds represented stars and compact galaxies. Spiral galaxies tooted longer and more complicated noises. Lower sounds were produced by objects near the bottom of the picture, and frequencies turned higher closer to the top.

The time bar moved from left to right, and the music played. It was eerie, unsettling, and haunting. Near the center, the bar hit a galaxy cluster called RXC J0142.9+4438. The density created a swell in midrange tones described by some as the photograph’s best music.

1 The Problem With Martian Law

Mankind’s dream of colonizing Mars is a feverish one. Everyone from NASA to private companies wants to settle the Red Planet. An emerging problem is Martian law. At the moment, there is no such thing.

NASA studied people in long-term isolation in a project designed to mimic life as a human Martian. The stresses of the confined space suggested that Earth law might not survive on another world, especially if it mirrors the current laws on space stations.

The latter normally see an unquestionable authority from one commander. This might not sit well with the highly educated individuals who are expected to arrive first on Mars. They are more likely to prefer a democracy.

Then there are the issues of their legal status, the ways in which crime will be punished, and the hornet’s nest surrounding Martian mining rights. NASA still needs to finalize laws for the Red Planet, but many feel that the colonists are going to add their own mercurial force to how they are governed.^[10]

Math is, understandably, a complicated subject to get a hang of. Most of us are simply not wired to do anything with a large amount of numbers, even if we’re intuitively mathematical beings. We’re adding, subtracting, multiplying and doing even more complicated equations in our heads all the time. It’s a problem, though, when that turns into complicated symbols and alien words like ‘derivatives’ as soon as it’s translated on paper.

See Also: 10 Simple But Costly Math Errors In History

While some mathematicians would simplify those complex equations for the layman, there are also those who do the complete opposite – apply a complicated equation to something simple for no discernible reason. A considerable amount of funding from legitimate – even government – sources has gone into finding out the math behind the simplest things in our everyday lives, even if we never – for once – asked for it.

From the mythical “Beer Goggles” effect to dripping teapots, here are 10 simple things scientists made unnecessarily complicated with math.

8The “Beer Goggles” Effect

We’ve always suspected that having more alcohol makes other people more attractive to you. In fact, many of us depend on it. There have never been any studies that confirm this, though most of us have always just assumed it to be the case from anecdotal experience.

Some researchers from St. Andrews University and Glasgow University in Scotland, though, weren’t satisfied with just that. They sought out to seek the ultimate formula for how alcohol affects attractiveness, and set up a study.

As they found, the formula consists of symbols we honestly do not have even the educational background to understand. As far as we can tell, it depends on a variety of factors, like how brightly lit the area is, the amount of smoke in the air, number of glasses you’ve had etc. It then calculates a “Beer Goggle” factor from 1 to 100, where at 1 you perceive everyone to be as attractive as you would sober, and 100 where you find everyone in the room to be at peak mating condition.

7 The Physics Of Biscuit Dunking

Biscuits maybe the British equivalent of cookies, but they occupy a more prominent role in British culture than their American counterparts. Tea and biscuits are one of Britain’s favorite snacks, especially during the more boring parts of a typical British day. That’s why all Brits are aware of the classic dunking method of having biscuits with tea. Most of them are good at dunking their biscuits, but only a few are serious about it.

Take this one British scientist, who wanted to perfect the science of biscuit dunking. He carried out an elaborate and in-depth study on all the factors that affect the dunk-ability of a biscuit, and it took him years to finish, too.

Many of his findings were surprising – even if completely unnecessary and unasked-for – like the fact that a gingernut biscuit should be dunked for 3 seconds, while a digestive biscuit could be dunk for up to 8 seconds.

6 How To Hold A Hamburger

Despite being around hamburgers for so long, most of us are bad at eating them without making a mess. There’s really nothing we can do to change that without fundamentally altering what makes them so good. Moreover, most people don’t care either way.

Some researchers appearing on a Japanese TV show, though, claimed to have found the perfect way to hold a hamburger without spilling anything. They came to that conclusion after months of complex calculations and research, too, suggesting that they were serious about it.

According to them, a hamburger is best held with the thumb and pinky fingers on one side, and all the other fingers on the other, holding everything down. It may even work if you keep the angles right, though that’s if you want to bring math into your food.

5 How To Avoid Teapot Dripping

Tea is quickly coming up as a healthier and more organic alternative to caffeine (s/b coffee) around the world. If you’ve ever dabbled in it, you’d know that it also harbors one of the culinary world’s most curious mysteries; how to stop a teapot from dripping along its side when you’re serving it. It happens a lot and is admittedly a problem, though we still manage because tea really is quite healthy.

That can’t be said for the team of fluid dynamics experts that decided to apply some math to it. In a relentless pursuit to end teapot dripping once and for all, they carried out a detailed research into the matter. What they found will shock no one, and was honestly not a very big deal in the first place.

They found that the real problem is a phenomenon called the ‘hydro-capillary effect’, which causes the tea to spill no matter what you do. There are multiple ways to reduce it, like putting butter in the spout, using a teapot made out of a thinner material, or opting for a teapot with a thinner lip.

4 Can Spider-Man Scientifically Exist?

As a casual party conversation, it’s interesting to discuss whether superheroes could, theoretically speaking, exist in real life. It’s easier to answer for superheroes with outright supernatural abilities, as well as the ones with no abilities at all. For everyone in the middle, it gets complicated. While we realize that it’s an important thing to talk about, most of us wouldn’t ponder beyond it.

Some researchers, however, wanted to take the argument further. They took Spider-Man’s ability to stick to walls, and tried to figure out if it could actually be replicated in real life. As they found out, this is one ability humanity will never possess.

Apparently, geckos – according to physics – are the largest animals that could physically scale a wall. It has to do with the mechanics of how we interact with the wall. In order to successfully scale it perfectly like Spider-Man, our shoe size would either have to be a US 114, or 80% of the body’s frontal area would need to stick to the surface. As neither of those seem to be desirable – or even possible – options, they conclusively prove that no amount of scientific progress or evolutionary mutations could ever make us scale walls like geckos.

3 Who Is The Real Antichrist?

The real identity of The Antichrist is a rather theological question. It may even be a philosophical one, though it’s definitely not a mathematical one. We can think of no way you can use math to prove that some real person is, in fact, the Antichrist. For one, the Antichrist isn’t (likely) really a real figure. More importantly, any Antichrist who lets himself be found so easily is not a good Antichrist at all.

Those fundamental problems didn’t dissuade an American author called Robert W. Faid. He spent years – even getting other students and researchers in on the project – trying to find a mathematical link between the Antichrist and Mikhail Gorbachev; yes, the Soviet premier at the time. After painstaking research with higher forms of statistics and probability, he seemed to have found it, too, which he eventually published in a book. According to his research, the odds of Mikhail Gorbachev being the Antichrist were a whopping 710,609,175,188,282,000 to 1.

2How Much Saliva Does A Child Produce?

If you ask someone about an estimate on how much saliva they produce every day, it may come across as a weird question. Besides being too personal, it also doesn’t help with any sort of statistics. Calculating the saliva production may have its uses in some niche areas of medicine, though it’s not anything you’d go out of your way to check for anything in your daily life.

One team of scientists from the University of Hokkaido, Japan, on the other hand, decided to not just calculate that, but further narrow the subject field to just five-year old children. They applied a lot of calculations and general math to it, and came to the conclusion that an average five-year old produces about 500ml (about 17oz) of saliva every day.

1Where Can We Walk On Water?

Walking on water has fascinated humanity ever since the concept was first introduced in a bestselling book around two millennia ago. We won’t lie, we’ve had the thought of being able to do it once in a while, too, though as of now, our laws of physics simply don’t allow it. It’s a bummer, though most of us would probably not lose sleep over it.

That’s not true for this team of researchers from Italy, who came together to conduct the first ever detailed research on the conditions required to walk on water. They compared the structure of the human body with other animals, as well as check if human body is even built to walk on water in the first place.

Unfortunately, as they found out, there is no way we can ever walk on water on Earth. We can, however, walk on water on the moon, if there was water on the moon, and we were willing to go all the way to the Moon just to walk on water.

Many people believe high-tech problems require high-tech solutions. It’s not quite so. Complex technologies sometimes require simple, low-tech solutions that may cost next to nothing.

Cheap here doesn’t mean inferior since these solutions are often better than the more expensive, high-tech solutions. This list is evidence that the KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid) principle is sometimes the best way to go. As the principle states, most things work best when they are kept simple.

10 Ways Technology Is Changing You For The Worse

10 Ostrich feathers and carmakers

Carmakers put a lot of effort into ensuring your new vehicle rolls out of their factories with a spotless paintjob. That’s why they heavily invest in state of the art equipment like high-tech painting stations, industrial robots and ostrich feathers. Did we just say ostrich feathers? Yes, female ostrich feathers actually.

The smallest dust particle can destroy the best paintjob and no one knows that better than carmakers. This is why they demarcate their painting departments from the main factory. They even blast workers and visitors to the painting departments with air to remove dust and loose fiber that may be hanging on their clothes.

However, that isn’t enough since minute dust particles still find their way in and stick on vehicles awaiting painting. Carmakers get rid of these particles by running the vehicles through giant dusters made out of female ostrich feathers right before painting.^[1]

9 Mirrors and elevators

Early elevators did not have mirrors. Manufacturers only added mirrors because they did not want to invest their time, effort and money into making faster elevators.

It all began several decades ago, at a time when elevators were still a new invention. Users often complained the elevators were too slow. Most elevator manufacturers returned to the drawing board to design faster elevators, which was expensive. However, one company decided to do things a bit differently.

It conducted a research and discovered most users thought elevators were slower than they really were. People only complained because they had nothing to do other than stare at the walls of the elevators while thinking about the many bad things that could happen if the cables snapped and the elevator fell to the ground.

The elevator company concluded they needed a way to distract people. They added mirrors so people could think about their appearance while in elevators. Users instantly lost track of time and now thought elevators were faster than they were.^[2]

8 Angled runways and aircraft carriers

If you’ve seen an overhead photo of a modern aircraft carrier or even seen one up-close, you will notice the runway is always angled and never straight. This contrasts with the World War II era aircraft carriers that had straight runways. Why is this so?

This has everything to do with the invention of the jet engine. World War II era carriers carried propeller-driven airplanes, which required shorter runways to take-off and land. This meant the carriers could launch and recover airplanes simultaneously. However, this changed when jet powered airplanes came along.

Jet engines require longer runways for take-off or landing. This meant the carriers were either launching or recovering airplanes and couldn’t do both at the same time. On top of that, landing jets that missed the arresting wire (which helps in rapidly decelerating a landing airplane) would not have enough runway space to taxi and take-off to attempt another landing.

One solution to these problems was to build larger aircraft carriers with longer runways. This suggestion was cast aside because it did not solve all the aforementioned problems. A second suggestion was to leave landing airplanes hovering above the carrier while other airplanes took off. However, this too was abandoned because jets do not carry enough fuel.

The third option was to tilt the runways on existing carriers to maximize runway space. The angled runways were longer and solved every issue the navy had with shorter airways.^[3]

7 Playstation 3 consoles and supercomputers

A few years ago, the US Air Force used 1,760 Sony Playstation 3 consoles to build the most powerful supercomputer in the US Department of Defense and the 33rd most powerful supercomputer in the world.

The supercomputer was so powerful that it could perform 500 million mathematical operations in one second and analyze over a billion pixels in one minute. The Air Force used it to process high-resolution satellite images, identify unclear objects in space and research into artificial intelligence.

A Playstation 3 cost $400 apiece at the time the air force built the supercomputer while a similar part from a “real computer” cost around $10,000. This put the cost of the entire project at $2 million, which is between 5-10% the price of a regular supercomputer of similar capability.^[4]

6 Xbox 360 controllers and nuclear submarines

A periscope is one of the defining features of a submarine. It’s that tube-like instrument submariners use to see above water while submerged. Periscopes have seen an upgrade of late and have evolved from the traditional tube-like pole with 45-degree mirrors into high-resolution cameras that can see 360 degrees above the submarine.

The US Navy uses these modern periscopes in its latest Virginia-class nuclear powered submarines. However, this high-tech equipment has the most low-tech controls ever, the Xbox 360 controller.

The use of Xbox controllers in US Navy submarines is a recent development. Until a few years ago, the navy controlled its digital periscopes with $38,000 joysticks. It only swapped them for Xbox controllers after junior officers complained the joysticks were huge, heavy and required extensive training.

Xbox 360 controllers on the other hand, cost around $39.95 apiece. They’re light, easy to use and do not require extensive training. They’re also easy to replace since they can be purchased from the nearest game store.^[5]

10 Dangerous Misconceptions About Nuclear Technology

5 VELCRO and NASA

The absence of gravity is one of the most obvious problems NASA encountered in the early days of space travel. As we all know, gravity is the reason everything stays on the ground. In a weightless environment like space, anything that isn’t secured to the ground or walls will just keep floating around.

NASA needed a way to keep tools and equipment from floating around without necessarily bolting them to the ground or wall. So it turned to VELCRO, the inventor of hook-and-loop fasteners and both worked together to perfect a hook-and-loop fastener that will not only keep stuff from floating around but will also survive the extreme environment of space.

NASA uses lots of VELCRO in its projects. It even added them to spacesuit helmets so that astronauts can scratch their noses while spacewalking. Little wonder many people erroneously think NASA invented hook-and-loop fasteners. NASA did not invent hook-and-loop fasteners but as it said about VELCRO in 1969, “We couldn’t fly without it”.^[6]

4 Rats and landmines

Landmines are a huge problem in former warzones. Considering they only explode when someone or something steps on them, they can remain active for decades, even long after the war is over. Every year, thousands of people lose their lives after stepping on forgotten landmines.

Finding and deactivating these landmines is a very difficult and dangerous job, even with bomb detection equipment. Some organizations replace the bomb detection equipment with bomb detection dogs but these dogs are often expensive to transport and complicated to use.

In 1997, an anti-landmine NGO called APOPO stepped in with a cheaper and better solution, rats. These aren’t your regular subway rats but the African giant pouched rat, which are as large as cats. The rats have terrible eyesight but excellent sense of smell, which they use to detect the TNT in the landmines.

African giant pouched rats are faster and better than humans and dogs. A rat will cover 2,000 square feet in just 20 minutes. A human equipped with bomb detectors will cover the same distance in four days. The rats are also light enough to walk over landmines without triggering them. APOPO’s rats have detected over 13,200 landmines in several countries so far.^[7]

3 A $10 domain name and WannaCry

A few years ago, the world experienced one of the worst ransomware attacks ever seen. WannaCry as it was called, infected over 300,000 computers in 150 countries. The virus locked owners out of their computers and instructed them to pay hundreds of dollars in Bitcoin as ransom.

WannaCry continued ravaging the world until a man identified as Malwaretech bought a domain name. Domain names are not expensive. They cost around $10 on average. However, that simple action was enough to render WannaCry docile. It instantly stopped spreading and removed itself from every computer it had infected. How did this happen?

This happened because Malwaretech exploited the same thing that made WannaCry successful. Unlike regular viruses, ransomwares always maintain a communication channel that links the attacker to the victim. While this may sound dumb, the attacker actually needs this channel to send payment information to their victims, collect ransoms and unlock their computers after payment.

However, this communication channel works both ways because law enforcement agencies could use it to track the attackers. Attackers counter this by building kill switches into their virus. This allows them to shut down their viruses the moment they suspect they’re being tracked.

For WannaCry, that kill switch was a domain name. The attackers programmed the virus to check the internet for an unregistered domain name at intervals. The virus would continue spreading if the domain remained unregistered but will instantly stop the moment it was registered. Malwaretech found that kill switch and registered the domain name, stopping the virus.^[8]

2 Speed tape and airplanes

We all know airplanes require regular maintenance since pilots cannot park on the nearest cloud whenever they run into issues. However, maintenance is a big word here since it could refer to something as basic as holding the airplane together with speed tape.

Think of speed tape as the duct tape for airplanes. Like duct tape, they can fix everything even though aviation authorities limit them to holding noncritical parts of the airplane together. They’re considered a temporary solution and the fault will be usually sorted out the next time the airplane goes into maintenance.

Speed tape costs a few hundreds to thousands of dollars. While that may seem expensive, it is cheaper when compared to the thousands or even millions of dollars airlines will lose if airplanes were taken out of service every time they have issues.^[9]

1 iPhones and the US Army Special Operations Command

The US Army Special Operations Command uses many specialized mobile apps during top military operations. However, instead of developing expensive devices to handle those apps, they turned to a cheaper alternative, iPhones.

While we do not know what the majority of these apps do, we know of one that uses the split screen feature of the iPhone. The operator sees a live footage shot from a flying Unmanned Aerial Vehicle on one part of the screen and a map showing the route taken by the UAV on the other.

A Business Insider report revealed the army previously used Android-powered Samsung Galaxy Note smartphones before switching to the iPhone 6s. The switch was necessary because the apps often froze on Samsung, constantly requiring the operators to restart the device. On top of that, the iPhone 6s also had better screen resolution, which made photos and videos sharper.

Before this turns into another Samsung-iPhone, Android-iOS or Google-Apple war, we should add that the Department of Defense pitched the older Samsung phones it was using at the time against the newer iPhone 6s during tests.^[10]

10 Pieces Of Technology That Won’t Exist In 20 Years