They have a very long tongue that wraps around their brain. This article is stating that’s just to store the tongue and isn’t some sort of bumper for the brain.
Slightly incorrect - the researchers only looked at bone structure. This was an evaluation of a theory that woodpeckers had an energy dissipating section of bone that protected their brain. That would make for a safer brain, but a worse pecker.
The tongue may still have an effect, but a different study methodology would be needed in order to test that theory.
Now I'm wondering how that's gonna work. De-tongue some woodpeckers and see if they get concussed? There's not any imaging that would work for this is there, where we could paint or inject their tongue with some dye and watch it flex inside their skull? that'd be a lovely video if it could be made.
Interesting reasoning. But isn't it true to say that the "complex existing machinery and parts" which interprets the DNA was itself put together from instructions found in other DNA? I suppose that metaphors are rarely entirely comparable.
Some of that machinery and parts isn't directly represented by DNA. As an example, DNA codes some proteins that help extend cell walls, but those only work if you already have cell walls. If you have only the full DNA for a cell, and no other knowledge, you cannot build that cell out of that.
Why the downvotes on this? I appreciate the thoughts. I think it's a real shame that Google's assistant isn't available in a desktop client, that can use either text or voice input.
It might be just a visceral, reflexive reaction to reading "neuralink brain wi-fi device" and then thinking to oneself, "am I really ready to join the Borg collective?"
"Why did we change the name (again)? Well, we heard from some members of our community that the old name evokes a hurtful slur in some Russian communities, and given our deep commitment to building an inclusive service, that didn’t sit right with us, even though people understand we didn’t mean to be hurtful."
I would be intrigued to see a database of, say, the top 10 or 25 languages in the world, and all their potentially offensive phrases. It would be useful to help avoid this sort of thing, and probably have some interesting things to say about linguistics and psychology.
It doesn't detect "gomix" though, which is odd, as I submitted it when gomix.com was launched and the naming snafu was mentioned here.
Edit: having tried variations on some common English words, I can see why not - the phonetic matching seems pretty poor. I wonder what algorithm they're using?
The fact he asks shows that he respects other artists and respects their feelings. Not everyone is happy about being parodied, especially if their work holds very personal sentimental meaning for them.
