Exactly. I'm in Arizona, and in part of the summer, when I'm at a bus stop I look down and see foraging ants haulin' it on the concrete nearly as fast as the ones in the article. I'm guessing if I took a feather and lightly held one in place for a few seconds it would probably die from the heat.
> Silver ants travel 108 times their body length per second and have stride rate 10 times that of Usain Bolt ... the ants covered 85.5cm per second in 47 strides.
Does this make them the/one of the fastest animals?
Things like this really make me wonder what the other sentient species out there must be specialized in, compared to us.
Looking at wikipedia, these guys are playing "the floor is lava" for a short time.
"Largely due to the extreme high temperatures of their habitat, but also due to the threat of predators, the ants are active outside their nest for only about 10 minutes per day"
Offtopic, but, quoting from the box that appeared at the end of article:
> As the climate crisis escalates the Guardian will not stay quiet. This is our pledge: we will continue to give global heating, wildlife extinction and pollution the urgent attention and prominence they demand. The Guardian recognises the climate emergency as the defining issue of our times.
> Our independence means we are free to investigate and challenge inaction by those in power. We will inform our readers about threats to the environment based on scientific facts, not driven by commercial or political interests. And we have made several important changes to our style guide to ensure the language we use accurately reflects the environmental catastrophe.
> The Guardian believes that the problems we face on the climate crisis are systemic and that fundamental societal change is needed. We will keep reporting on the efforts of individuals and communities around the world who are fearlessly taking a stand for future generations and the preservation of human life on earth. We want their stories to inspire hope. We will also report back on our own progress as an organisation, as we take important steps to address our impact on the environment.
Ok, so that's about the first time ever when such a box resonated with me. I'm willing to start dropping them money just because of that. But a question first - what's the HN's current opinion on the Guardian as a publication? How accurate are their articles in general? Is it a publication worth supporting?
It's the type of publication that starts using the word "systemic" because everybody else started using it all the time. That type. Try asking them how "environmental catastrophe" and mass migration to their tiny, developed island go together. Hint: You'll be banned.
Out of curiosity, why did such cookie-cutter pablum suddenly resonate with you?
Up front about coming from a left perspective. Pretty decent. Better than any mainstream paper in the US. I prefer the FT as far as UK newspapers go, but paywall.
>How accurate are their articles in general? Is it a publication worth supporting?
It's an opinion paper. Specifically, (UK's) Labor-style socialism + 4th wave feminism. If you have emotional attachment to those positions, you'll feel satisfaction and validation from reading it. Otherwise it feels like advanced clickbait, geared to give emotional validation to a particular segment of society.
21 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 66.5 ms ] threadDoes this make them the/one of the fastest animals?
Things like this really make me wonder what the other sentient species out there must be specialized in, compared to us.
Elderly humans can walk faster.
Meanwhile, I think some flying insects can hit 90 MPH. Actual speed. Scale speed is like Mach 4, above and beyond the SR-71.
"Largely due to the extreme high temperatures of their habitat, but also due to the threat of predators, the ants are active outside their nest for only about 10 minutes per day"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saharan_silver_ant
> As the climate crisis escalates the Guardian will not stay quiet. This is our pledge: we will continue to give global heating, wildlife extinction and pollution the urgent attention and prominence they demand. The Guardian recognises the climate emergency as the defining issue of our times.
> Our independence means we are free to investigate and challenge inaction by those in power. We will inform our readers about threats to the environment based on scientific facts, not driven by commercial or political interests. And we have made several important changes to our style guide to ensure the language we use accurately reflects the environmental catastrophe.
> The Guardian believes that the problems we face on the climate crisis are systemic and that fundamental societal change is needed. We will keep reporting on the efforts of individuals and communities around the world who are fearlessly taking a stand for future generations and the preservation of human life on earth. We want their stories to inspire hope. We will also report back on our own progress as an organisation, as we take important steps to address our impact on the environment.
Ok, so that's about the first time ever when such a box resonated with me. I'm willing to start dropping them money just because of that. But a question first - what's the HN's current opinion on the Guardian as a publication? How accurate are their articles in general? Is it a publication worth supporting?
Out of curiosity, why did such cookie-cutter pablum suddenly resonate with you?
No idea. Perhaps it was the right time, the right moment. I'm extremely sensitive about the climate crisis these days.
It's an opinion paper. Specifically, (UK's) Labor-style socialism + 4th wave feminism. If you have emotional attachment to those positions, you'll feel satisfaction and validation from reading it. Otherwise it feels like advanced clickbait, geared to give emotional validation to a particular segment of society.