> Hey ChatGPT, what is the difference between pie and cake, and why is it worth fighting over?
< Pie and cake are two different types of baked desserts that are made with different ingredients and have different textures and flavors.
Pie is a baked dish that is typically made with a pastry crust and filled with a variety of sweet or savory ingredients. The crust can be made with a variety of different flours and may be either shortcrust, puff, or flaky, depending on the recipe. Pies are often filled with fruit, such as apples, berries, or peaches, or with savory fillings, such as chicken, beef, or vegetables.
Cake, on the other hand, is a sweet, baked dessert that is usually made with flour, sugar, eggs, and butter or oil. Cakes are often frosted or decorated with icing, and can be made in a variety of flavors, such as chocolate, vanilla, or lemon.
It is not necessarily worth fighting over the difference between pie and cake, as both desserts can be enjoyable in their own right. The choice between pie and cake may simply come down to personal preference, and it is generally more important to focus on enjoying whichever dessert one prefers.
This is funny to me, since my language has just one word for both cake and pie, and over the years I was unable to really find out the difference, so this is very good example of making up divisive differences.
The original St Nicholas was some kind of necromancer:
> Another famous late legend tells how he resurrected three children, who had been murdered and pickled in brine by a butcher planning to sell them as pork during a famine.
> Try posting each question from the list to ChatGPT.
I tried it with the poetry question. I had to change the prompt a bit otherwise ChatGPT just gives a typical midwit answer.
Q: Why do most people seem to hold poetry and poets in high esteem yet have approximately zero interest in reading any poetry ever? Give me a humorous response
ChatGPT Response: Well, perhaps it's because people just love the idea of poetry more than the actual act of reading it. You know, it's kind of like how people love the idea of exercising and eating healthy, but actually doing it is another matter entirely. Or maybe it's because people just love the way that poets look in their berets and turtleneck sweaters, all brooding and deep in thought. Or maybe it's because people just love the way that poetry sounds when it's being read aloud by someone with a really pretentious accent. Who knows? The mysteries of human behavior can be strange and elusive at times.
Back into my TECO going, with my pounding heart now slowing,
Soon again I heard a feeping, somewhat louder than before.
"Surely," said I, "surely this is some strange bug of RMS's
Which an interrupt professes, though I have no other job;
Let me then ask DDT if it thinks there's another job --
'Tis a bug, and nothing more!"
Reclaimer, spare that tree!
Take not a single bit!
It used to point to me,
Now I'm protecting it.
It was the reader's CONS
That made it, paired by dot;
Now, GC, for the nonce,
Thou shalt reclaim it not.
Quaxity quuxity,
Backus's BNF
Drives a preprocessor,
Generates code.
Parsing is specified
Metasyntactically;
Writing it's easy, but
reading, I'm snowed.
(if any of these snippets struck your fancy, look up that Fortress dude; there's much more)
There are tons of people who read poetry for fun -- they leave their physical homes (!) and travel to this café down the street from me, where, on the night of the Tuesday, they do indeed bring their works and with one another "slam".
There is also hip hop, of course -- which saved my life, probably others as well -- halfway between music and verse
Why is it not poetry? Poetry is about format, it isn’t really subjective to the same degree as other types of art. You could argue it’s bad poetry, but it’s definitely poetry.
The Iliad and Odyssey and the Icelandic Sagas are in large part about killing people and Persian classical poetry is about the joys of wine so why not?
...and post-muslim persian poetry is about the love of allah, cleverly disguised inside a metaphor of the joys of wine, so Ms Ciccone was neither as novel nor as blasphemous as she was portrayed in the late twentieth century.
I read it and recite it. Not modern poetry, but ancient, in the language the poems were crafted in. I think reading modern poetry is a great way to learn to dislike it in general. If I had to guess, you've never been exposed to classical poetry. I used to be dismissive of it, until I encountered the good old stuff.
> is there anyone who seriously reads poetry for fun nowadays?
1. IMO, there is some really great poetry out there. But the ratio is terrible. It's honestly worse than Youtube comments.
2. Poetry 1.0 mostly died for... reasons. But it's replacement - Poetry 2.0 - people absolutely love. You'd know it better by its common name "rap".
If you want some encouragement to wade through sewage to discover gems, here's one that really speaks to me:
Aedh Wishes for the Cloths of Heaven
------------------------------------
W. B. Yeats
Had I the heavens' embroidered cloths,
Enwrought with golden and silver light,
The blue and the dim and the dark cloths
Of night and light and the half light,
I would spread the cloths under your feet:
But I, being poor, have only my dreams;
I have spread my dreams under your feet;
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.
Among other things, it really captures some of the melancholy of being a parent who isn't particularly wealthy.
There was a time when lots of people read and wrote poetry that was meant to be enjoyed. With modernism this on ramp of poetry that was accessible disappeared, leaving only poetry enjoyable by wannabe poets. Poets, like literary novelists, write for their own pleasure or that of those who can offer them jobs (teaching MFAs, writers in residence, spiritually similar things). There’s no source of genuinely popular contemporary poetry in English and no reason to believe that there ever will be again.
Are we sure that αὐλητής etc. didn't accompany poetic recitals at symposia?
My classics teachers mentioned the possibility of musical accompaniment, and length instead of stress oriented metres would also point in that direction?
I believe spicy foods kill certain types of gut parasites.
So at some point in our evolutionary history some weirdo who liked a bit of spice was born, burned the parasites out of their gut, and then with their increased health and no calories being stolen natural selection did the rest.
Us humans are just a pawn in the chili plants' game of spreading all over the world.
Initially, capsaicin was produced to prevent mammals from eating the fruit (peppers) and instead encourage birds to spread seeds over a wider area (which is why they are brightly coloured to attract birds). Now that humans can travel greater distances than birds, the plants have switched strategies (or at least we've deliberately grown flavourful varieties everywhere we can).
You are conflating 'clean' with 'sanitary'. You may have washed the dirt and oils off of your skin and hair but your body itself contains, produces, and provides habitats for all manner of organisms, cells, and biological and chemical substances that slough off onto anything around it. Take sterile cotton swab and rub it on your 'clean' post-shower butthole and grow a culture from it and tell me how 'clean' it really is.
The bathroom is a place filled with moisture. If you’re taking two showers a day the towel may spend most of the day wet. It’s a good environmental for mold.
But I also think these rituals are about being pure. Washing off the struggles of the day.
Why did they become popular recently? Pain causes the release of endorphins, overall making you feel good. A similar concept as a runners high, except achievable watching TV on the couch.
Their original spread was likely for the same reason as most other spices, it could be used as a preservative by masking the taste of semi-rotten food.
Small amounts can cause a good amount of pain for those who aren't used to it. I remember putting crushed red pepper on a piece of pizza as a child and finding it unbearably hot.
> Several alternative hypotheses were considered-that spices provide macronutrients, disguise the taste and smell of spoiled foods, or increase perspiration and thus evaporative cooling; it also is conceivable that spice use provides no benefits. However, none of these four alternatives was well supported by our data. The proximate reason spices are used obviously is to enhance food palatability.
> But the ultimate reason is most likely that spices help cleanse foods of pathogens and thereby contribute to the health, longevity and reproductive success of people who find their flavors enjoyable.
That’s not a discussion, it’s just about definitions, as despite the similar name they are completely different things and even so depending on who you ask (Spain vs Hispanic America ).
It’s also the kind of discussion that gets completely neutered by someone whipping out their phone and just looking up the definitions.
Isn't this a good question to move people to the logical conclusion that you should not put someone in jail because they made something others became addicted to?
I suspect asking if it's fair that Jesus was a nepo baby who only got to where he is because he has a famous dad is the kind of question that could only be cooled down by changing the subject to post Nixon POTUS tax returns.
That would be a great topic to argue over. I would say Jesus only really became/realized he was/decided he was/whatever the son of God about the time he met John. Before that he was a man from a relatively poor upbringing mostly picking himself up by the bootstraps. Though I suppose we don't know much about his earlier life. Unless you believe the "Jesus as a kid" stories, but they definitely feel sketchy compared to the main gospels.
Last Temptation is a whole movie pretty close to this topic.
Does meeting John occur before or after he rides the donkey into Jerusalem?
(I used to think riding a donkey was a sign of humility, but I've recently learned that in biblical times, on state occasions, —kind of like how commoners drive Bugattis but the King rides in a carriage— commoners and lesser lords rode horses but kings rode donkeys, that having been a more archaic mode of transport. cf Absalom)
> I would say Jesus only really became/realized he was/decided he was/whatever the son of God about the time he met John.
I think the part in the book of Luke at chapter 2, where Jesus, as a child, stay in the temple after Passover to discuss with the priests and how he answers his parents: "is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?" (Chap 2, verse 49 of the KJV) seems to indicate that he was already aware of that, even if he then waited his 30s and meeting with John to start his work.
Because I didn't had a Bible on hand and had difficulty finding one online, as I don't often need to quote it. And other than KJV, I couldn't remember the name of any other translation.
The John the Baptist story was an attempt to get the remnants of John's followers to follow The Way (early Christianity). John's followers today, the Mandaeans, consider Jesus to be a false Messiah or a prophet of lies.
He was made as the image of God. God is mentionned as ´him´ and ´Father´ in English and popular representation, but it´s supposed to be an asexual figure. What about Jesus then ?
Convincing Jesus was a woman is full points, convincing of having both sex gives double the points.
Surely it's satan that's typically depicted as being both male and female? Lucifer (the angel), on the other hand appears to have identified as male.
There's a lot of male specific words in the bible referring to Jesus and there's the rumours about him having a relationship with Mary Magdalene, so I'd conclude that he identified as male. Similarly, the Christian god is often referred to as male, and the Garden of Eden story suggests that Adam was made in God's image (i.e. male) and then Eve was conjured out of a rib, so presumably that's when females were invented.
My personal take is that our society wants god to be a father figure and Jesus a man, so what was said in ancient scriptures or whatever got lost in translation is probably irrelevant at this point. Culturally I expect to see people distancing from religion will happen faster than seriously debating what sex Jesus was.
From a logical perspective, having a unique god gendered and him sending his son on earth feels so clunky. Even angels are asexual, why would god be more limited. Lucifer having a defined sex probably comes from —-fanfics—-popular litterature ?. On the Adam/Eve split, Adam could become what we know as man _after_ Eve is created from him, it wouldn’t make sense to have a sexed individual with no opposite sex at first.
Interesting twitter thread - I'll see if I can read through all of it at some point.
As an atheist, I'd propose that the bible/scriptures aren't self consistent and I'd describe a lot of stuff as being clunky or not logical within them (though a generous interpretation would be that details have been lost in translation/transcription).
Historically, it seems to me that eunuchs were often considered as the typical asexual gender, and they were made by removing parts from a male, so it could be argued that Abrahamic god was male and the angels were created as less-than-male eunuchs. Of course that doesn't explain angels with breasts.
Edit: read through the thread, it wasn't as long as I first thought. Some fun ideas there, but the side wound being a vagina doesn't sound convincing to me (but then I'm no theologian).
supposedly overheard: two IBM mainframe weenies at lunch, discussing their recent support for Unix guests. "I don't know which editor I should try first: ehm-ucks or six"
What we call English was imported piecemeal into England, so it sounds like it's not the indigenous language of anywhere by your measure? It's native to Ireland, surely; in which case it seems fine.
I'm not sure Ireland would want to directly associate themselves with English (=England | UK) in that way. Clearly this is a very political question and so we can discard it from Christmas discussion :)
>> It's native to Ireland, surely; in which case it seems fine.
English is also "native" to many people in all countries around the world. In Ireland, many families speak Irish at home, not English.
Outside of school, there's very little usage. A few percent at most.
You're right, about politics. There are good historical reasons to hate what [English] nobility did in the past, but it's a mistake to dispense with using a common tongue because of that. My nan was shot at by "the English".
Common Latin use across Europe seems to have had a positive effect on the development of science for 1800 years or so?
> 4) Has compulsory education made the world a better place?
Not sure what is there to debate on that one? Compulsory education has been a vehicle for giving children time away from child labour and abusive parenting.
For that reason alone it is a net positive specially in developing economies where child labour is accepted.
Ok, the other side of the debate is: education is provided by governments who want to protect people in power and their own interests, so pushes an education system that protects those in power (not saying I agree with this side of the debate)
> If you accept that agriculture made life worse but hunter-gatherers had to adopt it or be vanquished, then are we going through any similar changes now?
The reason politics is so easy to argue about is because most people have strong feelings about which “side” is better, with the media feeding us all talking points to back up each person’s perspective, with very little critical thinking.
Questions like…
> Do we focus too much on classic books/music/movies/plays/art/ideas, or too little?
require critical thinking, in the moment, to form an opinion (as do most other examples on the list).
More “suitable” topics to argue about would be ones that don’t require very much critical thinking (sadly), and topics where everyone is likely to already know what “side” they’re on.
So, instead let’s argue about what to argue about before we start arguing.
>> Do we focus too much on classic books/music/movies/plays/art/ideas, or too little?
>require critical thinking, in the moment, to form an opinion (as do most other examples on the list).
Do they? Maybe it's my superpower but I can form opinions on these things without any thought at all. Whether the opinion is defensible is a different question.
I get as far as the second word and get stuck: who the hell is "we"? The people in the room? My family? My social circle? My current and former colleagues? The people in my neighborhood or my kid's school district? The members of my economic class? People who speak the same language(s) as me? People who have the same citizenship(s) as me? People whose views get portrayed in this country's mainstream media? And for whichever definition of "we", how well - or at all! - do I know what they focus on? And how can I judge what for those people would be too much or too little?
It's a question to which one cannot even begin to formulate an answer without quite a bit of thinking.
certainly, I just wonder about IQ. Of course IQ is itself an inexact proxy for things such as processing speed but the correlation does exist so something is going on there. Whether it's causation or not, who can tell.
I just think the idea is interesting. People often think of the body's ability to maintain itself as sort of set in stone based upon DNA, and of course there's truth to that. But we also know the body can learn, that's literally what vaccines do. So the question becomes, if the unconscious mind can strategize it implies better or worse outcomes based upon "decisions" and learning. Peanut Allergies are less likely to exist in populations that are around peanuts than those without. We know this, but I'm not sure I've seen anyone explain the mechanism that causes this to be true.
I'm also not a biologist so it's probably completely ignorant, but that doesn't stop it from being fun to think about.
239 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 142 ms ] thread< Pie and cake are two different types of baked desserts that are made with different ingredients and have different textures and flavors.
Pie is a baked dish that is typically made with a pastry crust and filled with a variety of sweet or savory ingredients. The crust can be made with a variety of different flours and may be either shortcrust, puff, or flaky, depending on the recipe. Pies are often filled with fruit, such as apples, berries, or peaches, or with savory fillings, such as chicken, beef, or vegetables.
Cake, on the other hand, is a sweet, baked dessert that is usually made with flour, sugar, eggs, and butter or oil. Cakes are often frosted or decorated with icing, and can be made in a variety of flavors, such as chocolate, vanilla, or lemon.
It is not necessarily worth fighting over the difference between pie and cake, as both desserts can be enjoyable in their own right. The choice between pie and cake may simply come down to personal preference, and it is generally more important to focus on enjoying whichever dessert one prefers.
> Another famous late legend tells how he resurrected three children, who had been murdered and pickled in brine by a butcher planning to sell them as pork during a famine.
For those who are meeting family: Use ChatGPT to prepare for your arguments.
I tried it with the poetry question. I had to change the prompt a bit otherwise ChatGPT just gives a typical midwit answer.
Q: Why do most people seem to hold poetry and poets in high esteem yet have approximately zero interest in reading any poetry ever? Give me a humorous response
ChatGPT Response: Well, perhaps it's because people just love the idea of poetry more than the actual act of reading it. You know, it's kind of like how people love the idea of exercising and eating healthy, but actually doing it is another matter entirely. Or maybe it's because people just love the way that poets look in their berets and turtleneck sweaters, all brooding and deep in thought. Or maybe it's because people just love the way that poetry sounds when it's being read aloud by someone with a really pretentious accent. Who knows? The mysteries of human behavior can be strange and elusive at times.
Prior to that, it was giving me midwit responses (I didn't post those in the comment.)
I've wondered this for years.
Like seriously, is there anyone who seriously reads poetry for fun nowadays?
I understand if it's the 1800s and there's literally nothing else to do.
Poems are good if you are in public transport. They are shortly to any story and they give you to think.
This is the one I'm familiar with, for anyone with a penchant for exploration.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYs7Gf3DoEc
There is also hip hop, of course -- which saved my life, probably others as well -- halfway between music and verse
(b) if Sinatra were alive today, "My Way" would be gangsta braggadocio.
bonus tracks:
- the OG (with a very different lyric!) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjpRSREHX1Y
- NWA meet RP: "witness the extent of my cricket knowledge" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NSflRlHPay4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=myFIRdlMuGY
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JcKqhDFhNHI
1. IMO, there is some really great poetry out there. But the ratio is terrible. It's honestly worse than Youtube comments.
2. Poetry 1.0 mostly died for... reasons. But it's replacement - Poetry 2.0 - people absolutely love. You'd know it better by its common name "rap".
If you want some encouragement to wade through sewage to discover gems, here's one that really speaks to me:
Among other things, it really captures some of the melancholy of being a parent who isn't particularly wealthy.https://hallofdreams.org/posts/the-death-of-poetry/
Def Jam, Young Money, and Roc-A-Fella might be laughing all the way to the bank.
My classics teachers mentioned the possibility of musical accompaniment, and length instead of stress oriented metres would also point in that direction?
[Edit: cf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dithyramb ]
(ancients also wrote poetry so the text of the words formed an image, which the Victorians considered Not Real Poetry. compare http://99-bottles-of-beer.net/language-javascript-1948.html )
I could just as easily say: all this modern stuff isn't poetry either. Poetry always rhymes.
Oh wait - some people get to break the rules and others don't?
Why did spicy foods become so popular when the first sensation they cause is pain?
So at some point in our evolutionary history some weirdo who liked a bit of spice was born, burned the parasites out of their gut, and then with their increased health and no calories being stolen natural selection did the rest.
Initially, capsaicin was produced to prevent mammals from eating the fruit (peppers) and instead encourage birds to spread seeds over a wider area (which is why they are brightly coloured to attract birds). Now that humans can travel greater distances than birds, the plants have switched strategies (or at least we've deliberately grown flavourful varieties everywhere we can).
Same vein: why do we do towel laundry since we're using them after the shower once we're clean.
Great idea for the weekend, thanks!
But I also think these rituals are about being pure. Washing off the struggles of the day.
Could be related to why BDSM is popular.
Their original spread was likely for the same reason as most other spices, it could be used as a preservative by masking the taste of semi-rotten food.
My parents hate spicy food. They have never mentioned endorphins or feeling good.
> But the ultimate reason is most likely that spices help cleanse foods of pathogens and thereby contribute to the health, longevity and reproductive success of people who find their flavors enjoyable.
From: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdf/10.1086/420058
It’s also the kind of discussion that gets completely neutered by someone whipping out their phone and just looking up the definitions.
Oof, that is a really good one.
Some people are addicted to reading (or HN even).
- Politics are really important actually
- Those disagreements will still be there
Your racist uncle (or, ok fine, your grating progressive auntie) will still hold those views tomorrow.
OTOH fighting will probably only make things worse.
Suggest instead meaningful, loving, gentle conversations that are permitted to range across many subjects, including politics.
This is the time of year when life presents you with opportunities to practice. They are precious :D
Does meeting John occur before or after he rides the donkey into Jerusalem?
(I used to think riding a donkey was a sign of humility, but I've recently learned that in biblical times, on state occasions, —kind of like how commoners drive Bugattis but the King rides in a carriage— commoners and lesser lords rode horses but kings rode donkeys, that having been a more archaic mode of transport. cf Absalom)
I think the part in the book of Luke at chapter 2, where Jesus, as a child, stay in the temple after Passover to discuss with the priests and how he answers his parents: "is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?" (Chap 2, verse 49 of the KJV) seems to indicate that he was already aware of that, even if he then waited his 30s and meeting with John to start his work.
KJV use always seems quite pharasaical to me. So, why? Thanks.
He was made as the image of God. God is mentionned as ´him´ and ´Father´ in English and popular representation, but it´s supposed to be an asexual figure. What about Jesus then ?
Convincing Jesus was a woman is full points, convincing of having both sex gives double the points.
[0] A TV preacher, visibly shaken, comes on stage and proclaims "I have good news and bad news. I just met God ... and She's Black."
There's a lot of male specific words in the bible referring to Jesus and there's the rumours about him having a relationship with Mary Magdalene, so I'd conclude that he identified as male. Similarly, the Christian god is often referred to as male, and the Garden of Eden story suggests that Adam was made in God's image (i.e. male) and then Eve was conjured out of a rib, so presumably that's when females were invented.
My personal take is that our society wants god to be a father figure and Jesus a man, so what was said in ancient scriptures or whatever got lost in translation is probably irrelevant at this point. Culturally I expect to see people distancing from religion will happen faster than seriously debating what sex Jesus was.
From a logical perspective, having a unique god gendered and him sending his son on earth feels so clunky. Even angels are asexual, why would god be more limited. Lucifer having a defined sex probably comes from —-fanfics—-popular litterature ?. On the Adam/Eve split, Adam could become what we know as man _after_ Eve is created from him, it wouldn’t make sense to have a sexed individual with no opposite sex at first.
As an atheist, I'd propose that the bible/scriptures aren't self consistent and I'd describe a lot of stuff as being clunky or not logical within them (though a generous interpretation would be that details have been lost in translation/transcription).
Historically, it seems to me that eunuchs were often considered as the typical asexual gender, and they were made by removing parts from a male, so it could be argued that Abrahamic god was male and the angels were created as less-than-male eunuchs. Of course that doesn't explain angels with breasts.
Edit: read through the thread, it wasn't as long as I first thought. Some fun ideas there, but the side wound being a vagina doesn't sound convincing to me (but then I'm no theologian).
2) Should (English-speaking) residents of England be considered the only native English speakers?
3) Before compulsory education, was the general population really stupid?
4) Has compulsory education made the world a better place?
>> It's native to Ireland, surely; in which case it seems fine.
English is also "native" to many people in all countries around the world. In Ireland, many families speak Irish at home, not English.
You're right, about politics. There are good historical reasons to hate what [English] nobility did in the past, but it's a mistake to dispense with using a common tongue because of that. My nan was shot at by "the English".
Common Latin use across Europe seems to have had a positive effect on the development of science for 1800 years or so?
https://preview.redd.it/rrd2hci4j5f41.jpg?width=960&crop=sma...
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EQFdckqW4AAwQ6A?format=png&name=...
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e5/Tr...
Not sure what is there to debate on that one? Compulsory education has been a vehicle for giving children time away from child labour and abusive parenting.
For that reason alone it is a net positive specially in developing economies where child labour is accepted.
Capitalism? Fossil fuels?
Questions like…
> Do we focus too much on classic books/music/movies/plays/art/ideas, or too little?
require critical thinking, in the moment, to form an opinion (as do most other examples on the list).
More “suitable” topics to argue about would be ones that don’t require very much critical thinking (sadly), and topics where everyone is likely to already know what “side” they’re on.
So, instead let’s argue about what to argue about before we start arguing.
>> Do we focus too much on classic books/music/movies/plays/art/ideas, or too little? >require critical thinking, in the moment, to form an opinion (as do most other examples on the list).
Do they? Maybe it's my superpower but I can form opinions on these things without any thought at all. Whether the opinion is defensible is a different question.
It's a question to which one cannot even begin to formulate an answer without quite a bit of thinking.
There's a correlation between IQ and general health, and most of your "processing" is subconscious.
Could this correlation be due to high IQ brains being better at strategizing and organizing the autonomic systems in the body?
Stress has a profound impact on the growing body.
Also: IQ as a measure of cognitive development only makes sense in children.
certainly, I just wonder about IQ. Of course IQ is itself an inexact proxy for things such as processing speed but the correlation does exist so something is going on there. Whether it's causation or not, who can tell.
I just think the idea is interesting. People often think of the body's ability to maintain itself as sort of set in stone based upon DNA, and of course there's truth to that. But we also know the body can learn, that's literally what vaccines do. So the question becomes, if the unconscious mind can strategize it implies better or worse outcomes based upon "decisions" and learning. Peanut Allergies are less likely to exist in populations that are around peanuts than those without. We know this, but I'm not sure I've seen anyone explain the mechanism that causes this to be true.
I'm also not a biologist so it's probably completely ignorant, but that doesn't stop it from being fun to think about.
Alright so maybe we’re going to draw straws to see who has to defend the affirmative, and they can open presents first or whatever