Recent comments in /f/todayilearned

Various_Succotash_79 t1_j9wwx15 wrote

Reply to TIL Poltergeist, which came out in 1982, was rated PG. This is despite not just the movie fitting perfectly into the horror genre, but also many adult themes including the smoking of marijuana and a deep dive into the occult. by duganaok

They didn't have PG-13 yet. That didn't start until 1984, largely thought to be inspired by Gremlins and Temple of Doom.

And at least one person probably had Poltergeist in mind too, lol.

373

SaintUlvemann t1_j9wv6ek wrote

Reply to comment by NewCanadianMTurker in TIL residents of Tangier Island, 12 miles off the coast of Virginia, have remained so isolated they still speak a dialect similar to the original colonists from the 1700s by emily_9511

>But I'd imagine people would have to settle for a lot less than their ideal partner...

Well I grew up in a rural area, a town with fewer people than my intro biology class at undergrad. I've also lived in cities, including as a kid prior to moving to the rural community that I now consider my hometown.

I think that people who haven't been in small-population social contexts radically, radically underestimate just how strongly one's preferences are shaped by one's environment. Love is a sociological phenomenon, and I can't really explain it any better than that article does.

When you're living in a social context with fewer people, your sense of what makes an ideal relationship changes to fit the social context that you find yourself in. Maybe you won't have as much in common with your partner... and maybe that will be okay, and you will still enjoy the time you have together. Maybe there will be more things that annoy you about your partner... or, maybe not, since, having grown up in a similar restricted social context, you'll be more likely to share certain habits.

I'm not offering any rose-colored glasses here; life in a small community is only as good as the people around you, and people are not always good. But we people have a habit of growing and changing in accordance with our circumstances.

43

NewCanadianMTurker t1_j9wv0pe wrote

Reply to comment by Minkelz in TIL scientists believe people started wearing clothes between 83k and 170k years ago because that's when clothing lice diverged from head lice. by cwood1973

Prior to modern humans was Homo erectus. If by people the scientists were including Homo erectus then they are just flat-out wrong because there has been evidence of them wearing clothing much earlier than 170k years ago.

""Peking Man," a human ancestor who lived in China between roughly 200,000 and 750,000 years ago, was a wood-working, fire-using, spear-hafting hominid who, mysteriously, liked to drill holes into objects for unknown reasons.

And, yes, these hominids, a form of Homo erectus, appear to have been quite meticulous about their clothing, using stone tools to soften and depress animal hides."

https://www.livescience.com/25887-peking-man-hominid-fashion.html

1

Brobuscus48 t1_j9wuf4m wrote

Reply to comment by h3rpad3rp in TIL That Toronto, the largest city in Canada, is not only south of London, Paris, and Berlin, but also south of Milan, Italy. by scorr204

I find that chinooks just make it more difficult to get used to winter. I can deal with -20°C with windchill making it feel like -30°C when it's consistent. I can't do it when the next day might be +5°C and feel hot in comparison. Obviously if I were homeless, had poor insulation in my house, or worked outside all year I would change my opinion pretty rapidly I imagine.

1