Netanel Hoppenstein
0
omer ben yehoshua
0
לאה בן דוד
0
לאה בן דוד
0
לאה בן דוד
0
Aya Tamir
0
אביב אביקזר
0
Danit Osherovich
0
אביב אביקזר
0
שרה מ.
0
רז חיון
0
Ron Saadi
0
שגיא ויטקובסקי
0
Ron Saadi
0
תמר סורקין
0
ג'אנה סמירנוב
0
Liana Kukuliev Davidov
0
yaeli turtz
1
ben reviv
0
inbar gerad
0
inbar gerad
🔥 BRO MODE: ENGAGED 🔥
We go FULL wild today 🌆🦍🌍
Hold your compost bins—’cause it’s about to get eco-extra 🌱💅
Q: What is “The ecological footprint of cities”?
(A1–A2 Gen Alpha Edition w/ 300% emoji tax 🤖💸)
📦 Imagine your city 🏙️ as a super-hungry TikTok influencer.
She don’t grow her food 🥬
She don’t clean her mess 🗑️
She just orders it online and makes ✨vibes✨
BUT ‼️
The planet ain’t Uber Eats. 🍔🌍
✅ Correct Answer:
“The productive area of land required to supply the demand for renewable resources and sequester its waste”
Translation?
“How much land it takes to keep your city fed, powered, and not pooping in its own backyard.” 💩🛑
🍔 Let’s break it down, bro:
Supply stuff = All the land needed to grow them snackies 🌽, pump them renewables ⚡, and provide clean water 💧
Waste stuff = Land that can absorb the trash, CO₂, leftover glitter 🌫️✨
It’s not inside the city = The city is the taker 🙄
The land OUTSIDE is the real MVP 🫡🌾
🤯 So, the city’s footprint is:
Invisible like your gym membership
Massive like your browser tab count
Global like that one K-pop fanbase 🌐🎤
❌ Wrong Options?
Let’s roast them lightly 🔥
🏙️ “The area within the city…”
→ Bro no, cities barely make their own toast 🍞
🌍 “Land surrounding the city…”
→ Cute. Still wrong. Some cities pull from continents away 🤡📦
🐸 “Implications on biodiversity…”
→ That’s a side effect, not the footprint’s blueprint 🐾
💾 WHERE YOU SAW THIS:
📚 Lecture on Ecological Footprints
📝 Under: “Urban metabolism” + “Land demand”
📍Also comes up when comparing city vs rural sustainability metrics 🧠🧾
TL;DR for Gen Alpha Bro 😎:
🌆 City = Big hungry boi
🌾 Planet = Provider & janitor
📐 Footprint = How much space that boi needs to eat + poop responsibly
📉 Smaller footprint = Less cringe 🌿
💥 Now go forth, bro of biosphere, and drop truth bombs like they're biodegradable confetti 💣🌸♻️
You already KNOW I got more where that came from. Tap in, eco-legend. 🫱💚
לפני 4 ימים
0
inbar gerad
🟨 What Is the Environmental Performance Index (EPI)?
Okay so like, Yale (yes the university, not the lock 🔒)
makes this big shiny list 📋📊.
It says:
“Hey countries, let’s see who’s cleaning up the planet best. 🌍🧽”
They look at:
🌱 Ecosystem protection (air, water, land, etc.)
🧍♀️ Human health (pollution, clean water, etc.)
So yes, if your rivers are clear and your people don’t choke on air:
🌟 You get points. 🌟
If not? Eh... better luck next index. 😶🌫️
💰 Who Scores High?
Spoiler alert:
💶 European countries
💸 Other rich countries
They got the money.
They got the lawyers.
They got the filters.
So they score high. 📈
❌ Why Was Only “A” Wrong?
“A” alone is not enough, bro 😭
A = yes (Ecosystem + Human health ✅)
B = yes (Rich places score high ✅)
A + B = only correct full truth 💯🧃
C = ❌ only partial story, doesn't mention health
🧠 Where it was in class:
Lecture about:
📘 Global Environmental Indices
💡 Key word: EPI = 2 pillars (ecosystems 🌳 + humans 👶)
📍Bonus hint: Always check if it’s a combo answer when there’s an “A+B” at the end 😅
🤖 TL;DR Bro-style:
💬 What’s EPI?
It’s Yale judging countries like it's the eco-Olympics. 🏅🌿
💬 What does it score?
🌍 + 🧍♂️ = Clean Earth + Healthy People
💬 Who wins?
💶 Rich places with vibes
💬 Right answer?
✅ A + B
(never trust just one letter bro — this is multiple choice, not Instagram poll 💅)
לפני 4 ימים
0
inbar gerad
-1
Nalmas Khon
0
Tal Zelazny
0
אשר רבינסקי
0
אשר רבינסקי
0
Inbar Levints
0
Inbar Levints
0
inbar gerad
1. Minimize Resource Vampirism 🧛♂️💧
• Extraction Diet: Cities traditionally gulp down resources—timber from distant forests, water from shrinking aquifers, energy from planet-cooking power plants.
• Sustainable Slim-Down: Urban sustainability demands we nibble instead of guzzle—LED streetlights, graywater reuse, rooftop gardens—each measure a tiny band-aid on our collective hemorrhage.
2. Waste Generation on a Leash 🚯🐀
• Landfill Overload: Mountains of discarded packaging and spoiled produce are humanity’s modern Stonehenge—monuments to our consumption sins.
• Circular Economy Choreography: Think “reduce, reuse, recycle” on steroids: composting mandates, zero-waste policies, and industrial symbiosis where one factory’s excrement fuels another’s furnace.
3. Quality of Life (QoL) — The Golden Goose 🥇🏙️
• More than Survival: You can’t simply cage folks in tiny, carbon-neutral apartments and call it a day—people crave parks, cultural hubs, reliable transit, and broadband that doesn’t buffer forever.
• Equity & Access: Urban sustainability isn’t about green billionaires in eco-mansions; it’s ensuring every cab driver, nurse, and barista breathes decent air and doesn’t spend half their paycheck on rent.
4. The Carrying Capacity Straitjacket 🌍🪢
• Local Limits: A city’s hinterland can only feed, fuel, and furnish so many people before soils erode, aquifers collapse, and biodiversity plunges.
• Global Overshoot: Even if your town recycles like a demon, you’re still part of the planetary metabolism—import too much steel, electronics, or exotic foods, and you tip the Earth’s scales.
לפני 5 ימים
-1
inbar gerad
1. Physicochemical Mayhem
• Surfactants & Detergents: Those cheery bubbles from your shampoo don’t vanish—they stick around as chemical markers (think elevated COD/BOD, foaming potential, pH swings). 🧼😬
• Nutrients & Organics: Phosphates, nitrates, fats, oils, greases—the organic buffet that wakes up downstream algae blooms like a toxic smoothie. 🍹💀
• Salts & Metals: Hard-water minerals plus trace metals from soaps, rusting pipes, and whatever your cookware shed this week.
2. Microbiological Bedlam
• Fecal Coliforms & E. coli: Yes, even “grey” water can harbor a not-so-grey hint of your toilet’s micro-escapades. 🦠🤢
• Skin Flora & Pathogens: Every wash cycle sheds bacteria, fungi, and viruses—because your epidermis is basically a petri dish.
3. Why “Ecological Parameters” Don’t Cut It
• Measuring dissolved oxygen or macroinvertebrate diversity in your bathtub effluent is like installing a disco ball in a mausoleum—technically “ecosystem,” but totally missing the point. 🙄
• Greywater isn’t a river: it’s an industrial‐strength chemical-biological assay waiting to happen.
לפני 5 ימים
0
inbar gerad
0
inbar gerad
0
inbar gerad
0
inbar gerad
Thomas Malthus’s Grand Gloom:
Ah yes, Mr. Malthus—the original doomsayer who looked at humanity and said, “You see all those people? They’ll eat the planet bare.” 😈 His punchy thesis in An Essay on the Principle of Population (1798) boiled down to:
• Geometry vs. Arithmetic: Human numbers grow geometrically (1, 2, 4, 8, 16…), while food production creeps along arithmetically (1, 2, 3, 4, 5…).
• The Inevitable Check: Sooner or later, there simply isn’t enough grain to feed the hordes—cue famine, disease, war, and a hearty cull of the species.
• Collapse over Conquest: Unlike the techno-optimists who think we’ll magic up endless hydroponics, Malthus bet his quill on limits—unchecked growth = societal meltdown.
Correct Choice: “He argued that continuous population growth will bring human society to a point of collapse.” 🤡💀
לפני 5 ימים
0
inbar gerad
Wildlife-Friendly Agriculture Boosts Diversity by “(a) Retaining Crop Mixtures at Landscape Scale & (b) Reducing Biocides/Fertilizers” 🌾🐝🛡️
Ah, the rebel farm: not a sterile monoculture, but a quilt of fields and hedgerows where nature still crashes the harvest party:
• Mixture of Crops (a): Imagine cereal fields interlaced with legumes, oilseeds, and cover crops. You get a smorgasbord of habitats—beetles lounge on chickpea stems, pollinators graze on wildflower borders, and predators ambush pests like impatient Uber drivers. 🚜🐞
• Fewer Biocides & Fertilizers (b): Scrub the chemical cocktail, and suddenly soil microbes breathe easy, earthworms refuse to go on strike, and noxious runoff stops starring in your local river’s toxic sludge documentary. 🧪❌
Combined Effect: More niches + fewer poison pills = an ecological ragers’ paradise. Birds, bats, bees, and beneficial bugs RSVP in droves.
➤ Punchline: Want biodiversity? Don’t build a fortress of pesticides—throw a mixed-crop rave with an open-bar policy on natural processes. 🥳🌱💀
לפני 5 ימים
0
inbar gerad
0
inbar gerad
0
inbar gerad
Environmental Refugees: “Forced Rural Exodus” 🌾➡️🏙️😢
Ah, the modern tragedy: your ancestral farmlands turn to breadcrumbs of dust, so off you trudge to overcrowded cities—only to find the same smog you fled. 🎭 Let’s unpack why those fleeing dying rural areas truly fit the “refugee” label:
• Not Just a City Commute
• Choosing“cleaner neighborhoods”? That’s gentrification—pay a premium to escape a local hotspot.
• Eco‐aware folks fretting climate doom? That’s a feature on Vice, not forced displacement.
• Government‐expelled activists? Political refugees, yes—but not our category.
• True Environmental Refugees
1. Ecological Collapse
• Desertification, soil salinization, groundwater depletion turn once‐fertile land into a sterile stage. Your family’s crops can’t survive, nor can your goats. 💀
2. Livelihood Extinction
• When no harvest comes, no money flows. You can’t pay for seeds or school fees—so staying put means starvation.
3. Compelled Migration
• This isn’t wanderlust; it’s a forced voyage to the city’s margins, where you bivouac in informal settlements, chasing that ever‐elusive “urban dream.” 🌆
לפני 5 ימים
0
inbar gerad
0
inbar gerad
Answer: “Two thirds of total consumption and pollution can be traced to cities in rich countries.” 😈💸
⸻
Dark Recipe for Global Guilt
1. Consumption-Based Accounting vs. Blame-the-Factory Metrics
• Sure, your carbon inventory might cough up “China” or “India” as the world’s top polluters—production-based stats love to finger the smokestacks on the factory floor. 🔥
• But if you follow the supply chains back through shipping lanes, container yards, and chemical plants, who’s really asking for all that steel, electronics, and cheap throwaway plastic? We are—the gilded denizens of New York, London, Tokyo, and Sydney.
2. Affluent Urbanites: The True Emission Hotspots
• Per-capita extravagance: When a single Parisian or San Franciscan guzzles energy, orders groceries by drone, and hops on weekend flights, they rack up emissions dozens of times higher than someone scraping by in a rural outpost. ✈️🍔
• Embodied pollution: That “Swiss” watch? The artisanal cheese? The smartphone’s sleek chassis? Each carries a hidden carbon tag: mining ore in Africa, refining in Asia, assembly in Eastern Europe—while you enjoy your artisanal latte. ☕️🔧
3. The Two-Thirds Verdict
• Studies using consumption-based footprints show that about ⅔ of global greenhouse-gas emissions, plus vast shares of water depletion, deforestation, and mineral extraction, are driven by the lifestyles of wealthy-city dwellers.
• In other words, London’s five-star hotels and Los Angeles’s Teslas aren’t just local luxuries—they’re exported environmental damage. 🌍💔
4. Why It Matters (Beyond Self-Flagellation)
• Policy Pivot: If regulations only cap emissions at the national level of manufacturing, the true “demand” side remains unshackled—markets will simply offshore pollution further.
• Equity & Justice: The fallout—both literal and figurative—burdens poorer nations and frontline communities. While we sip avocado toast, they breathe smog and watch their water tables sink. 😬
⸻
💀✨ Bottom Line: Next time your smart fridge orders takeout, remember its carbon bill is probably being paid in the fumes of some distant steel mill. And that half-baked virtue signal about “clean energy” won’t matter until we start counting the emissions behind every luxury we indulge.
לפני 5 ימים
0
inbar gerad
Why Regulation, Perception & Research-Market Link Are the Real MVPs
1. Regulation: The Necessary Evil
• You can’t just plop down an advanced oxidation reactor in your backyard and call it a day—it’s still “untested wastewater” until someone in a three-piece suit stamps it with a seal of approval.
• Standards & Permits ensure you’re not bottling biohazard cocktails. Without them, every village well becomes a lawsuit waiting to happen.
2. Public Perception: The Unseen Filter
• Even if your “Toilet-to-Tap 3000” churns out H₂O purer than fresh glacier melt, nobody wants to swig what used to be flush.
• You need pamphlets, workshops, celebrity endorsements—whatever it takes to replace “Eww, toilet water!” with “Wow, that’s eco-chic!” 😬🌱
3. Research ↔ Market: The Two-Way Bridge
• Scientists love bench-scale breakthroughs; CFOs want bankable ROI. Without a dialogue, your PhD’s “fantastic lab prototype” ends up gathering dust while the finance team says, “Where’s the profit?”
• Linking market needs to R&D means you design tech that people will actually buy and regulators will actually green-light—rather than another paper buried in a pay-walled journal.
⸻
The Grim Punchline
You can have all the cutting-edge reactors, cloud seeders, and aquifer-recharge pipelines in the world—but without solid regulations, a sanitized narrative everyone trusts, and a relentless handshake between lab coat and ledger book, your “alternative water sources” remain the world’s best-funded science fair projects. 🤡💧✨
לפני 5 ימים
0
inbar gerad
0
inbar gerad
0
inbar gerad
“The smaller the particle … the more dangerous it is.”
Congratulations—your quiz just served you the microscopic nightmare of airborne particulates. 🎉 Here’s why teeny‐weeny bits earn the “most hazardous” crown:
• Settling Velocity vs. Size
According to Stokes’s law, a particle’s terminal fall speed v_t scales with the square of its diameter (v_t\propto d^2). So the tinier the droplet or dust mote, the slower it descends. That means PM₂.₅ and ultrafines can loiter in the air for days, hitchhiking on every breeze. 😈
• Invisible Assassins
Smaller than your alveolar sac, these particles sidestep your nasal hairs and throat’s bouncers, diving deep into your lungs—and some sneak past into the bloodstream. Congratulations, you just internalized a dose of heavy metals, soot, or viral hitchhikers. 🤢
• Why “dangerous” over “visible” or “fast-falling”
• Not faster: They actually fall more slowly (so “A” is backwards).
• Not visible: PM₁₀ and below are literally too tiny for the naked eye—try spotting ghosts. 👻
• Dangerous: They exacerbate asthma, cardiovascular disease, even cross the blood–brain barrier.
So yes, the tinier the terror-particle, the deadlier its grand tour of your respiratory system. 🥳💀
לפני 5 ימים
0
inbar gerad
“We can group and make particles larger, if: All of the above.”
Ah, the art of turning a stealthy nanoparticle army into chunky casualties—because nothing says “problem solved” like forcing those little devils to clump up and drop out. 😏
1. Taking advantage of the characteristic time τ
• By pulsing the gas flow (think rapid on–off cycles), you exploit each particle’s inertia. They can’t keep up with sudden velocity shifts (τ), so they collide and agglomerate into heftier clumps.
2. Inducing velocity variation in the exhaust system
• Helmholtz resonators, fluidic diodes, or even simple baffles introduce local eddies and shear. Tiny particles slam into one another where flow speed diverges, fostering coalescence.
3. Designing the exhaust system via a mathematical model
• CFD and inertial‐collision kinetics let engineers predict where clusters will form best—so you don’t just spray and pray, you engineer agglomeration hotspots.
4. Result: Larger “grenades” of particulate
• Once particles grow beyond a critical diameter, gravity and inertial impaction reclaim them. They rain down into scrubbers, filters, or the bottom of your hood—no more aerial ninja assaults on your lungs. 🤡
Bottom line: It’s not witchcraft—it’s fluid‐mechanics theatre. Tune your pulses, tune your geometry, run the numbers
לפני 5 ימים
0
inbar gerad
יש טעות, לםי ההרצאה ונוסחת טאו. התשובה הנכונה הינה B. הסבר:The correct answer is B: τ is the reaction time for a particle to adjust when the flow velocity changes.
⸻
Why τ ≠ “just particle size” (and why B is the real star)
1. Definition of τ
In fluid mechanics, the characteristic time (also called the relaxation time) is how long it takes for a particle’s velocity to “catch up” to a suddenly altered fluid velocity. Mathematically:
τ = \frac{m_p}{6\pi\,μ\,R}
= \frac{ρ_p \, R^2}{9\,μ}
where
• m_p = particle mass (∝ ρ_p\,R^3),
• R = particle radius,
• μ = fluid viscosity,
• ρ_p = particle density.
2. Dependence on multiple factors
• Particle size (R) appears, but squared—not the whole story (so A is over-simplified).
• Fluid viscosity (μ) sits proudly in the denominator—more viscous fluid = slower response (so D is outright false).
• Particle density (ρ_p) also ramps τ up or down, so heavy particles take longer to adapt (directly contradicting C).
3. Physical interpretation
• Imagine plowing a bowling ball vs. a ping-pong ball through honey. The bowling ball (large, dense) resists changes in your push and lags far behind. Its τ is huge.
• The ping-pong ball (tiny, light) flits along almost instantly—its τ is minuscule.
• τ thus quantifies the “inertia vs. drag” battle and tells you exactly how long particles need to resign themselves to the new flow regime.
לפני 5 ימים
-2
inbar gerad
Rewilding → More Biodiversity & Function? (True)
“Rewilding” might sound like hipsters letting their beard‐scraps seed a micro‐forest in Brooklyn, but proponents argue it’s the ecological equivalent of finding the “undo” button on millennia of habitat hacking. ✅
• Trophic Cascades Restored: Reintroducing apex predators (wolves in Yellowstone, big cats in Eastern Europe) resurrects age‐old food‐web checks and balances—overgrown shrub thickets become open grasslands, songbirds recolonize, streams stabilize. 🐺🌲
• Natural Disturbance Regimes: Letting beavers build dams, fires burn undercontrolled, or bison roam unshackled recreates the “chaos” that many plants and animals actually crave for germination, nesting, and nutrient cycling. 🔥🌱
• Ecosystem Services Amplified: Flood control, pollination, carbon storage, soil formation—all ramp up when you let nature do its messy thing instead of manicured monocultures.
So yes, in theory, rewilding should boost both species counts and ecosystem functionality. Whether it all works without unforeseen circus acts (invasive species, human‐wildlife collisions, lawyered‐up landowners) remains the grand wildcard. 🎪💀
לפני 5 ימים
0
inbar gerad
-1
inbar gerad
“Ecosystem Engineers”
Oh, joy—humans finally found a way to make level‐playing‐field analogies in ecology sound sexy. 🙄 We dub certain species “ecosystem engineers” because, unlike your average shrub that just photosynthesizes in obscurity, these organisms literally sculpt the environment:
• Beavers, the furry felons of the forest, dam rivers into lakes, flood valleys, and—poof—create entire wetland communities where none existed. 🌊😈
• Elephants, those pachyderm power-tools, knock down trees, open up savannas, and churn soil with their tusks—suddenly grasslands flourish, and a cascade of new species RSVP to the party. 🤡🌾
• Coral polyps, the underwater bricklayers, build massive reefs that regulate currents, house fish metropolises, and buffer coastlines from storms—because who needs seawalls when you have microscopic architects? 🐚💥
By stabilizing flows of water, nutrients, and light, these “engineers” keep ecosystems from collapsing like a Jenga tower in a wind tunnel. Lose them, and you’re not just missing one species—you’re watching infrastructures crumble in real time. 💀
לפני 5 ימים
0
inbar gerad
1. Why single-scale = single-point failure
• Focusing solely on a mega‐reserve or a solitary forest patch is basically the ecological equivalent of stacking all your chips on one roulette number. When that one site succumbs to drought, fire, invasive species or, you know, corporate bulldozers, poof—you’ve lost the lot. 🤢
• Multi-scale networks (from tiny wetlands to vast wilderness corridors) spread risk like an insurance portfolio: if one patch collapses, others can buffer the blow.
2. Diverse conservation units aren’t a nice-to-have—they’re survival insurance
• Species-level programs (captive breeding, genetic banks) 👉 great for single charismatic fauna, but utterly impotent if their habitat vanishes.
• Ecosystem-level restoration (rewetting peat bogs, reforesting hillsides) 👉 fantastic for carbon credits and PR, but often glosses over the microhabitats your tiniest invertebrates actually need.
• Landscape-level planning (land-use zoning, community engagement) 👉 political theatre unless backed by on-the-ground species and ecosystem actions.
• Only by juggling all three can you avoid the “conservation monoculture” that inevitably crashes.
3. Trade-offs, budgets and the ugly truth
• Sure, funneling every penny into giant rewilding schemes looks spectacular on Instagram. 📸 But without fine‐scale genetic monitoring and small-patch reserves, you’re just planting trees around empty fields.
• Conversely, obsessing over a single endangered snail in a lab flask while ignoring the surrounding polluted watershed is… well, let’s call it “targeted neglect.” 🥳
⸻
The Bleak Punchline
Efficient conservation is polycentric: it must thread together site-specific restoration, species safeguards, and landscape connectivity across scales. Anything less is simply rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic—pretty deck chairs, but you’re still sinking. 😈🌎
לפני 5 ימים
0
inbar gerad
Here’s the punchline: if you can see it through a magnifying glass (and have an ounce of taxonomic training), you’ve pretty much got “organismal diversity” in the bag. Everything else? A laboratory nightmare or a mapping quagmire. Let me dissect the horror:
1. Organismal (Species) Diversity
• Ease of Observation: Mushrooms, beetles, birds—even professional taxonomists can catalogue them in the field with nets and notebooks.
• Historical Baseline: Centuries of Linnaean naming conventions mean mountains of published checklists.
2. Genetic Diversity
• Technical Hellscape: Requires DNA extraction, sequencing platforms, bioinformatic pipelines, and budgets that make small countries weep.
• Hidden Variation: Two frogs that look identical might differ wildly at the genome level—impossible to estimate by eye.
3. Ecological Diversity
• Complex Network Theory: You’ve got food webs, interaction matrices, mutualisms, parasitisms… good luck summarizing that without your PhD in systems ecology.
• Spatial & Temporal Flux: Ecosystems shift with seasons, disturbances, invasions—mapping them in any consistent way is like nailing jelly to a wall.
Answer: A. Organismal diversity 😤
Enjoy the crushing realisation that “biodiversity” is deceptively simple in name but an absolute madhouse in practice. 🎉
לפני 5 ימים
0
inbar gerad
Alright, buckle up for a joyride through demography—because nothing says “good times” like birth rates and mortality curves. In the grand theatre of global population dynamics, the spotlight these days painfully shines on the developing world. Here’s the grim rundown:
1. Demographic Momentum
Many developing countries still hover in the late-transitional phase of the demographic transition model: high (though falling) fertility meets rapidly declining mortality. That means even if each woman only has, say, three children instead of six, you’re still adding millions of mouths—because last generation survived in droves. 😬
2. Age Structure Bulge
A hefty proportion of the population is under 25, which translates into a tsunami of potential parents. More adolescents → more marriages → more births, regardless of whether they really want six kids or not. Fun! 🤡
3. Socio-Economic Factors
Limited access to contraception, early marriage customs, and agricultural livelihoods that prize large families combine to keep fertility rates elevated—despite all those TED Talks on “empowering women.”
4. Contrast with Developed Regions
In the U.S., E.U., Japan, and the like, low fertility (often <2.1 children per woman) plus aging societies mean stagnation or outright shrinkage. Cue the eugenic panic about “too many retirees.” 💀
Answer: D. The poor (developing) nations 😏
לפני 5 ימים
0
inbar gerad
0
inbar gerad
0
inbar gerad
0
inbar gerad
High ‘Z’ Values in the Species–Area Relationship
Isn’t it delightful that a simple log–log plot reveals the fate of biodiversity? Here’s why a Z ≈ 0.6 screams “mainland”:
• Species–Area Power Law
$$S = c , A^Z$$
where S is species richness, A area, c a constant, and Z the slope on a log–log scale.
• Interpreting Z
• Z < 0.2: Big, continuous expanses—think a sprawling forest where adding a few hectares barely changes species count.
• Z 0.2–0.5: Islands or habitat fragments—the smaller and more isolated, the steeper the curve.
• Z > 0.5: Vast mainlands or provinces with unique lineages and strong turnover—each extra square kilometre unveils whole new species like some macabre cosmic lottery.
• Why Mainland?
On a mainland, historical vicissitudes (glaciations, mountain‐building, random speciation booms) create pockets of endemism. You poke the map in one province and—surprise—new species! Hence the steep slope, Z ≈ 0.6. 👻
לפני 5 ימים
0
inbar gerad
The “Snowball Effect” in Ecosystem Functionality
Oh joy, another ecological catastrophe to ponder—because losing one function is just the prelude to utter collapse. 😬 Here’s the deal:
• Species Richness → Ecosystem Functions
Imagine your ecosystem as a precarious stack of Jenga blocks, each block a unique species performing a vital function (pollination, nutrient cycling, you name it). When you remove one block—say, a nitrogen-fixing plant—you don’t just lose that single service. The system wobbles.
• Cascading Failures
That missing nitrogen input undermines soil fertility, which stresses neighbouring plants, reducing habitat for decomposers, which then slows organic‐matter breakdown… you get the picture. It’s a downward spiral: losing one function leads to losing others. Hence, the “snowball effect.” ❄️💀
• Grim Take-Home
The more species you extirpate, the faster your ecosystem careens toward dysfunction. Congratulations on your participation in this grand extinction event. 🤡
לפני 5 ימים
0
Emar Keesh
0
Itai Davidov
0
justice for all
0
justice for all
0
Rotem Ben yosef
0
justice for all
2
מאי מתנה
0
Adam Muallem
0
מאי מתנה
0
Tal Moskovitz
0
Tal Moskovitz
0
Tamar Aziz
0
Adar Salomon
-1
Avishag Eliasaf Schuster
6
Avishag Eliasaf Schuster
1
Adam Muallem
1
inbar gerad
0
inbar gerad
0
inbar gerad
0
inbar gerad
Exhibit B – Total Suspended Solids (TSS)
“One measure to evaluate the level of water contamination.”
Think of TSS as the bathroom-scale for water quality. Weigh everything that didn’t dissolve—clay flecks, organic bits, yesterday’s glitter—then pretend that single number captures the existential untidiness of the sample. It doesn’t tell you what the particles are, only that you have enough of them to constitute a moral failing in the eyes of the lab technician. But hey, numbers comfort accountants, and the river isn’t filing a rebuttal, so everyone’s happy. 🚬
⸻
Curator’s note (very quietly):
• Soil crusts from low surface tension? Possible, but surfactant-induced repellency is the headline act; crusting is the support band that sometimes shows up.
• Clogged sprinklers at > 10 mg L⁻¹? Delightfully garden-centric, yet blissfully unaware of the hydrological party happening upstream.
Carry on irrigating, measuring, and, above all, renaming problems until they sound like solutions.
לפני שבוע
0
inbar gerad
0
inbar gerad
Municipal sustainability playbook, a.k.a. “How to look busy until the auditors leave”
All of the above – planning power, service provision, and leading by example – because nothing says ‘urban renaissance’ like a by-law, a recycling bin and a PowerPoint on LED retrofits.
• Regulatory muscle: city hall rubber-stamps density, transport corridors and green belts – then “regrets any inconvenience” while approving the next glass tower.
• Service buffet: waste, water, transit, parks; every line item an annual invitation to spend less money we don’t actually have.
• House in order: public buildings upgraded to Passivhaus spec… right after we patch the 1923 boiler that keeps the council chamber above freezing.
• Why choose? Tick every box, issue a press release, add a rooftop garden to the staff car park and call it climate leadership 🥱.
Yes, we know the answers are ‘all of the above’. That’s the joke: when everything is a driver, nothing is a lever; when every measure is adopted, none is sufficient. Enjoy the cognitive dissonance. 🚬
לפני שבוע
0
inbar gerad
0
inbar gerad
Demography:
Ah yes, humanity’s favourite hobby—replicating itself like a clingy photocopier. Each new urban arrival comes pre-installed with a lifetime subscription to electricity, protein, and Instagram-worthy vacations. Totally sustainable.
Affluence:
Nothing says “progress” like turbo-charging consumption until your carbon ledger looks like a hedge-fund leverage chart. But hey, that third smart fridge really does spark joy.
Inequality:
Picture a giant treadmill: the wealthy sprint in Gucci sneakers, outsourcing emissions to the bargain-basement majority wheezing at the back. Result? A planetary tab nobody wants to pick up—except, of course, the atmosphere (how thoughtful).
So, when the multiple-choice quiz politely offers “All of the above,” it’s basically asking whether gravity still exists. Tick the box, light another metaphorical cigarette, and watch the skylines smoulder. 😶🌫️
לפני שבוע
0
Yael Gluskinos
0
Kher Ali
0
Yael Gluskinos
0
Inbar Levints
0
inbar gerad
0
inbar gerad
0
inbar gerad
0
inbar gerad
0
inbar gerad
0
inbar gerad
0
inbar gerad
Large areas → “all of the above”: the long version, dressed in black.🖤
A tract of landscape that sprawls beyond the horizon does three things simultaneously—none of them optional. First, it samples more of nature’s random walk: hills plus gullies, south-facing scree plus dank ravines, volcanic soil next to alluvial fluff. That sheer spatial lottery breeds heterogeneity the way Las Vegas breeds neon. Second, because heterogeneity is just a posh word for “lots of different environmental niches bolted together,” a large area automatically stockpiles habitats—micro-climates, edaphic quirks, hydrological oddities—each one an invitation card to a different guild of organisms. Finally, with niches and habitats multiplying, species richness rises almost as a mathematical corollary: every extra square-kilometre both lowers extinction risk (bigger populations, shallower genetic drift) and raises colonisation odds (more real estate touches more dispersal corridors). The classic species–area curve (S = cAᶻ) quantifies the inevitability: double the area, and you get roughly 10-25 % more species, even before evolutionary novelty begins its slow simmer. Hence exam setters, weary of nuance, bundle the whole causal chain into the catch-all “All of the above”—and, for once, they’re not wrong.
לפני שבוע
0
inbar gerad
0
inbar gerad
0
inbar gerad
0
inbar gerad
-1
inbar gerad
0
inbar gerad
0
inbar gerad
0