I actually fact checked this and it’s true.

      • DrinkMonkey@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        11 months ago

        I think it’s also worth mentioning that Polaris Aa, the youngest star in the triplet, is also the brightest by 3 orders of magnitude. Without Polaris Aa, we wouldn’t actually consider it as the North Star at all…so I think you are safe to continue using this as a fact.

        Go blow some people’s minds, everyone!

      • DrinkMonkey@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        11 months ago

        My understanding is that, on a cosmic scale, these timeframes are not tremendously different!

  • miss_brainfart@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    11 months ago

    And then you add the fact that sharks have barely evolved because they’ve been the perfect silent killer since the dawn of time.

    Another fun fact:
    Sharks don’t make sound. They don’t have any organ for the purpose of making sound. That is creepy as all hell.

    • Gladaed@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      11 months ago

      Just because they didn’t change their appearance doesnt mean they did not evolve. It is somewhat misleading to say that, but conveys a point I guess.

      • miss_brainfart@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        11 months ago

        I made sure to say barely instead of not at all, but you’re right, there was certainly some evolution happening

      • DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        11 months ago

        More relevantly, the fossil records for sharks are mostly their teeth and jaws, because all their other bones are cartilage and rarely fossilize.

        “Sharks haven’t significantly evolved in appearance in 350 million years” is therefore based on reconstructions made under the assumption that the old sharks mostly looked like current sharks, which may or may not be true.

        Though we can get a surprising amount of information that way, for example one change is that their jaws used be more at the end of their snout instead of more underslung like today, like so:

        https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/new-technologies-reveal-strange-jaws-prehistoric-sharks-180977396

        You’ll note the Goblin Shark still has hints of that design.

    • Hamartia@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      That can’t be true. I distinctly remember the shark in Jaws: The Revenge roaring. So get your facts straight.

      • Victoria@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        11 months ago

        Yes, actually. Example: Triglidae

        They are bottom-dwelling fish, living down to 200 m (660 ft), although they can be found in much shallower water. Most species are around 30 to 40 cm (12 to 16 in) in length. They have an unusually solid skull, and many species also possess armored plates on their bodies. Another distinctive feature is the presence of a “drumming muscle” that makes sounds by beating against the swim bladder

  • aelwero@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    And they’re gonna go away because some wingnut convinced a bunch of people that their fins cause boners.

    • hallettj@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      Wow, this is one of the most complicated Snopes analyses I’ve seen. But it seems like the statement is accurate with caveats. If the brightest component of Polaris is probably 50 million years old what was there before wasn’t really Polaris. And then it doesn’t make a difference whether sharks have been around for 450 million or 195 million years.