The video China's Geography Problem mentions an interesting linking between Chinese population and the fact that they use rice as a main nitration resource

However sounds like it's not percise fact. Found this comment about it on reddit:

• India India, wheat yields are currently (and historically) higher than rice yields. If you can grow more wheat than rice per acre, how does that favor higher population density with rice?
• In India, rice growing regions don't correlate all that well with population density. Rice is grown across the eastern half of the country, from Tamil Nadu in the south to Uttar Pradesh in the north. But the highest population density was never in the south, it's been in an east-west belt across the Indo-Gangetic plain.
• In China, rice yields are higher than wheat, but this is a relatively recent phenomenon beginning in the 1960's. Prior to that, yields were about the same. And historically, rice yields may actually have been lower than wheat, before the Song dynasty made massive improvements to rice farming around 1,000 AD (introduction of Vietnamese rice and irrigation infrastructure for paddies).
• Rice has about 10% more calories per unit dry weight than wheat, but wheat has over 5 times as much protein as rice. It's hard to make any clear comparison of which supports more people, since both calories and protein are essential in food.
• As you say, rice farming is predominant in southeast Asia, where very little wheat is grown. And rice farming is as old or even older in southeast Asia than in China or India. Why then has their population density remained relatively low, compared to China or India? I think a better explanation is the existence of the vast alluvial floodplains of the Indus and Ganges in India, and of the Yangtse and Yellow River in China. Nothing of this scale exists in southeast Asia.

#China

:ID: 93d2vtz0gzj0

A popsci website the concentrate on communication theory, talking about The Propaganda Model, says that it's universally applicable, although it is known that the propaganda model doesn't apply to communists states where the main interest is not driven by money.

CLOCK: [2023-07-25 Tue 22:46]–[2023-07-25 Tue 23:21] => 0:35

Facial beauty prediction is still a relatively nascent domain; most of the time the results are not credible, + the public dataset they used in the study(Rasmussen 2023) is pretty inexhaustive (5500 for 60 raters) with only frontal faces. The dailymail statement is just too far from what is actually proposed in the original paper. I should write soon about how this relates to the propaganda model.

This video here https://youtu.be/LXZpZUeYA6E about al-Mutanabbi is perhaps the greatest collection of inaccurate information about him.

From: https://x.com/strandbergbio/status/1938820668977750190

I recently looked into the claim that chess grandmasters burn 6000 calories a day during tournaments and found that the number was made up by Robert Sapolsky, a popular author and professor