Tag Archives: Videos

Why do cats’ eyes glow in the dark?

Curious Kids is a series for children of all ages. If you have a question you’d like an expert to answer, send it to curiouskidsus@theconversation.com.


Why do cats’ eyes glow in the dark? Chloe, age 10, Barkhamsted, Connecticut


Cats and many other animals, including most dogs, can reflect light from their eyes. That’s why cats’ eyes will usually shine brightly in photos taken in a dimly lit room or glow when illuminated in the dark by a flashlight or a car’s headlights.

Species whose eyes glow have evolved to see better in low light because they either forage or need to look out for predators throughout the night, or they do most of their hunting at dawn and dusk. In fact, domesticated cats can see in conditions that are only 16% as bright as what people require.

Above: Photo / Adobe Stock

Cats accomplish this because their pupils – the openings that appear black in the middle of their eyes that widen and narrow in response to light conditions – are special. Pupils operate like windows, with bigger ones letting more light into the eye. And a cat’s pupils can become up to 50% larger than human pupils in dim light. They also have a higher number of a specific type of light-sensing cell in the back of their eyes than we do. These cells, called rods, catch low-level light.

Humans do not have a tapetum lucidum but cats, including lynxes and pumas, do. The Open University, CC BY-SA

The tapetum lucidum

In addition to having large pupils and lots of rods, cats have something people don’t: a tapetum lucidum, a Latin medical term that translates to “bright or shining tapestry.” The tapetum lucidum is also known as “eyeshine.”

It’s located in the back of the eye behind the retina – a thin layer of tissue that receives light, converts the light to an electrical signal and sends this signal to the brain to interpret the image.

A cat’s tapetum lucidum is made up of cells with crystals that, like a mirror, reflect light back to the retina. This gives the retina a second chance to absorb more light.

The feline tapetum lucidum is special because its reflective compound is riboflavin, a type of vitamin B. Riboflavin has unique properties that amplify light to a specific wavelength that cats can see well, which greatly increases the sensitivity of the retina to low light.

In cats, the tapetum most often glows yellow-green or yellow-orange, but the color varies, just like their irises – the colorful part of their eye, which can be green, yellow, blue or golden. Variation in tapetum color is not unique to cats and can be found in lots of species.

Most dogs’ eyes will glow in dark spaces when a light shines on them. Tommy Greco, CC BY-SA

Other animals’ eyes glow too

Many other animals that need to see at night have a tapetum lucidum. That includes predators and prey alike, everything from wild foxes to farmed sheep and goats.

The tapetum lucidum is also useful to fish, dolphins and other aquatic animals, because it helps them see better in murky, dark water.

In land animals, the tapetum is found in the top half of the eye behind the retina, because they need to see what is on the ground best. But in aquatic animals the tapetum takes up most of the eye, because they need to see all around them in the dark.

Like cats, the lemur, a small primate, and its close relative, the bush baby – also known as a “night monkey” – also have a superreflective tapetum made with riboflavin.

Even though a lot of animals have eyeshine, some small domesticated dogs lack this trait. Most animals with blue eyes and white or light-colored coats have also lost this trait.

So don’t be alarmed if your dog’s or cat’s eyes don’t glow. The list of other species without a tapetum lucidum includes pigs, birds, reptiles and most rodents and primates – including humans.

Is there a downside?

Unfortunately, animals with a tapetum lucidum sacrifice some visual acuity for their ability to see in dim light.

That’s because all that light bouncing around as it reflects off the tapetum can make what they see a little fuzzier. So, a cat needs to be seven times closer to an object to see it as sharply as a person would in a brightly lit place.

But don’t worry, I’m sure your cat would rather see clearly at night than read a book.


Hello, curious kids! Do you have a question you’d like an expert to answer? Ask an adult to send your question to CuriousKidsUS@theconversation.com. Please tell us your name, age and the city where you live.

And since curiosity has no age limit – adults, let us know what you’re wondering, too. We won’t be able to answer every question, but we will do our best.

Braidee Foote, Clinical Assistant Professor of Veterinary Ophthalmology, University of Tennessee

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.


Check out Lynxotic on YouTube

Find books on Music, Movies & Entertainment and many other topics at Bookshop.org

Lynxotic may receive a small commission based on any purchases made by following links from this page

How MacKenzie Scott’s $12 billion in gifts to charity reflect an uncommon trust in the groups she supports

Above: Photo Collage / Lynxotic

MacKenzie Scott disclosed on March 23, 2022, that she had given US$3.9 billion to 465 nonprofits in the previous nine months. These no-strings-attached donations bring the total she has given away in the past two years to at least $12 billion. We asked philanthropy historian Tyrone Freeman to weigh in on Scott’s approach to donating large sums of money and her emphasis on other forms of generosity.

Is Scott’s philanthropic philosophy unique?

After her 2019 divorce from Jeff Bezos, Scott signed the Giving Pledge, a commitment that extremely affluent people make to give away at least half their wealth.

The pledge’s signatories may write a letter summing up why they are giving so much to charity and what their priorities are, which gets posted to the internet. Scott did that and amended the letter when she remarried. What makes her stand out from others who have signed the Giving Pledge is that she continues to write about her donations and what she’s learning about giving in general. As a historian of philanthropy, I study the philosophies and motivations of donors, which I call their “gospels of giving.”

Her approach is clearly unique among her peers – other billionaire donors – because of how she relates to the organizations she supports and the diversity of those causes. She says her overarching goal is “to support the needs of underrepresented people from groups of all kinds.”

Scott values the expertise of the groups she supports and their leadership. She says she doesn’t adhere to the conventional concept of philanthropy, and she questions the way many of us think about generosity. To her it is not just a numbers game. It’s more about the spirit of giving, the sacrifice in the gift.

One major difference is that very wealthy donors tend to drill down in a single focused area, such as higher education, or a few causes – perhaps the arts or medical research. There are advisers who often recommend this approach to have the most impact.

But the nonprofits she has funded cover pretty much everything charitable donors support, from education to health, from social justice to the arts. Her latest donations even include global organizations like CARE and HIAS that are serving the needs of Ukrainians whose lives have been turned upside down.

Which other gifts stand out?

Some of the largest gifts among the most recently announced are for Girls & Boys Clubs of America, Communities in Schools, Habitat for Humanity and Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

I think it’s important that she didn’t give to only their affiliates in major cities. Foundations have been underinvesting in rural America for years. Scott’s supporting dozens of local and regional affiliates in suburban and rural counties.

As I have explained before, her support for historically Black colleges and universities is important. Two recent gifts that she made, to Meharry Medical College and Charles R. Drew University of Medicine and Science, $20 million apiece, were very significant in light of how elite white donors undercut Black higher ed institutions in the early 20th century.

Does it matter when she publicly discloses information?

Scott posted an update in December 2021 without any details about her latest donations.

Instead, she praised other forms of giving by people without billions to their name. One thing she has drawn attention to is how there’s a lot of informal giving, and that it’s not valued. This puts Scott where the average person is, especially in communities of color, where people look after neighbors and family members regularly in their giving.

Since these are charitable activities you can’t deduct from your taxes, you might not think of these helping behaviors and many forms of civic engagement as philanthropy.

Unlike nearly all donors operating on a big scale, she has no offices and, so far, no website. She’s been criticized for a lack of transparency, especially after she didn’t divulge details in December. This sentiment has to do with the widespread belief that the public has a right to know when private interests spread their resources around for public benefit.

Her blog posts draw attention to trends people might miss regarding the groups she supports. She states the percentage of these organizations that are led by women, people of color or people she says have “lived experience in the regions they support and the issues they seek to address.”

When somebody shows you how they’re thinking about their giving and what they support, that could have an impact on others. It may change whether they donate only to their alma mater, for example. Colleges and museums are used to getting these big gifts, but many of the organizations Scott is giving tens of millions of dollars to say these are the largest donations they’ve ever received. She’s shattering the notion of who is a worthy recipient – the unspoken idea that only the elite institutions and the most well-known are worthy of big gifts.

How does Scott talk about giving that isn’t purely monetary?

For her it’s about generosity, not just dollars. She’s definitely thinking beyond the tax breaks she’ll get for charitable gifts.

Her December 2021 post alludes to volunteering and other activities she calls the “work of practical beneficence” practiced by millions of people, estimating that it’s worth about $1 trillion. Researchers have reached similar conclusions.

She also highlighted the estimated $68 billion in annual global remittances in that post. When people come to this country, begin working and send money to their homelands, that is a form of philanthropy. They may not use the word, but it’s the same idea, because it’s giving back to your family and your country of origin, and it responds to the same motivation as a donation to an established charity.

I agree that there’s much more to American philanthropy than the roughly half a trillion dollars donated annually. There are other kinds of giving that fly below the radar screen that are important for survival, community-building, meeting basic needs and even for democracy.

She also addresses the role and value of using your voice as an important part of social change. The history of the abolition, women’s suffrage, civil rights movements and various movements today bear this out. That is something I focus on in my research. https://www.youtube.com/embed/KS2n7VUBOa0?wmode=transparent&start=0 Historian Tyrone McKinley Freeman joined Bridgid Coulter Cheadle and Kimberly Jeffries Leonard to discuss how Black leaders are following in the footsteps of history’s trailblazers by devoting their time, talent and voice to many causes.

What do you hope the public takes away from Scott’s approach to giving?

Scott has emerged as the most notable practitioner of what’s called trust-based philanthropy. That refers to the notion that there should be fewer strings attached to donations and that reporting requirements and other expectations that often come with grants from foundations can be excessive.

In December 2020, Scott mentioned that she has a team of advisers to help her with screening, although she hasn’t shared what that process looks like. But after that, she is not asking anything else of the organizations she funds. Instead, she has chosen to step back and let them exercise responsibility, giving them space and flexibility.

I hope the public hears her answers to what I like to ask: Who counts as a philanthropist and what counts as philanthropy? I agree with Scott that it’s about more than money and that philanthropy is not only the domain of the wealthy.

Tyrone McKinley Freeman, Associate Professor of Philanthropic Studies, IUPUI

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Related Articles:


Check out Lynxotic on YouTube

Find books on Music, Movies & Entertainment and many other topics at Bookshop.org

Lynxotic may receive a small commission based on any purchases made by following links from this page

Viral ‘pyramid’ UFO footage confirmed as Legitimate by Pentagon

Above: Photo Credit: Albert Antony / Unsplash

Official acknowledgement of ‘Unidentified Aerial Phenomena’ is becoming more commonplace

After a viral video was shared massively across the internet, now the Pentagon has confirmed that the footage showing what appears to be UFOs is authentic. Even more significant is the fact that the pyramid-shaped unidentified flying objects were “stalking” the guided-missile destroyer USS Russell in coastal waters near California in July 2019.

In an interview with Fox News Pentagon spokeswoman Susan Gough said “I can confirm that the referenced photos and videos were taken by Navy personnel. The UAPTF [Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force] has included these incidents in their ongoing examinations.” 

“I can confirm that the referenced photos and videos were taken by Navy personnel. The UAPTF [Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force] has included these incidents in their ongoing examinations.

Pentagon spokeswoman Susan Gough

Whoever is operating these technologies are far more advanced than anything we have in the U.S. arsenal and that should be a warning sign. We need to find out the intent of the operators of these vehicles.” 

Jeremy Corbell, UFO researcher and filmmaker interviewed on Fox News

The public acknowledgment of the incident, that happened near San Clemente Island, where five different U.S. warships were operating at the time, was a required act. This is due to the new provision in the Intelligence Authorization Act of 2021 which requires the U.S. to disclose what it knows about UFOs.

According to the provision the director of national intelligence (DNI) must work with the secretary of defense to create a comprehensive report of what information the U.S. government has regarding unidentified flying objects. The full report is due on June 1, 2021.

A highly sophisticated aerial display leaves doubt and open questions as to the origin of the objects

The incident that is seen in the footage involved unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) or “drones”. In addition to the otherworldly appearance, the UFOs were observed flying around the U.S. warships for multiple hours, longer than would be possible based on the maximum flight time of most commercial drones currently known and available.

Highly coordinated and precise movements were also noted, raising the question of what methods of control were being utilized. Further questioned were raised by the calculated range of more than 100 nautical miles that would have been required, under conditions of very low visibility, that would have been required during the time elapsed during the encounters. 

Though investigations have been conducted by the U.S. Coast Guard, Nave and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the mysterious UFOs and their behavior continues to perplex.

The new openness required by the Intelligence Authorization Act of 2021  is a welcome change and more details are bound to surface regarding these phenomena. Since August 2020, the Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force (UAPTF) is known to be operating and putting further official resources behind the study and analysis of UFOs and other “Unidentified Aerial Phenomena”. 

Stay tuned…


Find books on Space ExplorationSustainable EnergyRacial Equality & Justice and many other topics at our sister site: Cherrybooks on Bookshop.org

Enjoy Lynxotic at Apple News on your iPhone, iPad or Mac.

Lynxotic may receive a small commission based on any purchases made by following links from this page

Netflix brings “Bridgerton” Christmas day: Period piece meets Debauchery

https://video.twimg.com/amplify_video/1338500760687009795/vid/1280x720/1RUVG2a4ULNOiN3_.mp4?tag=13

Above: Trailer for “Bridgerton” / Netflix

Shondaland brings Julia Quinn’s romance novels to the screen 

Shonda Rhimes is known for her widely successful TV shows, including the popular titles: “Grey’s Anatomy”, “Scandal” and “How to get away with Murder” to name just a few.  Creator and Producer Rhimes is at it again, this time not for the ABC network where most of her series live, but for the Netflix streaming platform.  

Read More: Trailer for ‘Coming 2 America’ welcomes Eddie Murphy back as Prince Akeem

Her incoming series “Bridgerton”, will be played out in 8 episodes and will be released Christmas day. Her inspiration was based on the steamy romance novels by Julia Quinn that follows the eight close-knit siblings of the Bridgerton family in London.

The show’s setting reveals the lives of the Bridgerton family, living among the high society elites in the Regency-era England (around 1800’s). The siblings look for love and happiness, while encountering power struggles, love tangles and all kinds of other drama. Based on the trailer,  “Bridgerton” appears to be a mix of the historical meets modern. 

Very typical of romance in the 19th century where sexual relations were usually kept off screen or rather behind closed doors, this show will be very different. For the Netflix show, buckle up, as the series will be laced with all things associated with carnal pleasures:  scandal, sex, romance, gossip, and more sex (enough to make Jane Austen blush). 

Rhimes also inserted more of her own styles, incorporating  21st century twists, particularly by casting diverse characters throughout the series. The show’s Queen Charlotte, played by Golda Rosheuvel, is black, which showcases how the series will be a nice twist to the typical period pieces that have been adapted to TV and film. Also the the series will score orchestral version of current pop hits by Billie Eilish and Ariana Grande. 


Subscribe to our newsletter for all the latest updates directly to your inBox.

Find books on Music, Movies & Entertainment and many other topics at our sister site: Cherrybooks on Bookshop.org

Enjoy Lynxotic at Apple News on your iPhone, iPad or Mac.

Lynxotic may receive a small commission based on any purchases made by following links from this page.

YouTube Highest Paid List for 2020 out, and yes #1 is 9yrs old

Above: Photo Collage / Lynxotic

Top 10 YouTube stars and their earning power for the year

Most of the 2019 top earners spots have carried forward into 2020 and continue to rake in millions of dollars and subscribers for their video clips. With Ryan Kaji at #1 and Mr. Beast at #2 it appears that the absolute top of the YouTube pyramid, both have a formula that just keeps on going. Both the numbers based on earning and, even more so, views, are absolutely astronomical – implying a kind of snowball effect for the top accounts.

Surprising because of his age, yet at the same time not so surprising, is how 9-year-old Ryan Kaji of “Ryan’s World” has once again placed at the very top of the list for the highest paid YouTuber for 2020.  Starting up in 2015, his videos have since totaled a whopping 43,907,425,279 views (43 billion!).

Last year he earned $26 million and this year he earned a considerable amount more at $29.5 million.  That is a whole lot of money for making videos that show the young boy unboxing toys, creating DIY arts and crafts and science experiments. 

According to Forbes:

“The nine-year-old star is flying high—literally. This November he became the first YouTuber featured in the Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade with a float based on his superhero alter ego. It was a marketing ploy as much as it was a thrilling moment for the kids who tune into Kaji’s videos of DIY science experiments, family storytime and reviews of new toys. That’s just the start: The bulk of his business comes from licensing deals for more than 5,000 Ryan’s World products—everything from bedroom decor and action figures to masks and walkie talkies.”

#1 Ryan Kaji

  • Earnings: $29.5 million
  • Views: 12.2 billion
  • Subscribers: 41.7 million

#2 Mr. Beast (Jimmy Donaldson)

  • Earnings: $24 million
  • Views: 3 billion
  • Subscribers: 47.8 million

#3 Dude Perfect

  • Earnings: $23 million
  • Views: 2.77 billion
  • Subscribers: 57.5 million 

#4 Rhett and Link

  • Earnings: $20 million 
  • Views: 1.9 billion
  • Subscribers: 41.8 million

#5 Markiplier (Mark Fischbach)

  • Earnings: $19.5 million
  • Views: 3.1 billion
  • Subscribers: 27.8 million

#6 Preston Arsement

  • Earnings: $19 million 
  • Views: 3.3 billion
  • Subscribers: 33.4 million

#7 Nastya (Anastasia Radzinskaya)

  • Earnings: $18.5 million
  • Views: 39 billion
  • Subscribers: 190.6 million

#8 Blippi (Stevin John)

  • Earnings: $17 million 
  • Views: 8.2 billion
  • Subscribers: 27.4 million

#9 David Dobrik

  • Earnings: $15.5 million
  • Views: 2.7 billion
  • Subscribers: 18 million

#10 Jeffree Star

  • Earnings: $15 million
  • Total Views (from June 2019 to June 2020): 600 million
  • Total Subscribers: 16.9 million

Subscribe to our newsletter for all the latest updates directly to your inBox.

Find books on Music, Movies & Entertainment and many other topics at our sister site: Cherrybooks on Bookshop.org

Enjoy Lynxotic at Apple News on your iPhone, iPad or Mac and subscribe to our newsletter.

Lynxotic may receive a small commission based on any purchases made by following links from this page.

The Short and Tragic Life of Quibi: Obituary for a Hollywood Experiment

PHOTO COLLAGE / LYNXOTIC

The unconventional streaming service is done – a flameout less than seven months after launching

On October 21stThe Wall Street Journal caught a whiff that a certain young video streaming service was about to bite the dust. Rumors turned out to be true, as the hardly six-month-old Quibi shut down that same day.

Quibi was an unconventional streaming service from its very beginning, a risky idea from Hollywood veterans Jeffrey Katzenberg and Meg Whitman. Conceptualized in August 2018, their idea was to create a streaming platform dedicated to short-term content on mobile screens. The founders figured that people might appreciate “quick bites” of entertainment on the go— hence the service’s name.

Read More: Quibi Gone after Shortest Stint in Streaming History: WSJ Reports

Although the idea was irregular, Katzenberg and Whitman were still able to work their magic and build up hype for the product. In the months leading up to its April 2020 launch, Quibi ads were everywhere, many of them featuring notable celebrities. The moguls behind the project also raised over $1.75 billion from high-profile investors and garnered an additional $150 million in ad revenue from the likes of Pepsi and Walmart. In the final hours before its release, Quibi was starting to look like a forthcoming underdog success story.

But when the launch happened, audiences quickly realized some issues with Quibi. It lacked particularly alluring content; the small-screen “Turnstyle” optimization was unusual; many questioned, “Why pay money for such a service when there are so many free mobile streaming destinations like YouTube or TikTok?”

Evidently, Quibi was off to a rough start, but the road only got rockier. In May, a lawsuit emerged as the video company Eko sued Quibi for infringing on a patent for the “Trurnstyle” technology.

Now with heavy criticism and a legal battle on their hands, Quibi’s viewership also started to dwindle. The number of subscribers was actually disappointing from the very beginning, but the figures really started declining around Quibi’s three-month birthday, when the service’s lengthy free trial was running out.

Why did it fail? And what does it means for streaming to come?

According to The Verge, one report estimated that Quibi lost ninety percent of its subscribers in July, just when they were all supposed to start paying the monthly fee: $4.99 with ads, $7.99 without ads.

All of these factors could have played into Quibi’s premature demise this week. However, the formal announcement, penned in a letter from Katzenberg and Whitman, blamed the coronavirus. While COVID-19 has helped other streaming services like Netflix and Disney+ boom, forcing audiences to seek home entertainment as theaters closed, it has done the opposite for Quibi.

Essentially, part of Quibi’s appeal was to attract a mobile audience— people who were riding trains or sitting in waiting rooms. Now that most people are working from home and avoiding public spaces, a short piece of visual narrative watched from a smartphone does not seem as appealing, even if the service did just launch its first TV app a few days ago.

Read More: Read More: Quibi Shifts Gears Following Rough Start: Katzenberg Blames Underperformance On Coronavirus

The other part of Katzenberg and Whitman’s letter stressed how Quibi could not carry on as a stand-alone company. Allegedly, the partners tried getting Apple, WarnerMedia, Facebook, and NBCUniversal to acquire Quibi, but no one was buying. Thus, they had no choice but to close up shop.

Quibi stood as a big Hollywood experiment from the get go. Although both of its founders were well experienced in the entertainment industry, a small-screen subscription based streaming service would be considered a bold endeavor for anyone to sell.

We can blame Quibi’s failures on timing, pandemics, competition, or simple over-ambition, but in the end, the only hard truth is that the platform lasted a very short time. Perhaps the shortest time ever for a recognizable streaming service.

Sometimes, Hollywood rewards audacity, like when a young director breaks the rules or a studio chooses to invest in a chancy intellectual property. However, for every Jordan Peele’s “Get Out” or Disney’s acquisition of Marvel, there are a million projects that didn’t make it. Sadly, Quibi is one of them.

In the streaming war, an ongoing battle where Disney+ and Netflix seem to be winning while HBOMax, AppleTV+, and NBCUniversal’s Peacock hold their ground, Quibi will go down as the young, daring private, sent out by senior officers to storm the trenches, only to take one in the gut early on.

We will never know what it could have been, and there may be others like it to come. For now, though, Quibi may be a cautionary tale for entertainment executives, one that has alas met a hasty epilogue. 


Find books on BusinessSustainable EnergyScreenwriting and many other topics at our sister site: Cherrybooks on Bookshop.org

Enjoy Lynxotic at Apple News on your iPhone, iPad or Mac or subscribe to our newsletter.

Lynxotic may receive a small commission based on any purchases made by following links from this page.

Quibi Gone after Shortest Stint in Streaming History: WSJ Reports

From the Bigger they come dept.

From initial announcement of the high level duo of former eBay CEO Meg Whitman and Hollywood Mogul Jeffrey Katzenberg there was always something unlikely about Quibi

Read More: Quibi Shifts Gears Following Rough Start: Katzenberg Blames Underperformance On Coronavirus

In some ways like “WeWork” for streaming – at least in the hype and over-financing department,  the concept of reinventing the way that stories are told on screens and arbitrarily cutting all traditional sizes into 10 minute “bites” (quick-bites, hence the wonky name) seemed from day-one, to many, as a dubious goal. 

Not only driven by outdated thinking on the creative-business axis: stars-only, big money leading the way, astronomical budgets, virtually no one involved with a current digital media background, in some ways its shocking it lasted this long. 

Quibi Holdings LLC, which according to the WSJ article, had raised 1.75 billion in start-up capital is shutting itself down.  

A lawsuit from a tech company who claims ownership of the streaming tech used by the service, in particular the “turn style” feature, where the videos could be watched either in landscape mode or portrait, with the viewer able to switch back and forth at any time.  Interactive-video company Eko initiated a lawsuit with the help of Elliot Management.

This is a better, more plausible, reason, in addition to the lack of interest from viewers, than using the pandemic and the timing of the initial launch coming during lock-down as an excuse.

Although Quibi attracted major advertisers and achieved a pre-sale of $150 million in booked ad-revenue, ahead of the initial launch, payments where predicated, as is typical, on viewership numbers which never materialized. 

This news is yet another indicator of the incredibly volatile nature of the online video market, and is a harbinger of likely many more shake-ups and flame-outs in the near future…


Find books on BusinessSustainable EnergyScreenwriting and many other topics at our sister site: Cherrybooks on Bookshop.org

Enjoy Lynxotic at Apple News on your iPhone, iPad or Mac or subscribe to our newsletter.

Lynxotic may receive a small commission based on any purchases made by following links from this page.