I think the difference in time is too big. Also, in the talk page’s archive it is stated that the wikipedia was updated because of this meme, and not the other way around. This is from the talk page:

Looking through the archived history of the talk page, I can confirm that the claim on the wiki page is derived from the viral post, and not the other way around: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gulf_of_Mexico/Archive_3#Chalchiuhtlicueyecatl

How did I miss that?!

My timeline is incorrect then. Since the post from sassymetischick.bsky predates the wiki edit, it is more likely that the wiki edit was made in response to this meme, and not the other way around. This pretty invalidates what I said above…

I still can’t find any evidence of this being an actual trend, but I no longer have a good guess about the origin.

Cuando quieras! 😁

Yes, but that version is in German. That website also has one in English: https://annas-archive.org/slow_download/24154814bfe1e676d79509c3db1f74a4/0/0

Let’s see…

Woah, interesting. The author is José López Portillo. I thought he shared the name with a former Mexican president, but, nope, the author is a former Mexican president.

The title of the English version is a bit different, but the text appears to be the same. It is a novel, and I can find no mention of the gulf of Mexico or of Chalchiuhtlicueyecatl in this book. To me it looks like a mistake in the citation.

The claim appears to come from this text (citation 1): https://www.scribd.com/document/703207646/Dioses-prehispanicos-de-Mexico-mitos-y-deidades-del-panteon-Fernandez-Adela-1992-Mexico-D-F-Panorama-Editorial-9789683803061-cbee5

Unfortunately, that book does not contain references nor is it stated where this claim comes from.

EDIT: As indepndnt mentioned in a comment below, the OP was posted on February 14, which pre-dates the wikipedia edits. So, my conclusions below about the timeline are not valid.

Hah, sure, let’s investigate 🕵️‍♂️

The term ‘Chalchiuhtlicueyecatl’ was added as a potential Aztec name to the English wikipedia page on February 15, 2025, by user ‘Mxn’.

The description of the edit is the following:

Frum says the Aztecs had no specific name for the gulf, which is plausible in a practical sense, but Fernández gives a specific religious name and is more of a reliable source on this topic

If we investigate a bit further, we can see that the term Chalchiuhtlicueyecatl is described to be a name for the ‘Gulf of Mexico’ in the spanish Wikipedia: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chalchiuhtlicueyecatl

This page was updated to include the description of Chalchiuhtlicueyecatl as the ‘Gulf of Mexico’ in September 16, 2018. I don’t have access to the citation so I don’t know if the citation specifies if this term is still known/used.

If you check the history you will find that the same ‘Mxn’ fixed a typo in this page on February 15, 2025.

So, from this sequence of events it is highly likely that the term ‘Chalchiuhtlicueyecatl’ was included into the Gulf of Mexico wiki page as a result of the user Mxn performing an active search for Aztec names for the Gulf of Mexico, and finding this connection between the term an the gulf by searching on Wikipedia. This information did not come from recent news about the term being used by natives.

I can find no evidence of native people referring to the gulf of Mexico as ‘Chalchiuhtlicueyecatl’ more frequently or at all. I can find no mention of this becoming viral in Mexico.

I find it highly unlikely that:

• User Mxn added an obscure Aztec term to the Wiki page two weeks ago

AND

• This same obscure Aztec term coincidentally began being used by Mexican natives, and this trend became popular enough to be noticed by foreign media but not by Mexican media

More likely…

• Mxn actively looked for a term and updated the English wiki
• Someone read the English wiki, thought this would be a nice story, made the meme

And this concludes my little investigation 🧐

Always exciting to learn about new perspectives on consciousness!

I have searched for the “Cellular Basis of Consciousness (CBC)” theory and I do not personally find it very compelling. I appreciate that the hard problem of consciousness is very difficult to address using the scientific method, but I suspect that consciousness arises from a form of processing that requires computations of the kind performed by animal brains. I don’t think that the kind of biophysics that allows cells to sense and respond to the environment are enough to create a conscious experience.

About the: “third state”. Cells are alive, independently of the multi-cellular organism that they come from. I don’t agree that changing the way that the cells are organized constitutes some “third state”.

Despite my disagreements, it is still nice to read and think about. Thanks for sharing.

Radiation detectors. Such as the Radiacode or the Open Gamma Detector.

Binoculars are quite portable, very useful, and phones don’t do a good job at zooming in like that.

Smart watches integrate with phones but the phones by themselves are not so good at measuring the heart rate and other parameters directly.

Mini projectors. UV flashlights. Tools in general… There is so much actually. What type of gadgets are you looking for?

Someone needs to explain to Musk how to debug with the JSON so that the ipv6 GUI does not overflow into the git API front-end

Even though:

These data are associative and do not establish a causal role for such particles affecting health

I still don’t feel so nonchalant about the idea of microplastics lodging on my brain. While the effect on human brains is very difficult to directly measure, we do have a lot of data on mice that suggest that having plastic in the brain is bad for the brain.

When quickly looking into EU food regulations it seems like microplastic content is not regulated in food, and the logic appears to be along the lines that not enough data is available to assess the actual risk. This makes some sense in that measurement, control, and enforcing limits is likely to be difficult, expensive, and might create some economic challenges, and so regulators might not want to go this route unless proven absolutely necessary.

At the same time, data does exist showing that the plastic levels are increasing in our brains, and we have very good reasons to believe that this is not a good thing. It is not that we are completely in the dark - I am sure some smart people would be able to come up with reasonable limits and methods of control by now.

My not-very-informed suspicion is that there is pressure from wealthy and powerful lobbyists that would significantly suffer from microplastics regulations, because ‘plastic in the brain’ has seemed like an obvious thing to address for some years now.

I have never been educated about how to avoid ingesting / breathing microplastics. Do any of you know some habits or diets that reduce or increase exposure to microplastics?

There is a nice (even if by now already a bit outdated) analysis about the openness of different “open source” generative AI projects in the following article: Liesenfeld, Andreas, and Mark Dingemanse. “Rethinking open source generative AI: open washing and the EU AI Act.” The 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. 2024.

I think that panspermia is the most likely hypothesis to be eventually proven correct.

According to this hypothesis, very simple “living” structures can be found throughout space, scattered around planets, meteorites, and perhaps even in space dust. This dust can be thought of as fungal spores. When they land in a planet with suitable conditions, these systems can evolve into more complex life forms.

The alternatives to panspermia generally imply that Earth is a super special planet in which certain special conditions conspired at a point in time to allow an extremely unlikely event to happen. Panspermia suggests that, instead of a being a statistical anomaly, life is probably rather common throughout the universe.

Ooooh, fascinating!

Haha So True!

Careful. Big Taxa doesn’t mess around.

Hahahahaha

Hmm… Some lichen make use of orobatid mite labour in order to disperse the cells of their photobionts. Are those still ok?

Good news! Just got a reply from them and they have increased the connection limit. They did not specify what the new number is, but hopefully it is high enough to not be an issue for the foreseeable future.

So, if you do run into other similar reports after this comment I would appreciate it if you tag me again.

Thanks!

Cost is not the bottleneck in this case… The problem is that I am rather ignorant about the options and their benefits/limitations. Moving the images the first time was painfully slow because of those same rate limits, and I expect the next migration to be the same, so I want to make a better choice next time and would rather find a solution with the current provider 😅