Other than having a living plesiosaur in front of you, you probably won’t get much closer to the creature than by finding some of its bones, but maybe some of its bodily excretions would help you learn what was going on in its now-missing digestive tract. But how do you even come across the, let’s say, puke of a creature that’s been dead for tens of millions of years?

According to new research published in Geological Magazine by geologist Dirk Knaust, oil crews drilling off the Norwegian coast accidentally hauled up 160-million-year-old plesiosaur puke from deep underwater rock cores dating to the Jurassic period.

Samples range from walnut-sized to mango-sized, just in case you never want to look at those foods in the same way again.

160-Million-Year-Old Vomit Could Reveal How Prehistoric Sea Monsters Ate

Plesiosaurs were long-necked aquatic sea monsters that measured 13 to 26 feet long and looked almost exactly like you’d imagine the Loch Ness monster. When the researchers found the fossilized vomit, I didn’t immediately assume it belonged to a Jurassic creature. It could’ve been fossilized poop or maybe storm debris. Maybe it belonged to a fish or squid? But no, because they can’t cough up chunks this big.

If it was a prehistoric shark or a crocodile, they probably would’ve found some fish in there. With all other possibilities ruled out, Cryptoclididae plesiosaurs were the last possibility remaining.

These massive reptiles moved along the deep seafloor using their long necks like vacuum cleaners to scoop up bottom-dwelling invertebrates. Their teeth weren’t strong enough to grind shells, so their stomachs compacted the indigestible stuff into gross pellets they later vomited up.

But what I find most interesting is that plesiosaurs didn’t just puke wherever they swam. Scientists found the items they barfed up in what used to be shallow ancient river deltas. So, like fur seals or marine crocodiles after a big meal, these ancient aquatic beasts probably swam into safe coastal waters to chill out for a bit, eventually puking their meals into the mud before napping and heading back out to sea.

Now that’s livin’.

The post Scientists Just Found 160-Million-Year-Old Fossilized Vomit From a Jurassic Sea Monster appeared first on VICE.

In 1873, an Argentine sailor named Luis Piedra Buena loaded a crew onto a ship called the Espora and headed toward the Strait of Le Maire, a rough stretch of ocean near Patagonia known for tearing hulls to smithereens. He risked his crew’s lives for the noble quest of murdering a bunch of penguins to harvest their grease for oil.

Somewhere along the way, the ship wrecked near Isla de los Estados. Piedra Buena and his crew suddenly became castaways, struggling to survive on unfamiliar shores. The Penguins, having no idea they came this close to being scooped up and turned into lamp oil or whatever, still don’t care about humanity’s plight.

Eventually, the crew slapped together a makeshift sailboat and made it to Chile. The penguins kept on doing their thing.

Archaeologists May Have Found the Lost Shipwreck of 19th-Century Penguin Hunters

Now, according to a study published in the journal Antiquity and reported by IFLScience, archaeologists searching around Franklin Bay have uncovered the ruined wooden ribs of a 19th-century ship, along with a crude castaway camp on a nearby hillside.

The researchers dug up salvaged ship parts, including whole timbers and a deck prism, and found a smattering of distinctly human clutter—glass bottles, buttons, beads, and tools. While this belongs to Piedra Buena and his crew, the most logical explanation, the researchers aren’t claiming that just yet, just to be safe.

There’s more testing to be done, but it’s hard to deny that the location and all the artifacts combined heavily suggest that there may have been a bunch of stranded penguin hunters who may have ripped their ship to shreds to fashion it into an improvised boat that could possibly, maybe, get them to Chile.

Hypothetically.

The post Archaeologists Uncovered a 150-Year-Old Shipwreck That May Have Belonged to Stranded Penguin Hunters appeared first on VICE.

As any clued-in gamer can tell you, the prospect of actually owning the video games you’ve purchased has never been shakier. Sony recently tried to convince customers that they don’t own any games digitally purchased from the PlayStation Store, gaslighting us into thinking we’ve merely been buying a limited, revocable software license. There’s a simmering sense that greedy corporate suits are trying to strip us of our right to own things so they can siphon money from our wallets in perpetuity with subscription models.

Is game ownership on the verge of death? Maybe not, if a new bill proposed by Representative Ritchie Torres (D-NY) actually makes it through Congress, as reported by Kotaku.

Dubbed the “Power to Players Act” (a nod to the old GameStop slogan), the bill would direct the FTC to enforce real digital ownership. Under the proposal, buying a game would grant full rights to own, play, and transfer it, rather than paying $70 for a glorified Blockbuster rental that disappears when the publisher decides the game no longer needs to exist. And these suits wonder why the piracy scene is thriving.

The ‘Power to Players Act’ Could Give Gamers More Control Over the Games They Buy

Torres is even picked as the poster child for the debate: NBA 2K25. It came out in late 2024, raked in millions by selling 11.5 million units as of August 2025, making it the fifth best-selling game of 2024 in the US and the 18^th best-selling game of 2025, and already its publisher, 2K Games, is delisting it and killing its servers, rendering major modes unplayable. Torres’ bill would force publishers to build offline modes for online-dependent games so players can keep using what they bought for $60-$70.

What we’re seeing here is the US version of a legislative push gaining steam worldwide as part of the broader “Stop Killing Games” movement. The movement reached the European Citizens’ Initiative with over 1.29 million signatures, but the European Commission declined to propose new binding laws in June 2026. Torres’s version will no doubt face some heavy pushback from lobbyists who will claim that offline modes are too expensive to build.

 Another issue is that most bills die before they reach a vote. But considering that just in the past month or so, AI-driven decompilation tools have so rapidly altered the landscape of the gaming industry, threatening to make every game released instantly open source and available to anyone, maybe there’s a chance that it lights a fire under the butt of some publishers to put some effort into preserving their games lest gamers permanently turn to AI decompilation.

The post Everything We Know About the ‘Power to Players Act,’ a New Bill That Could Change Gaming Forever appeared first on VICE.

Dating profiles can be generous with the truth. The guy who’s “always up for an adventure” could be going home to a mattress on the floor and a fridge with nothing in it but mustard and one Coors Light. You can learn a lot about a person once you see where they live, and sometimes you wish you hadn’t.

Matchmaking service Tawkify surveyed 500 single Americans over 40 to find out how much a date’s home affects attraction. Half admitted they’d lost interest after seeing where a potential partner lived. Women were quicker to change their minds, at 55% compared with 42% of men. And 13% said they’d formed an opinion within seconds of walking through the door.

In fact, 57% of respondents said they’d discovered something at a person’s home that turned them off after having missed it during previous dates. Unpacked moving boxes bothered 56%, followed by an empty fridge at 48% and dirty dishes at 42%. Another 36% weren’t thrilled by homes with zero personal touches. By your 40s, it’s probably time to have something on the walls besides the thermostat.

These Household Red Flags Could Make Someone Lose Interest in You

The bathroom was a major deciding factor. A clean one with an actual hand towel was the strongest second-date signal, according to 60% of respondents. One woman told Elite Daily that a filthy bathroom would be enough to put her off spending the night. Which seems completely understandable to me. 

Another woman on Reddit described visiting a man’s house and finding a bathroom that “was visibly dirty and didn’t have any toilet paper, soap, or towels.” She ended up ghosting him and felt bad about it. Although I’m curious what he expected guests to do after using the toilet.

Living arrangements also came under scrutiny. The survey found that 41% considered living with parents a red flag. Having adult children or roommates at home bothered 21% each.

People did start to get a little ridiculous when it came to judging size. Another 41% said a one-bedroom, one-bathroom home was a turnoff for anybody over 40. Considering mortgage interest rates and the cost of rent these days, that seems very unfair. 

Fortunately, the bar for impressing a date doesn’t involve owning a mansion. About 68% of respondents assumed a person with a well-kept home had their life together. Warm, traditional interiors appealed to 71%, with natural and neutral styles close behind at 69%. Industrial decor came in last at 49%. Sorry to anyone who spent a fortune making their apartment look like a new brewery.

Of course, if someone does have money, it doesn’t guarantee a pleasant visit. One woman in an AskReddit discussion recalled visiting a date’s gorgeous apartment in an expensive neighborhood, only to discover it was filthy.

A date-ready home costs about as much as a nice dinner out. Buy a decent hand towel and put something in the fridge besides condiments. Whoever comes over is going to look around, so make sure the bathroom passes inspection—aka, have toilet paper. 

The post Things in Your Home That Could Ruin a Second Date, According to Reddit appeared first on VICE.

Everybody in a long relationship has had the studio-apartment fantasy. Your own little place, where no one leaves wet towels on the bed, and the only person snoring is you. Maybe you’ve even thought about what furniture you’d buy. Having those thoughts doesn’t necessarily mean you’re ready to get divorced.

Researchers surveyed 3,000 married Americans between 25 and 50 and found that a quarter had thought about divorce in the previous six months. Another 28% had at some point considered their marriage was in serious trouble, although those concerns weren’t recent. Researchers also identified a group they called “soft thinkers,” people who considered divorce without making serious plans to leave.

When the researchers checked back a year later, 31% of those who’d initially considered divorce no longer thought about it. Some had even forgotten they’d thought about it at all. During follow-up interviews, several participants looked at their earlier responses and asked, “I put that down?”

Scientists Found That Thinking About Divorce Might Actually Be Good for Your Marriage

Study author Alan Hawkins has said that “thoughts about divorce can be a healthy wake-up call to work on a marriage.” Sometimes it takes seriously imagining a life without your partner to admit just how unhappy you’ve become with certain things.

You can also love somebody and be unhappy living with them. A study of 993 people found that love was the most common reason people wanted to stay, while dissatisfaction was among the leading reasons they thought about leaving. Many participants experienced both feelings at once.

There’s a difference between fantasizing about living alone after a weekend of arguing and wishing your partner would go away even when everything seems fine. If thoughts of the latter keep coming back, there’s probably a reason.

Sometimes you start thinking about leaving because you’ve been asking for the same things for years. More help around the house, more affection, or even a small sign that your partner is listening. If those things finally changed, would you still want out?

Whatever you discover, “I’ve been thinking about divorce” probably shouldn’t be the first thing you say during your next argument. You’re more likely to have a productive conversation going if you talk about what’s making you unhappy when neither of you is furious. If your relationship involves abuse or coercive control, confidential support and a safety plan are more important than confronting your partner.

There’s no need to panic every time the thought of living alone sounds appealing. But if you’ve mentally moved out a hundred times already, there’s probably a conversation you’ve been putting off.

The post Why Thinking About Divorce Is Actually Good for Your Marriage, According to Science appeared first on VICE.

“The other day” is one of those phrases everyone uses and no one’s ever defined. To some people, it means yesterday. To others, it covers most of the Obama years.

And people actually have strong opinions about this. In an r/AskUK discussion, one person insisted a week was the absolute limit, arguing that “two months ago is not the other day; that is just poor calendar management.” Another figured it could mean anything from yesterday to sometime in the last decade.

One commenter said their dad uses it for events that happened “anywhere between last Tuesday and 1994.” Which feels very “dad.”

The Internet Can’t Agree on What ‘The Other Day’ Means

Dr. Luke Jones, who studies how people perceive time at the University of Manchester, told Metro that we’re “not very good at remembering exactly when things happened.” Especially the boring stuff. Most of us can barely remember what we had for lunch a few days ago, let alone when we last went grocery shopping or made a phone call. That’s where “the other day” comes in.

There’s also a psychological explanation for why something from years ago can feel surprisingly recent. It’s called the telescoping effect, and it describes how we misremember when events happened. Older memories can seem much closer than they are, explaining how someone can swear they went to a certain restaurant “the other day” only to discover it closed in 2019.

The opposite can happen with recent memories, too. Human beings are extremely unreliable at remembering dates, which has caused headaches for researchers trying to figure out when people last visited a doctor or bought something.

Age might also have something to do with the increasingly generous definition of “recent.” People commonly report that time seems to pass quicker as they get older, so a few years can feel like a much shorter stretch. Which could explain why your dad still talks about a vacation from 1994 like everyone should remember what happened.

Most of the time, an exact date isn’t necessary anyway. If you’re telling a friend about something weird that happened at the grocery store, “the other day” gets the point across just fine. But when the timing actually matters, therapist Rebecca Mackillop told Metro that asking a follow-up question is a better approach than assuming everyone uses the phrase the same way.

And if someone’s story involves a Blockbuster membership, you have every right to question their view of time.

The post People Are Arguing Over What ‘The Other Day’ Means, and Nobody Can Agree appeared first on VICE.

I often hear this complaint online: Women spend hours prepping for a first date, curling their hair, doing their makeup, and choosing an outfit that’s both cute and casual. We hear conflicting advice: Don’t look like you’re trying too hard, but still look presentable. Don’t show too much skin, but don’t dress overly modest either. You want to appear cool, calm, and collected…but definitely not overly confident.

With all these rules, it’s no wonder so many women dread dating in the first place. As a result, some are going the opposite direction and testing what’s called the “Sweatpants Dating Theory.” This viral social media/TikTok trend removes the pressure to dress up and encourages women to embrace their natural beauty—while staying comfortable in sweatpants. The theory suggests that you’ll attract better matches.

What Is the Sweatpants Dating Theory?

Julie Nguyen, a certified dating coach at Hily Dating App, defines the sweatpants dating theory as “a viral dating trend on TikTok that says dressing comfortably in cozy clothes can actually increase your odds of meeting new people and attracting a higher-quality man because it signals confidence, genuineness, and being low-maintenance, which makes women seem more approachable.”

Is there any validity to this theory? Well, it depends on who you ask.

According to Dr. Dakari Quimby, PhD, MA, Clinical Advisor of Marietta Springs, a modern evidence-based treatment center located in Marietta, Georgia, “Sweatpants cannot attract higher-quality men in any reliable sense, and someone’s character is judged through respect, consistency, and whether words match behavior over time.”

However…

“If you’re looking to make connections with others, you may feel more relaxed and comfortable in casual clothing,” he adds. “In turn, others may perceive you as more relaxed and approachable as well. It will take the pressure off you and, ironically, make you more likable and less socially awkward.”

Why Might Wearing Sweatpants Attract More Genuine Connections

As stated above, wearing sweatpants to a first date can shift an otherwise anxiety-inducing or awkward interaction into a more lighthearted, casual affair.

“You seem more approachable, friendlier, and less intimidating,” Nguyen explains. “They’re seeing you in a more effortless, relaxed state.”

However, this doesn’t mean you should dress like a total slob with unwashed sweatpants and a stained T-shirt.

“It’s important to lean into cozy clothes where you feel more confident, but not too baggy or worn out where it can feel like a complete lack of effort,” Nguyen explains.

Therapists’ Opinions on the Theory

Therapists seem to have mixed opinions on this particular dating theory and its relevance in today’s dating scene.

“I totally agree [with the theory] because this is how I attracted my boyfriend,” says Nguyen. “I met him when I was dressed more casually in baggy jeans and a Yankees cap with no makeup. I brought a book to the coffee shop and felt like I was able to be more relaxed, which was attractive to him.”

On the other hand, Quimby has some notes on the idea.

“I agree with showing up authentically, but I disagree that one outfit improves your dating pool,” says Quimby. “So remind yourself to choose clothes that you feel good in. If you’re still stuck on what to wear, focus on choosing something that makes you feel good. However, it is human nature that we judge on ‘first’ impression.”

What the Sweatpants Theory Reveals About Modern Dating

According to Nguyen, this theory shows that “people are looking for someone they can imagine sitting on the couch with, laid-back, and being themselves.” 

“There’s something incredibly attractive about someone who feels comfortable in their own skin and doesn’t feel the need to impress anyone,” she says.

Relationships aren’t always expensive date nights, luxurious outings, or fancy clothing. Letting someone see your more natural, casual side offers a level of intimacy most first dates lack.

However, this idea extends far beyond our external appearances. It’s all about showing up authentically, which can be done with or without sweatpants.

“The popularity of this idea reflects how much people want dating to feel less performative and more authentic, but clothing alone is not a reliable test of compatibility,” Quimby says.

The post The Internet Thinks Wearing Sweatpants Could Help You Find a Better Boyfriend. Are They Right? appeared first on VICE.

Growing up as a Millennial, I’ve learned (and since unlearned) a ton of old-fashioned dating advice and expectations. One concept that’s always stuck with me is the idea of one partner “wearing the pants” in the relationship. Usually, this person is the more authoritative, dominant, and traditionally “masculine” partner—the “head of the house,” so to speak.

I’ve always thought the statement was silly and outdated. In fact, I remember my high school boyfriend’s friend spewing it at me as an insult. God forbid a woman wants some power in her relationship…I wear my pants with pride.

But I digress.

Though the phrase is a bit antiquated today, its underlying context does shed light on potentially unhealthy or unbalanced dynamics between partners. Here are four signs you “wear the pants” in your relationship—and should maybe delegate a bit of your responsibility and control.

1. You Make Most of the Decisions

Many relationships have one primary decision-maker and one go-with-the-flow partner. While this isn’t necessarily a bad thing, it can lead to imbalance and resentment on both ends.

“I’d look at who makes the plans and [whether] they check in with their partner first,” says April Davis, founder and celebrity matchmaker at LUMA Luxury Matchmaking and an accredited dating coach. “If someone books a vacation or agrees to host Thanksgiving without checking, they probably assume their partner will go along with it. That’s a sign that they wear the pants in the relationship.”

2. You Make and Manage Most of the Money

This is where the idiom gets a bit outdated, as it often refers to the money-maker as the one in control. However, that isn’t always the case.

“Money plays a huge part in relationship dynamics, especially when one person is supporting the other,” says Davis. “Being the higher earner doesn’t automatically mean you wear the pants, but if ‘I’m the one paying for it’ ends the argument, that probably means you wear the pants.”

It also probably means you use money as power, in which case, you should probably do some self-reflection.

3. You Usually Have the Final Say

In a healthy relationship, both individuals should feel they have an equal say on important decisions and compromises.

“Who gets their way after an argument can tell you who really wears the pants,” Davis points out. “Everyone gives in on things they don’t care much about. But if it’s the same person making concessions every time, even on things that matter to them, that’s a pretty good sign.”

4. Your Plans and Goals Come First

Look, I get it: we all want to respect our own plans and life goals. But relationships require (some) sacrifice. Neither partner should feel like the supporting character in the other’s life.

“Maybe you always spend the holidays with their family, or weekend plans depend on what they want to do. As a matchmaker, I’d want to know whether their partner likes that or has just stopped expressing their needs,” says Davis. “Some people are happy to let their partner take the lead. The problem is when one person feels they don’t get a say.”

The post 4 Signs You ‘Wear the Pants’ in Your Relationship, According to a Dating Expert appeared first on VICE.

Another day, another dating theory—and this one is a bit brutal, particularly to men. Coined by relationship counselor and author John Gray in his 1992 bestselling book, Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus, the “Rubber Band Theory” in dating suggests that men alternate between seeking closeness with and seeking space from a partner. 

Like a rubber band, this push-and-pull pattern can greatly affect their ability to form a romantic connection. However, for the man, it’s a desire to maintain their independence within the relationship—not a sign of disinterest.

I spoke with a Harvard-trained clinical psychologist and relationship expert to learn more about this seemingly outdated theory. 

What Is the Rubber Band Dating Theory? 

The rubber band dating theory essentially compares men to a “rubber band” when it comes to intimacy.

“More specifically, they get close, then need to pull away, come back, and then feel stronger in their connection,” says Dr. Sabrina Romanoff, PsyD, Harvard-trained clinical psychologist and relationship expert at Hily Dating App.

This back-and-forth dynamic can cause the other partner emotional whiplash while they’re simply trying to build a connection. But for the man, it’s believed to help him regain his sense of self.

Is There Truth to the Rubber Band Dating Theory?

According to Dr. Romanoff, this rubber-band dynamic is common in dating, particularly with men or anxious-avoidant partners.

“From the male perspective, getting close can feel threatening and scary because it may come with a loss of autonomy or independence,” says Dr. Romanoff. “Their partner’s response to their distance and lack of chase or pressure often guarantees that they will come back on their own terms. On the receiving end, this can feel disorienting, like abandonment, especially after experiences of closeness.”

“It’s common with people who are anxious or ambivalent about a new partner, or about the idea of getting back into a relationship,” Dr. Romanoff adds. “They may retreat, and in that space realize their concerns were out of proportion or irrational, which then prompts their return.” 

Why Men Might Experience Intimacy Like a Rubber Band

This dating theory is often applied as a blanket statement to most male daters. However, men aren’t the only ones who can display this behavior or pattern. For example, many anxious or avoidant women engage in this push-and-pull dynamic with intimacy as well.

“Intimacy is scary for everyone. It often comes with vulnerability and the possibility of getting hurt or rejected,” says Dr. Romanoff. “People often need to ease into it to feel safe and secure. Attachment style also plays a role; people with more avoidant attachment tend to need more space and distance as they attach to romantic partners.”

While dating theories like this one can help us avoid pain, rejection, and confusion in the dating scene, they can also dehumanize individuals who are simply trying their best. Sure, someone might struggle with intimacy at the start of a relationship, but that doesn’t always mean they have malicious intent or will break your heart.

“Bank this pattern as information, but don’t act impulsively by writing them off or aggressively chasing them,” Dr. Romanoff states. “Give them time to come back to you, and recognize it as a data point.”

The post The ‘Rubber Band Theory’ Could Explain Why Your Boyfriend Is Being So Distant appeared first on VICE.

Thanks to a team of heroes, a southern ground hornbill, belonging to Amsterdam’s Artis Zoo, is now flourishing with a brand-new prosthetic beak. The bird received two 3D-printed prostheses, as both the upper and lower portions of his natural beak were broken. In a press statement, Artis penned that, while other birds have been the happy recipients of prosthetic beaks, “As far as is known, this is the first time in the world both parts of a bird’s beak have been restored in this way.”

While the young bird of honor valiantly managed to persist adequately enough in his everyday life prior to the surgery, the zoo confirmed that his behavior was restricted, and he couldn’t care for himself all that well. Obviously, the southern ground hornbill relies on its beak for purposes as preening and foraging, thus he had trouble picking up certain pieces of food.

Fortunately, the bird began using his new beak the very same day it was attached. Before continuing with the article, you can see below that the heartwarming medical miracle means that he’s already back to grossing some of us out by preying on mice.

View this post on Instagram

This Bird Got a Brand-New 3D-Printed Beak, and He’s Already Putting It to Work

The life-altering procedure was performed by Artis, Utrecht University, UMC Utrecht, and Amnovis. The artificial beak was developed with the help of a CT scan and preserved sections of the bird’s original beak. Both plastic and titanium elements were incorporated. The NY Post adorably applauded the “im-peck-able performance.”

Of course, Artis is keeping an eye both on the bird and his female partner in order to make sure that all continues to go swimmingly, though they are prepared to step in if any issues occur.

Now, watch the complex procedure for yourself! Warning: Although it’s unbelievable, it just might be a bit disturbing for animal lovers to see the anesthetized bird.

View this post on Instagram

The post WATCH: Scientists Gave an Injured Bird a Second Chance With Two 3D-Printed Beak Prosthetics appeared first on VICE.

Have you noticed that healthy eating doesn’t always leave you feeling full of those vitamins and minerals that translate into energy and glowing skin? According to a report from Deep Science Ventures, many fruits and vegetables available for purchase are half as nutritious as they were 60 years ago.

Thus, consumers often have to eat twice as much to receive the same levels of minerals as magnesium, potassium, and copper. The 20-50% drop in key nutrients and minerals extends to other crops like wheat and foods in general. Your breads won’t have the same iron, zinc, and magnesium that your grandparents’ loaves had in the 1960s. It is no wonder that so many of us suffer from micronutrient deficiencies.

Declining soil quality is a key factor to blame. Also, as global demand has increased, the focus on high-yield crop varieties and farming practices hasn’t always been conducive to health. In addition, you might have noticed during your last trip to (even to a supposedly upscale) grocery store that many of the products felt and looked as though they had been stored for ages. We are all moreover aware of the horrors of genetically modified foods, and now there are all the fears surrounding lab-grown options.

A New Report Suggests Some Foods Have Lost Up to Half Their Nutritional Value

It can be difficult to tell which of our healthy habits need improvement these days. For example, even our berries can seem like little carcinogens: Driscoll’s CEO stepped down at the end of August amid complaints about pesticides. With all the causes for paranoia, even concerning supposedly organic foods, my admiration grows for those among us who rely upon themselves, opting for homesteading.

Obviously, farmers who use ethical practices should be supported. Yet, they often are not… Thus, our French farmer friends, for instance, have demonstrated their grievances by heading into town and spraying government buildings and more with manure — proof of their ingenuity.

The post Fruits and Veggies Are Less Nutritious Than They Were 60 Years Ago (And Scientists Don’t Know Why) appeared first on VICE.

In various respects, Denmark, which is often referred to as one of the happiest countries in the world, has long set a most excellent example for other nations to follow. Again, as of late, Denmark has become a topic of discussion internationally, but we’re not yet sure that it is for the right reasons this time. If all goes according to plan, teachers will be allowed to physically restrain and remove disruptive primary-school students from August 2027 onward. Granted, the final bill won’t be presented until February 2026, and many have already stepped up in protest.

The original proposal was drafted this past autumn by now former Minister for Education and Children Mat­tias Tes­faye (a man who, in blaming the effects of bad parenting for aggravating the environment in classrooms, used foul language himself). Denmark has not allowed the application of physical force in schools since 1967, when corporal punishment in schools was banned nationwide. Within the US, for example, there are still some states that allow corporal punishment in institutions of learning.

Let it be understood, Denmark’s new bill is not a green light to be cruel. On the contrary, it clarifies that force is only to be used only as a last resort. It should be “gentle and short-lived as circumstances allow.” For example, a student may be held in place or guided out of the room. Parents will be notified if force is used against their child. Reasons for physical intervention include instances in which a student harms themselves, others, or poses some sort of threat; damages property; disrupts lessons in a significant way; etc. I find the notion of physically correcting those disruptive students who aren’t causing bodily harm problematic, as it presents a significant gray area.

It could prove a good way to emotionally scar children, whether diagnosed or yet to be diagnosed, with special needs. In addition, sorry if I say so, but it just isn’t natural to make little balls of energy sit still for so long, thus it’s understandable that they are going to be wiggly and obnoxious. (If you ask me, too many children are on ADHD medication simply because authorities don’t always understand the difference between a genuine problem and what is arising from external circumstances that aren’t conducive to a normal child’s health and programming.)

Denmark Wants to Let Teachers Physically Restrain Disruptive Students, Sparking Debate

The general idea behind the proposed law is that teachers must not be left in doubt as to their rights when they can clearly see that a situation is escalating, or before the chair flies through the air, to repeat an example given by the vigilant Danes. It comes as a response to the reported increase in violence in Danish schools — in 2025, physical violence among students was recorded at least once in 55% of classes, according to a survey conducted by the Ministry of Education. One in three teachers refrained from physical contact out of fear of the repercussions. The Danish Working Environment Authority found that in one of five classes, teachers themselves become the targets of violence.

At the end of the day, not having such a bill will inevitably lead to harm, as, again, not all teachers will instinctively do what’s right without its protection out of fear of losing their jobs and more. On the other hand, even if the majority of my elementary-school teachers were angels, I, for one, can attest that I was definitely subjected to a fair number of screwballs as a pupil. In other words, while many teachers are nothing short of heroic, we can all agree that some, like a share of those belonging to any profession, suffer from judgment issues, and this obviously becomes especially dangerous since children are involved.

Another issue I’ll raise is that many primary school students can already be quite strong, so I would hope that, if the proposal goes into effect, Denmark would train their teachers in how to disable someone posing a risk in a minimally harmful manner. Granted, in an ideal world, that shouldn’t ever be a teacher’s concern, but their jobs are becoming increasingly intolerable, as the appreciation they receive seems to be decreasing…

In the US, a recent report by the Walton Family Foundation, Gallup, and the Mattering Institute confirmed that one in four public-school educators said they are likely to quit within the next year. Maybe you’ve seen videos of teachers crying after their little antagonists have left for the day? That said and while acknowledging that sometimes it’s simply impossible, it would be great if teachers could command respect by way of their words and strength of character, rather than by force.

The post Everything We Know About Denmark’s Controversial Plan to Let Teachers Physically Restrain Students appeared first on VICE.

Traveling is so much fun, in large part, thanks to the characters you meet on the road. During a recent trip to Fiji, a Russian travel blogger named Olga Bavykina, whom you may also call Zabotkina, encountered one adorably enthusiastic shop employee, whom I’m sure she won’t forget. She aptly captioned her video of him, «Когда очень гордишься наследием предков», or “When you are really proud of your ancestors”…

The charismatic man indeed embodies healthy pride, as he shows off the kinds of tools his ancestors used for cannibalistic purposes — unique souvenirs to bring back to your loved ones. Our informative friend exclaims, “We eat people for the power.” I want to know more about his people’s current practices, as even without having consumed human flesh himself, he still exudes more charisma than your average protein-shake-clutching, yoga-mat-lugging American health nut.

Fijian Shopkeeper Goes Viral for Showing Tourists His Ancestors’ Cannibalism Tools

Our cultural emissary demonstrates the manner in which a brain might be extracted in order to give to a chief so that he might absorb wisdom, lending new meaning to the term brainiac; warriors become tough from partaking of the muscle, he explains. The taste of victory is sweet, isn’t it? He further clarifies that the ritual of cannibalism was upheld for religious reasons, not to satisfy hunger.

Bavykina roughly penned thus on Telegram:

“He explained that the Fijians didn’t exactly sit around waiting for their enemies to float their way. Instead, about 400 warriors would board each drua and set off to fight the Tongans. The Tongans would meet them in similar vessels. Right there in the sea, they would fight.

The distance between Tonga and Fiji is near 1,000 kilometers.”

Needless to say, it is clear that the man of whom we’ve been speaking is very “metal” and could certainly serve as a conceptual and lyrical advisor to a band or two. Naturally, many of our forebears observed traditions that might not be viewed as acceptable within the rigid moral framework of today, so he causes us all to reflect upon our cultural heritage.

View this post on Instagram

The post WATCH: Man Eagerly Shows Tourist Tools Used for Cannibalism: ‘We Eat People for the Power’ appeared first on VICE.

Researchers in a study published in the journal Diabetes found that feeding mice a little olive oil before a carbohydrate-rich meal reduced blood sugar afterward, showing that the order in which you eat could affect blood sugar levels.

Olive oil and a big bowl of pasta usually cause your blood sugar to spike, but scientists at Kyoto University found that downing a shot of olive oil 15 minutes before eating glucose-rich carbohydrates blunted post-meal blood sugar spikes.

This happens because of a weird quirk of the digestive system. When you chug a tiny pre-meal shot of olive oil, it triggers a series of gut hormones, including the now-famous GLP-1 (the one powering weight-loss drugs like Ozempic), and signals your vagus nerve. This biological chemical combo slows a process called “gastric emptying,” forcing your stomach to release glucose into your intestines at a slow, manageable pace instead of one big burst.

Olive Oil Before Carbs Reduced Blood Sugar Spikes in Mice, New Study Finds

Other fats produce the same result, like flaxseed oil and good old-fashioned delicious lard, but olive oil was the most effective. The researchers even found it worked just as well in diabetic mice with impaired insulin production, suggesting their bodies didn’t even need a fully functioning pancreas to reap the benefits of eating in the right order.

The instinct now for someone managing blood sugar after reading all that is to chug some extra virgin olive oil before chowing down on a baking sheet of lasagna, but remember, this entire article has been explicitly about an observable reaction in laboratory mice. Mice are used as test subjects because we share many genetic and biological similarities, but it’s not a one-to-one comparison. So don’t start taking shots of olive oil before a glucose-heavy meal until researchers run human trials to see if they get similar results.

Yes, it’ll be very nice if something as simple as meal sequencing helps you manage your blood sugar, since it costs relatively little and it’s really more of a habit you have to develop, but pump the brakes for a little while longer, knowing that maybe one day all you have to do to make your life just a little bit easier is knocking back a couple of smooth shots of olive oil.

The post Scientists Just Found a New Life Hack to Deal With Blood Sugar Spikes. But Does It Work? appeared first on VICE.

The idea that women are more emotionally intelligent than men is kind of a no-brainer, unless you’re some kind of weirdo men’s rights/manosphere influencer type guy. You don’t really need a scientific study to know this, but a team of researchers conducted one and published their results in the journal Emotion. The results were mostly unsurprising, except that the gap in emotional intelligence between men and women is a bit smaller than you’d imagine.

Analyzing data from 609,278 people across 76 countries, researchers from the University of Limerick and the University of Zurich found that while women score higher overall, the divide is relatively small. The real difference is in whose feelings they manage. Women far outpace men in reading, understanding, and regulating other people’s emotions. When it comes to managing their own emotional baggage, men scored higher, but only slightly.

Scientists Studied 600,000 People to Find Out Who Has Higher Emotional Intelligence

The study’s funniest detail is best summed up by one of the lead researchers, Jochen Menges: “Women are emotionally intelligent. Men think they are.” The team gleaned this insight from testing: on performance-based tests, women had a clear advantage, while on self-reported tests, men way overestimated their abilities and women underestimated their own.

Researchers suggest that the gap isn’t hardwired into our biology. It narrows in younger generations, suggesting it’s learned through social practice; since girls are taught to handle everyone else’s feelings, they eventually become women saddled with heaps of unpaid emotional labor at work and at home. Men, meanwhile, get to coast on a ton of unearned confidence while staying blind, and frankly probably completely indifferent, to their own emotional shortcomings.

Typical.

The post Men Think They’re More Emotionally Intelligent Than They Actually Are, Study Finds appeared first on VICE.

You’ve probably seen it with your own eyes before, but a research team that published its findings in the journal Science says it noticed it at an epigenetic level: big dogs age faster. Chihuahuas, for as obnoxiously yappy as they are, seemed to last forever, while Great Danes, those big lovable galoots, give you about a decade before they cross the rainbow bridge.

Researchers at Arizona State University analyzing DNA from nearly 900 dogs in the Dog Aging Project finally know why big dogs don’t last as long. It all has to do with rogue “jumping genes.”

Scientists Say ‘Jumping Genes’ Could Explain Why Big Dogs Have Shorter Lives

Inside dog DNA, a specific class of “jumping” genes called LINE1s exists. Normally, a biological process called DNA methylation stamps chemical tags onto these genes to keep them locked down, but as big dogs age, that regulatory process falls apart and LINE1s start shaking loose, jumping between chromosomes, shredding DNA apart in the process, thus causing instability in the cells, triggering inflammation and cancer.

This happens to all dogs, but in big dogs it happens catastrophically and early. Giant breeds shed roughly 35 percent more LINE1 methylation per year than smaller dogs that fit in a purse.

Or, to put it less scientifically: there’s just too much dog for their bodies to keep up with. Humans specifically bred big dogs for their rapid growth, but that early growth leads to a genetic mess later in life, as their biological clocks essentially run twice as fast as a smaller dog’s.

The researchers think these out-of-control jumping genes could be a universal mammalian aging mechanism, and that learning more about them could eventually help us learn a little about ourselves, too, since dogs get a lot of the same age-related diseases that we do, largely because we share environments.

The post Scientists Finally Figured Out Why Big Dogs Age Faster Than Small Dogs appeared first on VICE.

Can you imagine a dating trend more evil than ghosting? Unfortunately, “cloaking” takes the cake on this one.

This dating trend was coined by Rachel Thompson “after a truly terrible dating experience.” In a video for Mashable, she defined cloaking as “being stood up—but extra.”

Here’s how to spot the common yet hurtful behavior in your own dating life, and why it’s becoming so common today.

What Is the ‘Cloaking’ Dating Trend? 

According to Dr. Sabrina Romanoff, PsyD, Harvard-trained clinical psychologist and relationship expert at Hily Dating App, “[cloaking] is when a person decides to sever all connection with you.”

“It often occurs after they stand you up for a date,” she adds. “Instead of maintaining ties, and potentially dealing with the consequences of their actions, they block you on the app where you initially met.”

As someone who actually has a heart and good communication skills, you might be wondering: Why do people engage in this avoidant behavior?

“Most often this results from self-protection after negative past experiences,” Dr. Romanoff explains. “If you’ve had a history of someone bombarding you with angry messages, trying to dox your account, posting about your wrongdoings online, or trying to report you, it makes sense why you might be inclined to cloak away from the harm and avoid the consequences of your actions.”

Cloaking Vs. Ghosting

Cloaking is similar to ghosting in that it involves cutting all ties with a connection. However, it’s actually much more sinister in nature, backed by malicious or self-serving intentions.

“Ghosting is a step below cloaking in intent and energy level as ghosting is a much more passive response,” says Dr. Romanoff. “Ghosting is when a person is conflict-avoidant and keeps you in the grey space-wondering if they will ever reach out again. The window is still open when it comes to ghosting, whereas cloaking is intentional, deliberate, and final. It’s much harsher and often a response to them avoiding the embarrassment of the consequences of their actions.”

Are You Being Cloaked?

If you’re even wondering whether someone might be “cloaking” you, it’s probably a sign to distance yourself from them. When someone cuts ties without any communication—while simultaneously removing your access to them—they’re making their disinterest painfully clear.

“It’s glaringly simple, which sometimes can be the hardest thing to accept,” says Dr. Romanoff. “If they make a plan, no show, and then remove any connection or trace you had of them on the app where you originally connected, you’ve been cloaked.”

And look, I get it: many of us crave a conversation, closure, or even some form of justice after being disrespected and discarded by another person. But your best bet is to shake off the rejection, knowing it has nothing to do with you, and pour your energy into healthier connections.

“The automatic pull is to feel wounded and to want to win them over,” Dr. Romanoff explains. “It’s essential that you shift, instead, to disgust and feel turned off. This isn’t how your life partner would treat you or make you feel. This person lacks accountability or thoughtfulness. You just aren’t a match long term.”

And if they try circling back in a few months, hit them with the same behavior by blocking them in return. You don’t need that selfish, cruel energy in your dating life.

The post Introducing ‘Cloaking,’ the Latest Dating Trend Tormenting Hopeful Singles appeared first on VICE.

If you’re online at all today, you likely know there’s a label for just about everything, from dating patterns to friendship dynamics. Recent examples include “filler friends” and “floater friends,” which can be incredibly offensive depending on the context. 

Here’s what you should know about these friendship “types,” the potential downsides of categorizing yourself and other humans, and how to reject the label while focusing on healthy connections.

What Are Filler Friends?

According to Dr. Kelly Whaling of Prosper Health, “A filler friend is someone who feels like a backup option in a friendship or social group.”

“They might only be contacted when other people are unavailable, receive last-minute invitations, or feel that their efforts to maintain the friendship aren’t reciprocated,” she explains. 

This label is offensive to most people, as it essentially devalues the individual and poses them as a temporary fill-in. 

What Are Floater Friends?

On the other hand, “A floater friend is someone who moves between different social circles without necessarily belonging to one central friend group,” Dr. Whaling explains. 

While lacking a go-to group of friends might seem lonely, many people believe it’s more natural and fulfilling to develop individual friendships with people from various walks of life.

“They might have friends from work, school, hobbies, and other activities, but those groups rarely overlap,” she continues. “Some people find this isolating, while others enjoy having a variety of social connections. Research suggests that both close friendships and interactions with more casual social connections, sometimes called weak ties, can contribute to well-being.”

The Problem With Labels

Obviously, for whatever reason, today’s younger generations are obsessed with labels. But can they actually do more harm than good?

“I think these terms can be useful for describing social experiences, but I would caution against treating them as fixed identities or psychological categories, because they aren’t established terms in psychological research,” says Dr. Whaling. “Friendship research suggests that the quality of our relationships and whether we feel supported and valued are important considerations, not just the size of our social circle.”

“I also worry that these labels can encourage people to interpret ordinary social experiences, like missed invitations or delayed responses, as personal rejection,” Dr. Whaling continues. “Friendships naturally vary in closeness, and having different types of relationships isn’t inherently problematic, particularly when we consider differences in social preferences, including among neurodivergent people.”

You might be wondering whether you’re a filler friend or floater friend, but Dr. Whaling warns against fixating on these labels.

“Rather than focusing on the label, I’d encourage people to ask whether their friendships feel reciprocal, whether they have people they can confide in and rely on, and whether they’re satisfied with their social connections,” she says. “Look for consistent patterns rather than isolated incidents, since a canceled plan or missed invitation doesn’t necessarily indicate rejection.”

Building Fulfilling Friendships Without the Need to Label

As Dr. Whaling points out, you can better assess a friendship based on how you feel in it, not the apparent role you play.

“If you want closer friendships, try initiating plans, communicating your needs, and investing in relationships where there’s mutual interest and effort,” she says. “It’s also important to recognize that casual friendships have value, and not every relationship needs to become a close friendship.”

Additionally, everyone has different needs, preferences, and expectations in their friendships.

“Some people have little or no desire for friendships, others prefer a small circle of close friends, and others thrive with a large, lively social network,” Dr. Whaling states. “There’s no one right way to have a social life, and our needs and preferences can change over time. What matters is finding the kinds of connections, or amount of solitude, that feel fulfilling to you.”

The post The Difference Between Friend Types, According to a Psychologist appeared first on VICE.

All these “dating trends” are enough to make even the most hopeless of romantics want to lock themselves away for a life in solitude—and today’s is no exception. While it certainly doesn’t need a label, the dating/breakup tactic called “fizzling” is an incredibly common and hurtful way to end a relationship. In fact, the term describes a pattern that’s been around for a long while.

Here’s what you should know about the “fizzling” in dating, and why it’s so casually cruel.

What Is the ‘Fizzling’ Dating Trend?

The fizzling dating trend is essentially a cowardly (yeah, I said it) way of steadily backing out of a relationship without confrontation or discussion. Rather than being upfront about their disinterest or wavering feelings, these partners choose to pull away at an agonizingly slow pace.

“Fizzling is when someone gradually fades away with communication, effort, and affection, which essentially initiates a ‘non-breakup’ without having an explicit conversation about it,” says Julie Nguyen, a certified dating coach at Hily Dating App. “Instead of directly ending the relationship, they slowly distance themselves.”

While fizzling is essentially the complete opposite of ghosting (which involves cutting all communication and ties to a partner without any conversation), it can be just as—if not more—painful. If ghosting is quickly ripping off the band-aid, then fizzling is slowly pulling it from your skin, so you feel every tug, rip, and tear—all while questioning what’s actually happening.

“Fizzling keeps someone in limbo and uncertainty, which makes them question their reality and connection with themselves,” says Nguyen. “The person offers mixed signals while slowly cutting the other person out of their life, which leaves you holding onto hope and confusion about where you stand.”

Why Someone Might ‘Fizzle’ Their Way Out of a Relationship

There are many reasons someone might choose to “fizzle” their way through a breakup, ranging from immaturity and cowardice to poor communication skills and fear. Though they might not have malicious intent, the negative impact is just the same.

“People fizzle because they want to avoid conflict, have avoidant tendencies, are not the most direct communicators, and don’t want to hurt the person, so they feel like this is the best action,” Nguyen explains. “They might believe that pulling away is less hurtful than having an uncomfortable conversation, but it can create more confusion and pain.”

Is Your Partner ‘Fizzling’ You?

As you settle deeper into your commitment, you might notice your partner slowly disengaging or putting less effort into maintaining your connection. But are they fizzling, or are they just growing complacent? Unfortunately, it’s not always easy to spot the difference.

“If you feel like someone is fizzling, you will see the signs that they’re still in the relationship while acting like they don’t have any responsibility for maintaining it, such as slowing down communication, shortening their responses, and making less effort to connect,” says Nguyen. “You’re the only one making plans, initiating conversations, and putting in the effort to keep the connection going.”

To understand whether this is fizzling or just mere laziness, call your partner out on their behavior. Opening the door to communication can help encourage honesty and transparency.

“If this is happening to you, I would suggest being upfront about what you’re noticing and asking them to have a direct conversation, because someone who is fizzling is often avoiding being upfront themselves,” Nguyen says.

The post What Is ‘Fizzling’? The Dating Trend That Has the Internet Livid. appeared first on VICE.

If you’re into spirituality at all, you might have heard the term “mystic” thrown around from time to time. These individuals are believed to have a direct connection to the divine, be it God, source, the universe, or whatever higher power you believe in.

“A mystic is someone who has lived experience with the divine,” says Bridget Marie, an Intuitive coach specializing in Astrology and Tarot. “Deeply spiritual and intuitive, mystics are old souls who are attuned to the unseen.”

Wondering whether you’re one of the gifted individuals on this earth? (I have an inkling we all are, to an extent.) In honor of the autumn season—the time of year when the veil between the physical world and the spirit realm begins to thin—here are five signs you might be a mystic.

1. You Notice Signs

According to Marie, if you regularly spot signs from above, you might be a mystic.

“For example, you might notice white feathers on your path, a sign from your higher self that you are protected,” she says. 

Many people also notice repetitive angel numbers, symbols in their dreams, or even highly requested signs they’ve prayed for come to fruition right in front of them. These little “winks” from the universe might indicate your connection to the divine.

2. You Feel Divinely Protected

According to Marie, mystics are believed to be divinely protected. If you sense someone is watching over you, be it a higher power or ancestor, you might be a mystic. 

“For example, something might happen that, from the outside, looks like bad luck but ends up for your highest good,” she explains.

Have you noticed that any time someone does you wrong, your life ends up getting exponentially better while theirs seems to spiral out of control? Or maybe you’ve been saved from what could have been a life-or-death situation. This is a clear sign you’re being protected and guided.

3. Your Intuition Is Sharp

A strong intuition is one of the most obvious signs of a mystic. For some, this means intuitively reading symbols, like the ones on tarot cards or the astrological glyphs, Marie says. For others, it might simply be having a sense of knowing without even understanding why.

“You know things without knowing how, whether it is a bad feeling about someone who turns out to not have your best interests at heart or prophetic dreams,” Marie says.

4. You’re Empathetic

Empathy is one of the most beautiful qualities to possess. Mystics can usually use their sensitivity to tap into empathy, deepening their connections to other living beings and the world around them.

According to Marie, you might be a mystic if “you are highly empathetic, and animals and children love being close to you.” 

5. You Crave Solitude

Because mystics are sensitive to energy and tend to carry heavy emotions and truths, they often need space to process. Usually, this occurs within nature.

“[Mystics] regularly need alone time and like to spend time in nature to recharge [their] batteries,” says Marie.

The post 5 Signs You Might Be a Mystic, According to a Spiritual Expert appeared first on VICE.