Isn’t the LD 50 just over a gram?
- 0 Posts
- 142 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
Cake day: June 5th, 2023
You are not logged in. If you use a Fediverse account that is able to follow users, you can follow this user.
That someone better is you. Research is always like that. If you started your project with all the knowledge you gained from doing it, it would only take you two weeks, sure, but the whole point of research is gaining that knowledge and teaching it to other people.
Sure thing, here’s an example paper.
It’s not totally vestigial, it helps regulate colon bacteria. People without their appendix take longer to recover from diarrhea, which is important when bad water and spoiled food are a more regular part of your life.
Yes. They had a control group with only black stripes along with an unpainted group. I would have to assume they also checked the paints for potential repellents, but I only skimmed the article.
CF being short for what, in this case?
It very strongly depends on how you’re using the word cult.
Just launch lots of tiny bits of processed earth at them super fast. More propellant efficient and you don’t have to worry that they might have packed a parachute.
Regardless, looks like there’s a plan to get everybody off the stuff by 2030.
I thought that you can still sell new props that need leaded fuel, is that not the case?
We really need to get rid of that.
Did you take their advice? I’m regrettably a person who needs more like 9 to 10 hours of sleep, which is great because I love sleeping, but terrible because I love doing stuff.
2·2 months agoSeeing as how 40% of the security issues that have been found over the years wouldn’t exist in a memory-safe language, I would say a re-write is extremely worth it.
“The SBAT value is not applied to dual-boot systems that boot both Windows and Linux and should not affect these systems,” the bulletin read. “You might find that older Linux distribution ISOs will not boot. If this occurs, work with your Linux vendor to get an update.”
Excuse me, those are the opposite of each other.
I think you’re placing a lot more weight on the authority of a single scientific paper than any actual scientist ever would. If you have one paper, you have one paper. If you have a series of papers all put out by the same lab… maybe there’s something there, maybe not. If other groups start publishing similar papers, okay this is sometime serious.
In some of the messier sciences, like medicine, people will publish meta-studies, where they combine results from similar, but independently published, papers and see what they can come up with using the combined data. People will also publish literature reviews, where they essentially try to summarize the state of the science in their particular little niche. To trust a single study in medicine is to hitch your horse to a wicket.
The peer review process doesn’t stop wrong papers from getting published, just obviously wrong or bad ones. I’m not entirely sure what you could even do to stop wrong papers from making into journals, since often times the problem isn’t in the published experimental design or analysis. Plus, there’s some papers that used to be right, but have become wrong as things change.
they’re apparently lower effort than a good reddit comment
They’re not, people are being flippant. People frequently complain about having to do peer reviews specifically because it’s unpaid labor. Regardless, if the paper is so wrong it would warrant a community note on Twitter, the paper would be strongly rejected. The standard for acceptance is way higher than that. Remember that it gets reviewed by fellow experts in the field. They will easily spot small errors.
Is it the best possible system? Heck if I know. It works. Moving to a different system would require everyone to recalibrate their understanding of what good science looks like. We know how to identify it under the current publication model, it would take a fair bit of time to adjust to the new one.
Edit: Oh yes, re: letters. It can take a year or more between publications. Letters might be slow, but it’s not terribly important. It takes time to do science, you don’t need to clap back in an instant.
A peer review really is just someone checking for glaring errors. If a paper gets published and someone had some real beef with it, best they can do is some of their own research to prove how shitty the other team was. After that, there are some journals that will publish letters where people comment on previous articles. But generally, most articles just get mildly ignored. It’s only after a pattern of corroborating evidence piles up that people will start to say that the results of a particular early study were significant.
Mind you, the details about how this consensus process works varies from field to field. Particle physics has a different culture than hydrology. But, in general, one paper is not enough to hang your hat on.
For any scientific journal that’s worth anything, your article has to get approved by other scientists in your field before the journal will accept it. They’re mostly just looking for exactly what this post is referencing. Does it seem legit? If it passes a once-over by the other scientists, then it gets published.
This is why you should not trust any single study by itself. It’s just the results from one experiment that easily could have had a consequential error no one picked up. The results could be statistical noise. Hell, even rarely, you’ll get someone who’s been faking data. This is not to say “science is broken,” only that science has never relied on the results from a single unreplicated experiment to determine truth. If you read about scientists from the past, it’s fairly common for them to publish a landmark paper and for no one to care, or even for people to argue they’re wrong. Only with additional research do they get proved correct and we imagine that everyone immediately accepted this new paradigm shift off of one single paper.
Yeah I eventually picked up that that’s what you meant in your original comment, not that photons move instantaneously and that causality somehow catches up later.
I didn’t bother to look it up, that was just my random vague understanding. I’d trust your numbers over mine.